Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-2002 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2002 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Allen Root, Michael Boudreau, Rob Schultz, and Zeljka Howard, Jim Lopes, David Smith, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson. Staff: Associate Planners Michael Codron and Pam Ricci, Assistant Planner Hilary Hodges, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of June 3, July 1, July 15, August 5, August 19, and October 7, 2002, were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Josephine Malone, SLO, commented on the Design Guidelines and expressed a concern about signage. She mentioned that she is looking for a definition for the signage and feels it would be worked out when it comes into its final form. She presented a letter to the commission. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1855 Prefumo Canyon Road. ARC 129-02; Review of design guidelines and three house designs for Prefumo Creek Estates; R-1-S zone; Richard Loughead, applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending final approval to the design guidelines and the three house designs, based on findings, and with conditions. Commr. Smith commented on the Fire Management Plan and expressed a concern on the lots at the end of the project. Planner Ricci explained that the ARC had previously approved the Fire Management Plan and there were explicit requirements on what could be planted and how vegetation is trimmed back. Commr. Boudreau questioned if the mitigation Measures are to be incorporated into the design. ARC Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 2 Planner Ricci explained that many of the mitigation measures have already been addressed since the project has been in the process for a few years. Carol Florence, Oasis and Associates, gave a brief summary of the project’s history. She presented an aerial photograph of the project to highlight the lots that that were chosen for development. Commr. Smith questioned the proposed sizes of houses on the more constrained sites. Bob Richmond, project representative, replied they have not addressed this issue yet, but the houses will be smaller in these areas to address that concern. Chairperson Stevenson explained the purview before the Commission is to look at the architecture of the three house designs and the guidelines for the entire subdivision. Planner Ricci clarified the ARC is looking at the guidelines and making suggestions on what has been identified in the staff report. Ms. Florence explained the applicant’s intention is to build out all of these lots, but the guidelines need to be created for guidance to other designers and landscape architects. Mr. Richmond agreed with staff’s comments on the guidelines. Planner Ricci noted that the split rail fence is a tract requirement, which has been approved for the lots that back up to the creek. Ms. Florence mentioned the applicant is opposed to wood fencing and explained they are moving towards an architectural style that would complement the building design. Mr. Richmond explained he envisioned a continuation of a plastered solid block wall with some type of cap detail as a wall design for both of the selected architectural styles. Commr. Root questioned if the split rail fence would surround all of the lots. Planner Ricci replied it would surround lots 1through 12 along the creek. Commr. Root noted a privacy fence would need to step back a certain distance and asked if this could be a stucco-type wall. Ms. Florence replied yes, noting it could also be a metal fence. Commr. Root noted there is a zone created between the two fences and questioned if that area would be planted. Ms. Florence replied this part of the creek belongs to the homeowners’ association and it would be up to them to maintain whatever occurs within this area. ARC Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairperson Stevenson noted the Commission would discuss the guidelines first. Mr. Richmond clarified the location of the split rail fence. Commr. Lopes questioned what kind of setback there should be between these two fences and walls, and how the guidelines should address this issue. Planner Ricci stated there is a mitigation measure that requires there be a 30-foot setback from the edge of the riparian vegetation. The tract map included a condition to address this, which moved the property lines in 15 feet. Mr. Richmond suggested enclosing the patio areas with a solid wall and leaving the areas alone between the building setback and the property line. Commr. Lopes suggested that patio walls be a darker color adjacent to the creek area. Mr. Richmond responded that the vegetation is dense along Prefumo Creek and did not want to see a continuous wall from site to site. Chairperson Stevenson commented he likes the idea of a darker color on the patio walls. Mr. Richmond stated if they use a solid fence, he would prefer that it not be above five- feet. Chairperson Stevenson mentioned the guidelines state that no chain link fence or wood fence is allowed, and the maximum height is six feet. Commr. Boudreau commented about the homes adjacent to Prefumo Creek that will have side and rear yard fencing with wrought iron. Commr. Howard questioned where the wrought iron requirement originated. Mr. Richmond replied it is in their guidelines. Planner Ricci explained that this along with stucco walls would be allowable for interior lot lines and areas beyond the footprint of the house to enclose patios. Vice-Chair Schultz questioned if the homes along Prefumo Creek would be allowed to have a fence inside the creek setback. ARC Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 4 Planner Ricci replied the guidelines do not prohibit it, but states that this could not occupy more than 50% of the creek setback area. Vice-Schultz felt this should not be included in the Design Guidelines. He would like it very clear that it cannot be in the creek setback. Chairperson Stevenson reiterated that the developer prefers not to see any wood forms; wrought iron is a choice and solid walls are a choice and they should be out of the setback area. Mr. Richmond responded that the applicant wants solid fencing and no wrought iron. He requested the wrought iron be taken out and just have solid fencing. Commr. Boudreau asked for clarification on where the setback is located. Planner Ricci replied that a split rail fence is required by tract map conditions along the rear property lines of the creek lots. Commr. Howard recapped that side and rear yard fencing shall utilize stucco, stone or brick walls, the fencing should not be located within the creek setback, and the maximum height should be five feet for creek lots, but interior lots could have fencing up to six feet. Commr. Howard recapped that homes located adjacent to Prefumo Creek, if desired, shall have rear and side yard fencing that is split rail or wrought iron fences. Planner Ricci noted the metal fence that was mentioned might be a little tighter than the standard four inches apart, but might be appropriate on some of the backs of the lots. Commr. Lopes asked about the color scheme and suggested that an area be assigned that could have a darker color rather than white. Chairperson Stevenson supported a darker color. Commr. Root felt if the house is bermed in and is well designed, the color would be okay. Commr. Boudreau commented on the irrigation in the guidelines, and suggested that irrigation not occur under the Oak trees. Planner Ricci noted that windows is one of the items that staff has asked for direction on and requested more specifics on window types. Chairperson Stevenson suggested if they are going to require recessed windows, they should be mandated only in the elevation that is visible to the street. ARC Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 5 Ms. Florence noted they do not always want to rely on the guideline’s narrative and felt they should be incorporating the lot elevations and site plans in this document because staff would be left to determine if it is compliant or not. There was discussion concerning lot 9. Commr. Smith commented on the width of the eaves. Mr. Richmond replied they are fairly small eaves, but noted they vary in size. Chairperson Stevenson expressed concern that the one car garage comes out fairly close to the street on lot 9. Planner Ricci asked if the Commission agreed with the proposed plant selection. Chairperson Stevenson suggested there be something such as shrubs up about 4 or 5 feet on the wall surface that tiers off to the street so it reduces the massing. Planner Ricci asked if the Commission would like to recommend a condition to have some higher growing shrubs in the planter adjacent to the garage wall. Chairperson Stevenson replied yes. Ms. Florence explained the garage side wall has a window in it with architectural embellishments. Chairperson Stevenson stated he would like it if there were a courtyard wall instead of a garage located there. Planner Ricci stated they could recommend a condition to have some articulation on that side wall of the garage. Ms. Florence asked if a combination of architectural embellishments softened by plant materials would be acceptable. Chairperson Stevenson replied yes. The Commission made comments on lot 18. Planner Ricci clarified this is the lot with the wider paved area in front of the garage. Chairperson expressed a concern about the dissimilar material in color and suggested something that is the new black plastic. Planner Ricci mentioned there is language in the condition as an alternative that enhanced paving area shall be finished with porous pavers without mortar or the outer edges finished with a material like grass crete. ARC Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 6 Planner Ricci noted staff’s recommendations for lot 19 are similar to the ones for lot 9. Commr. Lopes questioned what the recommendation was on the step foundation. Planner Ricci replied this should probably be done on some of the other lots, but this particular lot could be acceptable as presented, and suggested the Commission discuss it. Mr. Richmond commented they might have to step up the lot next door and some of the other lots on the cul-de-sacs, but noted they are prepared to do this. Commr. Howard moved that they grant final approval based on findings and subject to conditions as listed in the staff report, that would include items 1 thru 12 on pages 1-4, and 1-5, including the modifications to item 11 as discussed and to include the conditions specified for lot 9 and 19 into the design guidelines, and to use darker colors for the main building walls on the lots that are visible from the bend in the road, for irrigation to avoid the Oak trees, and add a condition for lot 9 that states “enhanced architectural detailing and taller plants adjacent to the garage wall to soften its appearance”. Seconded by Commr. Lopes. AYES: Commrs. Howard, Lopes, Root, Boudreau, Schultz, Smith, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 7-0. 2. Highway 101. ARC 165-02; Courtesy review of the placement of a changeable message sign; Caltrans, applicant. Assistant Planner Hilary Hodges presented the staff report recommending a particular changeable message sign design, color, and landscaping based on findings and subject to recommended conditions. Commr. Root asked when that overpass would be going in. Planner Hodges replied there is a proposal for a development on the Dalidio property that is in the process, and the interchange is part of this development. David Valentine, Project Engineer, explained there are three Changeable Message Signs in San Luis Obispo County, and this is one of them. He noted they are being implemented as part of the Central Coast Intelligent Transportation System Strategic Deployment Plan and is being implemented as part of the Amber Alert System. He stated the CCITS Strategic Plan recommended the Changeable Message Signs be constructed in SLO County in a short employment timeframe of five years, but this project has been proposed to have the Changeable Message Signs in service by fall of ARC Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 7 2003, which is a three-year timeframe. He explained why this location was chosen to implement the Changeable Message Sign. Bob Carr, Landscape Architect, mentioned that he was part of the architectural team that designed these signs and explained they understood the gateway of the county and City policies that designate Highway 101 south of town as a community gateway. He stated they found a location for the sign with a backdrop that had existing eucalyptus trees. He explained they had few options due to the size of this facility because it had to be large for visibility. He mentioned the primary goal of the landscaping would be to screen the base of the sign pole from both directions. Chairperson Stevenson questioned if there is anything that could be done to begin planting before construction starts. Mr. Valentine explained there is grading that would be required so planting could not be done until the grading is complete. Mr. Carr explained there is a landscape project through the San Luis Obispo corridor, which is an irrigation upgrade project. Commr. Smith questioned how this sign works. Mr. Valentine explained it is hooked up to the Traffic Management Center, which has a person present 24-hours and the person types in the information to display. Commr. Root questioned if the structure has an antenna or dish. Mr. Valentine replied no. Commr. Root asked where the equipment sheds would be located. Mr. Valentine replied they would be placed out in front and would have landscaping around it. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Terry Sanville, Transportation Planner, questioned if the northbound auxiliary lane that would be installed along highway 101 would this affect the location of the sign and landscape screening. Mr. Valentine replied no, and explained this sign does not need to be removed or relocated. Commr. Lopes questioned when the auxiliary lane is added, how far would the guardrail be from the edge of the pavement? ARC Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 8 Mr. Valentine replied the guardrail right now would be a half a meter of the EP new auxiliary lane shoulder. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Lopes suggested they have a smaller, lower sign that is more to the side where the guardrail is shown. Mr. Valentine explained the sign that is proposed is a type 500 standard sign or a high- speed multi-lane facility such as Highway 101. He explained the problem with lowering the height of the sign is the blocking by truck traffic. He noted they could not move it closer to the right-of-way by the fence because of the utilities. Commr. Boudreau felt the initial scheme that shows the Eucalyptus background is the most attractive. Commr. Boudreau moved to approve installation as shown in the photo simulation with the supplemental landscaping, and to consider relocating the sign closer to the Prado Road Interchange at a future date, and omit conditions 3 & 4. Seconded by Vice-Chair Schultz. Chairperson Stevenson concurred with the original simulation. He felt the Commission would like the location to be closer to Prado Road, provided it could be accomplished and suggested they consider this. Commr. Root commented he would prefer it next to another structure rather than by itself. Commr. Lopes noted that condition 3 might not be relevant and suggested the sign be painted. Commr. Howard asked if there is a message that says when to get off the highway. Transportation Planner Sanville explained when this project was discussed with Cal Trans they felt there were some options to integrate the sign into the urbaneness of a new interchange that is going in anyway, and it would reduce its isolation with the sign whether it’s screened or not. AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Schultz, Root, Howard, Lopes, Smith, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 7-0. ARC Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 9 3. 2302 Santa Ynez Avenue. ARC 159-02; Review of a new single family residence and secondary dwelling unit on a sensitive site; R-1-S zone; Michael Villarreal, applicant. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report recommending approval of the proposed house design, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Chairperson Stevenson questioned how much grading would occur. Michael Villarreal, 2302 Santa Ynez, replied around 1,200 cubic feet, but noted most of this would be equaled out on the property. Chairperson Stevenson suggested that it be clear where excess dirt would be taken. Planner Codron interjected they could modify this first condition to state, “disposed of in an approved manner, to be specified in the recycling plan that is required with the project”. Mr. Villarreal noted he agrees with staff’s recommendations. PUBLIC COMMENTS: John Ready, SLO, expressed support for the project. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Lopes suggested looking at the appearance from Highway 101 to see if the building is going to add or detract from the current views. He felt there could be changes in the landscape scheme and suggested darker plants that are not so flowering. Chairperson Stevenson commented on the metal roof material that is proposed and expressed a concern about the reflectivity. He suggested a gray or natural brown color. Commr. Root commented there is a delightful mix in that neighborhood. Mr. Villarreal mentioned the roofline is below the ridgeline. Commr. Lopes noted the roof extends over the ridgeline on lot 4. There was much discussion about the potential visibility of the roof. Commr. Howard moved to grant final approval for the project based on findings and subject to conditions as specified in the staff report including a new condition regarding the disposal of grading material as staff has recommended during the presentation and ARC Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 10 add a condition that provides a natural edge towards the city using the appropriate planting material that can include Oleander and any other that might be found appropriate. Seconded by Commr. Root. Commr. Lopes suggested an amendment to add trees on the east side of the building. Commr. Root noted they should be species that are approved by the Fire Marshal. Commr. Lopes recommended native shrubs and trees to provide screening. He suggested several species. AYES: Commrs. Howard, Root, Boudreau, Lopes, Smith, and Stevenson NOES: Vice-Chair Schultz ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 6-1. 4. 1235 Chorro Street. ARC PA 170-02; Review of a proposal to place public art within the Marsh Street right-of-way adjacent to the Washington Mutual parking lot; O zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Assistant Planner Hilary Hodges presented the staff report recommending the Commission find that the proposed artwork meets the City’s Public Art Guidelines. She explained the art sculpture (“Hey Diddle Diddle”) is to be moved from the northeast corner to the southwest corner of Marsh and Chorro Streets. The new location will be adjacent to the Washington Mutual Bank lot and the sculpture will be mounted on a new pedestal. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Josephine Malone, SLO, asked if the original was stolen and if it was, was it ever found. Commr. Root replied the original has not been located, and noted this is a copy. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Root questioned if they had considered moving the sculpture directly across the intersection where the elevator is located? Planner Hodges replied no, and explained this is the only location she has been given. Commr. Root noted this is a temporary location. Commr. Lopes questioned why it is being moved. ARC Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 11 Commr. Root answered that it needs to go onto a new base. Chairperson Stevenson explained it is part of the rotating art program. Commr. Howard questioned if the base is going to be higher? Commr. Root replied yes. Commr. Root moved that the Commission find “Hey Diddle Diddle” meets the criteria for public art and allow its installation. Seconded by Commr. Howard. AYES: Commrs. Root, Howard, Boudreau, Schultz, Lopes, Smith, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 7-0. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 5. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: November 18, 2002: 21 Zaca Creek review of industrial building. December 2, 2002: Senior Housing Project on Johnson. December 16, 2002: Motel Inn; Rockview Place. B. City Attorney Memo: City Regulation of Signs and Window Displays Vice-Chair Schultz responded to the memo sent by the City Attorney and noted this is a difficult subject to regulate because of the first amendment. Commr. Howard felt this is a subject that could be addressed through a friendly cooperative approach. There was much discussion on signage and the graphic images in storefronts. PUBLIC RESPONSE: Josephine Malone, SLO, commented about the memo that was sent by the City Attorney. She expressed appreciation for keeping on the right track. There were no further comments made from the public. C. 2003-05 Budget Goals ARC Minutes November 4, 2002 Page 12 Commr. Lopes commented the Urban Design Element covers several things, but does not mention downtown. Commr. Howard noted they had both in mind and the Concept Plan for the City Center, which is downtown. Chairperson Stevenson did not recall that it was just for the downtown. Commr. Lopes suggested making the Urban Design number 1. There was discussion on the Budget Goals and what they had previously discussed. 5. Commission: Chairperson Stevenson commented about a letter that was sent to the ARC about an article from Pleasant Hill. A. Recent Project Review-Lessons Learned. Commr. Howard mentioned a previous project on Pacific Street and felt the architect did not follow through with what he had proposed. Chairperson Stevenson commented on the private mural that was proposed at the previous meeting. There was discussion about the proposed private mural. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for November 18, 2002, at 5:00 p.m. in Council Hearing Room. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary