HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/02/1990, - APPEAL 1200 MONTEREY STREET 1. APPEAL - 1200 MONTEREY STREET (JONAS/407 - 30 min.)
Report not available at agenda close. To be distributed under separate cover.
J-
MEETING DATE:
�����►�NiiuIIIIIIIIIP� ��JIIi city of San WIS OBISpo - ► o - 2--T
COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT am- me ITEM NUMBER: /
a
FROM: Arnold Jonas ommunity Development Director
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of Architectural Review Commiss_io its action to deny plans for a
new four-story building at the east corner of Monterey and Toro Streets.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
After reviewing the revisions to the project, adopt a resolution to either (1) uphold
the appeal without conditions; or (2), uphold the appeal subject to a condition for
further ARC review of building design and massing; or (3), deny the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The council first considered this appeal on August 21, and continued the item with
direction to enhance the building's relationship to the Monterey streetscape. The
applicant has submitted revised plans which attempt to respond to council direction.
The ARC had denied the project after trying at several meetings to work with the
applicant to come up with an appropriate design. The commission cited concerns with
the project's mass and scale of the building, and lack of pedestrian orientation, among
other factors.
An administrative use permit is also required for the project, since seven of the 40
required parking spaces are to be located off-site at 1131 Monterey Street.
Data Summary
Address: 1200 Monterey Street
Applicant: Radakovich, Shaw, and Company
Representative: SDG Architects
Zoning: C-R
General Plan: Retail Commercial
Environmental Status: Negative declaration approved by director and by ARC.
RECEIVE ®
SEP 2 5 1990
S•00,4*
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA/��
ARC 90-14
Page 2
Site Description
9,035-square-foot site with 102' frontage on Monterey, 90' frontage on Toro. The site
has been extensively graded in the past. An existing retaining wall is located at the
northwesterly property line. The wall was apparently built in conjunction with an
automotive service building formerly located on the site. There is no significant
vegetation at the site, with the exception of several mature street trees.
The site is surrounded by various retail commercial, office, and residential uses.
Project Revisions
The proposed design has been revised to incorporate several hundred square feet of
additional retail space at the Monterey Street level. The new retail also provides added
screening for the parking levels.
The parking required by the Zoning Regulations for the expanded retail space will be
met by providing one additional off-site parking space, and by added bicycle parking
spaces.
EVALUATION
The revised plans represent a significant effort on the part of the applicant to respond
to the council's emphasis on the appropriate pedestrian orientation of the building's use
and appearance.
The applicant has chosen not to make revisions to address the concerns raised at the
Architectural Review Commission regarding the mass of the upper levels of the building,
and regarding other aspects of facade detailing. Those issues were not discussed in detail
by the council at the previous hearing.
If the council determines that the revised plans adequately address all use and design
concerns raised during the review process, the council may grant final approval to the
project at tonight's hearing. Otherwise, the project may be referred back to the ARC
for refinement of building detail, with direction as to overall building design and mass.
The ARC asked the applicant to modify the upper level of the building to reduce its
visual impact; commissioners suggested elimination of the loggia (covered balcony) facing
Monterey Street on the upper level as a starting point. Commissioners considered the
following factors in evaluating the appropriate scale for a building on the project site:
- Scale of existing buildings nearby-
- The cumulative visual effect of similar development on other Monterey Street
properties.
�'d2
• ARC 90-14
Page 3
- Impact of the project on views. Views of hillsides surrounding the community
would be most affected for perhaps a half-dozen office and residential properties
surrounding the site, and some restriction of views will affect as many as two
dozen offices and residences. The extent of view blockage will be a function of
proximity to the new structure, finish floor elevation, and orientation of windows
and outdoor use areas.
- Height and coverage regulations. The C-R zone allows a maximum height of
45 feet, and 100% coverage. These limits establish an envelope within which any
building must be located, but do not establish the right to develop a building
which completely fills the envelope. The proposed project would have an average
height of 38 feet, and would cover 83% of the site.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Several neighbors have testified in opposition to the project. Refer to the attached ARC
hearing minutes.
CONCURRENCES
The Fire Department staff notes that the developer will be required to extend a water
main and install a fire hydrant to mitigate fire flow deficiencies.
The project is designed to accommodate future widening of Monterey Street. Although
no plan line has been formally adopted for the widening project, the building is set back
six feet from the existing right-of-way line in accordance with the plan line
recommendation of the Engineering staff, and consistent with city actions on previous
projects in the Monterey Street corridor.
Engineering staff also notes that the site is subject to flooding; floodgates will be
required at entrances to habitable areas on the two lower levels. Floodgates are not
required for the parking area.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny the appeal. The applicant would have to submit a new application and revised
plans for ARC consideration.
Uphold the appeal. The council may grant final approval to the project as submitted,
or with minor modifications. Or, the project may be referred back to the ARC for
resolution of more significant design details.. Direction should be given to staff and/or
the ARC regarding any details which are to be resolved after the council hearing.
Continuance. The council may continue consideration of the project, with direction to
• staff and the applicant regarding additional information or project revisions which may
be needed.
1"3
ARC 90-14
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing the revisions to the project, adopt a resolution to either (1) uphold the
appeal without conditions; or (2), uphold the appeal subject to a condition for further
ARC review of building design and massing; or (3), deny the appeal.
Attachments: Draft Resolutions:
Approval, with referral to ARC
Approval
Denial
Vicinity Map
Appeal Letter
ARC Minutes: 4/30, 6/18, 7/16
gtsd:ar9014cc.wp
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FROM THE ACTION OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TO DENY APPLICATION NO.
ARC 90-14 AND REFERRING THE PROJECT BACK TO THE ARC FOR
FURTHER MODIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted
a public hearing on application No. ARC 90-14 on July 16, 1990,
and denied the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed that decision to
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the testimony
and statements of the applicant, and otherinterested parties,
and the records of the Architectural Review Commission hearing
® and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to uphold the appeal
and approve application No. ARC 90-14 subject to the following
findings and condition:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The modified design for the proposed project is in scale
with the neighborhood. The detailing, scale and massing are
appropriate, subject to further refinement to the approval
of the Architectural Review Commission.
2. The modified design for the proposed project will not
unreasonably interfere with views from adjacent properties.
3. The modified design for the proposed project is consistent
with the Goals for Downtown.
SECTION 2. Condition.
1. The applicant shall modify the roofline and facade detailing
to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission.
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
ARC 90-14
Page 2
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 , 1990.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Administr ive Off' r
(a
pk M
tt r
Community Dev 1 pment Director
(D
CU;h
.yO ` ono ot°• ,
Oiw Uv7�� qtr `��� •' `�c ,+°
e
d s
�P .1o
� O4 y �'A \r . • �c e�.i.
V-5
O 6`� �,� p v \1A,
�+w'
' O
4° P
C. pig 3n 7).W ,+
� � _ GT+7MV riOM
• . io � �ati y o
lot
"�; �'.t Y�� �l,�n, TNM '" •• ��OA
.• �r tr' 1 tKbelC P•C� ••.
< ti • ••
R, � 1
Icy, ®
160 vw
oa
�1• L
Lu w
I _
I
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FROM THE ACTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION TO DENY APPLICATION ARC 90-14, A PROPOSAL TO BUILD
A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH COVERED PARKING AT
1200 MONTEREY STREET
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission ,conducted a public
hearing on Application ARC 90-14 on July 16, 1990, and denied the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, the council has considered the testimony and statements of
the applicant, and other interested parties, and the records of the Architectural. Review
Commission hearing and. action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the council determines that the action of the Architectural
Review Commission was not appropriate;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to uphold the appeal and
approve application ARC 90-14 subject to the following findings
1. The proposed project is in scale with the neighborhood. The detailing, scale
and massing are appropriate.
2. The proposed project will not unreasonably interfere with views from adjacent
properties.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the Goals for Downtown because it is
not located within the downtown core area.
4. The proposed project does not include excessive parldng on the site.
/ �Q
OResolution No. (1990 Series)
ARC 90-14
Page 2
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
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City dmims 'trata Officer
i o ey -
Community Develo nt Director
•" re `L ,L7 e } �Jj
sc e O ry �� y�j �\' .� 141
e Q �� �t�� ��` Gwf r� 4' e4 O ��,'� �•�i 9 �
ftv
• � y� 4w � otwM � ••• \ed�r.4i
t,1 •i✓ �� � rt`o�''` � ut4etc y� .e•• ry�4 t _ ��
0,0
•; ,gyp ;� �y� 'K ct33
C
'+' .p ei . ta• a �a o� ���ar P�Lr'ul
Olt.
\4 • y1r
\kV' :�.�'�' 'o Z 4
U
.01A tyc
`.� y d• ASO 1`• •�0 Php�00 'i},••,�_
' v
Obi • JO-)
1 \\
a
•t"
�csrvrr 'h, .�� �f•`e �>>� i,�,
y
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE .CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE ACTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION TO DENY APPLICATION ARC 90-14, A PROPOSAL TO BUILD
A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH COVERED PARKING AT
1200 MONTEREY STREET
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public
hearing on Application ARC 90-14 on July 16, 1990, and denied the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, the council has considered the testimony and statements of
the applicant, and other interested parties, and the records of the Architectural Review
Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the council determines that the action of the Architectural
Review Commission was appropriate;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to deny the appeal and affirm
the action of the Architectural Review Commission, thereby denying Application ARC
90-14 subject to the following findings adopted by the Architectural Review Commission:
1. The proposed project is not in scale with the neighborhood. The detailing,
scale and massing are not appropriate.
2. The proposed project is not appropriate at the proposed location because it
is too high and will block views from adjacent properties.
3. The proposed project is not consistent with the Goals for Downtown because
it is not pedestrian oriented and the first floor is not retail commercial.
4. The proposed project would accommodate uses that require too much parking
to be on the site.
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
ARC 90-14
Page 2
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
ATTEST:
1
City Clerk
APPROVED:
itymimstrauve 01f icer
ty, torn
PJAJNIZ -L��
Community Deve op ent Director
OBISPO
Clt O sAn luiS�
i 990 Palm StreellPost Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I . Chapter
1 .20 of the San Lula Obispo .municlpal Code, the undersigneedr hereby appeals
from tli decision of � 1�1�- - '��� C�N)M1`"' rendered
on )(D �� which decision consisted of the following ( i .e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal .
Use additional sheets as ,seeded) :
RECEIVED
JUL 1 9 1990
C
SAN LUIS 08M.CA
The undersigned discussed the decision being. appealed from with:
fu6t4ol-o 014/6.5 on ) 9a
Appellant:
Name/Title
Representative
&44 51-0 C7 Wo)
Address
54)- 4
Phone
Original for City Clerk
® Copy to City Attorney
Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following rtmen s : ------
City Clerk
SDS
c h i t e c t u r e p l a n n i n g p u b l i c p o 1 y
July 19, 1990
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Members "HAND DELIVERED"
P. O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
RE: Montoro Building, 1200 Monterey Street
Dear Councilpersons:
On behalf of Montoro Associates, we are submitting the attached plans and
application to appeal a decision of the Architectural Review Commission rendered
on July 16, 1990. The majority of the ARC's concerns centered around whether or
not a building of the proposed size is appropriate for this portion of Monterey Street.
A second area of concern expressed by some of the commissioners was a desire to
clip back the roof eaves as a means of reducing the apparent mass of the building.
There is no question that a building similar to the one proposed will change the
character of this portion of Monterey. Such a change from the present mix of auto
repair and sales uses is desirable.. The City has encouraged auto dealerships to
relocate away from this area and the rising land values make one and two story
buildings economically unfeasible. The importance of this area as a visual link
between the visitor serving uses on upper Monterey Street and the downtown area
also plays a role in determining an appropriate design character. Additionally, the
County's interest in future expansions of the Government Center may have a
dramatic impact on this area. Given the uncertainties surrounding the building site,
the ARC is divided on what the City's design goals are for this area, particularly with
respect to scale and intensity of development.
The proposed project is not a speculative office building. The Montoro partners
require the entire amount of space shown on the plans for use as their own offices.
This particular area of Monterey Street lies just outside the downtown core (CC
Zone). The requirement for on-site parking requires a considerably different design
approach than might be appropriate in the downtown core. The overall size of the
proposed building stems from the City zoning requirement that all parking be
provided on or nearby the site. The site itself precludes the use of an auto ramp
inside the building, since the ramp itself would require more space than the parking
pkices it is designed to sefve.
A13 034 S "I L D 1 U D 11 S I (i \ Ci IZ () U P
64 1 H quera Street. Suite 20o San Luis Obispo. California 93401 (805) 541-3848
Montoro Building
July 19, 1990
Page 2
An important goal in the design of the proposed building has been to minimize the
appearance of the on-site parking. A series of deep, narrow openings are utilized to
effectively obscure passerby's view into their parking areas. A metal lattice provides
a screen over the openings similar to a window frame. Furthermore, the front of the
parked cars are recessed 10'-0" into the building from the Monterey Street elevation.
Many projects that have been recently approved by the ARC include clipped roof
eaves and no overhangs. The current use (or overuse) of this detail is popular with
many architects and was inspired by the post-modern movement. This style offers a
harsh roofline with no solar protection. The ARC encourages this detail as an
attempt to reduce a building's apparent mass and scale. We feel the proliferation of
this style will date the building's design and in the future make it "typical of-the late
1980's style". In contrast to the recent trend, our preference is to use wide verandas,
porticos and overhangs which have a sheltering effect and soften the overall
appearance; not unlike the Santa Barbara Savings Building at Osos and Marsh
Streets.
The proposed building has been designed to conform with the City's specified
height limitations and no exceptions have been requested. Simply conforming with
O the City's height and setback units is not an entitlement for the architect to design
whatever he or she may wish; but, if the height limitation desired by the City for a
particular zone is 35' rather than 45' as stated in the ordinance, the zoning
ordinance should be revised to accurately reflect the desired height limitations. An
applicant may always request a variance for special conditions which may require
an exception.
The applicants and myself spent many hours exploring alternative designs for the
building. We feel the ARC contributed some excellent ideas in terms of landscaping,
building color, paving and pedestrian amenities. .We still feel very strong, however,
that the proposed building form respects City zoning standards and offers the most
timeless and enduring design. As occupants of the building, the applicants have a
personal interest in the building's appearance and are more concerned with the
design aesthetics than the average commercial speculative builder. For this reason,
we respectfully request yourfinalapproval of this project.
Respectfully,
STUDIO DESIGN GROUP
Brian Starr, Architect
Vice President
BSttg
Enclosures
A13 034
IV1tETIN AutllUH
_idakovich-Shaw& _ DATE 1 7-P ITEM
MIR NUE.URNKWIMNZNGN�1�
.
., ::es aC!cn by Leaa Person
Roy by
"
August 3, 1990 RECEIVED Nike Radakmich.CPA
H}ty, Ed.in Shaw.CPA
a , 61g90lerk
-orig.
%Ah
Mayor Ron Dun /}Songs
Dunn
Post Office Box 8100 Luis os '
San Luis Obispo, California 93403
Dear Mayor Dunn;
We submitted plans to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for a commercial of-
face building to be constructed at 1200 Monterey. For reasons to be discussed later the
ARC denied the building. We are currently appealing that decision to the City Council.
Before being heard at the council meeting we would like to take this opportunity to point
out a few items we feel should be brought to your attention.
To begin with, we would like to emphasize that we are not developers looking to make a
quick profit at the expense of the best interests of the City. What we are attempting to
build is simply a home for our business. As you are aware office rents are escalating m San
Luis Obispo, particularly in the core, downtown business district. The proposed building is
our attempt to avert a potential move from the City and it's climbing rents. Professionals
fleeing from down town to other county locals cannot be in the best interest of the City's
economic health.
In addition,we feel the building is in keeping with the City's plans to upgrade the main cor-
ridor from the motel district to downtown. We are very proud of the project's design and
have gone out of our way to insure a plan that will greatly enhance the area. It is our un-
derstanding that the City's long range plan is to relocate the auto sales and related busi-
nesses from Monterey, a factor we feel the ARC did not consider. They suggest that the
building may be years ahead of its time. To the contrary, this is not a ground breaking
project. The conversion of the Corda building from an auto dealership to a financial center
was the first step of many projects, such as ours, that will allow the City to realize it's vision
of a Monterey Corridor of which the community can be proud. Also, it is no secret that
County Government expansion could very likely mean large, multi-storied office in the
immediate vicinity.
In keeping with the professional atmosphere desired for Monterey our project has a con-
cealed onsite parking structure. This design eliminates open, street level parking that de-
livers a "strip mall" look, reminiscent of a sprawling suburbia. This will give a more profes-
sional look to the corner.
Another consideration we would like you to take to heart is that we are asking for abso-
lutely no variances. All parameters and specifications are within current City zoning codes
for the property. The property was purchased with the naive notion and within a budget
that assumed we could build a project based on the zoning and height restrictions in effect
for the area. The ARC seems to be trying to mandate zoning by limiting the scope of a
building already within current parameters. If it is the intention of the City to restrict the
tone of projects in this area below current standards it is the prerogative of the City Coun-
cil, not the ARC, to set this type of policy.
Vit csfi Oly r.eQuest that Vnn rnncider these points when you contemplate our appeal.
We feel that if you look at the proposal with the best interest of the community at heart you
.aF J�'• iar —.iA4%TAFi T i, S 091la.3.r.As IFO9 NIA 93401
••A:S",I. Sl .. AOS'%44-LWI
Mayor Ron Dunin
Re: Appeal of 1200 Monterey
August 3, 1990
Page 2.
will agree that the building will be an addition to the City that not only we are proud of, but
so too our children.
Respectfully submitted
2OA"r�) SLL,r Co-.
Radakovich, Shaw & Co.
Certified Public Accountants
H,Idako"Ch-Shaw&CO.
ARC Minutes
June 18, 1990
Page 5
AYES: Gates, Underwood, Bradford, Cooper, Phillips, Chatham
NOES: None
ABSENT: Morris
The motion passes.
Commr. Morris returned to the meeting.
3. ARC 90-14: 1200 Monterey Street; new office building; C-R zone; final review.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
commission continue the project with direction.
Brian Starr, representative, responded to the staff report and noted the alternative
design and showed slides of the site and vicinity. He noted the extent of the C-R
zone and the future character of the neighborhood. He felt the roof overhang
enhances the scale of the building. He indicated that square footage requirements
affect the viability of the project and felt limiting the building to one or two stories
was not feasible. He was open to a trip reduction plan but felt parking reduction
programs should be community-wide and not limited to only one project. He
requested final approval.
Commr. Phillips indicated she had suggested a trip reduction plan in order to reduce
the parking requirement.
Mr. Starr noted that views from Palm Street would not be affected by the height of
this building. He also noted that lighting would be minimized at night. He was
concerned with the effect of screening on ventilation requirements and appearance.
Denise Gingg felt the project was out-of-scale with the neighborhood and too big for
the lot. She noted existing traffic problems and felt the building would block the
view of traffic.
Linda Hampton concurred with Ms. Gingg.
Commr. Cooper felt the model helped to show the scale of the building. He
suggested eliminating the loggia, maintaining the eave overhang, and trip reduction.
He liked the darker color. He wanted the paving changed at the driveways. He felt
ARC Minutes
June 18, 1990
Page 6
Toro Street parking problems should be referred to staff for resolution. He wanted
to see some decorative grill added at the sidewalk level.
Commr. Chatham indicated he would support retail at the lower level instead of
parking but felt parking inside the building would be acceptable. He supported the
"hybrid" with eaves.
Commr. Gates liked the project as presented. She noted the concerns of the
neighbors but felt this was a building corridor. She suggested varying the colors and
enlarging the retail.
Commr. Phillips concurred with previous comments on the colors. She felt she could
support a three-story building with parking reduction. She noted she could not
support final approval at this time due to the parking situation.
Commr. Underwood felt three stories would be preferable. He liked the colonnade
and indicated he could support a hybrid. He felt the colors had improved.
CCommr. Bradford felt this project would be viewed as a precedent. for the future.
She felt two floors of parking with minimal screening would detract from the
pedestrian character of the neighborhood. She also preferred the building to have
three stories with an automobile entrance further from the corner.
Commr. Morris concurred that buildings of this scale would be built between Santa
Rosa Street and the railroad. He liked the hybrid solution with the second floor
softened with plantings and more retail added. He supported a parking reduction.
Commr. Cooper moved to continue consideration of the project with direction to add
more landscaping at the front and rear of the building, soften the appearance of the
second floor parking, combine aspects of alternate designs to eliminate the loggia and
retain the eaves, changes to paving materials, restudy night lighting, and encourage
parking reduction.
Commr. Chatham seconded the motion.
AYES: Cooper, Chatham, Bradford, Underwood, Phillips, Gates, Morris
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passes.
C
-1 9
ARC Minutes
July 16, 1990
Page 5
Findings
1. An exception to sign regulations to allow a 6' high monument sign where 5' is
normally allowed is warranted since it will allow improved tenant visibility who
would otherwise have reduced visibility due to the project's size and
orientation; and
2. South Higuera Street is a medium-high speed arterial, making adequate sign
visibility difficult without the .sign exception. _
3. The Community Development Director's decision to grant a mitigated negative
declaration is affirmed, subject to the inclusion into the project of the four
measures noted in the attached initial study.
Commr. Bradford seconded the motion.
AYES: Cooper, Bradford, Gates, Morris, Underwood .
NOES: Phillips
ABSENT: Chatham n
The motion passes.
4. ARC 90-14: 1200 Monterey Street; new office building; C-R zone; final review.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and recommended the
commission continue the project with direction to revise the upper level design.
Brian Starr, representative, responded to the staff report and noted that the
pedestrian walks would be made of stamped concrete while the driveways would be
smooth concrete. He noted that a security roll-up gate at the entry would be closed
at night. He also noted that his client preferred not to pursue the hybrid design.
Lucille Kimball, 970 Morro, opposed the project feeling it was too big.
Denise Gingg felt the project was too massive for the area and the view from her
house would be blocked except for the top part of the hills. She did not believe that
extensive office development would occur. She noted traffic problems in the area.
OARC Minutes
July 16, 1990
Page 6
Ernest Gene concurred with Ms. Gingg regarding traffic problems in the area. He
felt the office use would detract from the auto/retail toes in the area. He was
concerned with lighting from the building.
Commr. Cooper suggested red curbing Toro Street to control commercial loading in
the street. He supported a.7 p.m. lighting curfew. He felt the building scale would
be acceptable if the loggia were added. He was concerned with the differentiation of
the pedestrian walkway and vehicle paving areas and suggested texturing the
pedestrian walk across the driveway. He also suggested modifying the loggia at the
tower. He thought the landscaping and grill were acceptable but felt some
modifications to the project would be appropriate.
Comair. Phillips thought the building was too big and opposed the project. She felt
only two-stories at this location would be appropriate. She felt that lighting would be
needed for security reasons and was also concerned with traffic in the area. She felt
it would be hard for a automobile to get on Monterey Street from the project site.
O Cornmr. Gates suggested installing some sort of warning light for pedestrians that cars
were existing the driveway. She felt the massing was acceptable and might support
the project if the applicant incorporated Commr. Cooper's suggestions into the project
Comair. Underwood felt the building was too large but may be appropriate in five
years. He still favored the use of loggia and wanted to see the project redesigned.
Comair. Bradford appreciated that thoughtful design and presentation that was made
but felt two levels of parking was not appropriate or consistent with common plans
and goals. She felt there was too much proposed for the site and that the project
must be compatible with the neighborhood.
Cornmr. Morris felt that buildings of similar scale would eventually occur on Monterey
Street. He felt the site lighting could go off at 9:00 p.m. He preferred the concept
of the hybrid design.
Commr. Phillips moved to deny the project based on the following findings:
1. The proposed project is not in scale with the neighborhood. The detailing,
scale, and massing are not appropriate.
2. The proposed project is not appropriate at the proposed location because it is
too high and will block views from adjacent properties.
3. The proposed project is not consistent with the Goals for Downtown because it
ARC Minutes
July 16, 1990
Page 7
4. The proposed project would accommodate uses that require too much parking
to be on site.
Commr. Bradford seconded the motion.
AYES: Phillips, Bradford, Cooper, Underwood
NOES: Gates, Morris
ABSENT: Chatham
The motion passes.
5. ARC 90-49: 423-429 Sandercock Street; add 1-unit apartment to-site with
existing duplex; R72 zone; final approval.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, noted the applicant had called staff and requested a
continuance of this item to the commission's July 30th meeting since he would be out
of town.
Commr. Cooper moved to continue continuation of the project to the commission's
July 30th meeting.
Commr. Gates seconded the motion.
AYES: Cooper, Gates, Underwood, Bradford, Morris, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chatham
The motion passes.
MINUTES
On motion of Commr: Underwood, seconded by Cornmr. Cooper, the minutes of June
18, 1990, were approved as written.
s w
C ARC Minutes
April 30, 1990
Page 6
Commr. Underwood agreed with previous comments. He also liked the roofline. He
felt parking was a problem, but otherwise supported the project.
Commr. Morris felt open space was a problem. He felt useable front yards could be
established with landscape materials.
Commr. Chatham moved to continue consideration of the project with direction to
restudy open space and circulation, relocate trash enclosures, add double-hung
windows, use wing walls, and show sidewalks.
Commr. Cooper seconded the motion.
AYES: Chatham, Cooper, Bradford, Underwood, Phillips, Gates, Morris
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passes.
O
5. ARC 90-14: 1200 Monterey Street; new office building; C-R zone; final review.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
commission grant schematic approval to the project and concur with the negative
declaration approved by the director.
Brian Starr, representative, responded to the staff report and indicated the setback
was requested for a proposed street widening after discussion with the City Engineer.
He noted the design was of a streamlined. Spanish style with an attempt to de-
emphasize the automobile entry. He noted that some views would be affected by the
building's height but felt that the site was in a depression and would.not cause much
of an impact. He indicated low-level _lighting was proposed as well as approximately
a 1/2-inch dimension wrought-iron screen at the parking area. He also indicated low-
key signage at the exterior entries was proposed. He noted that roll-up doors may be
used on the garage. He discussed the project's impact on street trees.
Denise Gingg was concerned the project would block views from her porch and
house. She also had security concerns with the homeless.
Ernest Gene felt there would be problems with parking and that the building was too
high.
_ �-�3
ARC Minutes
April 30, 1990
Page 7
Joe Diehl, applicant, planned to have a well-maintained building that would enhance
the neighborhood. He noted off-site parking was proposed at Dean/Witter.
Commr. Cooper felt the code may be modified to eliminate parapets at sprinklered
buildings, but felt the parapet design was good, if it could not be eliminated. He
thought the Toro elevation was bleak and suggested incorporating a display window
and/or public art for interest. He wanted the building to relate more strongly to the
street and to provide retail uses. He wanted to see lighting details. He indicated he
could support final approval.
Commr. Chatham felt eliminating the parapet would be good.
Commr. Phillips felt the building was too massive for Monterey Street and that the
project needed human scale. She wanted to see parking management. alternatives.
Commr. Underwood thought the project was attractive but too massive for the site.
He thought the abrupt transition would appear out-of-character with the
neighborhood. He felt three stories would be more acceptable than four.
Commr. Bradford felt there should be some application of downtown policies at this
location. She wanted the parking screened from the street. She wanted the garage
entry de-emphasized. She suggested setting back the upper stores and thought the
upper floor looked like a colonial "fortress." She wanted the pedestrian access
enhanced. She agreed with Commr. Underwood that the building should be lowered .
to three stories, adding first-floor pedestrian scale, and provide screening at the
southerly elevation. She questioned the what would happen with the setback if the
street wasn't widened.
Commr. Gates liked the project's design but felt the Toro Street elevation should be
restudied. She suggested stepping back the tower and using a darker building color.
Commr. .Morris liked the proposed design but had some concerns with the building's
height. He felt that in the future, taller buildings would be proposed with street level
retail uses. He agreed deeper color tones should be used and the parking entry
should be on Toro Street only, if possible. He suggested using a Mediterranean plant
theme.
Commr. Cooper moved to concur with the negative declaration of environmental
impact and grant schematic approval with direction to reduce the visual mass of the
building, to restudy the facade details and colors, to add more landscape screening at
the front and back and enhance the pedestrian entry.
OARC Minutes
April 30, 1990
Page 8
AYES: Cooper; Gates, Bradford, Chatham, Morris, Underwood
NOES: Phillips
ABSENT: None
The motion passes.
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
Commrs. Cooper and Bradford asked staff to get the project at the corner of Broad
and Church Street finished immediately.
Commr. Gates asked staff to get the Marsh Street car wash into compliance with.
ARC direction immediately.
OThe commission discussed the proposed medallions for the parking structures.
The commission discussed the downtown revitalization conference to be held in
Pasadena.
MINUTES
On motion of Commr. Bradford, seconded by Commr. Chatham, with Commr.
Underwood abstaining, the minutes of February 20, 1990, wereapproved as written.
On'motion of Commr. Bradford, seconded by Commr. Cooper, the minutes of April 9,
1990, were approved as written.
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission for May 14, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9)
of City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg Smith
Recording Secretary