PRJ04-00488 ZON04-00055. APPLICANT: MARK BLUMER; PROPERTY OWNER: DENNIS BEVINS. (212 W. BROOKDALE PLACE)
Senior Planner Mullis presented the proposed project. She stated that it is a proposed two-story structure with a four-car garage on the bottom and a residence above. She indicated that there are similar Spanish style homes in the neighborhood and they would be maintaining a similar character with the proposed structure. The structure will be Spanish with tile, stucco finish, and as indicated in the staff report it meets all the standards of the ordinance and the preservation zone requirements. There are a series of recommended conditions and staff recommends approval.
There being no questions for staff, Chairman Daybell opened the discussion to the public.
Chairman Daybell asked the applicant if the can lights are on the underside of the garage. Mr. Mark Blumer replied affirmatively. Mr. Bevins and Mr. Blumer both indicated that neither one had any issues or concerns with the conditions of approval.
Committee Member Duncan asked Mr. Blumer if he preferred either the continuous band along the lip of the wall, or incorporating a rail and banister on the second floor as in Staffs recommended Condition Nine. Mr. Blumer stated that the front house roof is flat and he tried to mimic that design, and since the front house does not have a similar element he was not sure that adding a band would be a good idea. He stated that the corners of the deck have been bumped up and some tile caps added to give it a little interest. He thought that using a cast iron railing would subtract from the design.
Committee Member Coffman agreed and thought that the condition was not necessary. Chief Planner Rosen stated that staff felt that stucco wrapped around without a finish is rarely seen. Mr. Blumer stated that he thought about adding clay tiles; however felt that they would be broken over time with human contact. Chief Planner Rosen stated that staff did not have a solution, but felt that just having the stucco wrapping around the railing was not adequate. Committee Member Coffman thought that it could bring a more contemporary element to the design, and that the tiles would look nice but agreed that over time the tiles would break. Chief Planner Rosen indicated that staff thought that there are alternative solutions and would entertain suggestions. For example, the applicant could break the railing into smaller sections and introduce a cap to center it around the windows. Senior Planner Mullis noted that the railing would not necessarily go the whole length of the deck. Chief Planner Rosen asked the Committee to explore other solutions.
Committee Member Coffman suggested using a flat tile. Mr. Blumer thought that it might be a nice addition, he would like to keep it simple and preferred using the clay tile across the top. Chairman Daybell thought that the wrought iron would make the design too busy.
Committee Member Coffman stated the applicant went with a hip condition at the corner versus a shed roof and asked the applicant if he had thought of making the roof a shed. Mr. Blumer stated that he liked the inside corner with a hip roof but he could turn it away and make it on the side as a shed roof.
Chairman Daybell asked if the design had been flipped per the Citys suggestion. Mr. Blumer said he had not due to a layout conflict. Mr. Bevins asked if the Committee if it was a City requirement. Chief Planner Rosen explained that it is a Fire Department requirement. Mr. Bevins stated that his neighbor has the same thing and would not have a problem extending his sidewalk to the back of the second unit.
There being no further public comments Chairman Daybell turned the meeting over to Committee Member comments.
Committee Member Johnson asked about the deck roof drains. He felt that it is a nice project and is supportive with staffs conditions with exception of the banister. He concurred with the previous discussion of possibly installing tile at the top of the guardrail, as an additional option.
Committee Member Coffman stated that he liked the project and the awnings. He would approve the project with staffs conditions and the addition of the cap for the wall.
Committee Member Duncan agreed with all of the stated comments and supports the project.
Chairman Daybell thought the project was a good project and thought it would be a welcome improvement to the existing neighborhood.
The Committee Members concurred that to allow the tile on top of the wall of the deck would not require any changes to the conditions as drafted.
Committee Member Johnson motioned to approve the project with staffs recommended conditions. Committee Member Coffman second and the motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0.
DP-01-09A. APPLICANT: BRIAN WILLIAMS: PROPERTY OWNER: SAM WILLIAMS. (112 E. COMMONWEALTH AVENUE)
Chief Planner Rosen presented the project and building photos and stated that there was a major addition to the back of the Williams building approved by the RDRC for elevator and staircase access to the second floor. Part of the approved site plan elevations included awnings for the rear and front of the building. A restaurant is now under construction with tenant improvements on the west side of the building with a patio area in the back corner. The new proposal is a different concept for awnings; access to the restaurant dining space, and the main building itself. The proposed project is a change out from the previously approved metal awning/canopy system to a walkway awning system that will cover the walkways leading into the main part of the building with some signage on the awnings. The awning systems will cover the walkways shown on the site plan coinciding with a ramp on one portion and return walkway against the building.
Chief Planner Rosen noted that Associate Planner Eastman embellished the submittal to provide perspective of what it would look like over the outdoor space. He noted that the awning would not cover the outside dining areas, only the walkways. The drawings show that both the walkways and the outdoor raised patio with decorative pilasters would be covered. Five of the pilasters will include structural elements to hold up the awning. A pilaster is proposed to terminate the railing on northwest corner; however there is a major electrical vent in the northwest corner of the patio and the restaurateur has not found out from Edison if they will be allowed to wrap the vent with the pilaster. Therefore there will be either five or six pilasters pending approval from Edison. The patio will have slopes into the adjacent pedestrian breezeway with no gate. The ramp system up to the building will access to the patio with a handicap accessible door or be left open.
Chairman Daybell asked staff if this is the entrance to the main building. Chief Planner Rosen stated that it is the entrance into the main building as well as into the second tenant space that is east of the restaurant; the proposed awnings will provide a more prominent accent back entry to that space. When you enter into the foyer of the tower that provides elevator service to the second floor there is a door that provides an entrance to the second tenant space to the east of the restaurant.
There being no further questions for staff Chairman Daybell opened the discussion to the Public for comments.
Mr. Brian Williams, the applicant, thanked staff for their help with the project. Basically the Williams Family wanted to restore the building to its original glory with the intent to be food and entertainment. In looking at the design for the awning, they referred to the surrounding area, and Knollwoods had a similar awning to their original. Their intent was to have a restaurant in that space that would be a natural outdoor dining area. When the ballroom was added upstairs it added elegance and the approved awnings did not represent that style, so a 20s barrel style awning was designed. The color will be a forest green consistent with the surrounding area, and will consist of a Sunbrella material that is made of fire retardant material that will not weather or deteriorate over a length of time. The design; the shape and the size of the awning will keep the rain off before entering the ballroom and provide a nice space to drop off. Runoff will go into the planter on the south end of the handicap ramp. The structural 4x4 steel columns are the same size as the earthquake reinforcement structure on the western part of the building. Designed to coordinate with the surrounding neighborhood in color and materials.
Committee Member Duncan asked if the pilasters would be a matching brick. Mr. Williams said they would match the bricks on the new building. Committee Member Duncan also asked about a tree pictured in the photos. Mr. Williams stated that tree is gone and would be replaced with a planter. He stated that the name of the restaurant is the Rail with the intent for the patrons to enjoy the view of the trains moving by and did he did not want to block the view of the railroad.
Chairman Daybell asked about the patch dug up in the alley. Mr. Williams stated that the contractor for the restaurant placed a 1500-gallon grease interceptor improperly in that location, they have changed contractors, who is experienced in installing grease interceptors. The new contractor will be submitting plans. Committee Member Coffman asked about the ramp, he asked if it could slope or have greater or less ramp. Mr. Williams stated that the 1:20 meets the ADA requirements. Committee Member Coffman stated that with 1:20 there is no need for handrails and Committee Member Johnson stated that if the ramp is less than 5% it would not require a handrail. Committee Member Coffman is concerned with eliminating the handrail and would like to see it installed. Committee Member Coffman also asked if the awning needed to run perpendicular across, (over the ramp) and then down, he wondered if the awing would block the view of the patio. Mr. Williams stated that they do many social events, and are not able to stage inside because of fire codes; they register the patrons for the social event at the west side of the property and do a red carpet effect up to the steps.
There being no further questions or comments from public Chairman Daybell turned the meeting over to the Committee for their comments.
Committee Member Coffman stated that he understood the applicants view of the awnings but from a design point of view the portion that covers the ramp detracts from the building. He liked the outdoor patio and noticed that on the one pilaster detail that it asked for a bull nose brick and did not think there was consistency with the architecture of the building.
There was some discussion between the Committee and the applicant on which type of pattern should be used and the concern was to remove the soldier course and use a rowlock cap pattern with bricks on edge.
Committee Member Duncan thought that the tree would have been a nice element. Everything else he agreed with and suggested using the brick pilaster detail. He also asked if they could mitigate using another tree somewhere in one of the planters.
Committee Member Johnson thought the project as submitted is fine and asked about the vent, if the approval from Edison does not come through he wondered which pilasters would be installed. Mr. Williams said that if Edison does not approve they would not install that specific pilaster since it is not used to support the awning structure, the other five would be installed. Committee Member Johnson asked about the lighting. Mr. Williams stated that the electrical has already been prepped for lighting. His intent is to light up the awning and to back light the building at night. Committee Member Coffman asked about the blue tube in the patio, if it is a roof down spout. Mr. Williams stated that it is now forest green and confirmed that it is a roof down spout with a matching one on the other side. Committee Member Johnson had no further comments for the project and is in support of the project as proposed.
Chairman Daybell stated that he is disappointed that the RDRC did not review the project before construction began. He did say he would support the project as long as the patio did not protrude into the walkway.
Committee Member Coffman motioned to approve the project with the conditions and modifications to the pilaster (removal of the bull nose and the soldier course and replaced with a rowlock pattern). The project passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0.