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,?,
;