Architectural Review Commission Meeting Update
Regular Meeting

June 20, 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:

Item No. 4 was considered prior to Item No. 3.

PUBLIC COMMENT: 

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1.   1231 Laurel Lane.  ARC 180-04; Review of a 7-unit multi-family residential development project; R-4 zone; Paul Nagy, applicant. (Continued from June 6, 2005) (Tyler Corey)

On a 7-0 vote, the ARC granted final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. The project had been to the ARC on two prior occasions and involved over four hours of discussion.  The central issue had been whether the submitted site plan showing 7 detached living units could be found consistent with General Plan policy for the R-4 zone which encourages consolidated buildings to house units.  Ultimately a majority of the ARC found that the proposed design could be found consistent with the General Plan.  The project had been continued from the June 6^th meeting with specific direction to return to the ARC with a recommendation for approval, based on the refinement of draft findings that the ARC had provided, and listing all relevant conditions and code requirements.

2.   3550 Broad Street.  ARC PA 85-05; Review of a public art proposal for Cole Motors; C-S zone; Cole Motors, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)

On a 5-1-1 vote (Commr. Lopes voting no; Commr. Root refraining from participation in the discussion of the item given that he designed the piece), the ARC found that the public art for Cole Motors meets the City’s Public Art Guidelines and approved the art installation project, based on findings, and subject to conditions.  Discussion focused on whether the proposed location for the art, in front of the main showroom entry on the north side of the building, was consistent with the ARC criterion calling for art pieces that are “easily visible or accessible form a public right-of-way.”

After the discussion of this item, the ARC made another motion to schedule public art for an upcoming meeting to further discuss what constitutes public art and the issue of appropriate locations for art in private projects that meet prescribed criteria.

3.   680 Industrial Way. ARC PA 79-05; Review of a public art proposal at Damon Garcia Sports Field; PF zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Buzz Kalkowski)

On a 7-0 vote, the ARC found that the proposed art pieces meet the City’s Public Art Guidelines and recommended that the City Council approve the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions and a code requirement:  The main topic of discussion was whether the “arch” sculpture created a potential safety concern.  A condition was added which asked the artists to consider raising the height of the figures in the larger “arch” sculpture to discourage children from climbing them.

4.   811 El Capitan Way.  ARC PA 86-05; Review of a public art proposal for the Roadhouse mixed-use project; C-S-MU-SP zone; Covey 3, applicant. (Buzz Kalkowski)

On a 4-2-1 vote (Commr. Lopes & Stevenson voting no; Commr. Root refraining from participation in the discussion of the item given that he designed the piece), the ARC found that the public art for  the Roadhouse project meets the City’s Public Art Guidelines and approved the art installation project, based on findings, and subject to conditions.  Like Item No. 2 above, the ARC’s discussion focused on whether the proposed location for the art, in a courtyard area near the creek, was consistent with the ARC criterion calling for art pieces that are “easily visible or accessible form a public right-of-way.”

5.   623 Serrano Drive.  ARC 31-05; Review of a request to allow a new single family home with building height and creek setback exceptions; R-1 zone; Amye and David Osti, applicants. (Tyler Corey)

On a 6-1 vote (Commr. Wilhelm voting no), the ARC continued action to a date certain, July 18, 2005, to allow staff to determine an alternative location for the top of creek bank in the field more consistent with channel flow and soil characteristics and stake it with flags.  The direction was to encourage a building footprint that was located on the street side of the creek channel and did not span the creek.  They also asked staff to provide a graphic of the building footprint possible with the previously assumed top of bank at the 142-foot elevation contour.

COMMENT & DISCUSSION:

5.    Staff:

A. Agenda Forecast – Pam Ricci provided an agenda forecast, noting that the next regular meeting would be on Tuesday, July the 5^th.  Because the City Council is also meeting on that same evening, she noted that the meeting would be relocated from the Council Hearing Room to the Planning Conference Room.

6.    Commission:

       A.   Biennial Review of ARC Bylaws. The ARC noted a typo where there was an incomplete sentence and asked that the term “chairman”, rather than “chairperson” be consistently used throughout the document.

       B.   Running More Effective Meetings.  This item had been continued from the June 6^th meeting because of the late hour.  The Commission discussed ways that they as a group could run more efficient meetings and improve relationships with staff and the public.  The following ideas were recommended:

·        When it is time for Commission comments on items, be prepared with concise comments.

·        Don’t jump around between topics haphazardly; keep your discussion on track.

·        Remember the ARC’s purview in the review of projects (use staff report as a guide) and don’t bring up extraneous issues.

·        Don’t try to redesign projects that are way out of line with the applicant’s submittal.  Use the Community Design Guidelines as a tool for providing constructive criticism of projects.

·        Attempt to come to consensus on major project issues as a group to better organize discussion time and provide clear direction to the applicants and staff.

·        Use early motions as a tool to keep the discussion focused.

·        Limit the Commission question period (prior to opening the public hearing on items) to true technical questions, rather than as an opportunity to voice a particular stand or viewpoint on projects.

·        Be respectful to applicants and courteous to one another and staff.

·        Remember the importance of the way that comments are delivered to the applicant.  Attempt to explain the reasons for certain requirements and suggestions made.

       C.   Recent Project Review – Lessons Learned

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