Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-07-2003 ARC Minutes DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 7, 2003 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Allen Root, Michael Boudreau, Zeljka Howard, Jim Lopes, David Smith, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: None Staff: Associate Planner Pam Ricci and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce SWEARING IN: Diane Reynolds swore in Commissioner Jim Lopes for reappointment to the Commission. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE: The Minutes of December 2, 2002 were accepted as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, reaffirmed her position on local politics. She expressed congratulations to Commissioner Lopes for his reappointment. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 2183 Broad Street. ARC 13-03; Review of a building remodel to accommodate a restaurant in the Railroad District Historical zone; C-N-H zone; The Pizza Broker, applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending final approval of the project, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. She presented photos of the restaurant as it appears presently, and gave a brief description of the proposed materials. She briefly discussed the recommended conditions, noting staff is recommending that the signage portion be continued to a later date, and that staff has made four suggestions on changes to the signage. Commr. Root asked what the height is of the concrete spine that protects the cars that are backing up. Planner Ricci replied six to eight inches. Draft ARC Minutes April 7, 2003 Page 2 Commr. Root asked if the Palm trees were requested by the CHC. Planner Ricci replied yes, but noted they did not specify what types of palms or where they would be located. She mentioned that the Sycamores and London Plaine trees are the only significant vegetation presently on the site. Commr. Lopes commented on the signs and questioned whether Condition 9 should limit the size of the proposed monument sign to 12-square feet in area. Planner Ricci replied that the sign did not seem out of scale since they only have a single monument sign. Commr. Lopes asked if a finding would be needed to modify the sign area. Planner Ricci replied that she was recommending that signage come back to the Commission, and if exceptions are requested, then findings would need to be made. Warren Hamrick, project architect, presented some background on the building, noting it is a perfect site for another restaurant and they want to convert it to something more contemporary. Paul LeSage, Parks and Recreation Director, gave a brief explanation of the two actions by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Planner Ricci requested that she have the option to work with the architect to maximize the amount of average spaces in the parking bay. Director LeSage mentioned the applicant has requested that in lieu of a public art fee, they would prefer to provide the public art at this park, but noted that this needs to go through a separate public art review process. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ann Ream, Arts Council, commented that she was excited about the addition of art for the public space in this visible historic corridor. She explained the public art process where the piece first goes to the art jury, then the CHC and ARC. She noted that Randy Augsburger was the artist who designed the piece. Nathan White, 661 Branch Street, expressed his excitement and support for the project and felt that it will contribute to the neighborhood. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Smith expressed his support for the project, noting that it would “spiff” up the site as a gateway to the city. Draft ARC Minutes April 7, 2003 Page 3 Commr. Lopes also expressed support for the project and felt it could be more related to the district plan if the windows were rectangular and separated by brick or wood pillars. He noted that he would also prefer that the tower be more rectangular. He commented that consideration should be given to the large outdoor seating area, wondering if it should minimize intrusion into the park. He supported the idea of another planter in the parking lot. He commented on the proposed landscape plan and suggested several varieties of plants that could be used. Commr. Howard expressed support for the project, noting a preference for the composition shingles. She had some concerns with the orange and purple colors. Mr. Warren replied that those are part of the corporate colors. Planner Ricci explained that the orange is only on the logo over the door. Commr. Boudreau concurred with most of the recommended conditions, except the one relating to the bike rack and door. Planner Ricci replied that the bike rack could be moved slightly. Commr. Boudreau expressed support for a corrugated metal roof. He felt the height of the chimney, the angularity of the tower, and the shape of the windows work very well together. He supported the idea of a new planter in the parking lot where a large tree could thrive. Commr. Root commented that he endorses the proposal for the project and the plan for the park. He stated that he would like to see more articulation on the canopy supports. He supported the angle of the tower. Chairperson Stevenson agreed with most of the commissioner’s comments and supported Commissioner Lopes’ concepts on the landscaping. He also supported the change from wood doors to painted metal, and the corrugated metal roof, and felt the period-style lights are important. He expressed support for the exposed parallel court truss over the entry and felt the tower could use some help with the period-style lights. He noted the cap on the chimney appears flat and suggested a shallow hip metal to complement the whole roof form. Commr. Boudreau moved to grant final approval, with modifications to conditions as follows: Eliminate Condition 2-C, and the first part of the first sentence on Condition 5. Condition 11 changed to include, “rotate the backflow preventer to 90 degrees parallel to the street”. Add to Condition 10 “consider additional period-style lighting fixtures on the tower facing the street. Add Condition 14. Consider a shallow hip metal chimney cap detail, strongly encouraging the corrugated galvanized roof, and simplified rafter tails. Seconded by Commr. Root. Commr. Lopes agreed with Condition 6 which provides for additional landscape planters in the parking lot for shade trees. He also encouraged retaining the existing sycamore on the Broad Street side near the entry. Draft ARC Minutes April 7, 2003 Page 4 There was much discussion about the roof material. AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Root, Howard, Lopes, Smith, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 6-0. 2. 205 and 273 Madonna Road. ARC MOD 91-02; Review of a modification to an approved plan to remodel the exterior of the Sears and Mervyn’s department stores; C-R zone; R.R.M. Design Group, applicant. Associate Planner Pamela Ricci presented the staff report recommending final approval, based on one finding and subject to conditions. She mentioned that staff preferred the revised entry with the arched element over the main entry doors. She noted the main issue with the proposed remodel for Sears is the retention of the aluminum siding. She requested that the ARC come up with some creative ideas that would allow the project to go forward with the applicant’s budget. Vic Montgomery, Project Architect, noted they want quality architecture but have a firmly established fixed budget for these two buildings. Commr. Root was concerned that the stonework would be covered on the front elevators, but left on the rear ones. Steven Rigor, RRM Group Design, replied that they would paint the rear stucco walls but leave the stonework alone. Commr. Lopes questioned if the cost of covering up the rock wall was high enough to be worth discussing. Bob Mitchell, MCM, explained that leaving the stonework would save money because of the costs associated with studding, wire, stucco and paint. PUBLIC COMMENT: Anna Jacoloi, SLO, suggested there be some sort of contrast on the long facades of the buildings. MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, felt both stores are fine the way they are. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Draft ARC Minutes April 7, 2003 Page 5 Chairperson Stevenson commented that the Commission would like to see this remodel completed similar to the other stores in the center. He noted the ARC is in a very difficult negotiating position and are trying to consider all the because of the budget issues. Commr. Boudreau made some suggestions about the columns. Commr. Root suggested variety be added to the color pallete. Commr. Lopes felt that more articulation on the stucco would not add costs to the project. Commr. Boudreau moved that final approval be granted to the project and encouraged the following suggestions: consider base treatment to the columns; change the base color and use a chamfered edge; change at the capitals where the columns meet the main plane of the building wall, add arch forms at the two ends; channel grooves at the base, functional light details to add interest if possible. Seconded by Commr. Howard. There was discussion about the Sears building and the ARC’s recommendations. Glen Martin, Rossetti Company, noted the existing Sears sign is what has been approved through the center sign program. Planner Ricci replied there is a sign in the rear of the building that still needs to be removed. Commr. Boudreau commented if they were going to go with the metal, it would break away from the arch and give a more linear look on this building. Chairperson Stevenson responded that he supports the arches because it is a long building, but suggested painting the existing metal color so it recedes more. Commr. Lopes asked if the front entrance window treatment could be revisited. Mr. Mitchell replied that it would be very costly. Commr. Boudreau asked if they could introduce landscaping in front of the windows. Mr. Mitchell replied they could look into it, but noted there is only about 5-feet between the glass and the sidewalk. Chairperson Stevenson suggested they consider exploring painting the aluminum with an epoxy that lasts five to seven years. AYES: Commr. Boudreau, Howard, Root, Lopes, Smith, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Draft ARC Minutes April 7, 2003 Page 6 The motion carried 6-0. 3. 1485 Gulf Street. ARC MI 7-03; Review of a garage conversion into living space and construction of a new replacement garage; R-1 zone; Michael Philips, applicant. Associate Planner Pamela Ricci presented the staff report recommending that the project be referred back to the applicant with direction regarding changes to the overall design of the project to be more compatible architecturally with the existing dwelling and surrounding neighborhood. Commr. Lopes asked if the code requires two parking spaces for a house, regardless of how many bedrooms it has. Planner Ricci replied yes, in the R-1 zone. Commr. Howard asked if there is a requirement to have a garage. Planner Ricci replied yes, the requirement is for one covered space or carport. Michael Philips, project applicant, explained how planters and walkways could be designed to work with the proposed plans. Chairperson Stevenson noted that staff mentioned adding to the back of the house as an alternative. Mr. Philips replied there is not enough room in the back to add on. Chairperson Stevenson suggested a second story. Dawn Philips, applicant, explained that the garage is a space they do not use and felt she would rather not go through the expense of putting another story when there is already space where the garage is. Mr. Philips mentioned that this is just for their family, and noted they make their home available to people with developmental disabilities. Commr. Lopes asked if the garage is used for storage. Mr. Philips replied no. Planner Ricci explained that typically, a two-car garage is 20-feet x 20-feet, but could vary slightly from this. She clarified that an average parking space is 8 feet 7-1/4 inches wide, with one foot added to either side if there is an obstruction. Draft ARC Minutes April 7, 2003 Page 7 PUBLIC COMMENTS: MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, felt there should not be a conversion of garages into living quarters because this is a way to get more students and cars into this area. Anna Jacobi, adjacent property owner, supports the idea of a garage set back further and attached to the house for aesthetic reasons. She preferred that there be no windows on the south side and suggested a decorative wall change. Brett Cross, 1217 Mariner’s Cove, SLO, stated that this is the first garage conversion under the new standards and noted this is a precedent decision the Commission is making. He presented some photographs of some garage conversions and felt this proposed conversion is not in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood. Michael Philips concurred that the garage could be moved back, but noted this garage conversion conforms to the standards. Mrs. Philips asked if they want all of the neighborhood houses to be the same or should it be taken into consideration that not everybody’s house is going to look exactly the same. She stated that she was unclear how adding widows and landscaping helps. Mr. Cross mentioned that a good percent of houses in the neighborhood are student rentals. Commr. Lopes asked if parking is a problem. Mr. Cross replied that it has not gotten to that point yet. Mr. Philips mentioned there are always at least two cars parked in front of their house, which belong to rentals for students. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairperson Stevenson noted that the focus has gone to a discussion of parking, but the issue being considered is the aesthetics of the proposal. However, he felt parking has consequences that the Commission should take into consideration. He noted that the garage is currently not being used for parking and the testimony of the applicants is they prefer to park outside, which should have some weight on how the aesthetics should be viewed. He mentioned that the character of the neighborhood is an important issue to consider along with options to the problem. Commr. Howard noted that the pictures suggest that a carport qualifies as a covered parking space. She wondered if an exception from requiring a covered garage space is possible. Draft ARC Minutes April 7, 2003 Page 8 Planner Ricci replied that would require a variance, and a finding cannot be made to support a variance because there are options available to meet the requirement. She noted that typically, a two-car garage is the way parking is provided in the R-1 zone. Chairperson Stevenson mentioned that he could not support this request because there are other solutions that need to be explored. Commr. Lopes asked if the ordinance speaks to retaining the existing number of parking area or spaces. Chairperson Stevenson responded that there needs to be a total of two spaces with one covered space. Planner Ricci explained if the required parking is changed, it must be provided elsewhere on site. She also noted that the property management section of the zoning regulations are attempting to limit the amount of paved surfaces or parking spaces in front of houses. Commr. Smith felt this type of revision is a first step in a long downward slope with neighborhood quality. He noted there is no way to make this look good aesthetically. Commr. Root noted he couldn’t express support at this time since there are other options to consider, such as a second story. However, he noted there are ways to create a covered space that is aesthetically pleasing. He suggested that attention to the fascias, roof pitch and materials could help assure compatibility of the structure with the existing house. Planner Ricci explained the applicant’s proposal technically meets code requirements and the Commission’s concern should be how to allow this covered parking space while keeping it aesthetically compatible to other houses in the neighborhood. Chairperson Stevenson suggested moving the addition back 6-feet. He mentioned another option is not converting the garage and leaving the parking the way it was originally designed, and go with a second floor over the middle of the house. Commr. Lopes suggested a wider garage to accommodate storage. Chairperson Stevenson replied that the ordinance does not require enclosed parking. Planner Ricci explained the applicant came in originally with more of an awning type structure, and that staff was trying to work with them on a solution that is more compatible with the neighborhood. Chairperson Stevenson felt width is very important. He recommended that the motion require removal of the asphalt directly in front of the garage. Draft ARC Minutes April 7, 2003 Page 9 Commr. Boudreau felt this is a difficult design problem and felt it could be done without going two stories. He suggested taking this idea to someone who can refine it and make it look good. He noted he could support this concept if it looked good. Chairperson Stevenson noted that he could support a carport because it could be a less massive and more elegant solution. Commr. Lopes commented that he agreed with the carport idea, but does not feel strongly about the single car garage. He commented that he would like to see some treatment on the facade of the existing garage, so there is some balance in between them. There was much discussion on the garage conversion and the carport idea in keeping with the ordinance. Commr. Lopes moved that the current project go back to the applicant with direction to provide the replacement parking with a 2-car carport, additional detailing on the street elevation of the converted garage, and landscaping and walkway changes. Seconded by Commr. Root. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Root, Boudreau, Howard, and Stevenson NOES: Commr. Smith ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 5-1. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff: A. Agenda: Planner Ricci provided an agenda forecast, noting that the Architectural Guidelines for Hillside Development Standards had been continued to April 21, 2003. Commr. Lopes suggested that the Hillside Guidelines be made available to other interested folks a week in advance. 5. Commission: Planner Ricci commented what the Commission’s purview is on garage conversions. There was much discussion about garage conversions in general. The Commission directed that all garage conversions be reviewed by the ARC, rather than be handled by staff as a minor or incidental architectural review application. Draft ARC Minutes April 7, 2003 Page 10 The Commission continued the elections to their next meeting, to allow for a full complement of the Commission, including the newest appointment. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for April 21, 2003, at 5:00 p.m. in Council Hearing Room. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary