HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - ARCH-0722-2017 (1135 Santa Rosa)-signed_rotatedpages
Meeting Date: September 11, 2017
Item Number: 2
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Continued review of requested modifications to application ARCH-0846-2015, to
allow elimination of a bulkhead feature and change approved building colors on a
remodeled commercial building.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1135 Santa Rosa St. BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0722-2017 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the draft resolution denying the requested changes to approved building colors and design,
based on findings of inconsistency with applicable General Plan policies and Community Design
Guidelines.
SITE DATA
Applicant 33 Tons, LLC
Representative Ben Kulick, Stalwork, Inc.
Submittal Date June 12, 2017
General Plan General Retail
Zoning Downtown-Commercial (C-D)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15301.
Existing Facilities)
SUMMARY
The applicant, 33 Tons, LLC, has submitted a request to modify the application
ARCH-0846-2015, under which the remodeling and expansion of a commercial building at
1135 Santa Rosa was approved. The modifications requested are: a change in the building’s
approved colors; and elimination of a cut-tile bulkhead feature that was proposed along the
bottom of wall surfaces along the Marsh Street side of the building (see Attachment 3).
ARC2 - 1
dd
ARCH-0722-2017 (1135 Santa Rosa)
Page 2
The project was first reviewed by the Commission on May 18, 2015, and approved on
July 6, 2015,1 subject to several conditions including the following:
Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit
shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC.
[…]. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other
conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review
Commission, as deemed appropriate. (Condition 1).
In completing the project, the approved design and colors were changed without approval,
contrary to the terms of Condition 1 of project approval. The building color was changed to a
single shade of grey which did not match the color scheme approved by the Commission , and a
cut-tile bulkhead feature on the Marsh Street side of the building was not installed (see Figure 1).
A Notice of Violation (Attachment 5) was sent to the property owner on May 19, 2017 as a
courtesy warning, seeking voluntary correction of the observed violations. The applicant
requested that the Commission consider approval of the proposed modifications to the approved
design and colors, in order to allow retention of the single-color scheme and elimination of the
cut-tile bulkhead feature.
On July 10, 2017, the Commission reviewed
the proposed changes and continued
consideration of the request to a future date
(Attachment 4). Direction was provided to the
applicant to work with staff toward a solution
that would be more consistent with approved
colors and design, using appropriate base and
accent colors to provide differentiation and
articulation of building forms that would
reduce the perceived massiveness of the
building, to maintaining and a human-scale
element for variety and interest along the
Marsh Street frontage.
In response to this direction, the applicant has concluded that no such solution can be reached,
stating in subsequent communication (Attachment 7) that, among other points, the building is, on
the whole, consistent with applicable Community Design Guidelines, and that no applicable
guideline requires or suggests multiple colors for buildings, or covers articulation and detail of
wall surfaces.
1 Minutes of prior meetings are provided in Attachment 4 (Project Approvals). Prior Agenda Reports are
available in the Architectural Review Commission Document Archive on the City’s website:
www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/architectural-review-commission/
Figure 1: Remodeled building, as completed
ARC2 - 2
ARCH-0722-2017 (1135 Santa Rosa)
Page 3
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Commission’s role is to review the proposed changes to the approved design and colors for
consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines and with conditions of project
approval, and decide whether the modifications may be approved.
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is located at the northwest corner of Marsh and Santa Rosa Streets at the edge of the
Downtown-Commercial (C-D) Zone, across the street from Cheng Park, a small “pocket park,”
with office and commercial buildings in the vicinity. The site was developed with a two-story
commercial building originall y constructed in 1982 as a bank branch. The remodeling project,
reviewed and approved under application ARCH-0846-2015, and completed in April, 2017,
expanded the building within the existing building footprint, transforming it into a more
rectangular, contemporary design (see Figure 2), and adding two residential units on a new third
floor. The approved project has a two-color scheme consisting of alternating lighter and darker
shades of grey, and a cut-tile bulkhead on the south elevation, along a portion of the Marsh Street
frontage.
3.0 EVALUATION OF CHANGES
Evaluation of this request is focused on determining whether the proposed changes in design and
colors are consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines. Applicable design guidance
for projects downtown is provided in Chapter 2 (General Design Principles) and Chapter 4
(Downtown Design Guidelines) of the document.
3.1 Colors and building design
As mentioned in the Project Description above, the approved color scheme employs two
complementary shades of grey as the primary building colors: a lighter shade called “Oyster
Figure 2: Rendering of project, depicting approved color scheme
ARC2 - 3
ARCH-0722-2017 (1135 Santa Rosa)
Page 4
Haze” and a darker shade named “City Loft” (see Figure 3). These complementary colors
provide differentiation and articulation of the building’s component forms that lessened the
perceived massiveness of the building as a whole.
The project was instead completed using a single color, a darker shade of grey described as
“Custom Merlex Blend.” Its application as a single-color scheme results in a monolithic
appearance that lacks the contrast, relief, and visual interest evident in the approved two-color
scheme. Wood wall surfaces and window glass area on building elevations seen from Santa Rosa
and Higuera provide a measure of contrast and visual interest, but the building exhibits a notably
heavier, more massive appearance when viewed from Marsh Street, at the southwest corner of
the building (Figure 3). The articulation of building forms provided by the contrasting shades of
the approved colors is lost, which affects the balance and rhythm among these forms. General
Plan policies set expectations for the quality and design of new development in the City,2 which
are set out in greater detail in the City’s Community Design Guidelines. Guidance on balance,
articulation, and massing, is provided in Chapter 2 of Community Design Guidelines:
Keep building elements in proportion. Proportion, continuity, harmony,
simplicity, rhythm and balance should prevail in building design. Building
elements should be balanced and in proportion to one another. (§ 2.2 (A))
Strive for interest, not clutter. The City encourages well-articulated, but not
cluttered building elevations. Large roof and wall planes unrelieved by shadow or
texture interest are generally not acceptable… (§ 2.2 (B))
Pay attention to details. Attention to detailing, and emphasis on vertical and
horizontal articulation, are encouraged as tools to visually reduce the apparent
mass of a building. (§ 2.2 (C))
2 See Land Use Element Polices 12.3 and 4.20.6
Figure 3: Approved color scheme (left); color, as completed (right)
ARC2 - 4
ARCH-0722-2017 (1135 Santa Rosa)
Page 5
Specific guidelines for development downtown are provided in Chapter 4, including guidance on
careful attention to finish materials to enrich a building’s character and avoid monotony:
Finish materials. The exterior materials of downtown buildings involve several
aspects including color, texture, and materials. (§ 4 (D) (1))
3.2 Bulkhead
Approved project plans included a cut-stone bulkhead feature along the Marsh Street side of the
building (Figure 4), and this feature was not installed on the completed building. The applicant
requests that the Commission approve the elimination of this feature, describing it as contrary to
the honest use of materials; as a “stuck-on” treatment not fitting with the style of the building,
and mimicking a flood control feature not required on this site (see item 2, Attachment 3).
Design guidelines identify bulkheads as a desirable element of a commercial building façade,
particularly in the downtown area, that should be prominent and visible.3 They are described as a
base from which windows rise, and are common elements on downtown buildings, including
several in the surrounding area. A suitable decorative element incorporated into the wall surface,
consistent with the building’s contemporary style, and consistent with guidelines for honest use
of authentic materials and treatments4 would provide variation and visual interest, as encouraged
by Community Design Guidelines:
Wall surfaces. Wall surfaces, particularly at the street level, should be varied and
interesting, rather than unbroken and monolithic, because blank walls discourage
pedestrian traffic. This can be achieved in a number of ways including: […]
Constructing the facade with small human scale materials such as brick or
decorative tile along bulkheads… (§ 4.2 (C) (5))
3 See Community Design Guidelines § 4.2(C)(7)
4 See Community Design Guidelines § § 1.4(A)(1) & 2.2(D)
Figure 4: Bulkhead feature, as approved (left); missing on completion (right)
ARC2 - 5
ARCH-0722-2017 (1135 Santa Rosa)
Page 6
4.0 CONCLUSION
Changes proposed by the applicant to the approved colors and building design are not consistent
with applicable Community Design Guidelines. The modified color scheme results in a building
that is perceptibly heavier and more massive, as seen approaching it along Marsh Street. Its
monolithic appearance has lost the balance and rhythm between building forms that the approved
colors provided. Omission of the cut-tile bulkhead eliminates a small human scale, pedestrian-
oriented, element that is a common, and encouraged, element on buildings within the downtown
area. It is recommended that the Commission deny the request for changes to approved colors
and project design.
5.0 ALTERNATIVE
5.1 Approve the requested modifications to color and project design, based on findings of
consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This application is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). It involves minor alteration of an existing structure, as described in CEQA
Guidelines § 15301 (Existing Facilities).
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Applicant’s Summary of Requests for Modification
4. Project Approvals (Meeting Minutes and Resolution 1013-15)
5. Notice of Violation (May 23, 2017)
6. Approved Project Renderings (June, 2015)
7. Applicant’s Response to ARC Direction of July 10, 2017
ARC2 - 6
RESOLUTION NO. ####-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A REQUEST TO MODIFY APPROVED COLORS
AND PROJECT DESIGN, AS APPROVED UNDER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
APPLICATION ARCH-0846-2015, FOR A REMODELED COMMERCIAL BUILDING
AT 1135 SANTA ROSA STREET
(DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL (C-D) ZONE; FILE #ARCH-0722-2017)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission granted approval for the remodeling
of a commercial building, and an addition of a third floor with two new dwellings, to the building
located at 1135 Santa Rosa Street, on July 6, 2015 (Resolution No. ARC-1013-15), under
application ARCH-0846-2015; 33 Tons, LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9) of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on July 10, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under
application ARCH-0722-2017, 33 Tons, LLC, applicant, to consider modification of the
application ARCH-0846-2015, including requested changes to approved colors and elimination of
a bulkhead feature from the project design, and continued consideration of the request to a date
uncertain, providing direction to the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9) of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on September 11, 2017, to further consider the requested changes to
approved colors and elimination of a bulkhead feature from the project design; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby denies application
ARCH-2764-2016, based on the following findings:
1. The requested changes to approved colors and project design are not consistent with the
policies of the City’s General Plan that call for projects to meet the City’s expectation for the
quality and design of new development as (Land Use Element Policy 12.3), and for street
facades that include architectural details which can be appreciated by people on the sidewalks
(Land Use Element Policy 4.20.6). The proposed new monochromatic building color scheme
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC2 - 7
results in a building that is perceptibly heavier and more massive, as seen approaching it along
Marsh Street, losing the balance and rhythm among building forms that the approved color
scheme provides, contrary to the intent of Community Design Guidelines used in the review
of proposed development projects. Elimination of the cut-tile bulkhead feature along the Marsh
Street façade removes from the project design an architectural detail that is encouraged for
sidewalk appeal (Land Use Element Policy 4.20.6) and by Community Design Guidelines.
2. The requested modifications are not consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines.
The proposed new monochromatic building color scheme results in the loss of articulation and
of balance and rhythm between building forms that the approved color scheme provided,
causing the building to appear perceptibly heavier and more massive, as seen approaching it
along Marsh Street. The resulting appearance does not exhibit the harmony, rhythm, and
balance sought by guidance provided in § 2.2 (A), the articulation encouraged by § 2.2 (B), or
the attention to detail and emphasis on articulation to visually reduce the apparent mass of a
building called for in § 2.2 (C). The proposed elimination of the cut-tile bulkhead removes a
small human-scale element that provides variation and interest to the wall surface at the Marsh
Street level, contrary to the intent of § 4.2 (C) (5) encouraging such variation and interest.
3. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). It involves minor alteration of an existing structure, as described in
CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Existing Facilities).
SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby denies application
ARCH-2764-2016, a request to modify application ARCH-0846-2015.
On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11th day of September, 2017.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC2 - 8
C-D
O
O
C-R
C-D
C-D
O
C-R
O
C-D-H
C-D
C-D
PF
MARSH
HIGUE
R
A
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
O
S
O
S PACIF
I
C
VICINITY MAP ARCH-0722-20171135 Santa Rosa ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC2 - 9
Architectural Review Commission
Request for Modification
1135 Santa Rosa
Summary of Requests for Modification
1) Resolution No. ARC‐1013‐15
Corrective Action: Obtain approval from the Community Development Director or Architectural Review
Commission for the change of colors on the building
Approval Request:
The building color accurately reflects the color and style of neighboring properties and is the approximate
same color saturation as the ARC approved color. Architectural colors should be selected and appropriate
for the design intent, architecture, and time period of construction. Building colors that do no prove
successful are easily modified in the future. 1135 Santa Rosa is innovative and fully compatible with the
surrounding buildings. See complete package, presentation, and support.
2) Resolution No. ARC‐1013‐15
Corrective Action: Obtain approval from the Community Development Director or Architectural Review
Commission for the change in material [Bulk Head Removal]
Approval Request:
Modify ARC conditions to eliminate the bulkhead on the Marsh street elevation.
Justification:
1) Per Guidelines: “Materials should be used honestly.” A bulkhead is for flood control. This building
is not in a FEMA flood zone.
2) Per Guidelines: “Materials should be used honestly.” Applying a bulkhead to one elevation does
not serve the purpose of flood control.
3) Per Guidelines: “Artificial or decorative façade treatments, where one or more unrelated
materials appear stuck on to a building should be avoided.” This material is stuck on and is an
unrelated material.
4) The bulkhead is does not fit with the architectural style of the building and this feature is not a
historic feature of San Luis Obispo, but a recently applied element to new buildings per flood
control to serve a SPECIFIC purpose not required on this building. This element is a FEMA
requirement not required in anyway on this building. This feature is not historic nor is this
building in a historic zone.
3) Resolution No. ARC‐1013‐15
Corrective Action: Obtain approval from the Community Development Director or Architectural Review
Commission for the visible rooftop equipment or modify the placement of roof‐mounted equipment so that
it is not visible, or provide screening to conceal the equipment from view of public streets, and neighboring
properties, consistent with Community Design Guidelines § 6.1 (D).
Approval Request:
No modification requested. Mechanical screening is being installed.
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC2 - 10
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
July 6, 2015
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root,
Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, and
Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: The minutes of June 15, 2015, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1135 Santa Rosa Street. ARCH-0846-2015; Continued review of the remodeling
of and addition to an existing commercial building, including the addition of two
dwellings on the third floor. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA; C-D
zone; 33 Tons, LLC, applicant.
Senior Planner Dunsmore introduced the item, noting that it had been continued from
the May 18, 2015, meeting. Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner, presented the staff
report, recommending that the Commission continue the item to a date uncertain with
specific direction to modify the project design.
Bryan Ridley, project architect, summarized the history of the project; noted changes
made to the proposal subsequent to the prior hearing; emphasized the factors lending
the project its compatibility with surroundings and Community Design Guidelines.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The following individuals spoke in support of the project, noting its positive impact upon
the corner of Santa Rosa and Marsh Streets and the surrounding area, and commenting
that the proposed project is a significant improvement upon the building currently at the
site:
Debby Nicklas, SLO;
David Walker, SLO;
Jeff Wolcott, SLO;
Alan Iftiniuk, SLO;
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 11
ARC Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 2
Jim Agee, SLO;
Barbara Agee, SLO;
Kenyon Tsao, SLO;
Carla Walker, SLO;
Jay Beck, SLO;
Steve Owens, SLO;
Ping Tsao, SLO;
Ian Parkinson, SLO;
Kevin Okimoto, SLO;
Jory Brigham, SLO;
Paul Prins, Atascadero;
Mark Thompson, SLO;
Dionne Avaki, SLO;
Dan Copp, SLO;
Ron Barbieri, SLO;
Scott and Julia Starkey, SLO;
Su Tsao, SLO;
Karl Lepper, SLO.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Andreen noted concern that the project has not fully complied with downtown
design guidelines for a project on the edge of downtown; thanked members of the public
for attending; noted support for windows as proposed.
Commr. Curtis spoke in support of changes to the proposal made since the previous
hearing; commented that various elevations seem to have differing window patterns;
noted concern about the use of dark colors such as the gray stone. Curtis spoke in
support of widening windows for increased transparency at sidewalk level and adding
emphasis to the entrance.
Commr. Root noted no objection to there being no entrance on Marsh Street; spoke in
support of allowing eclectic styling; noted to desire to see additional articulation of
exterior walls such as cornices.
Commr. Nemcik spoke in support of the pedestrian scaling; commented that the
proposal appears consistent with design guidelines; noted readiness to approve with
conditions; noted support for windows as proposed.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie spoke in support of changes made to the proposal since the previous
hearing; concurred with Commr. Curtis’s comments regarding color palette and window
transparency; noted readiness to approve with conditions.
Chair Wynn spoke in support of greater transparency of windows at the ground level ;
noted support for the eclectic style and entry door interior to the site.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 12
ARC Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 3
In response to inquiry from the Commission, applicant Bryan Ridley agreed to work with
staff to resolve sound attenuation measures relating to balcony depth, contained in
Condition 7.
On motion by Vice-Chair Ehdaie, seconded by Commr. Soll, to adopt a resolution
approving the project based on findings and subject to conditions contained in the staff
report, with the following revisions:
A. Finding 2. shall be revised to read “[…] applicable to projects in the downtown
commercial zone” rather than “[…] applicable to commercial projects.”
B Condition 2. shall be modified to indicate that the applicant is strongly
encouraged to widen the three windows at sidewalk level along the building’s
Marsh Street frontage, in order to increase transparency.
C. Condition 3. shall be revised to read “Provide additional articulation along the
Marsh Street elevation at the stucco/plaster walls to enhance the shadow
pattern, to the satisfaction of staff.”
D. Condition 5. shall be eliminated.
E. Condition 6. shall be eliminated.
AYES: Commrs. Ehdaie, Soll, Root, Nemcik, Wynn, Curtis, and Andreen
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast
Senior Planner Dunsmore gave a forecast of upcoming agenda items, noting a
joint meeting with the Cultural Heritage Committee to be held July 13, 2015.
3. Commission:
Chair Wynn requested that Commission meeting minutes from 2015 be made
available in the City records archive on the website.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 13
ARC Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 4
Respectfully submitted by,
Erica Inderlied
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on July 20, 2015.
Laurie Thomas
Administrative Assistant III
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 14
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
May 18, 2015
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root,
Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen,
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, and Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: The minutes of May 4, 2015, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1135 Santa Rosa Street. ARCH-0846-2015; Review of the remodeling of an
existing commercial building, including the addition of two dwellings on the third
floor; C-D zone; 33 Tons, LLC, applicant.
Senior Planner Dunsmore noted public comment that had been received and distributed
to Commissioners prior to the meeting. Chair Wynn noted correspondence received
directly from Dean Miller.
Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the
Commission adopt a resolution granting final approval to the project, based on findings
and subject to conditions which he outlined.
Bryan Ridley, project architect, SLO, summarized the history of the site and project,
noting a desire to work with staff to refine design details such as signage and
landscaping, and responded to Commission inquiries.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
David Brodie, SLO, commented on the high visibility of the building’s location; stated
that its design lacks any characteristics tailored to fit the San Luis Obispo area.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 15
ARC Minutes
May 18, 2015
Page 2
Dixie Cliff, SLO, noted the importance of constructing and retaining noteworthy works of
architecture and San Luis Obispo; opined that the proposed design would benefit from
emulating architectural details of neighboring buildings.
Jim Duenow, SLO, spoke in opposition to the proposed design; noted the tall, planar
faces and generic feel of the design.
Frances Gibbs, SLO, inquired as to the applicant’s plan for maintaining wood features
proposed for the exterior of the building; noted similar features in the area that appear to
be deteriorating.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Andreen spoke in opposition to the design as presented; noted concerns
relating to generic styling, lack of harmony with surrounding buildings and downtown
context, lack of façade articulation, and lack of pedestrian context.
Commr. Curtis spoke in opposition to the design as presented; noted concerns relating
to upper-story massing, the lack of integration with street frontage, lack of traditional
design elements, lack of vertical articulation, and the non-conformity of wood siding with
Community Design Guidelines.
Commr. Nemcik spoke in opposition to the design as presented; noted concerns about
lack of pedestrian context, lack of conspicuous entryways, and the lack of delineation
between commercial and residential spaces; expressed approval of the building’s
massing.
Commr. Root spoke in opposition to the design as presented; noted concerns about the
height of the site wall, wood siding, general lack of articulation on all sides, lack of
pedestrian access, lack of downtown context, and about the need to attenuate
residential noise intrusion amplified by third-story overhangs.
Commr. Soll spoke in opposition to the design as presented; noted concerns about
pedestrian access, lack of conspicuous entryways, lack of integration with street
frontage, and lack of neighborhood and downtown context.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie spoke in opposition to the project in its proposed location; noted the
landmark, focal nature of the site; noted concern about the lack of downtown context,
lack of delineation between commercial and residential uses, and lack of visual access
into commercial uses; spoke in support of contemporary styling.
Chair Wynn spoke in opposition to the design as presented; noted concern about lack of
conformity to Community Design Guidelines requiring “small-town scale” and avoidance
of “boxy” styling; lack of downtown context; lack of articulation on all sides; lack of
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 16
ARC Minutes
May 18, 2015
Page 3
transparency and visual access into commercial uses; lack of pedestrian scale, and the
height of the site wall.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Root, to continue the project to a
date uncertain, and encourage the applicant to return for conceptual review of a
substantially redesigned proposal addressing the following:
Incorporate pedestrian scale
Relate to the downtown context
Avoid the use of boxy forms
Reconsider the scale and mass of the building
Consider the use of traditional design elements with commercial/residential
delineation
Incorporate a third-story setback to reduce apparent mass
Decrease height of site wall at parking area
Address maintenance of wood siding or incorporate an alternate material
Incorporate street-oriented, more accentuated pedestrian entrances
Increased transparency at lower floor
Address potential of acoustic bounce from third-story overhang
Address design integrity in conformity with Community Design Guideline
3.1.A.3
AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soll, and Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
The Commission recessed at 6:08 p.m. and reconvened at 6:14 p.m. with all members
present.
2. 3000 Calle Malva. ARCH-0592-2014; Continued review of 18 single-family home
designs and approval of concept designs for future homes with an approved
addendum of environmental impact; R-1 zone; Margarita Ranch SLO, LLC,
applicant.
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the
Commission adopt a resolution approving the project, based on findings and subject to
conditions which she outlined. Staff noted the Commission’s previous review of the
project and distributed a revised resolution incorporating conditions resulting from the
Commission’s previous direction.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 17
ARC Minutes
May 18, 2015
Page 5
a. Add the following Finding: Finding #5: Design of the previously approved
subdivision warrants an adjustment to 11 lots within the Planned Development
where garages are not recessed in accordance with Section 2.2.5 of the
Margarita Area Specific Plan.
b. Add the following Finding: The lot width and overall design of the previously
approved subdivision severely limits the opportunities for house designs that
include front porches that extend in front of garages, therefore an adjustment to
the requirements of the specific plan is warranted.
AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soll, and Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast
Senior Planner Dunsmore gave a forecast of upcoming agenda items.
4. Commission:
Commr. Root noted concern about the predicament posed by ultra-modern styles
being presented for approval, in that they are unlikely to stand the test of time.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Erica Inderlied
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on June 1, 2015.
Laurie Thomas
Administrative Assistant III
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 18
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 19
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 20
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 21
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 22
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 23
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 24
Minutes - DRAFT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, July 10, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
July 10, 2017 at 5:01 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Wynn.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Amy Nemcik, Brian Rolph, Allen Root, Vice-Chair Angela Soll, and
Chair Greg Wynn.
Absent: Commissioner Richard Beller
Staff: Community Development Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Rachel
Cohen, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell. Other staff members presented reports or
responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 35 Prado Road (25, 29, 35, 41, 43, & 45 Prado Road). ARCH-0653-2017: Conceptual
architectural review of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Water Resource Recovery Facility
(WRRF) Upgrade Project that includes new discharge requirements, increased capacity,
replacement of aging infrastructure, maximized recycled water production and incorporated
interpretive features and public amenities; PF zone, City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Associate Planner Rachel Cohen started the staff report presentation, and introduced
discussion items to the Commission.
Applicant Representative Dave Hix, Deputy Director of Wastewater of the Utilities
Department of the City of San Luis Obispo continued the staff report, presenting
questions to Commission. Program Manager for Water Systems Consulting Jeff Szytel,
and Principal Jeff McGraw, and Architect Jean von Bargen Root, both with MWA
Architects, were introduced.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 25
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 10, 2017 Page 2
Assistant Design Project Manager Jennifer Phillips from CH2M, gave a presentation of
the overall site plans.
Architect Jean von Bargen Root from MWA Architects, gave a presentation on her
work on the project, highlighting community asset goals, and the “Learning Center”
portion of the project.
Applicant Representative Dave Hix responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
Ben Kulick, San Luis Obispo, commented on colors and designs – commended
architects on design.
-- End Public Comment –
The Commission discussed the proposed conceptual design and provided direction to
the Applicant team and staff.
2. 1135 Santa Rosa Street. ARCH-0722-2017: Review of requested modifications to
application ARCH-0846-2015, to allow elimination of a bulkhead feature and change
approved building colors on a remodeled commercial building (exempt from environmental
review); C-D zone, 33 Tons, LLC, applicant.
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report, and outlined the details of
the original project approval granted by the Commission, discussed the Notice of
Violation that was sent to the applicant about observed violations of conditions of
project approval, and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Applicant Ben Kulick, Stalwork, Inc. provided a report on the colors of the building,
and supplied pictures of the building, discussing bulkheads and other features of the
building and nearby buildings. He spoke of this project’s comparison with the
architecture of surrounding buildings.
Applicant Ben Kulick and Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell responded to Commission
inquiries.
Public Comments:
Chair Wynn acknowledged receipt of five written correspondence items.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, speaking on behalf of himself and James Lopes,
expressed that the colors previously approved by the Architectural Review Commission
recognize more appropriately the effects of climate change.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 26
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 10, 2017 Page 3
David Walker, San Luis Obispo, likened the diversity of architecture in the city to
Barcelona and London, and commended the architect on the use of colors on the
project.
Bryan Ridley, resident of San Luis Obispo and architect on the project with Stalwork,
Inc., referenced the City’s Community Design Guidelines in explaining his support of
the current design, materials, and colors of the project.
Russ Brown, San Luis Obispo and Chair of Save Our Downtown, referenced
communication from Alan Cooper and others from the Save Our Downtown
association, requested the Commission reject the request for changes, and maintain the
original color approved by the ARC.
Rachel Drake, San Luis Obispo, inquired about the details behind the change in color
from the originally agreed-upon plans.
-- End Public Comment –
Commission discussion followed.
ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIR WYNN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROLPH,
CARRIED 5-0-1, with Commissioner Beller absent, to continue the project to a date
uncertain, but no longer than 120 days, and to direct the applicant to work with staff
toward a solution that would be more consistent with the original project approval,
using appropriate complementary building colors to reduce the perceived massing of
the building, and to provide a human-scale element for variety and interest along the
Marsh Street frontage similar to the approved cut-tile bulkhead.
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
Deputy Director Davidson provided an agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is -scheduled for Monday, July 17, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing
Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: XX/XX/2017
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 27
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC2 - 28
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC2 - 29
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC2 - 30
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC2 - 31
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
6
ARC2 - 32
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
6
ARC2 - 33
1
Oetzell, Walter
From:Ben Kulick <ben@stalwork.com>
Sent:Wednesday, July 12, 2017 4:53 PM
To:'Greg Wynn'
Cc:Davidson, Doug; Dietrick, Christine; Ansolabehere, Jon; Oetzell, Walter; Oetzell,
Walter; 'Greg Coates'; Carla Walker; jay@stalwork.com
Subject:ARC Hearing
Attachments:Santa Rosa 1135 CDG Matrix.xlsx; SLO Downtown Mapping 15.0605.pdf
Greg:
Thank you for chairing the meeting Monday regarding our ARC application.
Below is a list of information pertaining to the 1135 Santa Rosa Project and I would appreciate you ensuring that
ARC understands what the guidelines do and do not contain. I believe rendering a decision on the project has
fallen out of the appropriate guidelines.
Multiple representations were made to Chapter 3 which does not apply to Downtown buildings, including the staff
report presented to you. This is actually erroneous information and not applicable.
Items in Chapter 3 (NOT APPLICABLE):
Chapter 3 ‐ Commercial and Industrial Project Design The commercial areas outside of the Downtown, and the
City’s manufacturing/industrial areas present special urban design challenges. The present character of these areas
reflects both the architectural styles of nonresidential, automobile‐oriented development that were predominant
when most of the structures in each area were built, and various modernization and renovation efforts thereafter.
This Chapter provides guidelines for new and renovated commercial and industrial structures outside of the
Downtown.
NOT APPLICABLE
1) Avoidance of box‐like forms
2) Variety of siding materials
3) Design Details: These may include varying colors, reveals, an external wainscot or bulkhead at the
building base to reduce apparent bulk, cornices and parapet details, and moldings
4) Façade articulation
5) Building walls should incorporate the same quality and level of detail of ornamentation on each elevation
visible from a public right‐of‐way
6) The architectural style, and the shape and massing of neighboring structures
7) The exterior colors of a building are as important as the materials in determining how people think
about the building and its surroundings. Colors should be compatible with the existing colors of the
surrounding area but need not duplicate existing colors
8) Accent colors should be used thoughtfully and complement the base color or a variation of its hue,
either weaker or stronger
9) The use of muted tones for the structure's base color is recommended. Color should not be used as an
attention getting device
10) A structure with a pitched roof, or pitched roofs over key building elements can sometimes project a more
small town image and reinforce the pedestrian orientation that is prominent in many parts of San Luis
ATTACHMENT 7
ARC2 - 34
2
Obispo. Structures with flat roofs and parapets can be appropriate with special attention to the wall‐to‐
parapet juncture, and to cornice details.
11) A building’s design should provide a sense of human scale and proportion. Horizontal and vertical wall
articulation should be expressed through the use of wall offsets, recessed windows and entries, awnings,
full roofs with overhangs, second floor setbacks, or covered arcades. See Figure 3‐3
12) Neighborhood compatibility. In designing a building, it is important to analyze the areas surrounding the
building site to find elements of compatibility that can be used in a new design
13) Avoid “boxy” structures with large, flat wall planes by articulating building forms and elevations to
create interesting rooflines, building shapes, and patterns of shade and shadow
These items were referred to regularly at last night's ARC meeting incorrectly and inappropriately as these
standards are completely inapplicable. I ask you to please make it clear to ARC NONE of the above criteria are
applicable to this project.
Chapter 4 ‐ Downtown Design Guidelines (APPLICABLE)
1) Multi‐story buildings are desirable because they can provide opportunities for upper floor offices and
residential units, and can increase the numbers of potential customers for ground floor retail uses, which
assists in maintaining their viability. (AKA massing and LARGE buildings are encouraged, not discouraged.
Please make that clear.)
2) Tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including
design amenities, housing and retail land uses. NOT APPLICABLE SUB‐SECTIONS
a. Maintain the distinction between the first and upper floors by having a more transparent ground
floor. On upper floors, consider using windows or other architectural features that will reinforce
the typical rhythm of upper story windows found on traditional commercial buildings and
provide architectural interest on all four sides of the building; NOT APPLICABLE
b. Use roof overhangs, cornices, dentals, moldings, awnings, and other decorative features to
decrease the vertical appearance of the walls; NOT APPLICABLE
c. Use recesses and projections to visually divide building surfaces into smaller scale elements; NOT
APPLICABLE
d. Use color to visually reduce the size, bulk and scale of the building; NOT APPLICABLE‐ Please
make it very clear to ARC this section is 100% not applicable.
e. Consider the quality of natural and reflected light in public spaces within and around the project
site and choose materials and colors to enhance lighting effects with respect to available solar
exposure. NOT APPLICABLE
3) Overall character. In general, buildings should have either flat or stepped rooflines with parapets, AND
ESSENTIALLY FLAT FACADES. (This was been referenced in every ARC meeting on this project, downtown
buildings are actually REQUIRED to be boxes with flat facades, please make this clear. By guideline
buildings should be zero set back on all sides)
4) Dividing the facade into a series of display windows with smaller panes of glass;
5) Providing traditional recessed entries; and
6) Storefront windows should not begin at the level of the sidewalk, but should sit above a base, commonly
called a “bulkhead,” of 18 to 36 inches in height (NO STOREFRONT ON MARSH) (ARC had us lower the
windows, rendering a bulkhead inappropriate, including against guideline)
7) Finish materials. The exterior materials of downtown buildings involve several aspects including color,
texture, and materials. Materials with integral color such as smooth troweled plaster, tile, stone, and
brick are encouraged
8) Exterior plaster (smooth troweled preferred). (This finish has been continuously and repeatedly
criticized by the ARC. Smooth Trowel is the only material in section 4 listed as preferred. Please correct
ARC on the guidelines and stress the importance of removing their personal opinions.)
9) Cut stone, rusticated block (cast stone), and precast concrete
10) Clear glass windows
ATTACHMENT 7
ARC2 - 35
3
11) The following exterior finish materials are considered inappropriate in the downtown and are
discouraged: Mirrored glass and heavily tinted glass Windows with false divisions (i.e., a window
where the glass continues uninterrupted behind a surface mounted mullion) Vinyl and aluminum siding
Painted or baked enamel metal awnings Rough “Spanish lace” stucco finish Plywood siding
Corrugated sheet metal Corrugated fiberglass Split face concrete block Exposed concrete block
without integral color.
12) Windows. Windows that allow pedestrians to see the activities within the ground floors of downtown
buildings are important in maintaining the pedestrian orientation of the downtown. Ground floor
windows adjacent to sidewalks encourage pedestrians to linger, while extensive blank walls do not.
13) Awnings. Awnings should be retained and/or incorporated where feasible and compatible with the
storefront.
14) Other details. A number of other details should be incorporated into exterior building design to add a
degree of visual richness and interest while meeting functional needs. These details include such items as:
a. Light fixtures, wall mounted
b. Balconies, rails, finials, corbels, plaques, etc.
c. Crafted artworks.
In our review of the meeting I don’t believe a single design element was referenced to the appropriate guideline
nor was a specific guideline by chapter and letter referenced in the meeting. Specific wording from the guidelines
WAS referenced and ALL from the wrong chapter. This project is not in a historical zone and those design
parameters are completely irrelevant as well. This requires correction and training for your commission by city
staff and the chairperson.
There is absolutely NO guideline requiring or suggesting multi‐color buildings. Actually quite the contrary. What
the ARC “thinks” looks better has absolutely nothing to do with the application of the guidelines. ARC should be
corrected on this and refer to the guideline. There is not a SINGLE reference in a section that governs this building
in reference to multiple colors. NOT ONE.
Additionally the majority focus of the meeting was on a zero set back side of the building. This should be a solid
uninterrupted wall by GUIDELINE. Any articulation or detail what so ever is actually outside of guideline. This
elevation is not in public view by rule, it borders another zero set back property. Please clarify this with the
committee. Asking for color or thinking this wall surface lacks articulation or detail is not in ARC privy and the
standard is a flat continuous wall.
I have attached a design matrix to exhibit the building meeting not some, but every single applicable guideline.
This is the process ARC should review, not personal preferences. Also attached is a downtown map that clearly
shows the uniqueness of this building site. You will NOTE not one criteria is color. This is because this is not a
guideline.
I respectfully request you call another ARC meeting and approve the project “as‐is” in light of the committee’s
misapplication of standards.
I was also disappointed that the ARC requests renderings and photos of neighboring properties on a routine basis. I
supplied photos at the hearing. As you may or may not be aware, your committee did not look at them. I believe
this is disrespectful to the applicant. This comment was made to me by most of the audience members. I surely
noticed as well.
Thank you Greg.
STALWORK, INC.
CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN
ATTACHMENT 7
ARC2 - 36
4
License #948012
P.O. Box 391
San Luis Obispo, California 93406
O 805.542.0033
F 805.542.0837
ben@stalwork.com
www.stalwork.com
ATTACHMENT 7
ARC2 - 37
1135 Santa Rosa - R
e
m
o
d
e
l
+
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
6
/
5
/
2
0
1
5
Community Design
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
M
a
t
r
i
x
SECTION GUIDELINE
Y
E
S
N
O
N
O
T
E
S
4.2.AStreet orientation. Bui
l
d
i
n
g
s
i
n
t
h
e
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
b
a
c
k
of the sidewalk unles
s
s
p
a
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
i
s
t
o
b
e
used for pedestrian f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
p
l
a
z
a
s
,
c
o
u
r
t
y
a
r
d
s
,
o
r
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
areas.
N
A
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
d
a
p
t
s
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
t
s
i
n
h
e
r
i
t
e
d
f
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
~
5
'
f
r
o
m
M
a
r
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
'
s
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
n
d
~
1
5
'
f
r
o
m
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
'
s
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
1
0
'
n
o
-
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
.
4.2.B Height, scale. Multi-s
t
o
r
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
r
e
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
y
c
a
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
opportunities for upp
e
r
f
l
o
o
r
o
f
f
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
,
a
n
d
c
a
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
the numbers of poten
t
i
a
l
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
f
o
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
r
e
t
a
i
l
u
s
e
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
assists in maintaining
t
h
e
i
r
v
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
X
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
t
h
r
e
e
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
t
a
l
l
w
h
i
c
h
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
a
t
t
h
e
t
h
i
r
d
f
l
o
o
r
.
4.2.B Multi-story buildings
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
o
r
t
h
i
r
d
l
e
v
e
l
t
o
maintain a street faça
d
e
t
h
a
t
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
o
f
development, maintai
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
i
t
y
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
s
a
t
t
h
e
sidewalk edge.
X
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
2
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
a
t
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
o
r
n
e
r
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
.
T
h
e
3
r
d
f
l
o
o
r
,
b
y
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
,
i
s
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
t
o
8
1
%
o
f
t
h
e
f
l
o
o
r
b
e
l
o
w
.
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
o
f
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
t
h
i
s
s
i
t
e
f
o
r
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
.
4.2.B.1 The height and scale
o
f
n
e
w
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
a
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
shall fit within the con
t
e
x
t
a
n
d
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
s
c
a
l
e
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
provide human scale
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
.
X
N
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
.
H
u
m
a
n
s
c
a
l
e
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
s
i
z
i
n
g
o
f
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
,
m
a
t
u
r
e
t
r
e
e
s
,
s
i
t
e
w
a
l
l
s
,
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
i
t
e
e
n
t
r
i
e
s
.
4.2.B.1.a In no case may the
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
b
a
c
k
o
f
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
e
x
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
width of the adjoining
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
X
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
m
e
t
.
R
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
i
s
7
0
'
w
i
d
e
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
s
4
0
'
.
4.2.B.1.b New buildings that a
r
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
t
a
l
l
e
r
o
r
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
shall provide appropri
a
t
e
v
i
s
u
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
X
N
o
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
a
r
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
f
r
o
m
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
W
a
y
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
v
i
s
u
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
.
4.2.B.1.c For new projects adj
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
o
f
Historic Resources th
e
r
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
h
e
i
g
h
t
e
n
e
d
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
m
a
s
s
a
n
d
scale of the significan
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
N
A
N
o
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
,
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
n
o
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
4.2.B.1.d The project provides
u
p
p
e
r
s
t
o
r
y
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
f
r
o
n
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
a
ç
a
d
e
along the street consi
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
L
U
E
P
o
l
i
c
y
4
.
1
6
.
4
.
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
above 50 feet should
b
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
l
y
s
o
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
e
u
p
p
e
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
walls are not visible t
o
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
’
s
frontage
X
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
0
'
t
a
l
l
.
N
o
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
p
e
r
F
i
g
u
r
e
4
-
3
4.2.B.2 New buildings shall
n
o
t
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
v
i
e
w
s
f
r
o
m
,
o
r
s
u
n
l
i
g
h
t
t
o
,
p
u
b
l
i
c
l
y
-
o
w
n
e
d
gathering places incl
u
d
i
n
g
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
,
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
P
l
a
z
a
,
t
h
e
J
a
c
k
House gardens, and
Y
C
L
C
C
h
e
n
g
P
a
r
k
.
I
n
t
h
e
s
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
n
e
w
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
shall respect views of
t
h
e
h
i
l
l
s
,
f
r
a
m
i
n
g
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
o
b
s
c
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
.
X
L
i
n
e
o
f
s
i
g
h
t
f
r
o
m
Y
C
L
C
C
h
e
n
g
P
a
r
k
t
o
d
i
s
t
a
n
t
m
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
s
i
s
w
e
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
n
o
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
4.2.B.3 New buildings shoul
d
n
o
t
s
h
a
d
e
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
l
y
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
o
f
M
a
r
s
h
,
Higuera or Monterey
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
a
t
n
o
o
n
o
n
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
1
s
t
.
X
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
s
o
n
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
l
y
s
i
d
e
o
f
M
a
r
s
h
,
n
o
s
h
a
d
i
n
g
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
l
y
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
.
4.2.B.4 Tall buildings (betw
e
e
n
5
0
a
n
d
7
5
f
e
e
t
)
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
multiple policy objecti
v
e
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
r
e
t
a
i
l
land uses.
N
A
N
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
n
o
t
a
"
t
a
l
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
"
a
s
i
t
i
s
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
0
'
t
a
l
l
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
u
s
e
s
t
o
m
e
e
t
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
p
o
l
i
c
y
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
.
4.2.B.5.a Utility boxes for pho
n
e
,
c
a
b
l
e
,
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
,
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
g
a
s
,
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
and/or other services
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
l
l
e
y
s
,
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
building, or in a sub-g
r
a
d
e
v
a
u
l
t
.
X
P
G
&
E
d
i
s
a
l
l
o
w
s
v
a
u
l
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
r
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
e
r
s
,
a
c
u
t
-
s
t
o
n
e
e
n
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
n
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
6
.
1
.
G
.
2
.
O
t
h
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
s
c
r
e
e
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
a
r
e
n
o
t
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
p
u
b
l
i
c
v
i
e
w
.
4.2.B.5.b Location of backflow
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
d
e
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
f
i
r
e
s
p
r
i
n
k
l
e
r
r
i
s
e
r
m
u
s
t
b
e
identified on project p
l
a
n
s
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
located inside the buil
d
i
n
g
,
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
e
a
l
t
h
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
requirements.
X
B
a
c
k
f
l
o
w
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
d
e
v
i
c
e
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
l
o
s
e
t
,
a
n
d
i
s
c
o
n
c
e
a
l
e
d
f
r
o
m
v
i
e
w
.
ATTACHMENT 7
ARC2 - 38
4.2.B.5.c Minimum sidewalk w
i
d
t
h
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
8
-
f
e
e
t
c
l
e
a
r
o
f
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
pedestrians (furniture
,
n
e
w
s
r
a
c
k
s
,
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
r
e
e
s
e
t
c
.
)
a
c
r
o
s
s
1
0
0
%
o
f
t
h
e
project frontage.
X
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
a
r
e
~
1
0
'
i
n
w
i
d
t
h
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
o
r
e
m
a
i
n
.
A
s
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
s
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
~
5
'
f
r
o
m
M
a
r
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
~
1
6
'
f
r
o
m
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
4.2.B.5.d Service access to th
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
should not exceed 20
%
of the project frontag
e
o
n
a
n
y
f
a
c
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
X
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
v
i
a
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
l
l
e
y
,
0
%
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
.
4.2.C Façade design. New
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
m
o
d
e
l
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
t
o
r
e
f
r
o
n
t
windows, doors, entri
e
s
,
t
r
a
n
s
o
m
s
,
a
w
n
i
n
g
s
,
c
o
r
n
i
c
e
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
architectural features
t
h
a
t
c
o
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
,
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
c
o
p
y
i
n
g
their architectural styl
e
.
X
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
i
s
e
c
l
e
c
t
i
c
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
m
o
d
e
r
n
a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
,
a
n
d
i
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
n
o
t
c
o
m
p
o
s
e
d
o
f
t
h
e
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
.
T
h
e
n
e
a
r
b
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
w
h
i
c
h
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
t
h
e
s
e
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
"
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
"
b
y
a
n
y
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
.
S
e
e
a
l
s
o
4
.
2
.
D
.
1
4.2.C.1 Overall character. In
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
,
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
h
a
v
e
e
i
t
h
e
r
f
l
a
t
o
r
s
t
e
p
p
e
d
rooflines with parapet
s
,
a
n
d
e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
f
l
a
t
f
a
c
a
d
e
s
.
W
a
l
l
s
w
i
t
h
r
o
u
n
d
o
r
curvilinear lines, or la
r
g
e
p
o
i
n
t
e
d
o
r
s
l
a
n
t
e
d
r
o
o
f
l
i
n
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
b
e
avoided.
X
R
o
o
f
i
s
f
l
a
t
,
a
n
d
s
t
e
p
s
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
.
F
a
c
a
d
e
s
a
r
e
e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
f
l
a
t
a
n
d
a
r
e
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
b
y
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
w
i
d
t
h
p
l
a
n
e
s
t
h
a
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
a
n
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
p
e
r
4
.
2
.
4
.
d
4.2.C.2 Proportions in relati
o
n
t
o
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
.
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
consideration of the c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
(
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
o
f
h
e
i
g
h
t
t
o
width) of existing adja
c
e
n
t
f
a
c
a
d
e
s
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
t
h
e
r
h
y
t
h
m
,
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
spacing of their existi
n
g
d
o
o
r
a
n
d
w
i
n
d
o
w
o
p
e
n
i
n
g
s
.
X
N
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
f
a
c
a
d
e
s
t
o
s
e
r
v
e
a
s
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
.
A
s
a
l
a
r
g
e
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
,
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
a
r
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
,
s
o
u
t
h
,
a
n
d
w
e
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
w
e
s
t
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
2
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
.
T
h
e
3
r
d
f
l
o
o
r
,
b
y
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
,
i
s
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
t
o
8
1
%
o
f
t
h
e
f
l
o
o
r
b
e
l
o
w
.
4.2.C.3 Storefront rhythm. A
n
e
w
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
a
c
a
d
e
t
h
a
t
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
t
o
b
e
m
u
c
h
"wider" than the existi
n
g
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
f
a
c
a
d
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
divided into a series
o
f
b
a
y
s
o
r
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
,
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
b
y
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
o
r
masonry piers that fr
a
m
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
,
d
o
o
r
s
a
n
d
b
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
s
.
C
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
reinforcing a facade r
h
y
t
h
m
h
e
l
p
s
t
i
e
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
v
i
s
u
a
l
l
y
a
n
d
provides pedestrians
w
i
t
h
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
t
o
m
a
r
k
t
h
e
i
r
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
d
o
w
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
N
A
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
f
a
c
a
d
e
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
a
ç
a
d
e
o
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
a
s
i
t
i
s
a
r
e
m
o
d
e
l
a
n
d
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
N
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
f
a
c
a
d
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
a
r
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
t
o
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
.
P
e
r
A
R
C
a
n
d
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
f
f
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
o
n
M
a
r
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
w
e
r
e
e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
e
n
c
y
.
A
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
w
i
n
d
o
w
w
a
s
a
d
d
e
d
f
a
c
i
n
g
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
a
t
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
e
n
t
r
y
.
4.2.C.4 Individual storefront
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
.
S
t
o
r
e
f
r
o
n
t
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
o
v
e
r
p
o
w
e
r
t
h
e
building façade, and
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
f
r
a
m
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
piers and the lintel ab
o
v
e
,
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
c
l
a
s
s
i
c
“
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
”
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
.
N
A
"
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
"
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
w
i
t
h
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
z
e
r
o
l
o
t
l
i
n
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
T
h
i
s
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
f
i
t
t
h
a
t
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
.
4.2.C.5 Wall surfaces. Wall
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
,
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y
a
t
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
l
e
v
e
l
,
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
varied and interesting
,
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
u
n
b
r
o
k
e
n
a
n
d
m
o
n
o
l
i
t
h
i
c
,
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
b
l
a
n
k
walls discourage ped
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
.
X
W
a
l
l
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
a
t
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
l
e
v
e
l
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
l
a
r
g
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
o
p
e
n
i
n
g
s
,
d
e
c
k
o
v
e
r
h
a
n
g
s
,
a
w
n
i
n
g
s
,
a
n
d
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
w
o
o
d
s
i
d
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
b
a
n
k
v
a
u
l
t
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
s
t
h
e
c
o
r
n
e
r
f
r
o
m
b
e
i
n
g
m
o
r
e
v
i
s
u
a
l
l
y
p
o
r
o
u
s
.
4.2.C.5.a Dividing the facade i
n
t
o
a
s
e
r
i
e
s
o
f
d
i
s
p
l
a
y
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
w
i
t
h
s
m
a
l
l
e
r
p
a
n
e
s
o
f
glass.
X
P
e
r
A
R
C
a
n
d
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
f
f
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
c
h
e
m
e
w
a
s
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
n
e
w
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
,
g
r
o
u
p
i
n
g
s
,
a
n
d
s
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
s
m
a
l
l
e
r
h
u
m
a
n
s
c
a
l
e
p
a
n
e
s
o
f
g
l
a
s
s
.
4.2.C.5.b Constructing the fac
a
d
e
w
i
t
h
s
m
a
l
l
h
u
m
a
n
s
c
a
l
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
b
r
i
c
k
o
r
decorative tile along
b
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
s
.
X
P
e
r
A
R
C
a
n
d
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
f
f
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
d
e
c
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
c
u
t
-
s
t
o
n
e
b
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
w
a
s
a
d
d
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
M
a
r
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
,
w
h
i
c
h
t
i
e
s
-
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
c
u
t
-
s
t
o
n
e
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
s
i
g
n
w
a
l
l
s
.
T
h
e
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
c
l
e
a
r
-
s
e
a
l
e
d
w
o
o
d
a
t
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
u
m
a
n
s
c
a
l
e
a
n
d
t
e
x
t
u
r
e
,
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
n
t
r
i
e
s
.
4.2.C.5.c Providing traditional
r
e
c
e
s
s
e
d
e
n
t
r
i
e
s
.
X
T
h
e
m
a
i
n
e
n
t
r
y
i
s
r
e
c
e
s
s
e
d
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
e
n
t
r
y
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
m
o
r
e
p
r
o
m
i
n
e
n
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
r
e
c
e
s
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
4.2.C.5.d Careful sizing, plac
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
.
X
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
i
s
c
a
r
e
f
u
l
l
y
s
i
z
e
d
a
n
d
p
l
a
c
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
n
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
o
n
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
c
a
l
e
d
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
.
4.2.C.6 Doorways. Doorways
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
c
e
s
s
e
d
X
T
h
e
m
a
i
n
e
n
t
r
y
i
s
r
e
c
e
s
s
e
d
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
e
n
t
r
y
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
m
o
r
e
p
r
o
m
i
n
e
n
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
r
e
c
e
s
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
ATTACHMENT 7
ARC2 - 39
4.2.C.7 Bulkheads. Storefron
t
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
g
i
n
a
t
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
t
h
e
sidewalk, but should
s
i
t
a
b
o
v
e
a
b
a
s
e
,
c
o
m
m
o
n
l
y
c
a
l
l
e
d
a
“
b
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
,
”
o
f
1
8
to 36 inches in height
.
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
designed as promine
n
t
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
a
c
a
d
e
s
,
a
n
d
should be treated sen
s
i
t
i
v
e
l
y
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
appearance of the bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
D
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
f
o
r
b
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
f
a
c
i
n
g
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
those already commo
n
i
n
t
h
e
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
:
o
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
a
l
g
l
a
z
e
d
t
i
l
e
i
n
d
e
e
p
r
i
c
h
hues, either plain or
w
i
t
h
M
e
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
o
r
M
e
x
i
c
a
n
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
;
d
a
r
k
o
r
l
i
g
h
t
marble panels; an
d
p
r
e
-
c
a
s
t
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
X
P
e
r
A
R
C
a
n
d
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
f
f
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
d
e
c
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
c
u
t
-
s
t
o
n
e
b
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
w
a
s
a
d
d
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
M
a
r
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
,
w
h
i
c
h
t
i
e
s
-
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
c
u
t
-
s
t
o
n
e
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
s
i
g
n
w
a
l
l
s
.
4.2.D Materials and archit
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
W
h
i
l
e
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
h
a
v
e
a
variety of materials a
n
d
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
,
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
t
h
e
m
e
s
i
n
these aspects of desi
g
n
i
n
t
h
e
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
h
a
v
e
h
e
l
p
e
d
t
o
d
e
f
i
n
e
i
t
s
distinctive character.
X
S
e
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
s
u
b
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
i
n
m
o
r
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
t
h
e
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
t
h
e
m
e
s
.
4.2.D.1 The exterior materia
l
s
o
f
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
including color, textur
e
,
a
n
d
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l
c
o
l
o
r
s
u
c
h
a
s
smooth troweled plas
t
e
r
,
t
i
l
e
,
s
t
o
n
e
,
a
n
d
b
r
i
c
k
a
r
e
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
.
I
f
t
h
e
building's exterior des
i
g
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
e
d
,
w
i
t
h
m
a
n
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
t
h
e
wall texture should be
s
i
m
p
l
e
a
n
d
s
u
b
d
u
e
d
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
i
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
is simple (perhaps m
o
r
e
m
o
n
o
l
i
t
h
i
c
)
,
a
f
i
n
e
l
y
t
e
x
t
u
r
e
d
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
patterned masonry, c
a
n
g
r
e
a
t
l
y
e
n
r
i
c
h
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
'
s
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
.
X
M
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l
c
o
l
o
r
a
n
d
w
h
i
l
e
n
o
t
c
o
m
m
o
n
,
t
h
e
w
o
o
d
s
i
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
s
v
e
r
y
r
i
c
h
i
n
c
o
l
o
r
a
n
d
t
e
x
t
u
r
e
,
a
n
d
i
s
s
c
a
l
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
,
e
x
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
i
t
e
e
n
t
r
i
e
s
.
4.2.D.1 Materials should co
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
o
s
e
o
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
N
A
N
o
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
The following materia
l
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
downtown.-Exterior plaster (smo
o
t
h
t
r
o
w
e
l
e
d
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
)
-Cut stone, rusticated
b
l
o
c
k
(
c
a
s
t
s
t
o
n
e
)
,
a
n
d
p
r
e
c
a
s
t
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
-New or used face-bri
c
k
-Ceramic tiles (bulkh
e
a
d
o
r
c
o
r
n
i
c
e
)
-Clapboard (where ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
)
-Glass block (transo
m
)
-Clear Glass windows
X
U
s
e
d
(
s
m
o
o
t
h
t
r
o
w
e
l
e
d
)
U
s
e
d
(
b
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
a
n
d
s
i
t
e
/
s
i
g
n
w
a
l
l
s
)
U
s
e
d
(
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
c
l
e
a
r
s
e
a
l
e
d
c
e
d
a
r
)
U
s
e
d
The following exterior
f
i
n
i
s
h
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
i
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
downtown and are di
s
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
:
-Mirrored glass and h
e
a
v
i
l
y
t
i
n
t
e
d
g
l
a
s
s
-Windows with false d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
-Vinyl and aluminum
s
i
d
i
n
g
-Painted or baked en
a
m
e
l
m
e
t
a
l
a
w
n
i
n
g
s
-Rough “Spanish lace
”
s
t
u
c
c
o
f
i
n
i
s
h
-Plywood siding-Corrugated sheet m
e
t
a
l
-Corrugated fiberglas
s
-Split face concrete bl
o
c
k
-Exposed concrete
b
l
o
c
k
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l
c
o
l
o
r
X
N
o
t
U
s
e
d
N
o
t
U
s
e
d
N
o
t
U
s
e
d
N
o
t
U
s
e
d
N
o
t
U
s
e
d
N
o
t
U
s
e
d
N
o
t
U
s
e
d
N
o
t
U
s
e
d
N
o
t
U
s
e
d
N
o
t
U
s
e
d
ATTACHMENT 7
ARC2 - 40
4.2.D.2 Storefront remodelin
g
o
f
t
e
n
c
o
v
e
r
s
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
d
e
c
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
,
o
r
r
e
t
a
i
n
s
them only as visual “l
e
f
t
o
v
e
r
s
.
”
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
w
a
s
t
e
d
i
n
remodeling efforts. If
e
n
o
u
g
h
r
e
m
a
i
n
,
t
h
e
y
c
a
n
b
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
original design. If onl
y
a
f
e
w
r
e
m
a
i
n
,
t
h
e
y
c
a
n
b
e
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
a
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
features in a new stor
e
f
r
o
n
t
.
I
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
c
a
s
e
,
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
a
façade should grow o
u
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
a
n
d
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
harmonious backgrou
n
d
t
h
a
t
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
z
e
s
t
h
o
s
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
N
A
N
o
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
f
o
r
r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
y
1
9
8
0
'
s
.
4.2.D.3 Doors and storefront
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
h
a
v
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
a
n
d
ornament appropriate
t
o
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
X
A
l
u
m
i
n
u
m
f
r
a
m
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
d
o
o
r
w
i
t
h
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
f
r
a
m
e
s
a
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
m
o
o
t
h
t
r
o
w
e
l
e
d
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
s
t
e
r
.
4.2.D.4 Windows that allow
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
t
o
s
e
e
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
s
of downtown building
s
a
r
e
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
i
n
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
orientation of the dow
n
t
o
w
n
.
G
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
encourage pedestria
n
s
t
o
l
i
n
g
e
r
,
w
h
i
l
e
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
b
l
a
n
k
w
a
l
l
s
d
o
n
o
t
.
N
A
T
h
i
s
s
i
t
e
i
s
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
f
o
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
u
s
e
v
i
a
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
,
i
n
p
a
r
t
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
l
o
w
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
a
n
d
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
t
h
i
s
i
s
n
o
t
a
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
k
e
d
s
i
t
e
b
y
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
.
G
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
r
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
,
a
n
d
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
b
l
a
n
k
w
a
l
l
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
A
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
a
n
k
v
a
u
l
t
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
s
a
d
d
i
n
g
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
t
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
.
P
e
r
A
R
C
a
n
d
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
f
f
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
w
e
r
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
i
n
h
e
i
g
h
t
f
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
e
n
c
y
.
4.2.D.5 Awnings should be r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
n
d
/
o
r
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
w
h
e
r
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
a
n
d
compatible with the st
o
r
e
f
r
o
n
t
.
X
A
l
a
r
g
e
a
w
n
i
n
g
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
n
t
r
y
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
z
e
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
/
e
n
t
r
y
.
A
w
n
i
n
g
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
o
c
c
u
r
w
h
e
r
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
r
e
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
z
e
d
.
4.2.D.6 Other details. A nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
o
t
h
e
r
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
building design to ad
d
a
d
e
g
r
e
e
o
f
v
i
s
u
a
l
r
i
c
h
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
w
h
i
l
e
meeting functional ne
e
d
s
.
X
P
e
r
A
R
C
a
n
d
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
f
f
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
w
a
l
l
m
o
u
n
t
e
d
l
i
g
h
t
f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s
,
b
a
l
c
o
n
y
r
a
i
l
i
n
g
s
,
a
n
d
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
m
e
t
a
l
w
o
r
k
a
t
w
a
l
l
c
a
p
s
a
n
d
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
i
l
l
s
f
o
r
d
e
t
a
i
l
a
n
d
s
h
a
d
o
w
l
i
n
e
s
.
4.2.E Public spaces, plaza
s
a
n
d
c
o
u
r
t
y
a
r
d
s
.
P
u
b
l
i
c
s
p
a
c
e
s
o
n
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
s
i
t
e
s
should be designed a
s
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
b
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
pedestrian amenities
s
u
c
h
a
s
b
e
n
c
h
e
s
a
n
d
f
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
s
,
and by continuing the
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
.
N
A
N
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
T
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
a
r
e
a
l
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
a
t
t
h
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
c
r
e
e
k
.
W
h
i
l
e
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
c
a
n
b
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
v
i
a
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
m
e
a
n
s
,
b
e
n
c
h
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
f
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
i
s
t
o
o
m
u
c
h
o
f
a
n
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
.
A
t
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
n
t
r
y
s
i
d
e
b
e
n
c
h
e
s
a
r
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
w
h
e
r
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
c
a
n
b
e
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
.
ATTACHMENT 7
ARC2 - 41
ATTACHMENT 7
ARC2 - 42
ATTACHMENT 7
ARC2 - 43
ATTACHMENT 7
ARC2 - 44
ATTACHMENT 7
ARC2 - 45
ATTACHMENT 7
ARC2 - 46
ATTACHMENT 7
ARC2 - 47