HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2018 Item 2, Grady
Purrington, Teresa
From:John Grady <johngrady5@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, November 16, 2018 12:26 PM
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:ARC Meeting Nov. 19, 2018 - Item #2 - 1135 Santa Rosa St.
Dear Architectural Review Commission:
I am writing regarding your upcoming deliberations on agenda item 2 - 1135 Santa Rosa Street - on Nov. 19,
2018. I recommend you either:
(1) Deny the proposed modifications based upon inconsistency with relevant General Plan policies or
Community Design Guidelines or
(2) Continue consideration to a future date, providing guidance to staff and the appellant on changes to
building colors.
The appellant arbitrarily disregarded the color scheme (and other stipulations of approval for his project) that
your commission and he agreed upon at your hearing on July 6, 2015. His appeals after willfully violating your
conditions of approval and his adamant resistance to mitigating his violations should not be rewarded now
with your acquiescence of his actions.
The ARC approved colors for this building were Oyster Haze and City Loft. If the appellant wished to change
these colors after his project was approved, he should have returned to your commission prior to applying his
dark grey monochromatic color scheme, not after the fact.
City Council's resolution number 10839 on Oct. 17, 2017 regarding the appellant's appeal stated:
(a) "The use of the existing Custom Merlex Blend (grey) finish as a primary building color is acceptable with
additional (ARC) direction..." and
(b) "The building colors, materials, or design shall be modified to achieve a visual reduction in apparent
building mass and scale ..."
Clearly the City Council intended to see more than one color - the current dark grey merlex blend - as they discuss colors and a
primary color in their resolution.
The Council's resolution continued to say, "to allow the existing building colors to remain, without modification, is 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 monochromatic building color modification requested for approval results in a building that appears bulkier and
more massive, as viewed approaching it along Marsh Street, diminishing the balance and rhythm along that frontage that the
approved color scheme provided."
I add that the entire building, regardless of which angle or direction you view it, appears bulkier and more massive with the dark
grey monochromatic color than it would otherwise appear had the appellant used the Oyster Haze and City Loft colors approved and
agreed upon at project approval.
The same City Council resolution continues to say, "to allow the existing building colors to remain, without modification, is not
consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines."
1
The City Council clearly stated the building is not in compliance with the General Plan and the Community Design Guidelines. For
city staff to now suggest and advise the ARC that the building, with its monochromatic dark grey color, is in
compliance with the General Plan Land Use Policy and the Community Design Guidelines is misguided and not
in agreement with the City Council resolution cited above.
The Community Design Guidelines in Chapter 3, Commercial Design Guidelines state on page 18, item 12:
"Colors should be compatible with the existing colors of the surrounding area." This clearly is not the case here.
The Guidelines (same section) continue:
"The use of muted tones for the structure's base color is recommended. Colors should not be used as an attention getting
device." The appellant has clearly violated both of these guidelines as this building's dark color clearly grabs one's attention..
The Guidelines (same section) continue:
"Accent colors should be used thoughtfully and complement the base color or a variation of its hue, either weaker or stronger." In
this case we have no accent color.
Also in the Community Design Guidelines in chapter 4, Downtown Design Guidelines, it states on page 45, item h:
"Use color to visually reduce the size, bulk, and scale of the building." I think we can all agree, including the appellant, that his use of
the current dark grey Custom Merlex Blend serves only to enhance, rather than reduce, the size, bulk, and scale of this building.
Lastly, I find it preposterous to accept, as you will be doing if you adopt staff's recommended resolution, that:
"the addition of three metal and cedar accent awnings to the building design and the planting of two additional oak trees (will)
achieve a visual reduction in apparent building mass and scale." Really? We are to believe that three small awnings (on second floor
windows) and two trees (when mature) are going to reduce this building's mass and scale? I think not.
The three small awnings will do nothing to mask the building's dark monolithic color nor reduce its perceived scale and mass and
they will hardly be noticed by most passers by, though all will notice the dark grey color and mass of the building. And it's ironic
anyone would think using two trees to try to hide or mask the building's color is a real solution. A lighter, contrasting coat of paint
applied to break up the mass, as was in your original conditions of approval, is the only solution.
I urge either your denial of the proposed modifications or your continuance of this item to a future date, with
guidance to the appellant and staff that a lighter, contrasting and complementing paint color be applied as
originally stipulated to improve the building's aesthetics and help reduce its apparent mass and scale. I believe
our Community Design Guidelines support either of these decisions.
Thank you.
John Grady
San Luis Obispo
2