Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-2003 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 5, 2003 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Allen Root, Michael Boudreau, Zeljka Howard, Jim Lopes, David Smith, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson (with one vacancy) Absent: None Staff: Associate Planner Pamela Ricci, Recording Secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: There was discussion to move Item 3 (Citywide) on the agenda. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of December 16, 2002, were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, expressed concern about potential changes to Monterey Street in the vicinity of the County Government Center. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 221 Madonna Road. ARC MOD 91-02; Review of highway-oriented shopping center identification sign for Madonna Plaza, C-R zone; R.R.M Design Group (Steven Rigor), applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, recommending denial of the highway-oriented shopping center identification pylon sign, based on findings. She noted that staff also provided an alternative recommendation for approval of the sign, which she explained. Commr. Howard asked if staff’s previous recommendation is consistent with the current recommendation. Planner Ricci replied yes. Commr. Lopes asked how the review of the shopping center pylon sign related to the master sign program. ARC Minutes May 5, 2003 Page 2 Planner Ricci replied that there was discussion about it with previous reviews of shopping center signage, and explained that wall signs were approved first, and a year later they returned with the site signage. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Vic Montgomery, applicant’s representative, noted that the sign, as proposed, does not dominate the landscape, but rather will identify the major tenants of this regional shopping center in a complementary fashion. He distributed photographs of other signs approved for area shopping centers to compare to the proposed sign. Steven Rigor, RRM Design Group, presented a rendering of the proposed freeway sign, offered some ideas, and explained what materials would be used. He noted the Promenade has one freeway-oriented sign in addition to a billboard, which he felt has no architectural value. He noted they are competing with the center next door and felt the pylon sign will solidify their stance as a regional center. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the applicant concurred with the conditions of approval. Mr. Montgomery responded they are okay with conditions 1 and 2. However, he had issues with three of the four design requirements of Condition 3, noting they could accept the first one but was not clear as to the reason for the others, given the speed of traffic, and the scale of the center. He also felt that 24 feet is not an unusual height for this type of sign. Planner Ricci explained the two feet height reduction was intended to keep this sign at the same height as the Promenade sign. Mr. Montgomery requested that they not reduce the number of sign rows to five because they want to identify the major tenants in the center. He noted that if staff has a preference for the stone base, they are prepared to work with either, but would prefer it not be river rock. Lincoln Krautkraemer, General Manager of Borders, requested clarification of the colors on the new sign proposal. He felt that the colors presented are not representative of the actual color of the sign and questioned if the tan color is intended for the opaque area and the blue is intended for the light area. He asked if the opaque area would be white. Mr. Rigor replied no, and explained the opaque area would be the tan color. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Lopes moved the staff recommendation to deny the request, based on the findings presented, with the additional text to the end of finding 1 to add “. . . and that major stores are allowed to have one rear wall sign facing Highway 101”. Seconded by Chairperson Stevenson. ARC Minutes May 5, 2003 Page 3 There was much discussion by the Commission on the motion. AYES: Commrs. Lopes and Stevenson NOES: Commrs. Root, Boudreau, Howard and Smith ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion failed on a 4-2 vote (with one vacancy). Commr. Boudreau moved to approve the Highway 101 identification sign based on findings and subject to the conditions recommended by staff in the “Alternative Action to Approve Sign” in the staff report, and that “(approximately 310,000 square feet)” be added to finding 1, and modify the design requirements of Conditions 3 to read: a. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed 24 feet with the bottom of tenant signage no lower than 8 feet; b. Lettering on the sign faces for tenant identification shall be a single color; and c. The stone material of the base shall be a stacked rock. Seconded by Commr. Root. Commr. Boudreau added to the motion that tenants with conforming rear wall signs are eligible to be on the freeway sign. AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Root, Howard, and Smith NOES: Commr. Lopes and Stevenson ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-2 (with one vacancy) 2. 243 Madonna Road. ARC-S 31-33; Request for an exception to the approved Sign Program for Madonna Plaza to allow a rear wall sign for Borders; C-R zone; Borders Group, applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented staff report, recommending denial of the sign exception request based on findings of inconsistency with the Madonna Plaza Master Building Sign Program and the City’s Community Design Guidelines. Commr. Boudreau asked what constitutes a major tenant. Planner Ricci replied that the past and current sign programs had identified the major tenants. She noted that Best Buy was the smallest of the identified major tenants with 30,00 square feet of floor area. She noted that Petco was grandfathered in, taking the place of the former Rite Aid, which has 20, 100 square feet. Mike Bjorkland, Borders Representative, felt their request for a 24-inch rear sign is a reasonable and modest request and is consistent with the other major tenants at the center. He presented some examples of the other tenants’ signs and felt that Borders should be recognized as a sixth major tenant. He suggested an alternative to change the square footage in the sign criteria to allow the tenants with 17,000 square feet or ARC Minutes May 5, 2003 Page 4 more to be allowed a 24-inch rear sign. He felt that granting this request would be consistent with the overall sign program for the center. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Lopes asked if this sign would be on the south wall. Mr. Bjorkland replied yes. Chairperson Stevenson expressed concern that the rear of these buildings face such a public right-of-way like the freeway, and felt some articulation along the long face of this wall is a way of providing some relief. He did not feel that the sign is the appropriate architectural remedy. Commr. Smith concurred with Chairperson Stevenson. There was much discussion on what qualifies as a major tenant under the Sign Program. Commr. Lopes moved staff’s recommendation to deny the proposal, with an additional Finding 4. The proposed sign is not necessary to provide identification for Borders given that the pylon sign has been approved to provide freeway identification. Seconded by Commr. Howard. Glenn Martin, Rossetti Company, noted they specifically removed the individual tenant names and went back to a generic tenant. He stated that the negotiations for inclusion on that pylon sign have not even commenced and there is interest by every tenant to be included on that pylon sign. He felt it is premature to assume that Borders will automatically be on that sign. AYES: Commrs. Howard, Lopes and Stevenson NOES: Commrs. Root, Boudreau and Smith ABSENT: None REFRAIN: None On a 3-3 vote (with one vacancy), the motion did not pass. There was much discussion on what qualifies as a major tenant by square footage. Commr. Lopes suggested setting a “square-foot” precedence. Commr. Smith moved approval of a rear wall sign as recommended by staff in the “Alternative Action to Approve Sign”, and to specify that the tenant qualifies as a major tenant because the space it occupies is over 17,000 square feet; and a condition ARC Minutes May 5, 2003 Page 5 modified to read: “The Master Building Sign Program for the Madonna Plaza Shopping Center shall be updated to reflect Border’s as a major tenant in the shopping center and include the approved sign areas and sizes as their allowed signage.” Seconded by . Commr. Root. AYES: Commrs. Smith, Root, Boudreau, Howard, and Lopes NOES: Commr. Stevenson ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 5-1 (with one vacancy) 3. Citywide. ARC 42-00; Review of the addition of the Hillside Development section to the approved Community Design Guidelines; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, recommending approval of the Hillside Development Section of the Community Design Guidelines, based on one finding, and with the addition of guidelines on site fencing. Paul Crawford, Project Consultant, noted the suggestions for incorporating the policy basis for the guidelines came out nicely and contained much good material. Commr. Howard asked Mr. Crawford how he felt about Section 6. Mr. Crawford replied that he was in total agreement with it. Planner Ricci noted there have been significant changes in this draft in an attempt to be more descriptive of what the City is trying to achieve. Commr. Lopes noted these are guidelines will be administered through the Use Permit process for houses on hillsides, and wondered if ARC review is necessary. Planner Ricci replied there are two mechanisms where hillside sites would be forwarded to the ARC; 1) as part of tract map approval when designated as sensitive sites, and 2) as part of Citywide zoning when sites have a “special consideration” overlay, which would require the processing of a use permit as well as architectural review. There was discussion on driveway slopes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Madi Gates, 125 Serrano Heights, noted she worked with the ARC when the guidelines were first written and expressed support that they are being reintroduced and expanded on. She suggested that the guidelines be clearly written and there be graphics. She felt the landscaping portion is written more about plant materials, but felt it should include hardscaping, which should be part of the plan as it is submitted for review. She introduced a written definition of what landscaping is versus hardscaping. She felt that fencing should be part of the hardscape. ARC Minutes May 5, 2003 Page 6 Carla Saunders, RQN, noted that RQN supports the direction the ARC gave and they also commended Mr. Crawford for this draft of the Hillside Standards. She commented that large lots on sensitive sites usually serve as a transition to the City’s Open Space, and felt that fencing has a greater impact to wildlife habitat in corridors. She offered some changes to the Hillside guidelines, which she presented to the staff. MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, felt that development should be stopped from going up towards Bowden Ranch, noting that the ground is unstable. She expressed support for the ARC and felt they are a good advisory body. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Lopes felt that site grading should be addressed, noting that pad grading should be avoided. Commr. Smith concurred with Commissioner Lopes. Chairperson Stevenson suggested discouraging the creation of building pads that are more than a given percentage of the actual building location. Chairperson Stevenson expressed concern with the roofline mimicking the hill. Mr. Crawford offered some language that states, “each proposed structure shall be located so that the silhouetting of a structure against the sky above the nearest range or knoll from a public street is minimized”. There was discussion on view control. Mr. Crawford introduced language for the hillside grading that states, “hillside grading to provide a building site driveway access should be minimized; large single-level grading pads are discouraged in favor of more careful site preparation that provides for step foundations and or smaller scale graded areas.” The Commission accepted the language that was proposed for the Hillside guidelines. Commr. Howard moved approval of the Hillside Development Section Community Design Guidelines based on the findings that this section is an important component that is consistent with the original scope and intent of the guidelines project and with the addition to guidelines on site fencing; and also including the additional modification and language introduced during the meeting along with the suggestion for hardscape that was introduced by Ms. Gates. Seconded by Commr. Root. Chairperson Stevenson suggested that the section on outdoor living spaces change must to should. ARC Minutes May 5, 2003 Page 7 Commr. Howard suggested omitting Section 6-(b) on fencing and suggested adding 4- inch square wire. Mr. Crawford suggested some different language on 6-(b) that states, “examples of appropriate materials for semi-transparent fencing”, and add at the end of the sentence “4-inch square welded wire.” Chairperson Stevenson commented on the retaining wall height. Mr. Crawford introduced language to change the sentence to read, “No visible portion of a retaining wall should be higher than six feet…” AYES: Commrs. Howard, Root, Boudreau, Lopes, Smith, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 6-0 (with one vacancy) 4. 1540 Froom Ranch Way. ARC 173-00; Preliminary review of a new warehouse store and member service station; C-R zone; Costco Wholesale, applicant. This item was continued to a date uncertain, without discussion. 5. 2064 Harris Street. ARC 198-02; Review of a new duplex on a site with an existing house, and demolition of a studio unit; R-2 zone; Jay Ferriol, applicant. Commr. Lopes left the meeting. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report requesting direction from the Commission for a design that is compatible with the neighborhood, provides naturally lit outdoor space for each unit and meets the parking and yard standards, and continue the project to allow for plan revisions. Chairperson Stevenson expressed concerns with the drainage and the idea of a new ADA sidewalk extension behind the driveway. Jay Ferriol, Ferriol Construction, gave a brief explanation about the design of the project. He stated that the owner wanted a larger space in the patio, and that the Planning Department recommended that the siding be the same as that on the existing residence. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the revised design opens up the roof area to the patio. Mr. Ferriol replied no, and explained it is still covered. Chairperson Stevenson questioned if any other design approach had been considered to address staff’s concerns. ARC Minutes May 5, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Ferriol replied no. Planner Ricci explained that staff is suggesting the roof be removed between the two cottages. Chairperson Stevenson commented that the covered patio is creating a dark and cold area. Commr. Smith felt that it could be oriented differently. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairperson Stevenson noted this project design needs some help because the design does not fit the site. He felt that with some creative thought, this could be redesigned to work. He mentioned compatibility with the neighborhood is something to consider and suggested using Hardie-plank as the material for the siding and changing the roofline. Planner Ricci noted that the staff report pointed out that having covered outdoor spaces makes the building footprint larger than it needs to be, and results in less inviting and usable areas to enjoy the outdoors. She mentioned that there are ways to make a more compact footprint and also provide the required parking spaces. Commr. Root suggested they create dormers and step the roof away from the street. Mr. Ferriol explained that they have to keep within a budget, and that it was the owner’s desire to have the covered area for the outdoor spaces. Chairperson Stevenson commented that he cannot support this plan and that even flipping it would be odd. He felt the site is constrained and suggested exploring another option. Commr. Boudreau expressed confusion as to why the covered patios are facing each other and why people would want to face one another in a dark space. Mr. Ferriol responded that the owner wants a larger space and this is why he put them together. Commr. Howard moved to continue this item to a date uncertain, with direction to the applicant to follow the recommendation in the staff report and to consider the use of lofts and dormers, create outdoor spaces that are functional and take advantage of the sun’s direction, relocate the trash enclosure to a screened area, create separate outdoor spaces, meet side yard and parking standards, use wood or wood-appearing siding to coordinate with the existing house and neighborhood. Seconded by Commr. Root. ARC Minutes May 5, 2003 Page 9 AYES: Commrs. Howard, Root, Boudreau, Smith, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Lopes ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. (with one vacancy) COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 6. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: May 19, 2003: Conceptual Review of Prado Road Overpass; Proposed Restoration to a historic home; Public Art for the Transit Center; Changes to the approved plan of restoring Duval Ranch House. June 2, 2003: Signage for Morin Bros. Auto Dealership; Garage conversion on Oceanaire; Chinese Park. 7. Commission: A. Lessons Learned-Commr. Howard commented on the parking area of the new office building at the Railroad District. B. By-annual review of Bylaws: The Bylaws were adopted on a 5-0 vote, with Commr. Lopes absent and one vacancy. With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for June 6, 2003, at 5:00 p.m. in Council Hearing Room. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary