Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-03-2017 Item 13 - Appeal of the ARC's decision denying modifications to approved building colors & materials (1135 Santa Rosa)
Meeting Date: 10/3/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared by: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE A BULKHEAD FEATURE AND CHANGE APPROVED BUILDING COLORS ON A REMODELED COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1135 SANTA ROSA STREET RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Architectural Review Commission. REPORT-IN-BRIEF On September 11, 2017, the Architectural Review Commission, by a vote of 5-0-1 (with Vice-Chair Soll absent) denied a request by the appellant, 33 Tons, LLC, to modify the application ARCH-0846-2015, under which the remodeling and expansion of a commercial building at 1135 Santa Rosa was approved (see Attachment B). The modifications requested were: 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 C). In making its decision, the Commission found that the requested changes are not consistent with Design Principles set out in General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) Policies 4.20.4 (Building Height) and 4.20.6 (Sidewalk Appeal), and with several sections of the City’s Community Design Guidelines. The new color scheme results in a building that is perceptibly heavier and more massive, losing the balance and rhythm among building forms that the approved color scheme provides, inconsistent with General Plan policies calling for new buildings to fit in with the context and scale of existing development. The elimination of the cut -tile bulkhead would remove from the project design an architectural detail that is encouraged by General Plan policies for sidewalk appeal. The appellant filed an appeal of this decision on September 18, 2017, for consideration by the Council. DISCUSSION Background The project was first reviewed by the Commission on May 18, 2015, and by a unanimous vote of 7-0 approved the application on July 6, 2015,1 subject to several conditions including the 1 Minutes of prior meetings are provided in Attachment D (Project Approvals). Prior Agenda Reports are available Packet Pg 187 13 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 E) 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 Architectural Review Commission (ARC) 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 by a vote of 5-0-1 (with Commissioner Beller absent) continued consideration of the request to a future date (Attachment D). 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 could be reached, stating in subsequent communication (Attachment G) 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. Site Location and Project Description The site is located at the northwest corner of Marsh and Santa Rosa Streets at the edge of the 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 Packet Pg 188 13 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 originally 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. 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 cal led “Oyster 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. Figure 1: Rendering of project, depicting approved color scheme Packet Pg 189 13 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)) 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)) 2 Land Use Element Polices 12.3 and 4.20.6 Figure 2: Approved color scheme (left); color, as completed (right) Packet Pg 190 13 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 requested that the ARC 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 C). 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)) 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 Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Architectural Review Commission denying the request for changes to approved colors and 3 Community Design Guidelines § 4.2(C)(7) 4 Community Design Guidelines § § 1.4(A)(1) & 2.2(D) Figure 3: Bulkhead feature, as approved (left); missing on completion (right) Packet Pg 191 13 project design. CONCURRENCES As consideration of the requested changes to approved colors and building design (elimination of bulkhead feature) is limited to evaluation of the consistency of those changes with applicable design guidelines, the appellant’s request was not circulated to other departments for review. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This application is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It involves a request that a public agency will disapprove, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (Projects which are disapproved). FISCAL IMPACT The decision made by Council will have no direct fiscal impact to the City. Expenses related to changes that would need to be made to the building to achieve consistency with the approvals granted for the project would be borne by the project applicant. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue consideration of this item to a future date, providing further direction to staff or applicant; or 2. Uphold the appeal allowing modifications to approved colors and project design, based on findings of consistency with the General Plan and Community Design Guidelines. Attachments: a - Council Resolution b - Resolution ARC-1018-17 c - Summary of Requests for Modification d - Project Approvals e - Notice of Violation (May 23 2017) f - Approved Plans g - Applicant Response h - Appeal Form Packet Pg 192 13 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO MODIFY APPROVED COLORS AND BUILDING DESIGN FOR A REMODELED BUILDING, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 3, 2017 (1135 SANTA ROSA STREET, APPL-1070-2017) 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 denied the request; and WHEREAS, On September 18, 2017, Ben Kulick of 33 Tons, LLC filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s decision to deny the request for changes to approved building colors and project design; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a publi c hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 3, 2017, to consider the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s decision; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Packet Pg 193 13 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: a) The requested changes to approved colors and project design are not consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy 4.20.4 which states that new buildings are to fit within the context and scale of existing development. The proposed new monochromatic building color scheme 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. Further, 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) b) 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 careful balance of 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). Further, 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. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This application is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It involves a request that a public agency will disapprove, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (Projects which are disapproved). SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the subject appeal filed by Ben Kulick of 33 Tons, LLC, upholding the Architectural Review Commission’s decision to deny change to approved building colors and project design. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017. ____________________________________ Packet Pg 194 13 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 195 13 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg 196 13 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg 197 13 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 Packet Pg 198 13 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 Packet Pg 199 13 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 Packet Pg 200 13 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 Packet Pg 201 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 Packet Pg 202 13 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 Packet Pg 203 13 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 buil ding’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 Packet Pg 204 13 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 Packet Pg 205 13 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 Packet Pg 206 13 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg 207 13 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg 208 13 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg 209 13 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg 210 13 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg 211 13 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg 212 13 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 Packet Pg 213 13 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 Packet Pg 214 13 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 Packet Pg 215 13 ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg 216 13 ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg 217 13 ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg 218 13 ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg 219 13 ATTACHMENT 6Packet Pg 22013 ATTACHMENT 6Packet Pg 22113 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 Packet Pg 222 13 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 Packet Pg 223 13 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 Packet Pg 224 13 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 Packet Pg 225 13 1135 Santa Rosa - Remodel + Addition6/5/2015Community Design Guidelines MatrixSECTION GUIDELINEYES NO NOTES4.2.AStreet orientation. Buildings in the downtown should be located at the back of the sidewalk unless space between the building and sidewalk is to be used for pedestrian features such as plazas, courtyards, or outdoor eating areas.NAProject adapts an existing building and its inherited footprint which is setback ~5' from Marsh Street's sidewalk and ~15' from Santa Rosa Street's sidewalk, which includes a 10' no-building easement.4.2.B Height, scale. Multi-story buildings are desirable because they can provide opportunities for upperfloor offices and residential units, and can increase the numbers of potential customers for ground floor retail uses, which assists in maintaining their viability.XProject is three stories tall which includes residential uses at the third floor.4.2.B Multi-story buildings should be set back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development, maintaining the general similarity of building heights at the sidewalk edge.XProject provides setbacks above the 2nd floor at the building corners adjacent to the public right-of-way. The 3rd floor, by setbacks, is reduced to 81% of the floor below. There is no historic pattern of development at this site for setbacks.4.2.B.1 The height and scale of new buildings and alterations to existing buildings shall fit within the context and vertical scale of existing development and provide human scale and proportion.X No existing development pattern. Human scale and proportion is provided through the sizing of windows, mature trees, site walls, and pedestrian site entries.4.2.B.1.a In no case may the height of a building at the back of sidewalk exceed the width of the adjoining right-of-wayXCondition met. Right-of-way is 70' wide. Project height is 40'.4.2.B.1.b New buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual transitions.XNo adjacent buildings. Corners are setback from Public Right-of-Ways to provide visual transition.4.2.B.1.c For new projects adjacent to buildings included on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources there shall be a heightened sensitivity to the mass and scale of the significant buildings.NA Not Applicable, there are no adjacent buildings on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources.4.2.B.1.d The project provides upper story setbacks from the front building façade along the street consistent with LUE Policy 4.16.4. Portions of the building above 50 feet should be set back sufficiently so that these upper building walls are not visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk along the building’s frontageX Project is less than 50' tall. No setback required per Figure 4-34.2.B.2 New buildings shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places including, but not limited to, Mission Plaza, the Jack House gardens, and YCLC Cheng Park. In these locations, new buildings shall respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them.XLine of sight from YCLC Cheng Park to distant mountains is west of the project, no obstruction.4.2.B.3 New buildings should not shade the northerly sidewalk of Marsh,Higuera or Monterey Streets at noon on December 21st.XBuilding is on the northerly side of Marsh, no shading impacts to the northerly sidewalk.4.2.B.4 Tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities, housing and retail land uses.NANot applicable. Project is not a "tall building" as it is less than 50' tall. However, project provides housing uses to meet land use policy objectives.4.2.B.5.a Utility boxes for phone, cable, electricity, natural gas, information systems and/or other services should be located along service alleys, within the building, or in a sub-grade vault.X PG&E disallows vaults for their transformers, a cut-stone enclosure is proposed in conformance with 6.1.G.2. Other utilities are screened from view and are not visible from public view.4.2.B.5.b Location of backflow prevention devices and the fire sprinkler riser must be identified on project plans submitted for Architectural Review and shall be located inside the building, consistent with County Health Department requirements.XBackflow prevention device is located in an existing closet, and is concealed from view.ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg 22613 4.2.B.5.c Minimum sidewalk width should be 8-feet clear of obstructions for pedestrians (furniture, news racks, street trees etc.) across 100% of the project frontage.XSidewalks are ~10' in width existing and to remain. As an existing footprint the entire building is set back ~5' from Marsh Street and ~16' from Santa Rosa Street.4.2.B.5.d Service access to the building for loading and maintenance functions should not exceed 20%of the project frontage on any facing street.X Service access is provided via the City alley, 0% of project frontage.4.2.C Façade design. New structures and remodels should provide storefront windows, doors, entries, transoms, awnings, cornice treatments and other architectural features that complement existing structures, without copying their architectural style.XExisting context is eclectic, including modern aesthetics, and is generally not composed of the elements listed. The nearby buildings which feature these elements are not "significant adjacent examples" by any measure. See also 4.2.D.14.2.C.1 Overall character. In general, buildings should have either flat or stepped rooflines with parapets, and essentially flat facades. Walls with round or curvilinear lines, or large pointed or slanted rooflines should generally be avoided.XRoof is flat, and steps occasionally. Facades are essentially flat and are expressed by different width planes that setback and change materials per 4.2.4.d4.2.C.2 Proportions in relation to context. Buildings should be designed with consideration of the characteristic proportions (relationship of height to width) of existing adjacent facades, as well as the rhythm, proportion, and spacing of their existing door and window openings.XNo existing adjacent facades to serve as reference. As a larger building than the surrounding context, setbacks are employed at the east, south, and west corners and the entire west elevation above the 2nd floor. The 3rd floor, by setbacks, is reduced to 81% of the floor below.4.2.C.3 Storefront rhythm. A new building facade that is proposed to be much "wider" than the existing characteristic facades on the street should be divided into a series of bays or components, defined by columns or masonry piers that frame windows, doors and bulkheads. Creating and reinforcing a facade rhythm helps tie the street together visually and provides pedestrians with features to mark their progress down the street.NAThe proposed facades continues the existing façade on the street as it is a remodel and addition project. No existing characteristic facades on the street are available to reference. Per ARC and subsequent Planning Staff direction the ground floor windows on Marsh Street were expanded to increase ground floor transparency. A pedestrian oriented window was added facing Santa Rosa Street at the site entry.4.2.C.4 Individual storefront proportions. Storefronts should not overpower the building façade, and should be confined to the area framed by the support piers and the lintel above, consistent with classic “Main Street” architecture.NA"Main Street" architecture requires adjacent parcels with multiple zero lot line buildings. This existing developed project site and existing building footprint does not fit that pattern.4.2.C.5 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.XWall surfaces at the street level feature large window openings, deck overhangs, awnings, and horizontal wood siding. The existing structural bank vault prevents the corner from being more visually porous.4.2.C.5.a Dividing the facade into a series of display windows with smaller panes of glass.XPer ARC and subsequent Planning Staff direction the entirety of the window scheme was revised, including new proportions, groupings, and subdivision into smaller human scale panes of glass.4.2.C.5.b Constructing the facade with small human scale materials such as brick or decorative tile along bulkheads.XPer ARC and subsequent Planning Staff direction a decorative cut-stone bulkhead was added along the Marsh Street frontage, which ties-in to the cut-stone site and sign walls. The horizontal application of natural clear-sealed wood at the street corner provides human scale and texture, carried around to the site and building entries.4.2.C.5.c Providing traditional recessed entries. X The main entry is recessed, and the site entry which is more prominent provides recess from the street.4.2.C.5.d Careful sizing, placement and overall design of signage. X Signage is carefully sized and placed with an emphasis on pedestrian scaled elements at the street corner and the site entrance.4.2.C.6 Doorways. Doorways should be recessedXThe main entry is recessed, and the site entry which is more prominent provides recess from the street.ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg 22713 4.2.C.7 Bulkheads. 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. Bulkheads should bedesigned as prominent and visible elements of building facades, and should be treated sensitively to ensure compatibility with the overall appearance of the building. Desirable materials for bulkhead facing include those already common in the downtown: ornamental glazed tile in deep rich hues, either plain or with Mediterranean or Mexican patterns; dark or light marble panels; and pre-cast concreteXPer ARC and subsequent Planning Staff direction a decorative cut-stone bulkhead was added along the Marsh Street frontage, which ties-in to the cut-stone site and sign walls.4.2.D Materials and architectural details. While downtown buildings have a variety of materials and architectural details, several consistent themes in these aspects of design in the downtown have helped to define its distinctive character.XSee following subsections that describe in more detail the downtown themes.4.2.D.1 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. If the building's exterior design is complicated, with many design features, the wall texture should be simple and subdued. However, if the building design is simple (perhaps more monolithic), a finely textured material, such as patterned masonry, can greatly enrich the building's overall character.XMany of the materials feature integral color and while not common, the wood siding proposed is very rich in color and texture, and is scaled to the pedestrian, extending from the street corner to the building and site entries.4.2.D.1 Materials should complement those on significant adjacent buildings.NANo significant adjacent buildings.The following materials are considered appropriate for buildings within the downtown.-Exterior plaster (smooth troweled preferred)-Cut stone, rusticated block (cast stone), and precast concrete-New or used face-brick-Ceramic tiles (bulkhead or cornice)-Clapboard (where appropriate)-Glass block (transom)-Clear Glass windowsXUsed (smooth troweled)Used (bulkhead and site/sign walls)Used (interpretive application as natural clear sealed cedar)UsedThe following exterior finish materials are considered inappropriate in the downtown and are discouraged:-Mirrored glass and heavily tinted glass-Windows with false divisions-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 colorXNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg 22813 4.2.D.2 Storefront remodeling often covers original decorative details, or retains them only as visual “leftovers.” Existing details should not be wasted in remodeling efforts. If enough remain, they can be restored as part of the original design. If only a few remain, they can be incorporated as design features in a new storefront. In either case, the design of changes to a façade should grow out of the remaining traditional details and create a harmonious background that emphasizes those details.NANo applicable traditional details for retention from the existing structure dated to the early 1980's.4.2.D.3 Doors and storefront systems should be of materials and have details and ornament appropriate to the building wall materials.XAluminum frame windows and door with substantial frames are appropriate to the smooth troweled cement plaster.4.2.D.4 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.NAThis site is approved for ground floor use via Administrative Use Permit, in part because of the low pedestrian traffic and acknowledgement that this is not a frequently trafficked site by pedestrians. Ground floor windows are provided, and extensive blank walls are not present. An existing bank vault prevents adding windows at the street corner. Per ARC and subsequent Planning Staff direction the ground floor windows were increased in height for greater transparency.4.2.D.5 Awnings should be retained and/or incorporated where feasible and compatible with the storefront.XA large awning extends from the building entry along the north elevation to emphasize the site/entry. Awnings should occur where pedestrians are emphasized.4.2.D.6 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.X Per ARC and subsequent Planning Staff direction the project provides expressive wall mounted light fixtures, balcony railings, and expressed metalwork at wall caps and window sills for detail and shadowlines. 4.2.E Public spaces, plazas and courtyards. Public spaces on downtown sites should be designed as extensions of the public sidewalk by providing pedestrian amenities such as benches and fountains,and by continuing the pavement treatment of the sidewalk.NANot applicable. Transient populations are a real concern at this location near the creek. While the site can be controlled via private means, benches and other pedestrian furniture along the public right-of-way is too much of an attractor. At the building entry side benches are provided where building security can be maintained.ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg 22913 ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg 23013 ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg 23113 ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg 23213 ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg 23313 ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg 23413 ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg 23513 Packet Pg 236 13 Packet Pg 237 13 Packet Pg 238 13 Packet Pg 239 13 Packet Pg 240 13 Packet Pg 241 13 Packet Pg 24213 Packet Pg 24313 Packet Pg 24413 Packet Pg 24513 Packet Pg 246 13 Packet Pg 247 13 Packet Pg 248 13 Packet Pg 249 13 Packet Pg 250 13 Packet Pg 25113 Packet Pg 252 13 Packet Pg 25313 Packet Pg 254 13 Packet Pg 255 13 Packet Pg 256 13 Packet Pg 257 13 Packet Pg 258 13 Packet Pg 25913 Packet Pg 26013 Packet Pg 26113 Packet Pg 26213 Packet Pg 26313 Packet Pg 264 13 Packet Pg 265 13 Packet Pg 266 13 Packet Pg 267 13 Packet Pg 268 13 Packet Pg 269 13 Packet Pg 270 13 Packet Pg 271 13 Packet Pg 272 13 Packet Pg 273 13 Packet Pg 274 13 Packet Pg 275 13 Packet Pg 276 13 Packet Pg 277 13 Packet Pg 278 13 Packet Pg 279 13 Packet Pg 280 13 Packet Pg 281 13 Packet Pg 282 13 Packet Pg 283 13 Packet Pg 284 13 Packet Pg 285 13 Packet Pg 286 13 Packet Pg 287 13 Packet Pg 288 13 Packet Pg 289 13 Packet Pg 290 13 Packet Pg 291 13 Packet Pg 292 13 Packet Pg 293 13 Packet Pg 294 13 Packet Pg 295 13 Packet Pg 296 13 Packet Pg 297 13 Packet Pg 298 13 Packet Pg 299 13 Packet Pg 300 13 Packet Pg 301 13 Packet Pg 302 13 Packet Pg 303 13 Packet Pg 304 13 Packet Pg 305 13 Packet Pg 306 13 Packet Pg 307 13 Packet Pg 308 13 Packet Pg 309 13 Packet Pg 310 13 Packet Pg 311 13 Packet Pg 312 13 Packet Pg 313 13 Packet Pg 314 13 Packet Pg 315 13 Packet Pg 316 13 Packet Pg 317 13 Packet Pg 318 13 Packet Pg 319 13 Packet Pg 320 13 Packet Pg 321 13 Packet Pg 322 13 Packet Pg 323 13 Packet Pg 324 13 Packet Pg 325 13 Packet Pg 326 13 Packet Pg 327 13 Packet Pg 328 13 Packet Pg 329 13 Packet Pg 330 13 Packet Pg 331 13 Packet Pg 332 13 Packet Pg 333 13 Packet Pg 334 13 Packet Pg 335 13 Packet Pg 336 13 Packet Pg 337 13 Packet Pg 338 13 Packet Pg 339 13 Packet Pg 340 13 Packet Pg 341 13 Packet Pg 342 13 Packet Pg 343 13 Packet Pg 344 13 Packet Pg 345 13 Packet Pg 346 13 Packet Pg 347 13 Packet Pg 348 13 Packet Pg 349 13 Packet Pg 350 13 Packet Pg 351 13 Packet Pg 352 13 Packet Pg 353 13 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 354 13 Tl lEl Newspaper of the Central Coast MBUNE SL© CITY CLERK 3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406-0112 • (805) 781-7800 In The Superior Court of The State of California In and for the County of San Luis Obispo My tai AD #3296303 0 San Luis O1B M CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK The San Luis Obispo City Council invites All interested persons to attend a public hearing on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Cham- ber, 990 Palm Street, San Lulls Obispo, SS. Calltomis, relative to the following. County of San Luis Obispo REVIEW OF AN _ APPEALJFrLE1D BY BEN KULICK .9F_33 T4�ONS _LLQI_OF THE ARp DCHITEC7l1RAL EW 0�}. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the nlsrsSlON's DECISiON_TOQ1Lk A,_R- County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not QU�Sr TO ELIMINATHULKHEAO F>»AruR_ E_ ANI] CHAN,CQ,E APPROVEg interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at CdLgAS ON A R___p LED _g all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned CD._ MARERC!&L BUILDING AT 1135 SA"_ COMME13 rA Rgs.aRona srIREET CATs= ILLY was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of VIEEf] FROM ENVIRONMENTAL RE- THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation, printed and published daily at the City of San Luis A public hearing to consider adopting a res- olution to deny liie appeal and uphold the Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice Architectural Review Commisslcn'S denial at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was of a request to eliminate a bulkhead fea- tura and change approved bullding colors published in the above-named newspaper and not in an py ricabul[ly o at 11 a remodeled Rosa Street (categorically 1135 San Is Rosa Street (categorically e><- supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit; erupt from environmental review). SEPTEMBER 23, 2017 that said newspaper was duly For mora Information, ypu are Invited to and regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of contact f the Ci n tW ale Oetzell of general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior De at (805) 781-7593 or by email atwoetzellOsiogity, Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on p June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code The City Council may also discuss other of the State of California. hearings or business items before or after the items listed above. If you challenge the proposed project in court, you may be limit- I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the ed to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing foregoing is true and correct. described in this notice, or In written corre- spondence delivered to the city council at, Or prior to, the public hearing. Reports for This meeting will be available (Sig ure of Principal Clerk) for review in the City Clerk's Office and on- ine at www.slacl oor ort Weclnosday, Sep- DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2017 [ember 27, 2017, Please call the City AD COST: $185.60 Clark's Office at (805) 781-7100 for more in- formation, The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20 and live streaming on www.slocity. Pig.. Carrie Gallagher City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo Seplember23,2017 3296303 ARCH-0722-2017 (1135 Santa Rosa)Appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s decision denying a request for changes to approved and colors and design of a remodeled commercial building110-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 210-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 3Recommendation:Adopt a resolution upholding the ARC’s decision, denying the request for changes to the approved colors and design of the remodeled building10-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 410-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 510-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 610-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 7Work with staff toward a solution that would be more consistent with the original project solutionUsing appropriate complementary building colors to reduce the perceived massing of the buildingProvide a human‐scale element for variety and interest along Marsh St, similar to cut‐tile bulkheadJuly 10: Consideration of request for changesContinued with direction:Applicant response to direction:No solution can be foundRequest for changes to color and design remains unmodified10-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 8Proposed changes are not consistent with Community Design Guidelines:Proposed changes to approved color and design:do not exhibit harmony, rhythm, and balance sought by guidance in CDG §2.2 (A)do not exhibit careful balance of articulation encouraged by §2.2 (B)do not exhibit attention to detail and emphasis on articulation to visually reduce the apparent mass of a building called for in §2.2 (C)result in removal of a small human‐scale element that provides variation and interest to the Marsh Street wall surface, contrary to the intent of CDG § 4.2(C)(5)September 11: Final action on requested changesRequest denied; (5-0, 1 absent):Proposed changes to approved colors and design are not consistent with General Plan Policies (Land Use Element):4.20.4: new buildings to fit context and scale of existing development4.20.6: encourages architectural detail for sidewalk appealMonochromatic building color scheme results in a building that is perceptibly heavier and more massiveloss of articulation and of balance and rhythm between building forms10-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 910-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 10Community Design Guidelines(Ch. 2, Building Design)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))10-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 11Balance, rhythm altered; “heavier” perceived massing overall10-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 12Community Design Guidelines § 4.2(C) – Façade Design10-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 13Options for action:Deny the appealin its entirety, which would uphold the ARC decision and require the appellant to conform the building to the originally approved color scheme and bulkhead requirement.Approve the appealin its entirety, which would allow the building to remain as is with regard to color scheme and would relieve the applicant of any obligation to install the bulkhead feature.Grant the appeal in part, allowing components of the request, but disallowing others (e.g., direct color compliance, but grant relief from bulkhead requirement or vice versa)Deny the appeal, but provide direction to applicant, staff and the ARC to consider alternatives (to both bulkhead and color scheme) that conform with design guidelines, but that may differ from both the original approval and the existing condition (essentially, this would be a remand to ARC with directionfor consideration of alternative proposals consistent with Council input).Grant the appeal in part, giving final approval to some modifications, but providing direct Council guidance to the applicant regarding implementation of an alternative color or bulkhead modification, which could emerge through discussion and deliberation of the appeal. The Community Development Director could approve changes, once verified to be consistent with Council direction.10-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 14Recommendation:Adopt the draft resolution upholding the decision of the Architectural Review Commission, denying the proposed changes to the approved colors and design of the building10-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation ARCH-0722-2017 (1135 Santa Rosa)Change to approved design and colors of a remodeled commercial building1510-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 16Finding “a”The requested changes to approved colors and project design are not consistentwith General Plan Land Use Policy 4.20.4 which states that new buildings areto fit within the context and scale of existing development. The proposed newmonochromatic building color scheme results in a building that is perceptiblyheavier and more massive, as seen approaching it along Marsh Street, losingthe balance and rhythm among building forms that the approved color schemeprovides. Further, elimination of the cut-tile bulkhead feature along the MarshStreet façade removes from the project design an architectural detail that isencouraged for sidewalk appeal (Land Use Element Policy 4.20.6)10-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation 17Finding “b”The requested modifications are not consistent with the City’s CommunityDesign Guidelines. The proposed new monochromatic building color schemeresults in the loss of articulation and of balance and rhythm between buildingforms that the approved color scheme provided, causing the building to appearperceptibly heavier and more massive, as seen approaching it along MarshStreet. The resulting appearance does not exhibit the harmony, rhythm, andbalance sought by guidance provided in § 2.2 (A), the careful balance ofarticulation encouraged by § 2.2 (B), or the attention to detail and emphasis onarticulation to visually reduce the apparent mass of a building called for in§ 2.2 (C). Further, the proposed elimination of the cut-tile bulkhead removes asmall human-scale element that provides variation and interest to the wallsurface at the Marsh Street level, contrary to the intent of § 4.2 (C) (5)encouraging such variation and interest.10-03-2017 Item 13, Staff Presentation