Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-03-14
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA Council Hearing Room City Hall - 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 March 3, 2014 Monday 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commrs. Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Anthony Palazzo, 1 Position Vacant, Vice -Chair Greg Wynn, and Chairperson Michelle McCovey-Good ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. MINUTES: Minutes of February 3 and February 10, 2014. Approve or amend. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and city of residence. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to the staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. INFORMATIONAL UPDATE: Staff update on 919 stair tower repairs PUBLIC HEARINGS: NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department, City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation. 1. 793 Foothill Blvd. ARC/ARC-S 97-13; Review of Foothill Plaza Shopping Center facade remodel, sign program, and parking reductions; C-C zone; Channel Properties, applicant. (Marcus Carloni) COMMENT & DISCUSSION: 2. Staff a. Agenda Forecast 3. Commission ADJOURNMENT Presenting Planner: Marcus Carloni MY Of SAn IBIS OBISP Department of Community Development Planning Division March 3, 2014 TO: Architectural Review Commission (ARC) FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner P9_ _ SUBJECT: Repairs to Elevator Tower of Palm/Morro Office/Parking Structure 919 Palm Street; ARC 193-01 On September 24, 2002, the ARC granted final approval to both the Palm/Morro Office/Parking Structure and Court Street Project. Since that time, there have been minor changes and additions to the building that have gone to the ARC for review such as a public art project on the internal paseo facing the west side of the adjacent library, and others, such as various equipment installations, that have not. Over the past year, a maintenance issue has arisen with exterior tiles that fell from the stair tower that has public safety implications. The ARC may have noticed that a temporary wood structure has been in place at the southwestern stair tower to protect the public. After further investigation, the issue with the falling tiles appears to be related to the original surface preparation that the tiles were mounted to and water intrusion. City staff from Public Works and Community Development met with the ARC Chair late last year to discuss the issue and possible solutions. Weighing all of the competing objectives of safety, liability, aesthetics, maintenance, and economics, the decision was made to remove the tiles on the 4th and 51h level of the stair tower, add a waterproof coating in the area where the tile is removed, and recoat the tower with acrylic stucco. Adding the waterproof coating is anticipated to stop the water intrusion and surface rust that has started to show on the lower levels of the stair tower. With the backing of the ARC Chair, the conclusion was that this proposal to modify the building was minor and would be considered "aesthetically insignificant" as the upper portion of the tower would be finished with a compatible surface material (stucco) in a contrasting color that was part of the original project color palette (the darker tan) for a simple and elegant solution. Staff is alerting the ARC to this building change and "aesthetically insignificant" determination because of the prominence and visibility of this building and its stair tower. Staff will provide a brief presentation to update the Commission at the meeting. city Of Meeting Date: March 3, 2014 son lu i s o131 O Item Number: 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of Foothill Plaza Shopping Center facade remodel, sign program, and parking reductions with a categorical exemption from CEQA. PROJECT ADDRESS: 793 Foothill Blvd. BY: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Phone Number: 781-7176 e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARC/ARC-S 97-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior PIanner10-0 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which grants final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Channel Properties Representative Johnson Lyman Architects Zoning Community Commercial (C-C) General Plan Community Commercial Site Area 4.9 Acres Environmental Categorically exempt from Status environmental review under CECdA Guidelines section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). SUMMARY The applicant proposes to revamp the Foothill Plaza Shopping Center with a contemporary facade remodel of existing buildings with no change to existing footprints. The project also includes a sign program, minor site improvements, parking reorientation, landscape upgrades and a 30% parking reduction request. The proposed remodel updates the design of this highly visible location and is a positive addition to this area of town. Staff finds the overall project consistent with the Community Design Guidelines through compatibility with the design, scale, and massing of the existing neighborhood. However, staff has recommended modifications to the applicant's proposed sign program as discussed in section 3.4 below. I-11:01M 1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW The ARC's role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations (for parking reductions), and applicable City standards. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting The project site consists of 4.9 acres of developed land in the Community Commercial (C-C) zone. The project site is currently developed as a shopping center with 68,531 square feet of buildings divided among approximately 20 tenant spaces anchored by Albertson's and Rite Aid. The project site is bordered by, and takes access from, Foothill Boulevard, Broad Street, and Ramona Drive. Site Size 4.9 Acres Present Use & Development Shopping Center with parking and landscape improvements Topography Flat Access Foothill Boulevard, Broad Street, and Ramona Drive Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-4 zone (multi -family residences) and C-N zone (Commercial & Restaurant Uses) South: R-4-PD (The Villages of San Luis Obispo) East: CC=N (Commercial & Restaurant Uses) and R-1 (Single - Family Residences) West: R-4 {Vacant land & Church) 2.2 Project Description Significant project features include the following (Attachment 3, Project Plans): 1. Contemporary fagade remodel of existing buildings within the Foothill Plaza Shopping Center (no change to existing footprints and no new buildings). 2. Reorientation of existing 45 degree parking spaces to 90 degree parking spaces (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A2 & A2A, hatched area). a. New delineated pedestrian path through area of reoriented parking spaces (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A2). 3. Removal of the northern curb -cut entrance from Broad Street (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A2) 4. Enhanced outdoor patio spaces and new Iandscaping (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet LI) 5. Accessible upgrades (pathways, parking stalls, accessible lifts) 6. Proposed 30 % parking reduction 7. Updated sign program (Attachment 5, Proposed Sign Program) a. Including re -facing the existing monument sign at north entrance (Foothill Boulevard). 2.3 Project Statistics Item Proposed' Ordinance Standard z Max. Height of Structure(s) 29 feet 35 feet Parking Spaces 279 spaces3 385 spaces' Notes: 1. Applicant's project plans submitted 7/15/2013 2. City Zoning Regulations 3. Parking reduction proposed (See section 3.2 below) 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 3.1 Site PIan: The applicant proposes to maintain the majority of the site plan in its existing layout with minor reorientation of the existing 45 degree parking spaces (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A2A) to 90 degree parking spaces (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A2). Consistent with the Community Design Guidelines, the reoriented parking spaces allow pedestrians to walk parallel to moving cars', provide for additional landscaping in the parking lot (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet L1), and provide a new delineated/safe pedestrian path through the parking areal. 3.2 Parking Reduction: The applicant has requested a 30% parking reduction to accommodate existing and future uses at the subject location. The Zoning Regulations allow approval of a shared/mixed parking reduction of up to 30% for projects with common parking facilities and off- set peak times of maximum parking demand for various uses. Staff Analysis- The project does not include new floor area necessitating additional parking demand nor will the project result in a net loss of parking spaces (existing parking: 277 spaces, proposed parking: 279 spaces). Staff finds the subject Iocation to have a sufficient offset in peak times of parking demand to support a 30% parking reduction without negative impact to the neighborhood. Shared/mixed parking reductions have been fairly routinely approved for shopping center sites such as Laguna Village and SLO Promenade since they include the requisite mix of uses and range of business with off -set peak times. 3.3 Design: Existing buildings at the subject location include brick facades with plant -on mansard roof overhangs (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet PHI). The applicant proposes a contemporary facade remodel of all existing buildings; existing footprints will be maintained. The proposal includes removal of existing mansard roofing to be replaced with a rectilinear facade finished with composite siding, plaster, metal trellis/awnings/canopies, aluminum storefronts, and incorporation of existing brick (Attachment 3, Project Plans). Staff Analysis: Staff finds the proposed design to be compatible with the design, scale and massing of the two existing larger scale commercial centers which mainly consist of single -level, flat -roofed rectilinear buildings. Consistent with the Community Design Guidelines, the design 1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 6.3. D2: Parking lot aisles should generally be oriented to run perpendicular to the building's entry to allow pedestrians to walk parallel to moving cars. 2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 6.3.D: Parking lots should be designed to help direct pedestrians comfortably and safely to building entrances. ARC1 - 3 incorporates articulation and stepped roof iines3 to provide varied shadow lines and interest, and the flat wall planes are topped with decorative cornice features4 (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet CB). Building entries are highlighted and human scale is achieved through incorporation of decorative metal trellises, metal awnings, and projecting metal canopies (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets AO and Al). D.«. 3.4 Sign Program: The applicant has submitted a sign program to update the property's existing sign program (Attachment 4, Existing Sign Program) (Attachment 5, Proposed Sign Program). The proposed sign program includes four sign styles for the shopping center; 1) Internally illuminated individual letters, 2) cloud shaped letters, 3) halo illuminated letters, and 4) open channel letters with neon illumination. The sign program proposes signage standards for Anchor A & B tenants and separate standards for Stores A & B and Pads A, B, & C. The different standards are summarized below. Anchor A & B Tenant Signage (Albertson's and Rite Aid)* Primary Copy Letter Height 3'-6" Logo Height 5'-0" Secondary Copy Letter Height 2/3 height of primary copy Secondary Copy Sign Cabinet Height 3'-6" *Sign height/width not to exceed 75% of leased tenant frontage height/width Stores A & 8 and Pads A, B, & C Tenant Signage* Primary Copy Letter Height 2'-6" Logo Height 4'-0" Secondary Copy Letter Height 2/3 height of primary copy Secondary Copy Sign Cabinet Height 2'-6" *Sign height/width not to exceed 75% of leased tenant frontage height/width Staff Analysis: The Sign Regulations indicate the intent and purpose of regulating signage is "to encourage the effective use of signs as a means of communication and to provide equality and 3 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3.1. B4: Form and Mass. A huilding's design should provide a sense of human scale andproportion. Horizontal and vertical wall articulation should he expressed through the use of wall offsets, recessed windows and entries, awnings, full roofs with overhangs, second floor setbacks, or covered arcades. 4 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3,1. B5c: Roofiines. When flat roofs are used there should be a continuous screening parapet topped with coping, or a cornice. equity among sign owners and those who wish to use signs" Furthermore, the Sign Regulations indicate "signs must be architecturally compatible with affected structures and the character of surrounding development in order to maintain the overall quality of a neighborhood or commercial district." Staff finds the proposed sign sizes to allow signage of excessive size which may dominate building elevations and be incompatible with signage programs approved for neighboring shopping centers and similar shopping centers in the City. To ensure signage will be compatible with the neighborhood and the limitations imposed upon similar shopping centers in the City, staff proposes the following modifications which are reflected in the recommended conditions of approval (Conditions 2 and 3): 3.4.1 Sign Program Modifications: 1. Anchor A & B Tenant Signage (Albertson's and Rite Aid) a. Overall sign height (including secondary copy) is not to exceed 36 inches b. Individual letter height (when more than one row of lettering) is not to exceed 27 inches. c. Logo height is not to exceed 36 inches d. Sign width not to exceed 75% of leased tenant frontage width 2. Stores A & B and Pads A, B, & C Tenant Signage a. Overall sign height (including secondary copy) is not to exceed 24 inches b. Individual letter height (when more than one row of lettering) is not to exceed 18 inches c. Logo height is not to exceed 24 inches d. Sign width not to exceed 75% of leased tenant frontage width e. Individual single line and cloud -shaped face illuminated sign types shall not be allowed. 3. The sign program shall be updated to incorporate externally illuminated signage for primary sign types. 4. Logo signs and secondary copy cabinet signs (not utilizing halo or neon illumination) shall utilize push through dimensional letter illumination. 5. Translucent sign faces shall have a matte finish. 3.4.2 Monument Sign: The applicant proposes to reface the existing monument sign located at the north entrance to the shopping center along Foothill Boulevard. The proposed sign will be the same approximate height as the existing sign and will be finished with aluminum and composite siding painted to match the finish colors used on the adjacent buildings. Staff supports the size and overall asymmetrical design of the monument sign but finds the placement of the Albertson's & Rite Aid sign projection to create a lopsided appearance. Staff recommends moving the Albertson's & Rite Aid sign projection approximately 1.5 feet toward the back of the sign (parking lot side). 01016iM 4.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Comments from the other departments have been incorporated into the recommended resolution as conditions of approval and/or code requirements. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 5.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines and Zoning Regulations. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS I. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity map 3. Project Plans 4. Existing Sign Program 5. Proposed Sign Program Included in Committee member portfolio: Project Plans Available at ARC Hearing: Colors and Materials Board ARC1 - 6 RESOLUTION NO. ARC-9994-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING A FACADE REMODEL, ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AND A 30% PARKING REDUCTION AT THE FOOTHILL PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MARCH 3, 2014 793 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (ARC/ARC-S 97-13) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 3, 2014, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARC/ARC-S 97-13, Channel Properties, applicant; 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, presented at said hearing. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing 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 grants final approval to the project (ARC/ARC-S 97-13), based on the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site's Community Commercial zoning designation, and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. 2. The fagade remodel and associated site improvements maintains consistency with the Community Design Guidelines through compatibility with the design, scale, and massing of the existing neighborhood. 3. As conditioned, the proposed sign program maintains consistency with the Sign Regulations by providing signage that will be architecturally compatible with affected structures and the character of surrounding development. 4. There is no evidence to indicate that granting a 30% shared and mixed -use parking reduction will result in poor on -site circulation or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. 5. A 30% parking reduction is appropriate at the subject location because the proposed project does not increase parking demand nor result in a net loss of parking spaces. ARC1 - 7 6. The proposed project complies with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 A., Parking Space Requirements, in that it satisfies the intent of that section which is "... to minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities." Moreover, the project satisfies the requirement for a shared parking reduction specified in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 B. because there are multiple uses that share common parking areas. In addition, in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.16.060 C., the times of maximum parking demand from the proposed uses will not coincide. 7. This approval is consistent with the Air Pollution Control District's (APCD) land use planning strategies designed to reduce dependence on vehicle travel, and it can be expected that some trips will be consolidated for existing and proposed uses because of the range of different uses at the site. 8. The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines because the reconstruction results in structures of substantially the same size, purpose, and capacity. SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions: 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. 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. 2. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall resubmit the sign program with incorporation of the following modifications: A. Anchor A & B Tenant Signage (Albertson's and Rite Aid) a. Overall sign height (including secondary copy) is not to exceed 36 inches b. Individual Ietter height (when more than one row of lettering) is not to exceed 27 inches. c. Logo height is not to exceed 36 inches d. Sign width is not to exceed 75% of leased tenant frontage width B. Stores A & B and Pads A, B, & C Tenant Signage a. Overall sign height (including secondary copy) is not to exceed 24 inches b. Individual letter height (when more than one row of lettering) is not to exceed 18 inches c. Logo height is not to exceed 24 inches d. Sign width is not to exceed 75% of leased tenant frontage width e. Individual single line and cloud -shaped face illuminated sign types shall not be allowed. ARC 1 - 8 C. The sign program shall be updated to incorporate externally illuminated signage for primary sign types. D. Logo signs and secondary copy cabinet signs (not utilizing halo or neon illumination) shall utilize push through dimensional letter illumination. E. Translucent sign faces shall have a matte finish. 3. The proposed reconstructed monument sign shall be set back from the Foothill Boulevard property line to the maximum extent feasible and no portion of the sign shall extend beyond the Foothill Boulevard property line. Plans submitted for a sign permit shall include information on the extent of sign reconstruction. Relocation of the sign outside of the existing sewer easement may be required if more than 50% of the sign is to be reconstructed. 4. The locations of all wall -mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings plans submitted for a building permit. All wall -mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures, and cut - sheets shall be separately submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City's Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights, need to be included as part of plans. A note shall be included on plans that "Lenses of exterior wall -mounted lights may be modified or shielding devices added after installation if the Community Development Director determines that they emit excessive glare." a. Existing roof mounted exterior lighting that does not comply with the City's Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23) shall be removed. b. The proposed Iight fixture shown on Sheet CB of project plans does not comply with the City's Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23). Plans submitted for a building permit shall provide a compliant fixture style. 5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a final landscaping plan, including irrigation details. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. a. New landscape planters shall be incorporated into the 131 car parking lot to provide for additional shade trees no greater than after each six parking spaces. The new landscape planters shall be of sufficient size to incorporate parking lot shade trees. 6. Any proposed landscape lighting shall be shown on plans submitted for a building permit and plans shall clearly indicate lighting to utilize a narrow cone of light (no brighter than approximately 15 watts) for the purpose of confining the light to the object of interest. r_►:IKER] 7. The existing refuse enclosure Iocated in the 131 car parking lot shall be enlarged to incorporate the existing waste wheelers stored on the outside of the enclosure and/or these wheelers shall be removed. A shopping cart storage rack is currently placed adjacent to this refuse enclosure. If cart storage is to remain it shall be incorporated into the design of the refuse enclosure. 8. Existing refuse enclosures and screening fencing along Ramona Drive shall be incorporated into the project's design and shall be screened with landscaping to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 9. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include storefront window details indicating the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features. 10. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements on elevation drawings. a. The proposed stucco walls shall have a smooth, hand -troweled or sand finish appearance, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. This shall be noted on plans submitted for a building permit. 11. Pedestrian pathways through parking areas shall be delineated by a color change and/or enhanced paving. 12. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show screening of mechanical equipment to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. A line -of -sight diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. 13. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Any back flow preventer and double check assembly shall be screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping, and if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors. Engineering 14. New street trees will be required at the general rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 lineal foot of frontage. The City Arborist shall review the existing tree plantings to confirm whether some of the Palm Tree plantings can qualify for the required street trees. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed tree plantings along with the proposed tree removals. ARC 1 - 10 15. Compensatory tree plantings for the on -site trees to be removed shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Arborist or the Tree Committee as applicable. 15. The existing empty tree wells on Broad Street shall be planted along with a new tree in the abandoned driveway approach area and one additional tree in the planter or sidewalk area south of the abandoned driveway. The tree spacing and requirements along the Foothill and Ramona frontages shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 17. All areas of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, and/or sidewalk, and driveway approaches shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 18. All driveway approaches shall be upgraded to comply with current ADA and City Engineering Standards. The current standard requires a 4' wide level sidewalk extension behind the driveway ramp. 19. The main shopping center driveway off of Foothill Blvd shall be upgraded to a street/alley type entrance to improve the maneuverability into and out of the main circulation drive aisle. The upgraded approach shall comply with ADA and City Engineering Standards for accessibility. 20. The main driveway and drive aisle off of Ramona shall be altered to reduce driver speeds entering and exiting the shopping center. Speed reduction measures may include but are not limited to bulb -outs, planter islands, speed table/elevated cross -walk, or driveway narrowing. The proposed on -site and off -site improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department, Public Works Department, and Fire Department. An alternate design may be approved for the main access driveway off of Ramona to comply with ADA and City Engineering Standards and to accommodate the existing drive aisle grades. 21. The damaged trench drain located across the Ramona Drive truck access driveway shall be repaired or replaced as necessary to comply with ADA and City Engineering Standards. 22. Runoff to the Ramona Drive truck access driveway shall be upgraded to provide some level of water quality treatment per City Engineering Standard 1010.B. A new drain and insert may be proposed or the drainage could be directed to a passive landscape feature in the adjoining planter before discharging to the existing storm drain. 23. Stormwater upgrade requirements will be required for the entire parking lot per City Engineering Standards 1010.E if the expansion of impervious surfaces is proposed. 24. The landscaped slope bank located along the Ramona frontage shall be upgraded to minimize the conveyance of silt and debris to the public sidewalk. A new header board or concrete curb may be installed or a 2' level area provided at the back of walk. The landscape shall show and note any upgrades to the proposed plantings or groundcover to reduce the potential for erosion onto the sidewalk and/or adjoining public street gutter. ARC1 - 11 25. The curb ramp located on the corner of Broad Street and Ramona Drive shall be upgraded per ADA and City Engineering Standards. 26. The building plan submittal shall include all parking lot dimensions, bay widths, space widths, parking space striping, motorcycle parking improvements, and all signage and striping improvements to show compliance with the Parking and Driveway Standards, City Engineering Standards, and the California Building Code. 27. Stop signs and stop bars may be required at all primary customer entrances off of Foothill, Broad Street, and Ramona Drive to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. 28. The building plan submittal shall show the location of all existing and proposed cart -corrals and trash enclosure areas. Additional cart -corral locations should be considered for inclusion within the parking field. Pavement upgrades in the areas of the existing or proposed trash enclosures shall comply with City Standards and shall be approved to the satisfaction of San Luis Garbage Company. 29. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing public and private easements. The plan shall clearly show or mote any public utility improvements located within the easements. The plans shall include standard notes regarding the requirement to notify Underground Service Alert (USA) prior to commencing with any tree removals, demolitions, or new construction. Transportation 30. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed long-term and short-term bicycle parking. Upgrade the bicycle parking to comply with current Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines, and the recently adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. 31. The building plan submittal shall show all required short-term and long-term bicycle parking per M.C. Section 17.16, Table 6.5, and in accordance with standards contained in the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2010 Community Design Guidelines, and any project specific conditions to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Include details and detail references on the plans for the proposed bicycle parking facilities and/or racks. The building plans shall provide a detailed site plan of any racks. Show all dimensions and clearances to obstructions per city standard. The project summary shall include the required and proposed bicycle parking accordingly. a. Short-term bicycle racks of the inverted "U" design or "Peak Racks" shall be installed in close proximity to, and visible from the main entry into the building. Dimension the minimum clearances between racks shall be per city standards/adopted guidelines. b. Long-term bicycle parking may consist of lockers installed either within or outside the building. As an alternative, a lockable room within the building(s) labeled and reserved for bicycle storage may substitute for bicycle lockers. ARC 1 - 12 Provide details and specs for bicycle lockers to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. utilities 32. The owner shall record an encroachment agreement in a format approved by the City of San Luis Obispo for all existing and proposed encroachments into the existing public sewer easement. The building plan or sign plan submittal shall include details of the existing and/or proposed encroachments to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. The agreement shall clarify the maintenance responsibility for any private improvements located in the easement that might affect the maintenance, use, repair, and/or replacement of the public sewer main and appurtenances. 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 3rd day of March, 2014. Pam Ricci, Secretary Architectural Review Commission OX42 2010 40 A-15 1-16 1��-- r��sr>rc rtr�rnvQ� I II Eel 4 .P4 �1 e C1 Ci3 7,111 F=04 0 PMM4 M. 0 0 00 0 0 ce MWA MB] 1-19 1 - 2Q z } ) i! z � | � } ■ _ � | . � , d ]] . — _ § � ! pool ) � , -4mb. -- � < ; 2 | . z] � � , ■ ■ � 0 - » <� * - � z��: -21 a � � c� FLI E � £ S Y G n 0 ." h w� a Y 1 - 22 ms 0 x m No ex d U a rMI O 'l rmm, Opq 401 %1 0� 00 o Z s � PL4 (01) o o a a � 5 S 1 - 23 1 — 24 I � � r■ qy, f. ` fa �11�� • '��i„ .fin,. � � • i � .f - a • k r i F `I` n N i 1 - 25 SAL CID ., SAL.T1NI D YfV�i.��.rltll .wn a'•.IYn[•Mi.Niaj -". _.. 4. . z3r.e•=�e.sr: a:.xa-�.,n..�,.rra.yq-. x:ra: jey.r.s,e.:..:•._.-. x. gy 7•.,,c3x..�=y;. �.,.-�-„„„ ��� ��� .�kj iit �i; 1 � 3 FFt��{��}�}}FEEEE�FlE'fiF}E }EElEEl+� ���#=}��}EE}fEEEEE}}fE}EEEEff;}}EIffEEf�g�}�ffE}!}EEEEf � tl�a �Y� � � 1�3 �� 1 21 y- •..-^-.,ter..,,. t-. I l r�..: �^..-..,,.. i =_ >' i QJrI .� � \ �a bi Olt Ir � \ • I.�.. ` i• IV T f Ij - r Q \\\ •y - � I 14 4 1 'R NNNNNN �' rl 1 l —`- CD I ARC I - 25 I SIGN CItMRIA ATTACHMENT 4 l 007CHU, PLAZA The following sign criteria (the "criteria") has been estoblislxti for the ptuprase of assuring a first class Shot oping center, and for Iv mutual benefit of all occupants- Confonniay with the criteria shalt be strictly enforced and any instadted nonconforming or unappnn ed signs shall be brought into confonaity at IhC oepense of the applicable tritons. The criteria has been designed to give each tenant flex ibi Iitw in personalizing its own store and at site sane time allow mnxiatum creativity in sign design. The criteria shall not apply to any major tenant, dcftncd as a tenaml, occupying at least 5,000 square Cect of building area, or wlticlt Is nationally recognirxd. A. GENERAL CRITERIA 1. Prior to the installation of any sign in die shopping center, die applicable tenant shall submit to Landlord four (4) copies of a detailed shop drawing of its proposed sigh, prepared by sign counselor, indicating confortuancc with the criteria, set faith hcrciit, Such shop drawings shall include the building elevation to which the sign cans arc attached, letter sire, Iayout and color including all copy and graphics. Approval of the proposed sign shall be in accordance vddt the provisions of Section D of the criteria. 2. Each tenant shall pay all costs for its signs, including installation and maintenance. Each tenant or its sign contractor shall obtain and pay for all nommry permits and approvals. 3. Each tenarit shall be responsible for fulfilling all roquirements of these criteria. 4. Each tenant or its sign corwactor shall be responsible for and shall repair any damage to any surface caused by its work, 5. Animated, !lashing or audible signs are prohibited. 6. Reposed raceway, cross-overs, conduits, neon tube conductors, transfenners. etc., arc prohibited. 7. Ile center line of all signs shall be centered on the frontage of the leased premises. All signs in the shopping center shall also be centered horizontally. S. Temporary sighs of any type are prohibited. Additional advertisement, i.c., flags peruiants, cloth sigtas, baluners, or sbnilar devices on the building or on windows are prohibited, except as othonvise approrod by Landlord. 9. No decals shall be visible except as required by local codes and ordinances, A U1. label shall be of mud to at least one (1) sign. 10. Each individual shop tenaru shall be allowed one (1) sign utilizing individual metal chanacl letters, not to exceed eiglny percent (Sty%) of the linear front feet of leased frontago by eighteen incites 0 8") maximum height. Stores having more than one store front cle-vauon may have one addiuoirrl sign for any additional store front facing a street up to a maxinuna of two (2) signs, l I. Pad tenants (out buildings) may have a maxunum of three (3) signs not to exceed the square footage formula for tenants described above. Additionally, a iuonuatent sign may be allowed, subject to approval of bolls Landlord and tho City. B. SIGN DESIGN I . Signs localed at the rear of any shop designating my individual shop location for deliveryand emergency purposes o:tly shall be in carifonnauce with the following specifications: (a) Sue: 4" ]sigh; (b) Mmcrial: Black paiotcd levers (c) L,ocatioa: On rear door, (d) M dinum Number of Signs: Onc (I) per tenant. 2. Each tenant shall be permitted to place in Elie upper window panel to the right of cacti entmoa of its demised premises not more Wan 144 square inches of pennon "steuso" lettering by dennisoa (or equal) not to exceed 2" in height, indicating hours of business, telephone, etc. NO OTHER SIGNS WILL BE ALLOWED AT ANY TUME WITMUT .PRIOR APPROVAL OF LANDLORD. 3. Metal channel letters shall be internally illuminated by 6D Nl.A. nets,. 4. Each tenant copy shall be IW' maximum height of letters with a luntiL Of two (2) rtiWs of copy and a tuaxiInn nt lea ter height for each row of 8"2 not to exceed maximum sign arcs specified in A.10., about. S. Color must be Ved a ier-color-rs approved by Landlord. G. Trim Cap. All letters shall Stave geld a triin cap appro d by Landlord. 7, cnelal�#i�n'�'a.� ,x ^paintedarath srieet>asr•o€le�erchid tvFetuassiel ""-'';,ae material color �a Ht- "ttixlied. 7. Mic "Copy" and "logo" criteria for each sigh shall be as tolloas: (a) Each tenant shall display only its established trade name or its basic product name including logo, if mgttested, ix., "John's Liquo'', or combinalion thereof. No brand notes of products shall bedisplayed. (6) The oopy (letter type) and logos proposed Shall be submitted to Landlord for specific approval. tidy approved copy and logos shaii be included in the signs. C. SIGN CONSTRUCTION 1, All sign cans shall consist ofsheet Metal inaxinn im'l" deep said illuminated with 8W M-A. tubuigwill letters fnbricatcd front Plexiglas with gold trim cap edges. 2. Except as otherwise provided herein. the colors of all letters and logos to be used on any sign shall be subject to approval of Landlord. 3. Etch tenant shall be fully responsible for all the actions of such lcnarWs sign contractor with respm to the installation of any sign in the shopping, eentor. 4. All signs and their installation shall comply with all applicable building and clerical codes, 5. Each sign contractor shalt be responsible for the fulfillment of all rcquiremerxs and specification, compleling the installation in a %wrknianlikc manner, clean up, patching and painting all surfaces damaged by it. 6. Anacluacru shall be completed in accordance with City And customary installation practices. D. APPROVAL 1. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE SIIBNUTED IN QUADRUPLE (4) FOR WRITTEN APPROVAL PRIOR TO MANi1FACTIIRE AND R+STALLATION TO, Channel Properties 100 W. Cutting Boulevard Richinond, CA 94&4 2. Any signs not complying with these criteria must be approved by Landlord in writing prior to installation. ARC1 - 27 ak�a- «9=,..m J & - � \ .k k § k fu � / \ \ \ @ C E o 0 0 2 9 g A - - \ a, ¥ \ / w e y f y t : @ fD fu G k � ) w ƒ @ £ e $ \ « « £ / a k ARC]-28 mer ARC1 - 29 W D g�2#a 1p���5 gs pyy RN G E s E 6 v rV M p pq, p {[� y Fib; g F ye n�i -�i iC m & 11�yy'�j 3g o o J°�' H E a� 0 T�4 - TT o Hop; 0 .E E f }.+.-- .r.r 1 - .r•z u 4 0 a�a r 8= � sad 02 39- =W SRE MV4 P C €NIg �' V 0 ARC1 - 30 >3 s s g i. .c g sa�o'z $gls 0 0 0 10%eosei 1O %EC P�3 o11OH IptOlpil 1p1o1 I ' I I r I I I I t I t I N I 1 I I I suolletrole7 - 14610H 11Ia101 al9pww v PDN La -e a !0 uayuam 14NUH vloe7 .9•.E Paa OLION 04 gv 1 fimg lilt li- " ' _��g�8 =382t_i3&��e�a`a� C # 0 � 0 uA.aHWm.1p% f P"33 01 ION 11101 t tylwHlpt�p7 .9•.E L paaO><3 01 ION I 11 I II I II fl I II II II II I II I I I wq]%OxBJ I � � I +46'-aH �a11a101 I alyp�:l�'d1oN I �� s,apaaup I .a Napdany I I I I I � I I � o I I I •� I k2 I I � 3 I m I c I � � I I I E� I ■ �s ■ Q ■ �ofia3101 � 1y61aH .0•,5 pam:3 011OH 10aH MUJO %SC PkGX3 01 ION Iplul sudtelO0le711AaH I 1QW1 a1 amp octy ION I swpuasap to LapuaOsp I I � I I I ! I ! I I I I (ill V c� H 0 1461aH le1!Oe7.9-.f Ado] tiewud to Paa>x30A WN 1461iHlallal ili PMM 01 ION ARC1 - 31 IyGaH emel➢o %u PMk9� ! I I I I I I I I I I n Y Y I 8$ r� 1461aH Ike] .9-.E paoxj od ION ►y Hill ,3 rr 4 Fq3' a s � �yxayl k4.1 6 a46a14 ra1p101 IgeLlddvipN mpna)a,o m 5lapuaasv 0 145MH RPRi jo %5t paa»q w toH IAA I- I ! 1 l46HH R11de3.7�E ! paa)r301 tGH I II II II II II II II I' I I l I I I I I I g& I � 9 I q I W � I z I I I , I — I I I I I ! I I I I L J � 06o11oy � 9aa)x3 of ION 5wminAe] 1461aH +anal of ape]IlddVIaN swpuwap A stapuauy r 4 O s V 0 1494 epwi to %65 paalk3 of ION IL901 wollelrole714f 214 >aHalo¢WP)lddylDN I uapual2p to vapua�N I I ~ ! I I I I I I I I I iy69H I�p� .9'.E 146JaH taupe] ..9-.E Paa?k3 of ION PaUX30l ION F 0 ARC 1 - 32 �Jjl, 8 a iz nu 22 JEp Ed Oj a 8g a�g H maoc_ g-li voq� Hil OyyECg��E y�t� �„e $�{C�r�='E �^€ V e V 50. .,R E - s= aV. CEl IF- S P61 ogs-� �H s s s 77 7.Z IIAaH P-AA JO%S C pea1x; o� I I { I I I I I I I I Su01E1�]IP] . Iy6wH lakol W s PUNap n Uapua)sy c co (A= FM IH61aH lel!de] .4.[ Paa o11aH -r Lo I 0 IH*H e"OSej in %51 P�»9 q luN ILL I Wa�3 o11oH I II I II II I II I II I I II II II I sunlelmlP] 146.6N Allal 01 apenlddV W K mpumad to uapuw5v V I I I o I � I � d I I I� I o I x I I I •E � I o 0 . T i I�iofialioi 1y61iN ,d•,s Pa l of IDN AaH eoseiio w paiu3 m ION 1e101 I wq]Pln;e] 144aH I I Agal nleN�!IddV qH I I vaPuaoa01a s.aPua�cy I I � I I ICL ..� 0 U—� i-- -� IOPH IP1OEM-S F.da71 ewpd 10 PWAj 0110H IyfaaN laigl H!t paao><j m laµ 9 9 0 m a a I I I I L *sii3 0 o Q a t JAR � !A �a3 8 wx � I �xs �• ] W2 �o 0 N � 146,aW eusH W %SC pma 3 01 IAN iewl Ul �� -J I W6NN Ip1lde] .9•.E I C pam-3 01 NON cu Z I paauxi I 1 kv) suss; yn % I I as mH ILI , p1 I I i co AaNX3 W 10N IM1 I Ja]]i101 ary lddpwN L i � I I .� I Lapua>ap �OvaWaOsy a2 I I I I I 1 i i I Iv011PIfOlE] OJ I � � � I iyb!aH �allal of Q I � oaP�I�VAN I I Wma� I � I I � I wonelv>;e7 I 7 ®C� 14NI�H�a7la'lm Q 'a �'--� al4erpd'EroN I A (A,1 C vapv�a0 I � � V io s1aplwvsy I � a _ xE _ 3 d yffEn Ic s a _-� 0 •E .� I � �4 � Ea -L W a F-P o o o r- U 102H lends] .4 s :4bQH e1lde) .9-.E dd0] hewpd 10 PWM3 al ION .� P 3 o1 wN .46wH Wwl F1[ Q 0601 ion WW3 0110N ]4W�H .0•.5 pamx3 0a MN ARC1 - 34 E � fit ���� of � S � ��'�� ���� •� O o F o � o 41 l461a1i epsr� {° %SC LJ PaaJq m loll level � P�3o1laH � � I �� I IytryaH eosclN 9h5L •2 I PaWA3 al ION Rlo1 . I I "0 1461a'l epSPA to %S[ I I s�dlelnsle]1�i6!aH paaw3 0l IDN level I Wplal of a�ge�lddh'wN I I CM �I s�olel�]IF3 I E E lyfipQ{ "W, m ! �Ae�lld� ]oH mpua —2 I Assapw�sy I I wwlelmle7 � � � I WfilaN �11a10l I � — m ��. �! al9n!IddvwH ra i0 L3puaKq ! I ^1 I 4J b I � W S$ N m I � OT g �� •A 'E _ I � 'E � � 'E m =_ y mcz as . ro LL >~ l46PH leilde].�.t i46HH leyde7,9-,i Ado7Wewud to P3 o11oH �•-•� P3 o1 �H 1y6laH�a71a7 EI[ V) ]461 PM 9 0! low ARC 1 - 35 1/1 W G7 c U c 0 cn cu U c D 7� Y cu iv 7 C L!T co t� F2 tj 06 m a L 0 m -i C� un Q Ln t�3 o No Q Q � ................... W_ 0 �0 W61aN eosryyv g55C PMW3 011ON 10101 L_ 1 ,! I W61aH Ike] .9[ Pom3 o11oN I II 1y�:aH eosei fo y65 ( I I Paw]x3 of ION le]ol I! II J I I I I I I 5uC!leln]ip] I I I i46ury+atw7 of 1 ajge]9ddyiory I 1 -pw,ap I 1 aO sfaWa]ry 1 w I I 1 w011plrDip) 1 K61aH Wllw of M 1 algv'P IDN c 1 LaPudlfb ! i VaNwm I I I — � I 0. 6 uz • ua W6yNle]Ide].72 r .0 , PNU31)110N •1IOb pwaa]x)q 3 of ION Ft� 101M —Pilo %SC P�3 m m Ippl -won 1010a1 I 7aNa7W aJgp]!Id�1oH I s]apwaati io uapuawy I I �I I I I ! I ! cn 0� i V) 10iaH Ipokn ,4.t P4009 011ON u u �s 1461aH 1a�� t Paaor3 01 NN 0 ARC1 - 36 tl�a a� C�� a �� � c qw IQ a �3 a M1. � •a c �r� � � pp c11 7 i u x S! a k 5i �rr �F��E xx�&�•a tT•t���r&cE � �ccY 5�'E�Ej 3'��E MAsul € Ny g I F= e'" to }g•— ggrE`2 Y$°8$ w��S�'a a o 0 R77 F�3 mac} J © © &L `J 0 146aH ensei W %SL pm3m ON 11101 145RH IeAde].9•.L pw�3 el lad? I I 14EaH e1��1° %St I j I VMa5 GI ION Ie101 7 11 C Iy�,iH epsel3o %9L I I � I wq]elm1el14HlaH I PWR3 ul ION Imal I I nlwl a¢alge..pdv laH I �,1 I I I slapuaoap 10 swpvasstl cli � I I I svglclnHe3 I I ] ]441H slwI all I aaAexllddy]oN l PVdlaO I I A srapuany _ I I • I svopelmleJ I ilyBlaH 1a11a1 al . m ---4 a19rsl�VioH }I vapuaua� w !0 LiJIUi]Ia a I N � q Em E� N ILA, a Q __ QJ i :4:!aH leldr] .9-.2 N�wH IeLWe] .9'R +�7 Neul}yp Q paasx3 al:DN Pa i o11eH WBraH�aWa1 FIL HF� p 060 pw)Ng 01 ION Ill Qaav9 01 ION ARC1 - 37 i, a 9yE2a � z � .80 In a GPIF�� I t_� -Bij2 ; "'cp3' { 0 0 0 io c, 0 J ✓I N IL rS �z v © © c-5ca s= s= ry L1 1~ d ]44aH ePsel l° 965L PM 9 w I°N Im1 CL Qco ]44�axM+!de3,4,E I Pa7n3 °l lwl I I I 145PH epsell° 9L5t • I I I Paaa3 °t+°X R1°1 C W6!al{ sosei W 965L I I � i I woll%+ge1146NH I paw3 n11°ll le1°1 I I WPNNQ �wpuaalsv I V ■ I t 1LAID H,aol al I�JIEJ vaWmeO = I •a siapaa;sy I I I sudleln]IE7 I m aMeHOd4'lox a u pumas I m s+aPu I � I I V N�� O Ng La Ln d8 06 L Iy6aN IeN�J .Y.Z 14�H lelWe] .9•R �°7 NewyyP 0 Paax9 °1 roX ��� P3 °!wx M�reH�a11a1 G[ V) Qpii]1fJ W laN ARC1 - 38 ii � p v a ►" ARC1 - 39 p MyyE$$ 'fill 5 I w'LL a C�.. a IL 6 �.� e C � E F S imn 4 ARC1 - 40 a R d ARC1 - 41 x a M a yy N w=E �� '� z �� r • � m € �� Rig $�-� g o L ARC1 - 42 j f 4 V. ƒ ! , ■ ¥ % ± �, .! q11v 2 e |` kk / I 22�a mo z% 2C �! »RC]-43 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES February 3, 2014 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Anthony Palazzo, Vice Chair Greg Wynn, and Chairperson Michelle McCovey- Good Commr. Wynn arrived around 6:00 p.m. after the discussion of the two public hearing items. Absent: None Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, and Recording Secretary Kyle Bell ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: The minutes of January 6, 2014, and January 13, 2014, were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1423 Calle Joaquin. ARC-S-MOD 153-12; Review of request for modification to sign program project condition; C-S zone; Charles Alfano, Mercedes Benz, applicant. (Pam Riccl) Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the adoption of the Draft Resolution, which approves the requested condition modification, based on findings, and subject to conditions. Commr. Curtis asked staff to clarify the main reason that the applicant had requested the change to the condition to lower the height of the monument signs. Senior Planner Ricci responded that the reason that the applicant requested the condition modification was to retain the monument signs at their current heights for Draft ARC Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 2 continued visibility from the freeway due to large trucks often parking along the Calle Joaquin frontage and blocking views. Charles Alfano, applicant, further addressed the visibility concerns of the signs from the freeway and the need to keep them at their current heights. He added that the new dealership building he is constructing along with the associated site improvements will be a beautiful addition to the community. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr Curtis stated that he would be supporting the motion to approve the condition modification, but cautioned that this might set a precedent for other businesses to have taller signs along the freeway corridor. On motion by Commr. Palazzo, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie, to adopt the draft resolution granting final approval to the requested modification to Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. ARC-1014-13 as recommended. AYES: Commrs. Curtis, Ehdaie, Hopkins, Palazzo, and Chairperson McCovey- Good NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Greg Wynn The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 2. 3825 S. Higuera Street. ARC 14-13; Review of a new wireless telecommunication facility including a 69-foot tall monopole disguised as a pine tree; M-SP zone; AT&T, applicant. (Marcus Carloni) Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the adoption of the Draft Resolution, which grants final approval to the project, based on findings and subject to conditions. Commr. Curtis asked staff about the species of trees adjacent to the proposed Monopine. Associate Planner Carloni was unsure of the specific adjacent tree style but indicated the monopine style facility was used to complement existing coniferous trees at the subject property. Commr. Hopkins asked about the density of the foliage at the top of the tree. Draft ARC Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 3 Commr. Ehdaie asked about the material of the tree and if the base was made out of concrete. Associate Planner Carloni answered that the tree trunk will be of a composite material designed to look like a tree trunk and the tree would be mounted to a concrete base that won't be visible. Commr. Ehdaie asked about the condition relating to the density of the foliage toward the top of the monopine. Associate Planner Carloni explained that the density of the foliage is to be consistent throughout the whole tree so that it will look more natural with varying branches that come to a point at the top. Commr. Ehdaie asked about the variety of coloring and shading of the pine. Associate Planner Carloni explained there is not a specific condition requiring alternating needle color and that the brown needles coming off the proposed faux branches are sufficient enough to add variety. Commr. Curtis questioned if the design of the tree was sturdy enough to withstand winds at the proposed height. Associate Planner Carloni deferred the wind load question to the applicant. Commr. Curtis expressed concern of branches blowing off the tree over a period of time and if the applicant is responsible for maintenance of the pine. Associate Planner Carloni indicated the applicant is responsible for maintenance per conditions of approval. Robert McCormick, applicant representative, indicated the tree can terminate at a point if two or three feet of limbs are added to the top of the tree. He also indicated the tree will be designed to withstand up to 90 m.p.h. winds. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Palazzo would rather see the pine wider at the base instead of making it taller to achieve the more natural taper. Associate Planner Carloni responded that there is no condition for the exact 69-foot limit because some flexibility may be needed to achieve a natural appearance; the Draft ARC Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 4 Community Development Director will review plans submitted for a construction permit for substantial conformance with heights shown on project plans. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On a motion by Commr. Ehdaie, seconded by Commr. Palazzo, to adopt the draft resolution granting final approval to the project design as recommended. AYES: Commrs. Curtis, Ehdaie, Hopkins, Palazzo, and Chairperson McCovey- Good NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Greg Wynn The motion carried on a 5:0 vote. 3. Staff: a. Agenda Forecast Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast noting that the Commission will be meeting next Monday, February 10th and will be reviewing a new Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant building at the SLO Promenade and the Aesthetics section of the Johnson Avenue Housing Project EIR. She added that the Measure Y presentation would be moved to a later date, and that the Old Mission School Project had been appealed to the City Council. 4. Commission: The Commission had a general discussion about new businesses along Garden Street. Commr. Wynn mentioned that the old Union Bank building had been taken over by Heritage Oaks Bank and that there had been tree removals in the parking lot. He also asked staff to report at a later meeting about sidewalk cafe regulations and the possibility of removing barriers when businesses are closed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Kyle Bell Recording Secretary DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2014 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Anthony Palazzo, 1 Position Vacant, Vice -Chair Greg Wynn, and Chairperson Michelle McCovey-Good Absent: None Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Planning Technician Walter Oetzell, Landscape Architect and EIR Visual Consultant Bob Carr, and Recording Secretary Kyle Bell ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS: D.K. Philbin requested to make a general comment about Item # 2 because he needed to leave early. He requested that the ARC keep in mind the neighborhood cohesion when discussing aesthetics of the project. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 309 Madonna Road. ARC 84-13; Review of new building for Buffalo Wild Wings; C-R-PD zone; Blazin Wings, Inc., applicant. (Walter Oetzell) Walter Oetzell, Planning Technician, presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission adopt the draft resolution granting final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. Senior Planner Ricci added that the staff recommends that the applicant use the individual faced brick veneer shown on the submitted materials board, rather than the panelized wall system reviewed at the meeting. Vice -Chair Wynn asked about the new conditions to be added to the resolution and where they are included in the resolution. Planning Technician Oetzell explained that the added Public Works conditions are numbered 11 and 12 and relate to the upgrade of the radial curb ramp and repairs to, or replacement of, frontage improvements. Draft ARC Minutes February 10, 2014 Page 2 Vice -Chair Wynn commented on the differences in the cornice design between the front elevation shown in the PowerPoint presentation and perspective views in the Commissioners' packets. Rick Hallenbeck, architect, clarified the perspective view shows the cornice design correctly. He also provided a photo of an installation of the panelized brick which he shared with the ARC. Commr. Hopkins asked about the rationale for the material change. Rick Hallenbeck responded that the initial design is the panelized brick and he wanted the ARC to consider it for this project. Commr. Curtis asked about the orientation of the building and the rationale for having the entrance to the building being on the opposite side from the parking. Rick Hallenbeck responded that initially they oriented the building toward the parking, and as a request from staff, they rotated the building to have the entrance on the same side as the Applebee's next door so that they both faced the street. PUBLIC COMMENTS: D.K. Philbin clarified that the entrance to the Applebee's was on the side of the building near the side street (El Mercado). COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Wynn stated that he was not a fan of the panelized brick material, and that he thought the added signs under the patio canopy and the front elevation take-out sign were small and acceptable as part of the overall sign program. Commr. Palazzo commented that he would have preferred to see more outdoor window detailing in the plans and did not support the use of the panelized brick. Commrs. Hopkins, Ehdaie, and Curtis commented that they agreed with Vice Chair Wynn's comments. Commr. Palazzo expressed concerns about the design of the Buffalo Wild Wings building being too generic. Pam Ricci added that the applicant had worked with staff to make modifications to the siting, architectural details, and colors of the building to better comply with the City's Community Design Guidelines. On motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie to to adopt the draft resolution granting final approval to the project design with the following modifications to conditions (6:0): Draft ARC Minutes February 10, 2014 Page 3 a. Add the following sentences to the end of condition No. 2: "The south elevation of the building shall be clad with the individual faced brick veneer CHC Muddux — Monterey Bay Flashed") shown on the approved materials board. A panelized wall system reviewed at the meeting imitating the appearance of brick shall not be used as exterior cladding. b. Delete the second sentence of Condition No. 3. AYES: Commrs. Ehdaie, Hopkins, Palazzo, Curtis, Wynn, and McCovey-Good NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. The Commission took a five-minute break at 5:40 p.m. Commrs. Palazzo & Curtis recused themselves from participation in the discussion of Item No. 2. Commr. Palazzo had a conflict as his firm does work for the School District and Commr. Curtis lives within 500 feet of the project site. 2. 1642 Johnson Avenue. ARC 56-08; Review of the Aesthetics Section of the Johnson Avenue Housing Project EIR and project design guidelines; R-2 zone; San Luis Coastal Unified School District, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, provided an overview of the project and EIR process, and Bob Carr, Landscape Architect and EIR Visual Consultant, discussed the methodology of the analysis included in the Visual Section of the EIR. Staff closed the presentation by reiterating that the goal of the meeting was to obtain comments and feedback on the Aesthetics Section of the EIR and to focus on Mitigation Measure AES-3(a) to provide suggestions on additions or changes. Commr. Hopkins asked about the requirements in the mitigation measure and when those modifications would be reflected in the elevations and photo simulations of the designs for the project. Pam Ricci replied that, after certification of the EIR, a specific project design would need to return for final approval by the ARC and plans would need to include all of the required information for final review. Carol Florence, representative, emphasized that this is a pre -conceptual design for the site and noted the applicant has requested that the EIR public review period be extended to allow for more analysis and information to be considered. She also discussed how the City's plans and policies support this type of project. She noted that the applicant was in agreement with the mitigation measures and that they hoped to save site trees. Draft ARC Minutes February 10, 2014 Page 4 Jonathan Watts, architect, explained the rationale behind the orientation of the project on the site. He also commented on the architecture of the building and how it complements the style of the area and how the colors blend with the hillside. Vice -Chair Wynn questioned the discussion of some of the project details included in the design guidelines mitigation measure if the project was just a concept at this point. Jonathan Watts responded that the Commission can provide feedback on the EIR mitigation measures such as color choices to reduce the project scale. Vice -Chair Wynn asked about rationale of the zone of the project and if the project reflects the maximum build out of the project site. Carol Florence responded that they started with single-family development and out of concern for sprawl and the City's desire for higher density, the project team decided upon R-4 zoning in response to those concerns. Pam Ricci noted that the EIR found that there were significant visual impacts associated with project development, but that the impacts could be mitigated to be less -than - significant with the recommended mitigation measures. Commr. Hopkins asked Bob Carr about the visual impact thresholds and how the team determined whether or not the impacts were significant. Bob Carr noted that the thresholds for visual impacts were complex and based on a variety of factors including prominence of views, duration of views, and numbers of residents affected by the views. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dia Hurd expressed that she feels that the EIR is overlooking what the neighborhood needs and that its references to scale focus too much on larger buildings such as the hospital and school. Ron Tilley, expressed concern about this type of development neighboring an R-1 zone, and that the development looks like Cal Poly housing. He also expressed concerns with slope stability and recommended the undergrounding of utilities. Lanny Hernandez stated that the project is a pig and that no amount of cosmetics will change it from being a pig and no amount of dressing up the project will change it from the impact it will have on the neighborhood. Steve Sicanoff noted that the Draft EIR has made the surrounding homes impossible to sell at this point due to the uncertainty of the pending project. He suggested that the project move closer to the school and away from the neighborhoods and be greatly downsized. He expressed concern that the City is valuing the patch of grass for preservation more than the character of the neighborhood. He mentioned that the project looks like something they would build over at Cal Poly. Draft ARC Minutes February 10, 2014 Page 5 Dave Kuykendall shared that the project blocks a lot of the views from Johnson, and the mitigation of the project is an attempt to deal with a problem and not solve the problem. John Kerr stated that the aesthetics, scale, and style of the project should focus on something that complements the character of the neighborhood. Donald Avery shared that the neighborhood has currently has a really nice view and this project needs to be scaled down to respect that. He noted that Fixlini is often used as hiking trail to connect to trails and neighborhoods and the project needs to take the view points from the trails into consideration. He added that he is offended that the grass patch is being prioritized more than the neighborhood. Dick Paul explained that it is difficult for the public to perceive the project due to the conceptual designs and that they don't know what to expect from what actually may develop there. Wendy Brown expressed concerns about the zone changes from R-2 to R-4 and that, in comparison, there are not any R-4 projects downtown. She shared that she believes that there could be a better project that would be beautiful at a smaller scale. Paul Abbott expressed that he is in favor of the City pursuing high -density housing and that the site is good for development; although, he feels that the density of this project is not appropriate for this site, and that there are unique views in this area that need to be preserved. Paul Gabriel stated that he is entirely against the project, and that there needs to be an entry point from San Luis Drive since Fixlini Street will not suffice as the only entrance to be able to handle that kind of traffic. He noted that the project is too tall and the views around the site need to be preserved. He mentioned that the project is being crammed in the corner of the site and that there is plenty of room to spread out onto the site. He concluded that the project and the zone change do not fit the neighborhood. Eric Meyer shared that he feels it may be easier to move the needle grass than to develop such large and tall buildings on the site. He mentioned the nearby La Loma Adobe and that its proximity to the site needs to be part of the EIR evaluation. He suggested that an R-2 zone could meet the profit that the school is looking for and be a better fit for the neighborhood. Jed Hazeltine shared that he feels the project is an abomination. He expressed concern about light pollution from the site at night that might affect the neighborhood or the hiking trails. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Pam Ricci explained that the Commission's purview is to comment on the Aesthetics section of the Draft EIR and discuss whether the proposed mitigation measures are adequate to offset visual impacts. Draft ARC Minutes February 10, 2014 Page 6 Vice -Chair Wynn asked staff why the ARC was scheduled to go first before the Planning Commission on this project. Pam Ricci replied that the ARC meeting was scheduled first to provide feedback on the visual analysis included in the Aesthetics section of the EIR to the Planning Commission. Commr. Hopkins stated that the mitigation measures do not fully address the impact of the project scale at this site. Commr. Ehdaie supported AES-3(a) without the inclusion of Item "b" since she believed that the buildings did not need more articulation between units. Vice -Chair Wynn agreed with Commr. Hopkins that the mitigation measures were not sufficient to offset the visual impacts of project development on the site. However, he suggested that additional wording be added to the preamble of Mitigation Measure AES-3(a) to require sections and a digital model along with plans and elevations for ARC review. He added that the EIR analyze the glare and "lantern" aspects of the current design. He noted that it is important that the project focus on preserving viewsheds. Chair McCovey-Good agreed with Commr. Ehdaie's comment that Item "b" be stricken from Mitigation Measure AES-3(a). She added that the allowed project color palette not be restricted to just dark earth colors (Item 'T), and that retaining walls don't need to be limited to having a stone surface (Item "h"). She concurred with Vice Chair Wynn about the importance of maintaining view corridors. She noted that the potential impacts to historic sites and buildings near the project need to be evaluated in the EIR. Commr. Ehdaie asked if some off -site mitigation could be done to offset impacts to the needle grass habitat. Pam Ricci replied that an alternative in the EIR looks at this. Vice -Chair Wynn added that the project mitigation is too specific on a color scheme and that some light colors might be more appropriate. Commr. Hopkins asked if there was a way that the Commission could express their concerns regarding the appropriateness of the project for the area. Pam Ricci added that the staff can forward the meeting minutes to the Planning Commission, so they have a chance to see the public comment from the ARC. She summarized that the ARC concluded that the EIR mitigation measures did not fully offset the project's visual impacts and that an alternative footprint for the project, specifically allowing some encroachment into the purple needle grass meadow, should be explored further; the ARC agreed with this synopsis. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff: Draft ARC Minutes February 10, 2014 Page 7 a. Agenda Forecast Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects. 4. Commission: The Commission had a general discussion about projects in the Broad Street corridor, specifically mentioning the remodel of the old Mazda dealership for offices and the church building at 2747 Broad Street as a single-family house. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Kyle Bell Recording Secretary