Architectural Review Commission Meeting Update
Regular Meeting

June 6, 2005                              Monday                                  5:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL:      Commrs. Allen Root, Jim Lopes, David Smith, Greg Wilhelm, Charles Stevenson, Vice-Chair Michael Boudreau, and Chairman Zeljka Howard

All of the Commissioners were present.

ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:

The order of the agenda was not modified.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

There was no public comment other than on regular agenda items.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1.   Sewer Plant.  ARC 84-05; Review of a concept plan for landscaping and access improvements to the City’s Reclamation Facility; C/OS-20 zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Neil Havlik)

On a 7-0 vote, the ARC recommended approval of the concept plan to the City Council with the following suggestions:

1.  Incorporate landscape screening on the south side of the existing buildings.  The Commission stated that the buildings could be ultimately removed if they are found to be of limited utility to the City.

2.   Provide for further separation of the bike path along the Highway 101 corridor by the provision of additional landscaping, either by shifting the path’s location to the east or using right-of-way area for landscaping with the permission of Caltrans.

2.   1231 Laurel Lane.  ARC 180-04; Review of a 7-unit multi-family residential development project; R-4 zone; Paul Nagy, applicant. (Tyler Corey)

On a 5-2 vote (Commrs. Stevenson & Lopes voting no), the ARC continued action to a date specific, June 20, 2005 with direction to staff to return with a recommendation for approval of the project with the seven detached buildings for proposed units.  Discussion on the item took two hours and focused on the issue of the project’s site plan including detached buildings given General Plan policy encouraging more consolidated building types for units in the R-4 zone and direction for attached buildings provided with the Council’s review of the site rezoning.

While the Commission understood staff’s position regarding the General Plan policy, a majority felt that the should language in LUE Policy 2.4.8 provided them with some discretion to allow detached buildings.  The Commission drafted preliminary findings for staff to further refine and made two recommendations on design elements of the project as follows:

         Findings

1.  The proposal to locate the seven units in detached buildings is a superior design given the quality of the proposed architecture and building materials and detailing.

2.  The site design with detached buildings results in greater air and light being available to residents given the spacing between buildings.

3.  A proposal to attach the buildings would not necessarily result in increased density being provided in the project or a more attractive appearing development.

4.  The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan in that there is no required mandate that structures in the R-4 zone be attached, nor is there a maximum unit size or minimum density requirement.

Recommendations

1.  The formerly proposed trellis features for Building A along Laurel Lane should be reincorporated into in the project.  If necessary, findings to support a yard exception to allow the trellises should be included in the next staff report for final approval.

2.   The proposed low retaining walls proposed in the street yards along Laurel Lane should be replaced with a low, open fence (such as wrought iron) or a combination of an open fence and hedges or other landscaping.

3.   1045 Foothill Boulevard; 41, 55, & 77 Casa Street; 1010 Murray Avenue and 1023 Deseret Place. ARC 234-04;   Conceptual review of Sierra Vista Hospital expansion; O zone; John Hollander, applicant. (Pam Ricci)

Commr. Boudreau refrained from participating in the discussion of the item because of the proximity of his home to the project site. After some discussion, the ARC continued action to a date uncertain with the following preliminary comments:

1.  The requested height variance for the proposed hospital tower could be supported, given site constraints, the unique characteristics of the facility, and minimal visual impacts from key viewing locations because of the building’s design with its rounded form toward Highway 1 and proposal to step back higher building elements toward the interior of the site.  The Commission suggested using an open mesh type product for the equipment screen on the top level of the building and darker colors to further reduce the apparent mass of the structure.

2.  The height, scale and the design of the proposed parking structure was supported with direction to enhance the building facades along Foothill Boulevard and to provide for expanded landscaping opportunities between the structure and adjoining streets.  An additional recommendation included exploring different locations for the elevator tower, especially the tower on the interior or west side.

3.  The Commission felt that the existing hospital building should be modified to look more like the proposed tower through painting and other detailing such as a curtain wall.  The existing building should incorporate equipment screening.

4.  A darker color should be used for the elevator tower on the proposed hospital tower to minimize its scale.

5.  The ARC felt that the minor creek setback encroachments proposed were acceptable since their extent would be less than current conditions.

6.  There should be some type of weather protection and human-scale building elements for the ground floor of the tower.

7.  The traffic analysis will be an important component of the revised package that comes back to the ARC at a later date.

4.   2238 Broad Street.  ARC 62-05; Conceptual review of a new mixed-use development project; C-N-H and C-S-H zone; Halferty Development Company, applicant. (Pam Ricci)

After a presentation from the applicant team on the preliminary plan, the Commission provided preliminary comments on the conceptual land use plan, but did not come to overall consensus to provide specific direction on elements of site planning.  Commr. Stevenson left the meeting because of the proximity of the site to property that his family owns.

COMMENT & DISCUSSION:

5.    Staff:

A. Agenda Forecast - Pam Ricci reported on upcoming meeting items.

6.    Commission:

       A.    Minutes: May 16, 2005.   The minutes were accepted with minor modifications.

       B.   Running More Effective Meetings.  The topic was introduced by Chairperson Howard, but continued to the next meeting given the lateness of the hour.

       C.   Recent Project Review – Lessons Learned  Chairperson Howard mentioned concerns with the appearance of the service area for the Court Street project along its Osos Street elevation.                                     

The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. to a regular meeting scheduled for Monday, June 16, 2005, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street.