The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/17/1990, 2 - APPEAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION DENYING A REQUEST TO DELETE ""DIVIDED LIGHT"" WIN" Same as agenda rr- ort from the 3/20/90 meeti -,. �III�II�IIIII�U� N�uI City Of San IDIS OBISPO E4-1 TING DATE: 7-90 OftZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORTITEM NUMBER: FROM: Arno4�onas, Community Development Director; BY: David Moran, Associate Planner 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 approving storefront window systems for the ground floor tenant spaces and requiring "divided light" windows to be installed on the second story of 81 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 west-facing windows on the rear building (81 Higuera Street) to have 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 thatthe ground floor windows were changed to standard aluminum storefront systems and that, with one exception, 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 these changes. At their February 20, 1990 meeting, the ARC voted 4-1 to approve the storefront system for the ground floor and to deny the request to delete the divided light windows from the second floor. 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 a-� °1� ulllflll�� ll city of san lues oBispo WINZA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 90-08 Page 2 The Council must resolve the appeal. If the appeal is upheld, the second story windows installed on the rear building at Pacific Coast Center (81 Higuera Street) would remain as they are without the divided lights. 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. Site Description 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 18001s, 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. 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 by helping to 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 reduce the a-a ��,►�� ►�il►Il��p ►II81'�I city of san tuis oBispo r- MlGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 90-08 Page 3 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. 2. The Window Problem - This item was continued from the Council's .March 20, 1990 meeting to allow staff and the appellant time to clarify how the change in the window treatment came about. The appellant had argued to the Architectural Review Commission (and in his letter of appeal, attached) that the windows installed on the rear building reflected a change which was approved at the staff level. Staff has no written record of such a change and the city's copy of the approved building permit plans show the divided light windows. Note that the final motion for approval from the March 21, 1988, ARC minutes included a requirement that the building employ standardized window openings, meaning that each window should be the same size and shape (standardized) , rather than a variety of shapes. In fact the appellant's copy of the approved building permit plans bears the staff planner's signature approving a window detail for Building "A" (75 Higuera Street) consistent with this direction. It is not uncommon for applicant's to reconsider suggestions and recommendations of the ARC after final approval and request minor changes consistent with that direction. Unfortunately, the same sheet which shows the revised window detail for the front building (75 Higuera Street) also shows an elevation of the rear building (81 Higuera Street) which has the revised windows without the mullions. The appellant may have mistaken the confirmation of the window detail for the front building as approval for wholesale changes in the window scheme for the rear building which was not staff's intention nor authority. The ARC felt that, regardless of whether the changed were approved by staff or undertaken on the appellant's own initiative, the plans they approved showed the divided lights and therefore the building must be constructed accordingly. 3. Alternative Solutions -- The following alternative solutions were considered by the Commission: -- Remove the existing windows and install the required divided light windows. �3 �� iIIIII�IpniiNBJN city of San tins osIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 90-08 Page 4 This alternative would be the most costly to the applicant 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 without modification. 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. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Architectural Review Commission to allow the storefront system on the ground floor and 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 allow the storefront system on the ground floor and to require the installation of the divided light windows on the second floor of the rear building (81 Higuera Street) . 1\ i�iIIIIII�P°A��I8111 city or San tins omspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 90-08 Page 5 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 of February 20, 1990, and March 21, 1988 ARC meetings a-s DRaft REsolution N. '1 RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE 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 on the second floor of 81 Higuera Street are an important element of the project which help recall the industrial vernacular of the buildings which previously occupied the site. 2. The deletion of the divided lights would detract from the historic character of the building. 3. The proposed storefront system on the ground floor of 81 Higuera Street is appropriate. 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. The request to allow aluminum storefront window systems for the ground floor tenant spaces 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. Resolution No. (1990 Series) ARC 90-08 Page 2 � Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: C1_ City inistrative Officer �it o Community DeV o ment Director JL1:restrl82.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 A NEW 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 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 scheme for 81 Higuera Street is appropriate at the proposed location and will not adversely affect the historic character of the site and building. SECTION 2. The proposed deletion of second story divided light windows and addition of ground floor aluminum storefront systems for 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. a-� Resolution No. (1990 Series) ARC 90-08 Page 2 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Administrative Officer -r,4t Orr 14t 07 ,�Vmma Community Devel m nt Director a-q PACIFIC COAST CENTER ICINITY I zzz� SO U I'H I 1 STREET __ _ - ---- - / - - -- -- - - - ' I E- -- - xF 1 Wi RA YNE r- w I KATER SOFT ! C/) ' I CO. 1 I Q i I - 0h I ; North I 1 1 r � � ( U i I i ASI . .1 I I STN 1 J 1" = 50' I , I r , 1 E7. , r I I i r ► I u._.: r 1 E i r I I 9OBaX I HOME PARI{ , w � ' Y ' � C i • , *"3ef ,�„�a ?:,.., i 1 •'ilJo '3. ..< y S Nt < h� I 2: BRIDGE STREET I 1 � I 0 February 28, 19% 'n L C C L - City of San Luis Obispo P O. Box 1763 990 Palm Street Sar Luis Obsoo. CA 93,106 San Luis Obispo, California 805-543-8316 93403-8100 RECEIVEI✓ Attention: Pam Voges City Clerk MAR 0 51990 C1130 o1 San Lu Obispo. —muegy Devebpo. 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 'C' 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 on 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, mud A) i9�o * � ,by Lead Psm: RECEIVED Marshall E. Ochylski Reword by: Chief Financial Officer cAo' PAR 1 1990 C1�C Atty. CITY CLERK M EO/se 1er -0w4 SAN LUIS OBISPo.CA Cd'A. (TON.v.$' a:...r.. �, .. ._•tgI r - _? 0 c m m _ F y O Z U F U , r r r -t • C� ®;i J D VjIJ . U cL C � , o a is 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, Morris, Starr, Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None 4213 !_ 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. Starr seconded the motion. AYES: Bradford, Starr, Jones, Chatham, Morris, Cooper NOES: Gates ABSENT: None The motion passes. a�� 2. ARC 87-186: 65 H. Street; new service-commercial s. ,)-`ng center; C-S-S zone; schematic revir 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 Higucra Street frontage/streetscape 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 cicvation of building "D", and bringing the solid forms 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 cicvation needed softening. Commr. Morris preferred square windows on the Higucra cicvation and felt the 6-foot sidcu•aik 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. Cua'mr. 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 ,ru-scs and the roof-mounted ventilators raised. He thought the color of the sidcwalk concrete was critical and suggesting using something similar to pea gravel. He felt a false window screened on the northerly cicvation should be used. Commr. Starr ,moved to grant final approval to the project with standardized window openings, adding 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. Radcmakcr returned to the meeting. Minutes From ARC Meeting of March 21 , 1988