The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/16/2006, SS 5 - STUDY SESSION: PROPOSED PLANS FOR A NEW ART CENTER council `M.W*°� M,4 Y, acEnaa uEpoRt CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Interim Deputy Director " Whitney Mcllvaine, Contract Planner 1 n N SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: PROPOSED PLANS FOR A NEW ART CENTER CAO RECOMMENDATION Hear a presentation from the Art Center staff and representing architects and provide comments regarding the suitability and appropriateness of the project design. BACKGROUND Situation The governing board of the San Luis Obispo Art Center has long envisioned an expansion of their facility at 1010 Broad Street. The existing building is growing increasingly inadequate for Art Center programs, exhibits and functions. It is out-dated with respect to building technology and life safety and accessibility standards. An entirely new building is proposed which would replace the existing structure. The applicants have made,preliminary presentations to the Cultural Heritage Committee and to the Architectural Review ommission. They have also met with City staff members to identify and begin to address project-related issues and application processing. Because of the project's prominent location on City-owned property and the significance of a new Art Center for the whole community, staff has scheduled this informational study session to allow City Council members to better familiarize themselves with the proposal and provide preliminary comments. Data-Summary Address 1010 Broad Street Applicant: San Luis Obispo Art Center Zoning: PF-H, Public Facility with an Historic Overlay General Plan- Public Environmental status: Not yet determined Proposal Desdiption Conceptual plans show the existing 5,429-square-foot, 20-foot tall building replaced with a new 50-foot to building with three stories and a basement, occupying approximately 23,000 square feet. The building has been designed to provide space for exhibition, education and related cultural events. The applicant has prepared a narrative statement describing the project, included as Attachment 3. Reduced architectural plans are included as Attachment 4. 5-1 Council Study Session—New Art Center Page 2 DISCUSSION In meetings with City staff and the applicant, the following issues have been identified which warrant feedback and direction from the City Council before the applicant team proceeds with refinements to their design and prior to hearings being scheduled before the Cultural Heritage Committee, the Architectural Review Commission, and the Planning Commission. Questions for Council consideration are: 1. How much more of the Mission Plaza area would be appropriately occupied by the Art Center? 2. Does the Council have a preference for processing a lot merger or a lot line adjustment to accommodate this project? 3. Are the project designers on the right track in terms of a modern architectural style given the historic context of the site? Application and Processing After considering some other alternatives, such as Planned Development Rezoning, staff has determined the best course of processing for this project would be: • General Plan Map Amendment and Rezoning to change the land use designation from Public to General Retail and the zoning designation from Public Facility (PF) to Downtown Commercial (CD). The area to be re-designated would conform to the lot configuration resulting from either a lot merger or a lot line adjustment. The benefits to the project would include additional site development potential, such as increased allowances for height and floor area. • Lot Merger to eliminate lots lines running beneath and too close to the proposed development area. As an alternative, a lot line adjustment would allow a lot configuration more tailored to the specific project and agreed upon lease area. • Architectural Review for the new building. • Administrative Use Permit to allow a museum in the Downtown Commercial zone. • Environmental Review. Building Code Compliance,Lot.Lines and Lease Area The proposed building footprint and related ground level improvements extend beyond existing property lines and outside the area currently leased from the City by the Art Center. On the Broad and Monterey Street elevations, upper level architectural elements also project over the sidewalk 5-2. I Council Study Session—New Art Center Page 3 right-of-way. Please refer to Attachment 2, showing the underlying lots and the area currently leased to the Art Center, and to the second floor plan in Attachment 4, which shows the relationship of the new building to existing lot lines. The building code allows non-habitable architectural features to project over the right-of-way, but no more than 4 feet. Project plans will need to be modified to eliminate the floor area in proposed projections over the sidewalks along Broad and Monterey Streets. The building code requires a minimum setback of 10 feet from a property line at the interior of a block for building with non-rated widows. Plans show windows on the east elevation of the building with zero to 4 feet of setback. On the creek side of the building, plans show windows within 5 feet of the property line. To avoid building over lot lines, a lot merger will be required. Council may also wish to consider a lot line adjustment to more closely tailor the resulting parcel to the area to be developed. Ideally the new lot configuration would mark the new zoning boundary as well as the area to be leased to the Art Center. As proposed, the project will require a renegotiation of the lease agreement with the City. Historical and Architectural Context Although the existing Art Center building is not considered an architecturally or historically significant structure, it is located within the Downtown Historical Preservation District, an "area where buildings with pre-1941 architectural styles create a recognizable character." (SLOMC §17.54.010.b.1) The City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines (Section D.2) states that new primary structures within an Historical Preservation District should further promote the historical character of that district area through careful attention to building form, bulk, scale, siting and landscaping. All new buildings need not be designed in the same style of surrounding structures, however, elements of the styles and building forms should be included in the new structure, and it should complement the architectural character of the area. The proposed building would stand in striking contrast to the architectural style, scale and form of nearby historic structures. However, it is worth noting that the pre-1941 historic structures near the project site differ greatly in terms of architectural style and year of construction. The authentic variety of architectural styles exhibited by buildings in the vicinity, which were constructed during different time periods and for different purposes, is largely what makes this area of town so charming. Land Use Element Policy 4.12 states that new development should be compatible with architecturally and historically significant buildings, but not necessarily the same style. The project architects have designed a very contemporary landmark building, which uses materials that echo components of nearby historic structures while simultaneously presenting a 53 Council Study Session—New Art Center Page 4 forward looking artful approach to design that befits the building's use as an Art Center and marks a vital new addition to the City's ongoing development. The applicant team will make a presentation to the Council regarding facility needs and building studies done as part of the design development process for this project. A model of the building will be available to illustrate the project's relationship to its setting. Mission Plaza Improvements The ARC reviewed and approved modifications to Mission Plaza which included at-grade decorative paving at the intersection of Monterey and Broad Streets nearest the plaza; Mission style lighting and site furniture; and a line-of-sight walkway connection between the Historical Museum and the existing wooden bridge over the creek. Implementation of this plan is on hold, subject to City Council review and approval of funding. The proposed Art Center is not entirely consistent with the plaza modifications approved by the ARC in that the terrace area precludes the line-of-sight pedestrian connection between the wooden bridge over the creek and the steps of the Carnegie Museum. Mission style lighting and street furniture approved for the plaza would not be compatible with the proposed contemporary design. Finally, it is not clear how the proposed ramp entrance to the museum on Monterey Street would work with revisions to grading and paving for expanded pedestrian use at the "dog leg" intersection of Monterey and Broad Streets. However, some of the public improvements suggested by the ARC-approved modifications to Mission Plaza would dovetail nicely with construction of the new Art Center: specifically, installation of the bulb-outs, and decorative paving in the crosswalks and in a portion of Monterey Street extending out from the pedestrian plaza. Please refer to Attachment 5. Consistency with Other City Plans General Plan — The Land Use Element policies related to development in the downtown note that cultural facilities should be downtown in the vicinity of Mission Plaza unless too large to be accommodated, such as the performing arts center at Cal Poly. A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center shows an expansion of the Art Center as a sort of detached annex in the surface parking lot at the southwest corner of Broad and Monterey Streets. This scenario assumed acquisition and removal of the privately owned building at 679 Broad Street, which is not under consideration at this time. However, in so far as the Art Center is proposing expansion and maintaining a presence at 1010 Broad Street, the project is consistent with the conceptual plan for downtown development. 5-q Council Study Session—New Art Center Page 5 Advisory Body and Other Department Comments The project was presented to both the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission for preliminary review. Project plans have also been reviewed by various City departments. Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC): The CHC noted potential difficulties with finding the building's architecture consistent with the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. Architectural Review Commission (ARC): Members of the ARC were generally supportive of the design and emphasized the unique nature of an urban art museum as it relates to its setting. Typically such buildings are designed to stand out rather than blend invisibly into their surroundings. Public Works Parks Division: Parks maintenance staff recommend at least a one-for-one replacement for mature trees removed as a result of the project. Parks and Recreation Department: The Director noted that giving up park land is generally not supported, but, in this case, allowing the Art Center to expand into the Mission Plaza area makes sense because City policies support this use in this location. Community Development Building Division: In addition to building setback issues discussed above, there are issues related to design of the terrace areas and ADA accessibility. If there is a connection from the project to the creek, it must also meet accessibility standards. Public Works Engineering Division: Alternative paving materials in the right-of-way need to be approved by the Public Works Director to assure their durability and ease of maintenance. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Lot line and lease area map Attachment 3: Narrative statement Attachment 4: Reduced architectural drawings Attachment 5: ARC-approved modifications to Mission Plaza 5-s ' • .,gym x�'>stf3.s��; h aft"r • ��.G�T�y"ty� f' ttt�)Y`it3 4 �(?+x a e R�ynxc7(�45. �r�LNC��>.r'_y'�� '✓ Lim VI. CINITY MAP Vj •��'dTT��,�...4�'dTT��...4``��yyyyyy�+�j�+��11`�� I 0101 Attachment 2 W 00 O N a _ _ Joz Y z m O ONNOHD , c � O,a + J h U 7.3 O .0a - 4Z01. .rs SiC Stoi 5wl y al Kol 1w O U S/•vc 1 "'Se1 Sz ' r c 's s9 x5-9c T z S I a WIIw 1m + 1 4 O L, Y us a� ;L -4, �„ arm- Fn.�s.•s-a.v , • f r ° nil —LZ6 ti U Pv m"o p3 � m p Z I y m y Q'Z h I m Z ot a rQ + o at • s' 65/ OC Chi coal OSpI ° coal IS OVONS + h 1`. �. ..- .. Attachment 3 SAN LUIS OBISPO ART.CENTER NEW ART CENTER BUILDING JUNE, 2002, WRATIVE STATEMENT INTRODUCTION The San Luis Obispo Art Center is a non-profit corporation dating to 1952, and located at the comer of Monterey and Broad Streets since 1967. The current 5;429 square foot building has been repeatedly remodeled but is growing increasingly inadequate for ArtCenter programs and functions, as well a5 out-of-date in the areas of building technology; life safety, and accessibility. Beginning in 1999 the Art Center, with the help of community members, generated a space needs analysis, retained architectural and engineering consultants, and proceeded through the schematic design process for a new building. Remodeling was deemed infeasible. The accompanying design is for a 22,000 square foot structure that will accommodate the Art Center's exhibition, education, and related community functions for the indefinite future.The new facility is intended to occupy an expanded role as an essential component of San Luis Obispo's cultural fife. At this time the Art Center would like a preliminary, non-voting review of the building design, to initiate dialogue and staff analysis, as well as to provide input to the General Plan Amendment process, discussed below. GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE The architectural program developed through the space needs assessment requires a larger structure than nominally allowed under the current PF(public facilities)zone. The Art Center proposes to process a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to the C-C(central commercial)zone. The design presented here complies with the coverage, height limit, and other building standards of the C-C zone. The building design is presented for architectural review prior to initiation of the General Plan Amendment process so that the Art Center's specific development plans form the basis of that discussion.. City departments have encouraged pursuit of a C-C land use designation, in part to allow participation in the in-lieu-feeparking program. DESIGN CONCEPT The Art Center'sconsulting architects, Barcelon&Jang are experienced museum and gallery architects, based in San Francisco. They have worked closely with the Art Center's building committee to develop a building design based on the functional requirements of building spaces and the urban relationships of the site to its neighborhood and larger context. Generally, the building presents an honest, contemporary expression of its role as a center for the arts. Its dialogue with existing structures consists primarily of view relationships and compatible materials selections. S- Attachment 3 Narrative Statement Page 2 A diagonal internal circulation scheme allows a lower level entrance from Broad Street for classrooms, small conference and community meeting rooms, and utilitarian requirements, including artwork loading/unloading and trash. The middle level entrance from the building comer closest to Mission Plaza accesses reception, a gift shop, and main exhibit and event spaces. The upper floor contains additional gallery space as well as the Art Centers administrative functions. A basement below the lower floor contains storage, mechanical, and curatorial spaces. Two dominant features of the building are the oculus and the Iantem. The oculus, an inverted cone at the building's center, serves as an orientation space and light well, extending through the roof plane to form a shape that recalls surrounding volcanic peaks. The lantern is a flared cylinder at the building comer nearest the creek. It provides views to and from the Art Center and works as a beacon announcing evening activities. MATERIALS AND COLORS A materials and color board is not being presented at this preliminary architectural review, but the following exterior treatments are anticipated. - Lower walls: stone veneer, using a robust stone with a texture and color recalling the stonework at the base of the Mission. - Upper walls: stone veneer, using a smooth stone in a light color that mediates neighboring building colors, including the Mission's white, and the Camegie Library's ochre. - Windows and-glazing: clear view glass and frosted spandrel glass, in aluminum frames. - Paving and hardscape: textured and pigmented concrete compatible with"Mission Style" sidewalks and dogleg extension treatments currently being designed by the City's consultant. S- / BChrilerlt 4 xi q 14 'f Iiil V env rr �� •s.}� i�Qi 51�i i rf4N �' { ; I�� i r-.!. \ ' Vii•. 1^-,., 1 x-a l �,J yn 1 � 1 N � 5 O Attachment 4 t + J 9 .. 1 •I F-o r; ki I�\ e ` a � c +' i ' Y m ,r ii r r lit r tjf�.l�jr\JJ �Ll j1 SIM i t��• .i �� I��'�G•Rl� �.., _ it ,y Vp otica �� YO ✓ "F ut dam. ry fd 4 Attachment 4 It. Jy Ln 3 { 19 1r TTT .!•"� ti. MC Y Y is V . 1\ LLL =-_� ` ;.• /, ..�Ywei �^ F. s-1.3 Attachment 4 !1� y fill. if 1 s , . 1 t� v c ^ r 1 t s-�y wD � — 'ri N e ��S3 a ° Ky.4'S' 7 as i • Y �N4°Ai 7z r 1 1 ys f. • ly y�l I , t i t�ryy C TP• tea. IN t it R i. Y _ S <ttachroent 4 I l Ki r'Y }Vr�3 r rvglr Y F n ' C� � .9� 1{ r,yam wRl�.i]_•. y4y i i i I it \I I w4 s _ Y r}•r•. ..tet. . �, v Y. �- of �1 � z u rifs s 05,r L r 41 h.,lllW � x NOW ix�l tAlyrnC C A l ru � �,fji�yy7 a !,5•a >, �G1 kl Y: ,�+ 1 raw Y {[[`.( ®•� ly i Yi � '"'ih•'f p � '� I it h �I ,3 I �rar:��7, ,w• ti �1- e�f� ''I'i.GS R 1 ,.( � G IL �� '(W." mar ryT r 1� r� Ili VET'�� •m r 4 �"•4jl i_ ` AtfaF.M" 5 .in P. ga i 25cL j c 2 X hl Z Z ,x m ftf J1. t q I I YF a6 1 9 z Is lZ Aft Cd W,.t � Q Attachment 5 -NOIr • a W N A u�•�aBZa I LIP) � wap ' erg S. Wa o 0. I v r4 w 3 •I .W i�-1 � � I u =r a F I'� 49 : �I Fl I Y I oil IT 1 I U •�