HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/16/2018 Item 3, Lopes (2)
Goodwin, Heather
From:James Lopes <jameslopes@charter.net>
Sent:Tuesday, July
To:Advisory Bodies; Bell, Kyle
Subject:Re: ARC 7-16-18 Hearing, Item 1: 774 Caudill
Attachments:Pages from Item3MOD13942018774Caudill.pdf
Dear Commissioners and Staff:
I would like to understand more about the sequence of submittals of colors for this project at 774 Caudill.
The April 16, 2018 hearing staff report showed a revised design below and warmer color pallet than the previous one
(April 16, 2018 staff report, packet page 116).
Is this the design for which the Minutes for the April 16, 2018 Hearing list the following direction?
"Provide more muted colors and more subdued designs. Tone the stucco and use a warmer
color, and darken staircase colors especially on north and east elevation."
I am at a loss how the direction responded to the building image, which already seemed to have "warm" colors.
The applicant revised the design and colors, but the staff report for your July 16, 2018 hearing shows a gray
building. The color was confusing, since it is with the response to the directions of April 16, partly for "warmer"
colors. The gray color proposal is shown on packet pages 143 and 146 and in my attachment, and it is compared to the
previous one.
1
The colors shown are quite clearly tones of gray. These are the images to which my email responded, and I askied your
Commission to approve other warmer colors to meet the previous direction. To me, a warm color has elements of
yellow and red hues in the pigment. Apparently, I thought that the Commission also had this understanding.
What is confusing occurred at the Hearing Monday, Kyle Bell showed images of the same design but with warm beiges
and off-white. These colors complied very well with the direction for warmer colors. I did not attend the first part of the
presentation and may have missed an explanation.
Did staff show these colors at the hearing for the first time, that is, were they submitted since the staff report?
Or, were they submitted before the staff report, but they did not show accurately in Attachment 6?
If the images did not show correctly, why was your Commission and the public not informed of this in the report?
Than at the Hearing, the applicant offered your Commission another color option, which was black/charcoal, cool white
and a darker brown brick on the revised building. Your Comission compared the two color boards, and surprisingly
chose the dark colors rather then the lighter ones. I would like to understand more about the commission's preference
for the use of black/charcoal wall colors as opposed to the applicant's previous submittal of beiges and off-white to
comply with the previous direction. It was confusing to hear that several commissioners thought that the chosen ones
were warm colors, since they were black wall planes.
If you or staff can answer these questions, I am very interested in learning more about these preferences. Thank you.
James Lopes
ph. 805-602-1365
On 7/16/2018 2:42 PM, James Lopes wrote:
Architectural Review Commission
City of San Luis Obispo,
RE: Item 1: Revised project at 774 Caudill - - COLORS
Dear Chairperson Root and Commissioners:
Would you please have the colors and materials revised to show warmer tones and off-whites instead of
the revised gray colors? The previous elevations showed colors which were too bright for their large
areas. Your Commission asked for more muted colors, and the applicant now proposes grays
throughout. These colors are definitely more muted, but they convey a military (Navy?) image or even
that of a prison.
I'm sure that you and the applicant can arrive at WALL and accent colors that include off-white walls
with muted or middle-range values of colors for off-sets and so on. The problem now is not just accent
colors, but the entire wall planes in gray.
Directional Item #6: Provide more muted colors and more subdued designs. Tone down the stucco
and use a warmer color and darken staircase colors especially on north and east elevation.
Response: The applicant has modified the design to reflect more muted colors and a subdued
design. The staircases along the north and east elevation have been redesigned to include darker
colors. The applicant has expressed flexibility regarding a warmer accent color for the project and
2
will present options to the ARC at the hearing for consideration. Staff has provided Condition No. 3
to revise the design to incorporate a warmer accent color, as approved by the ARC.
Thank you.
James Lopes, AICP
3
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comVICTORIA CROSSING774 CAUDILL STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 06/29/2018T1.0AshleyAshley&&VanceVance&&G,G,CCCcomparative imagesPREVIOUSLY SUBMITTEDREVISEDA4.0Attachment 6Packet Page 143
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comVICTORIA CROSSING774 CAUDILL STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 06/29/2018T1.0AshleyAshley&&VanceVance&&G,G,CCCcomparative imagesPREVIOUSLY SUBMITTEDREVISEDA4.1Attachment 6Packet Page 144