Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/1990, 3 - APPEAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION DENYING A REQUEST TO DELETE ""DIVIDED LIGHT"" WIN" ��� ��III� ► � city of sa►n Luis OBIsPO MEEnNG DATE: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT " & 3 FROM: Arnold Jonas,`7 Community Development Director; BY: Davidpwt Moran, Associate Pla ner SUBJECT: Appeal of an Architectural Review Commission action denying a request to delete "divided light" windows from the second story of a new commercial building at 81 Higuera Street (Pacific Coast Center) at the intersection of Madonna Road and Higuera Street. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. Draft Resolution No. 1 to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Architectural Review Commission requiring "divided light" windows to be installed on the second story of 85 Higuera Street. BACKGROUND At its March 21, 1988 meeting, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) granted final approval for a new 50,000 square foot commercial project, Pacific Coast Center, on this 2.5 acre site. Plans for final architectural approval show all of the 14 ' X 6' windows on the second floor of the rear building to have red, aluminum "divided lights" , which divide the windows into, individual 18 inch square panes framed with deep, metal mullions. Inspection of the building for final occupancy revealed that the windows on the second story were installed without the mullions, or "divided lights" as required by final architectural approval. To remedy this situation, the applicant applied for a revision to the approved plans which would allow him to delete the mullions and leave the installed windows as they are: single 14 ' X 6' panes. At its February 20, 1990 meeting, the ARC voted 4-1 to deny the request and require the installation of the divided light windows as originally approved. The Commission did allow the applicant the option of installing dimensional "plant-on" mullions (see minutes attached) . This action, to continue the requirement of a multi- pane window appearance, regardless of the method employed, has been appealed to the City Council. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS No adverse environmental effects are expected to occur if the appeal is upheld or denied. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TARING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION The Council must resolve the appeal. If the appeal is upheld, the second story windows installed on the rear building at Pacific Coast Center (85 Higuera Street) would remain as they are without the divided lights. �►►��i�►�IVIIIIIII�Ih ����N MY Of San LUIS OBISpo iPQUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 Data Summary Address: 75 and 81 Higuera Street Applicant: Interwest Investment Group Representative: Marshall Ochylski Zoning: C-S-S General Plan: Service commercial/light industrial Environmental Status: This project is categorically exempt from environmental review. Site DescriRtion The site is a relatively flat, 2.34 acre site with a new 50,000 square foot service commercial center consisting of two buildings. Evaluation 1. Historical Background and Community Contest -- The council may remember that the property at the intersection of Higuera Street and Madonna Road (formerly The Loomis Building, 65 Higuera Street) is listed on the city's Master List of Historic Resources. The historical significance of the site relates to the fact that it was owned by the family of A.M. Loomis, a pioneer settler in San Luis Obispo County. During the 1800's, the site was used by the narrow gauge Pacific Coast Railroad as a switching yard. The railway played a vital role in the emergence of San Luis Obispo as a regional agricultural center by providing a link between the local farms and Port Harford where goods were shipped to various markets around the country. In addition to its historic significance, the project site occupies an important entryway location for the city at the intersection of two heavily travelled arterials. Sensitivity to these factors has resulted in a project which is both attractive and functional, in staff's view. 2. The Window Problem -- Minutes from the March 21, 1988 ARC meeting are attached. The record suggests that, while the divided lights were not discussed specifically, window treatment was considered a key element of the project which helps establish an attractive visual rhythm reminiscent of the industrial vernacular of the buildings which previously occupied the site. The Council can see an example of the approved windows by looking at the second floor window below the clock tower on the rear building (81 Higuera Street) where the divided lights have been installed. Note how the divided lights help to �uH�► i�►Iill�llin�u►i fit MY Of San LUIS OBISpo A QgUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 reduce the apparent mass of this element of the building by breaking up the expanse of window glass. Conversely, the absence of the divided lights on the remaining second floor windows makes the building appear top heavy and vacant when viewed from the entrance of the project. The Council should visit the site to get the best perspective; elevations are attached. 3 . Alternative Solutions -- The following alternative solutions were considered by the Commission: -- Remove the existing windows and install the required divided light windows. This alternative would be the most costly but would result in the approved window treatment and appearance of the building. -- Attach "plant-on" mullions/divided lights to the existing windows. It may be difficult to match the existing divided lights in size and scale, but this may be a more economically feasible alternative than replacing the windows. The applicant/appellant has indicated that in order to duplicate the depth of the real divided lights, the plant-on mullions would need to be a separate structure of such a size and weight that the window system around the pane could not structurally support them. Nevertheless, the ARC did allow the applicant this alternative. -- Leave the windows as they are, and/or require some other alternative. After considering these alternatives, the Commission voted 4- 1 in favor of requiring the divided light windows to be installed. As an alternative, the ARC allowed the applicant to use dimensional plant-on mullions to duplicate the effect of the divided lights. 3. Appellant's Statement -- The appellant contends that the windows installed on the second story of the rear building reflect a change in the approved window schedule which was made at the staff level. No written record exists of such a staff-level approval; the approved building permit plans show the divided light windows. In addition, there appeared to be some confusion regarding the direction given to the applicant at the time of final approval for the project which was granted in March, 1988. The minutes of that meeting are attached. Note that the final motion for approval included a requirement that the building employ ����► �uIIIIIIfIIIP� ��IN city of san Luis osispo 99UNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 4 standardized window openings, meaning that each window should be the same size and shape (standardized) , rather than a variety of shapes. The applicant may have misunderstood this direction as meaning that the mullions, or divided lights, could be deleted. Again, the final building permit plans show divided lights and standardized window openings for the project. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Architectural Review Commission to require the divided light windows. 2 . The Council may adopt Draft Resolution No. 2 to uphold the appeal and allow the deletion of the divided light windows. 3 . The Council may continue review with direction to the appellant and staff. RECOMMENDATION The Council should adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Architectural Review Commission to require the installation of the divided light windows on the second floor of the rear building (85 Higuera Street) . Attachments: ,vicinity map / Draft Resolution No. 1 (deny appeal) Draft Resolution No. 2 (uphold the appeal) . appellant's statement/appeal elevations for rear building (81 Higuera Street) minutes from ARC meetings of February 20, 1990, and March 21, 1988 Draft REsOIUtion No. 1 RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF T_HE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A REVISION TO THE APPROVED WINDOW DESIGN FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING (PACIFIC COAST CENTER) AT 81 HIGUERA STREET BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the applicant's request ARC 90- 08, and the Architectural Review Commission's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The "divided light" windows are an important element of the project which help recall the industrial vernacular of the buildings which. prevously occupied the site. 2. The proposed change in window detail would detract from the historic character of the building. - SECTION 2. The request for approval of the change in window detail to allow deletion of the divided lights from the second floor windows of the new commercial building at 81 Higuera Street is hereby denied. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1989. Resolution No. (1990 Series) ARC 90-08 Page 2 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Ci istrative Officer t tt rnF- f zzll, Community Deve opment Director JLl:restr182.wp Draft REsolution No. 2 RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION THEREBY ALLOWING A REVISION TO THE APPROVED WINDOW DESIGN FOR ANEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 81 HIGUERA STREET (THE "PACIFIC COAST CENTER) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:- SECTION ollows:SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the applicant's request ARC 90- 08, and the Architectural . Review Commission's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:- 1. The proposed revision to the window design is appropriate at the proposed location and will not adversely affect the historic character of the site and building. SECTION 2. The proposed revision to the window design for the second floor windows of. 81 Higuera Street ARC 90-08 is hereby approved. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote:" AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1989. Mayor Resolution No. (1990 Series) ARC 90-08 Page 2 ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Administrative Officer C# tt me Community Devel ent Director PACIFIC COAST CENTER VICINITY' f -- - SO U 1'H 1 STKEET --- --- ----- RA YNE -- --RAYNE a N W ` XATER ; j SOFT C/] ' , f CO. I � L Q I I i � North 1 r IGASf _ . f � . STN ` 1" = 50' ! 1 r E. � r 1 ! i MoBax ' L , HOME I ' 1 �a7. PARK / �= 2I, - SGS .: �y„�➢ 'o / ss 1 BRIDGE; STREET 1 � 1 I 1 .nl - -10 February 28, 1990 'n u CtwC.Nc City of San Luis Obispo P O Box 1763 990 Palm Street Son Luis Oblsoo, CA 93406 805!543-8316 San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 Attention: Pam Voges City Clerk Subject: Appeal of Architectural Review Commission Action Denying Window Revisions Building °C', Pacific Coast Center, 81 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, California, As a representative of the Owners of the above referenced property, I am appealing the action by the Architectural Review Commission requiring the replacement of the existing second story windows on Building 'G of Pacific Coast Center located at 81 Higuera Street. it is the Owner's position that the windows as installed are in conformance with the project approvals and subsequent staff.reviews, approvals and interpre- tations. The character of the second story windows was raised as an issue by one of the ARC Commissioners during the ARC/Planning Commission joint meeting held to tour new projects in the City. The date of this meeting was well after the installation of the windows and their approval by both the Planning and Building Departments. It has always been the Owners' intent to develop a project of the highest quality, and it is the Owners' belief that that objective has been achieved and that the project meets community standards for design and construction. The Owners sincerely regret the necessity of this appeal since it was our un- derstanding that the issue had been resolved at the staff level, however this extraordinary action by the ARC leaves the Owners with no alternate course of action. Sincerely, *Denotes action by Lead Parson ' RECEIVED Marshall E. Ochylski q�OOrtl by: ec Chief Financial Officer 'oundl f>AR 1 1990 VCAO 1VVC Atry. CITY CLERK r'riierk-oriq. SAN LUIS OBISPO.CAAMEO/se . �,� � 1 n N � ° r ,*® :� 1 I I I , I la t 1 � I 00 HN � � rn N CD CD C) J c p G C j C c d ' = m D N � W to l ❑ 1 I , ❑ I. •�_ I ; - 1 1 4t �•tII s -n" IX ® r LY 1.1 LJ G-!� Draft ARC Minutes February 20, .1990 3. ARC 90-08: 75 Higuera Street; new service-commercial shopping center; C-S- S zone; window plan revisions. Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending approval of the applicant's request for an the exception to the Sign Regulations to allow the wall sign on the north building elevation; and denial of a request to approve as-built changes to the second floor windows on the rear building. Staff recommended that the existing windows be replaced with the true divided light windows as originally approved. Marshall Ochylski, representative, responded to the staff report and explained the background of the project. He claimed that city staff had approved the window change after building permit issuance. He said that it was his understanding that the commission had originally approved a wall sign north-facing building elevation on Higuera Street. Commr. Bradford supported the wall sign but did not support deleting the divided light windows. Commr. Morris agreed with Commr. Bradford. Commr. Starr also agreed but could accept using applied mullions as long as they were dimensional. Commr. Gates indicated she supported the sign proposal and felt-it was acceptable to delete the mullions. Commr. Cooper agreed with Commr. Bradford. He thought that it was essential to use divided lite windows. He supported the end wall sign. Commr. Bradford moved to approve an exception to the Sign Regulations to allow a wall sign on the northerly face of the building subject to the finding that the desire to retain the existing non-conforming historic building along Higuera Street constitutes an exceptional circumstance which warrants an exception to the Sign Regulations. Commr. Gates seconded the motion. AYES: Bradford, Gates, Jones, Chatham, Moms, Starr, Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None Draft ARC Minutes February 20, 1990 The motion passes. Commr. Bradford moved to deny plan revisions to change the windows but with the option of installing "dimensional applied mullions" in lieu of replacing the existing windows to the approval of the Community Development Department staff. Commr. Stan seconded the motion. AYES: Bradford, Starr, Jones, Chatham, Morris, Cooper NOES: Gates ABSENT: None The motion passes. IVY 2. ARC 87-186: 65f._6uera Street; new service-commercial, ,bpping center.• C-S-S zone; schematic review. Commr. Rademaker stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Dave Moran, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the commission grant schematic approval and forward comments regarding the Higuera Street frontage/strcetscape to the Planning Commission. Marshall Ochyski, applicant, responded to the staff report and explained changes to the project. He noted that signs would be vertical on the sloped roof. Commr. Baur suggested corrugating the northerly elevation and putting in trained vines. Commr. Starr liked the project. He suggested using texture on the northerly elevation of building "D", and bringing the solid Corms to grade on building "F" over the doors. He thought the southeast window on the easterly elevation was too big. Commr. Jones felt that windows vs. noise could be a problem. He felt the northerly elevation needed softening. Commr. Morris preferred square windows on the Higucra elevation and felt the 6-foot sidewalk was acceptable with no landscaping. He wanted building "F" moved to Preserve existing privet trees. He felt evergreen trees should be incorporated into this project. Commr. Cooper felt the look of the long windows should be interrupted and suggested using standard window proportions ( 3x6 ctc). He also wanted to sec a wood cover over the trusses and the roof-mounted ventilators raised. He thought the color of the sidewalk concrete was critical and suggesting using something similar to pea gravel. He felt a false window screened on the northerly elevation shol,Id be used. Commr. Starr moved to grant final approval to the project with standardized window openings, aiding texture to the entries of building 'F", the use of corrugated concrete walls, and the placement of evergreen trees to return to staff for approval. He also suggested that rain gutters be used on the buildings and that gutter details return to the commission for approval. Commr. Jones seconded the motion. AYES: Starr, Jones, Baur, Morris, Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: Rademaker The motion passes. Commr. Rademaker returned to the meeting. Minutes From ARC Meeting of March 21 , 3988 f � MEETING AGENDA DATE X20 -90 ITEM # MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Dunin and City Council Members FROM: Arnold B. Jonas,Community Development Director VIA: John Dunn, City lllAdministrative Officer DATE: March 20, 1990 SUBJECT: March 20, 1990 City Council Agenda item number 3, appeal of ARC action concerning anew commercial building at 81 Higuera Street Staff has been working with the applicant/appellant to assure that all relevant information for this item has been compiled and analyzed for Council consideration. Unfortunately, that goal has not yet been achieved, and to proceed ahead with the appeal hearing at this time could result in unnecessary confusion. Therefore, staff and applicant are recommending that this item be continued to the Council meeting of April 17, 1990. cc: City Clerk RE E 1b-17- E0 MAR 2 0 1990 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA * �etwtes action by Lend Person 1`1�espond by. ncil AO u uy Atty. lank-orig. WJ 17o-NA$ f�NA�iPl,¢Z L� T,?, ;