Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-06-2003 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2003 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Greg Wilhelm, Allen Root, Michael Boudreau, Zeljka Howard, David Smith, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: Commissioner Jim Lopes Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci It was noted that Chairperson Stevenson arrived at 6:10 p.m. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, suggested to the Commission that the applicant’s telephone numbers appear on the agenda. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Downtown. ARC 111-03; Review of proposed locations and details of informational kiosks, San Luis Obispo Downtown Association, applicant. Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending final approval, based on findings, and subject to conditions. Deborah Cash, Downtown Association Administrator, gave a brief explanation of the downtown and how they want to maintain it as a usable downtown. She noted that signage was one way to find out what is happening in the City, and she would like to see something attractive to look at which is also easy to use. She explained the reason they chose these specific locations (Cornerstone Realty, Milagro’s, and the Marsh Street Parking Structure) was because the exposure they would easily get from foot traffic. She mentioned has selected three locations for approval now, with another three locations to be determined in the next several years; her budget would only allow three at this time. She explained the material is tile, with a variety of materials enclosed in a powder-coated metal frame that would be bolted to the wall, and have a glass case over the graphic map. Steve Owens, SLO, explained in detail the materials that would be used for the kiosks. Trace Feltman, Hands Gallery business owner, gave a brief description of the type of tiles and materials to be used on the project. ARC Minutes October 6, 2003 Page 2 Mike Ray, 464 Kern Avenue, Morro Bay, noted this is a preliminary design and explained that each kiosk location would draw a specific type of people, and noted the final location list has not been finalized. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, voiced her opinion that many people do not understand the value of kiosks, and asked what the cost to the City would be. Vice-Chair Boudreau clarified that the funding issue is not within the ARC’s purview. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Smith moved final approval based on findings, but eliminating the recommended condition. Seconded by Commr. Howard. AYES: Commrs. Smith, Howard, Wilhelm, Root, and Boudreau NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Lopes and Stevenson ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 5:0 vote. 2. 1716 Osos Street. ARC 18-03; Review of a proposal to establish a Bed and Breakfast, including the remodel to a historic structure; R-3-H zone; Suzie Kyle and Neta Gladney, applicant. Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. Suzie Kyle, applicant, spoke in support of the project. Tim Becher, 1093 Higuera Street, project architect, noted he had responded to the issues brought up at the last meeting, which included adjusting the parking in the back. He responded to questions asked by the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, commented that she is very sensitive to her heritage in SLO and does not want to see historic structures dismantled. There were no further comments made by the public. ARC Minutes October 6, 2003 Page 3 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Howard moved the staff recommendation. Seconded by Commr. Wilhelm. AYES: Commrs. Howard, Wilhelm, Root, Smith, and Boudreau NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Lopes and Stevenson ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 5:0 vote. 3. 2700 McMillan Avenue. ARC 90-03; Review of a proposed office/warehouse with 22,211 square feet of floor area; C-S zone; Jerry Williams, applicant. This item was continued without discussion to October 20, 2003, to allow City staff to meet with the applicant team to discuss the development of the terminus of Morrison Street. The Commission unanimously concurred with the continuance request. 4. 1540 Marsh. ARC 105-03; Review of a request to demolish an existing URM building and replace with new construction of similar scale; O zone; Obispo Investments, applicant. It was noted for the record that Chairperson Stevenson had arrived during the last item. Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending final approval to the project based on findings and subject to conditions. Barry Williams, applicant’s representative, felt the architecture would be similar to the addition and explained the things he would do to enhance the building. He explained that the existing building does not have a sense of entry anywhere and he would like to open the building so that all offices and parking areas would have access from the courtyard. He concurred with the staff report. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bud Beecher, 3183 Flora Street, voiced that he has been involved in 1540 Marsh Street for 20 years, noting that he currently rents an office on the third floor and asked when construction might begin. Cindy Griffin, 188 Cerro Court, noted she has an office at 1540 Marsh Street, and asked about the process for construction of the new office building. Vice-Chair Boudreau responded that the request for demolition has already been approved at a previous meeting, and the architecture of the new building is what is currently being reviewed. ARC Minutes October 6, 2003 Page 4 Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, asked what a URM building is. Vice-Chair Boudreau replied that it is an unreinforced masonry building. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: It was the consensus of the Commission that the design solution to complement buildings on adjacent property was appropriate. Commr. Wilhelm moved final approval to the project, with the elimination of Condition 9 and a new condition added with a salvage requirement if it exists. Seconded by Commr. Root. AYES: Commrs. Wilhelm, Root, Howard, Smith, Vice-Chair Boudreau, Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Lopes ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. 5. 1892 Oceanaire Drive. ARC 48-03; Review of a proposed garage conversion and replacement covered parking; R-1 zone; Dave Schmitt, applicant. Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending approval of the project, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. She noted that staff is concerned about the utilization of garage conversions as a way to accommodate more floor area in homes and aesthetic impacts of replacement parking being located in front of houses. She stated the ARC should decide whether the project meets the intent of previous direction and whether the garage conversion is architecturally compatible with the site and the surrounding neighborhoods. Commr. Howard questioned the advantage of a carport versus a car parked in the driveway. Planner Ricci replied that there is a requirement on a R-1 zone that one parking space must be covered. Dave Schmitt, applicant, explained that when he purchased the house, he came to the City to find out what the procedure was for putting a carport in and was given a copy of the current carport details. When he came back with his plans, the details no longer applied because that detail had been phased out in July of 2002. He mentioned the planner explained that the current requirement was for a one-car carport, so he drew plans based on that. When he came back with those plans, he was told ARC review was required. Chairperson Stevenson questioned how the house would be used. ARC Minutes October 6, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Schmitt replied his daughter would live there with some roommates. Chairperson Stevenson asked if they have thought about adding a second floor as an alternative. Mr. Schmitt explained that there is a major foundation issue as well as a cost issue. Commr. Wilhelm asked if there had been any consideration given to an enclosed carport. Mr. Schmitt replied that was his first plan, but it got changed. Commr. Smith felt the preferred solution would be to build a second story, and suggested that a steep roof with a shed dormer would be more attractive and address neighborhood compatibility issues. Mr. Schmitt responded that the code requirements for earthquakes have gotten more restrictive over the last 15 years. Commr. Howard asked if there was a garage when he purchased this house. Mr. Schmitt replied no, and explained that the garage had already been converted when he purchased it. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, felt that if this is allowed in an R-1 zone, a precedent would be set for others in the neighborhood. Brett Cross, 1217 Mariner’s, and Vice-Chair of RQN, felt that the proposed plans are not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He presented photographs of some garage conversions in San Luis Obispo that were also not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He mentioned one thing that does not get addressed with carports is the storage, and noted that people tend to store things in the carports, which is very unattractive. Mr. Schmitt noted there are many old-style flat shed roofs in the neighborhood that do not look good, and felt he has come up with a compromise for it to work and look like part of the architecture. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairperson Stevenson felt these are the kinds of cases that neighbors fear in neighborhoods because the garage gets converted into a fifth bedroom for Cal Poly students to live in. He felt the Commission needs to recognize that there will be an additional vehicle, and on-site parking for that vehicle should be provided. He felt the ARC Minutes October 6, 2003 Page 6 applicant could add a second floor, which would allow more use in the driveway area for parking. He suggested that other alternatives be explored and noted he would have less concern if it were converted into living space. Commr. Wilhelm commented that he could not support this project as proposed. He felt a second story should be explored since the Building Code allows support of a floor on the roof on a single-story footing. He expressed a concern on what kind of pattern this carport would set for the neighborhood. Commr. Smith reiterated the guidelines for garage conversions, and felt there is no way this could be designed to fit into the neighborhood. He suggested having a steep roof with a shed dormer to achieve the bedrooms and the ceiling height. He stated he could not support the project. Commr. Root commented that he could understand the position the applicant is in, but noted the ARC’s task is to preserve the quality of the neighborhood and the community. He felt this is a design that he cannot support because of the parking issue, and the outside storage. He also suggested a stronger look at a second story before seriously considering a carport. Commr. Howard felt the project does not fit in the neighborhood, and concurred with the comments of the other commissioners. Vice-Chair Boudreau also concurred with all of the comments of the Commission, and noted he cannot support the project. There was much discussion on garage conversions and the parking problems that force the cars out onto the street. Planner Ricci reiterated what alternatives are available for the ARC to take with this project. Mr. Schmitt explained that he has been dealing with staff for over a year, and has gone from a change in the plan from a one-car to a two-car carport because that was what he was told would be approved, but now it looks like it is not going to be approved at all. Chairperson Stevenson explained that often times the Commission may vary from the staff’s recommendation, especially on a relatively new type of request requiring ARC review like a garage conversion, and felt there may have been some mixed signals. Mr. Schmitt replied that the mixed signal has cost him thousands of dollars because the garage conversion was illegally done when he purchased the house. He noted he has been working on this project for a year. Chairperson Stevenson reminded the applicant that he is being offered several options to explore. ARC Minutes October 6, 2003 Page 7 Commr. Wilhelm suggested a U-shaped footprint would be more acceptable in terms of the neighborhood context than an L-shaped footprint of a carport or an added on carport. He noted there are a number of alternatives that would respect the neighborhood and solve this equation. Chairperson Stevenson moved to deny the proposed garage conversion, finding that: 1) The proposed garage conversion and replacement parking will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project is not architecturally compatible, and is out-of-character, with the site and the surrounding neighborhood, where required parking is provided primarily by attached two-car garages. 2) The proposed garage conversion and replacement parking are not consistent with the Community Design Guidelines which state that additions should respect the architectural style, detailing, scale and composition of the original building so they look integrated with the original structure, rather than a tacked-on afterthought and 3) Other options are available to the applicant to add living space to the house, which would not adversely affect neighborhood character and would preserve on-site space for parking. Seconded by Commr. Smith. AYES: Commrs. Stevenson, Smith, Wilhelm, Root, Howard, and Boudreau NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Lopes ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 6-0. Planner Ricci explained that this decision can be appealed to the City Council within ten days of the action. 6. 225 N. Chorro Street. ARC 76-03; Review of a proposed demolition and construction of four new apartment buildings with 16 total units; R-4 zone; D. A. Fetyko, Inc., applicant. Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, asking the Commission to evaluate the proposed building design and consider the direction provided to the applicant by the Planning Commission; continue the project to a date uncertain and provide direction to the applicant on changes to the design necessary to receive final architectural approval. Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, gave a descriptive presentation of this infill project. She explained the intent was to see how they could make a dense project livable and to provide a more creative solution to ownership. Kim Hatch, Pults & Associates, explained that they looked at City standards, as well as what was cost effective to their clients. He addressed the building height access and setback issues. ARC Minutes October 6, 2003 Page 8 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, voiced her opinion about people moving into San Luis Obispo. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairperson Stevenson expressed support for the project, but concurred with staff’s concerns about the height of the building and the tunnel effect that it creates. He suggested reducing it to 24 feet. He mentioned that he supports this kind of building in a transitional zoning area, and supports the front entrance to the street. He suggested the loft be eliminated to bring the height down. He expressed a concern with the upper decks and overlook issues. Commr. Howard concurred with Chairperson Stevenson’s comments, but supported the height. She suggested moving buildings back towards the setbacks to eliminate the tunnel effect. Commr. Root echoed the comments made and expressed that the architecture stands on its own. He mentioned that he would support a lesser setback to provide more spaces between buildings, and noted the architecture is not as important in matching the neighborhood as having a well thought out design with good details. He suggested introducing a more interesting railing detail. He mentioned that he shares concern with the overlook of the decks. Commr. Wilhelm expressed support for the project. He commented on some detail issues and felt the center element is a powerful piece but he would like to see the lines carried down. He did not support bringing the gable into the alleyway. He expressed a concern with the lower elevation and the cantilever at the driveway. He suggested a solid looking iron street lamp be placed there, and supported sacrificing some of the setback to increase space in the interior of this project. Commr. Smith expressed support for the project, with separation of the one-bedroom units to make the passage. He expressed a concern with the metal siding and felt it might look dirty. Chairperson Stevenson suggested the developer provide storage cabinets in back of garages as a condition of approval. Vice-Chair Boudreau expressed support for a reduced setback and felt if the building could be pulled apart, it might address the privacy issue. He suggested they keep the central height, but diminish the mass of that face so they would be looking at the side of the roof. The Commission reviewed the project plans and provided the following comments as direction: 1. Eliminate the gables on the long axis of buildings (north and south ARC Minutes October 6, 2003 Page 9 elevations), and reduce the required setbacks according to the lowered building heights. This will help to address the goal of providing more space between buildings in the center of the project. 2. Install metal siding so that horizontal seams are eliminated. 3. Include additional articulation in railings. The Commission discussion focused on ways to minimize the “canyon effect” of having tall development on either side of a central driveway and potential overlook issues to adjacent properties created by south-facing decks. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 7. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: Planner Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects.. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for October 20, 2003, at 5:00 p.m. in Council Hearing Room. Respectfully Submitted by Irene Pierce Recording Secretary