Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHC Agenda Report 03-25-13 A G E N D A San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee Council Hearing Room (Room 9) 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo March 25, 2013 Monday 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Committee Members Thom Brajkovich, Hemalata Dandekar, Jaime Hill, Patti Taylor, (1 Position Vacant), Vice-Chair Bob Pavlik, and (Chair-Position Vacant) STAFF: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director, another advisory body, or City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee or staff may modify the order of items. MINUTES: Minutes of February 25, 2013, regular meeting. Approve or amend. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. Citv-Wide. CHC 41-13; Discussion of appropriate review authority for development projects on historic properties within historic districts; City of San Luis Obispo — Community Development Dept., applicant. (Phi!Dunsmore) 2. C_ity-Wide. CHC 31-12; Review progress report for the Historic Context Statement project; City of San Luis Obispo — Community Development Dept., applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) COMMENT AND DISCUSSI�N: 3. Staff a, Agenda Forecast 4. Committee ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT ITEM # 1 BY: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner �� M. EETING DATE: March 25, 2013 FROM: Kirza Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning � PROJECT ADDRESS: N/A Citywide SUBJECT: Discussion of appropriate review authority for alterations to historic properties SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the Cultural Heritage Committee endorse the attached review matrix. BACKGROUND Recently, community members have raised questions regarding the level of review required for projects proposed on historic properties. In particular, construction of an accessibility ramp at the front of the Master List Barneberg House at 550 Dana Street (Attachment 1) highlighted the concerns of whether this type of project should have received Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) review. This project was reviewed through the Minor or Incidental architectural review process and was approved at the staff level. Concerns regarding how the project impacts the view of the historic resource from the street and whether the improvements affect character- defining features prompted reconsideration of how projects on properties with historic resources are reviewed. This discussion is intended to clarify the level of review authority being applied by the Community Development Department. During the review of the Histoz�c Preservation Ordinance, a matrix was drafted to guide both the CHC axad staff towards the appropriate levels of review for typical projects. The CHC reviewed this matrix but never took formal action to endarse it. An updated copy of this matrix is included as Attachment 2 and reflects the recommendation that most improvements proposed to Master List resources will be referred to CHC for review. DISCUSSION Historic Preservation Ordinance The historic preservation ordinance provides the basis for review authority. Section 14.01.030 of the ardinance outlines the actions subject to CHC review. The ordinance also specifies which actions may be reviewed by staff (Community Development Director). In summary, the ordinance allows staff to determine that CHC review may not be required for projects that are consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards and the intent of the ordinance. Review AuthariCy Page 2 14.01.030 Cultural Heritage Cornnzittee C. Actio»s Subject to Cultural Heritage Co�nrnittee Review. The Committee shall review c�nc� rnc�ke recommenc�'ations to the DirectoY, Architectural Review Commission, Plc�nning Commission or City Council on applications and development Yeview projects which include any of the following: 1. Changes to the Inventory of HistoYic Resources. 2. Changes to historic distYicts and applications to establish new historic districts. 3. Stc�tements of historic significance and historic inventories for existing and proposed historic districts. 4. 1Vew construction, additions or alterations located in historic districts, or on historically listed pYoperties, oY sensitive archaeological sites. 5. Applications to demolish or relocate listed historic�esources or siructures. 6. Referrals to the Committee by the Community Development Director (`Director"), Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, oY Council. 7. Proposec� actions of public agencies that may affect historic or cultural resources within the City. 14.01.040 Community Development Director Role The CHC is assisted by staff of the Comrnunity Development Department. The Community Development Director ("Director") is responsible for interpreting and implementing this oYdinance and helping the CHC carry out its duties. Notwithstanding Section 14.01.030C 1-S and 7 of this ordinance, the Director- may determine that CHC review is not required for actions or projects that: 1) do not adversely affect historic resources, or 2) are consistent with this orclinance, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the Historic Preservcction Program Guiclelines and no public purpose would be servecl by requiring CHC review. Historic Preservation Guidelines The historic preservation guidelines also speak to review authority. Consistent with the ordinance, the Guidelines suggest that all projects shall be referred to the CHC unless the project is exempt from CEQA and designed so that it is consistent with City policies and the Secretary of Interior Standards. 3.1 Construction in Hrstoric Districts and on Properties with Historic Resources 3.1.1 Conforrrtance with design standards. Construction in historic districts and on properties that contain listed historic resources shall conform with the goals and policies of the General Plan, the Historic Preservatzon �rdinance, these Guidelines, the Community Design Guidelines, any applicable specific o� area plan, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the 7'reatment of Historic Properties_ 3.1.2 Review of developrne�t projects. The Director shall refer a development project application for a property located within a historic district or on a property with a listed Historic Resource to the CHC for review, unless the Director determines the project is: Review Authority Page 3 (a) Exempt fr-om the California Environmental Quc�lity Act, and (b) Designed such that it would have no effect on Historic or Archc�eological Resources, and (c) Consistent with 3..1..1 above. CHC Notification Other than routine construction permits, staf.f proposes to include a step in the review process to notify the CHC (and members of the public who have requested to be notified) of discretionary actions taken by the Community Development Director on projects that were not referred to the CHC. A copy of the staff determination will be forwarded via email to the CHC chair and to the "interested parties" list during the appeal period :following a staff determination. In this way, the CHC and interested members of the community may be aware of proposals and staff response for projects on historic properties or within historic districts. Revxew Matrix The review matrix is not a camponent of the ordinance or guidelines; however it is desigied to be consistent with these documents. The intent is to provide guidance to Community Development staff determine the review process for typical alterations that occuz on historic properties. The CHC should discuss the matrix and provide input. RECOMMENDATION Recommend the Cultural Heritage Comrnittee endorse the attached review matrix. ALTERNATIVES 1. The CHC may suggest modifications to the levels of review within the purview of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Historic Preservation Guidelines. It is important to consider the balance between encouraging historic preservation and potentially discouraging historic presezvation by requiring CHC review for all alterations to historic properties. ATTACHMENTS 1. Over�view of project at 550 Dana Street 2. Review level matrix �'�� � � _ C r � �� �.; � . b.,��a .3 �� ' z f�.; ti,� .: m. ��� ���F ..._ .. . . ....... .,.,. __._. �. ..f . u , � ,� . . , , . �A�, ., . ,. � �_�,�.��-: .�i177Ui2I``,% ;?�f, s'(�y?i TCa: �li�'�,(??ii2�,�1.1 �rl.�: �.�ti�L�cirt��> �;i+;J i�-1�;aa����� �RL�1�1�: Iaer�:&� Ja��rrs�c���, C�-�,�113���i��ity�L�ev�l����r�c�at I���e�ct��- F3�'�. ��l;xl�a���s�a��re, 5����.�c�z� �P�az�r��.r �'�.r� F�.ic.::iq ����i�a�'l�r�ta+;a� �S�'E�JE�C"�'; Ac��eb�ibilii�� a�a:zjaa��c�tire��7����ts t� S�C��')a��� �tr��t, SI�s�uri�, �3arn�b�r�Ii��.��c. �;�a��n���1 re.c����s��d in�I"€�rrn���� re:�arclix�g z�,����t�.:1��rz�es ������ie t� th��r���r�r �t ��0 �rax�a S��c�e�t� --���� �i���ric �araae��,-t.� �L�s��s�. Sevc.ra� c�:�rara��i.a.i���t�� ������iL-reY�s l���c� ��ae�ti���ec�. ���h�% tl�e c1��nw�eW l�ad �c-c�z°z���l �vit�io��t ���l.t€zz��l Herzt��;� (�cix��n�rt�e� ir�pti�i. I'��is ��7e��7a� ��r�vides �n �3v��z���w t� fi�i� �c����1�i1 �c�u7�-y re��t�������� �I�e reva��r ���ac�s� ��`c��� te�e ��1��n;� z���a�� ��c� tlae ��c:�,��1�, ��yc� ���s��rad,s t�; tfa� q�:�esti�rff �� 1����v p�°p�;����e� o�r� tE�� �it��'w li�� ��F �3i��t���ic; �.��€���r��;s �a�a� be ��Li.z��-�c11'ror�� t11�t�list, r4::�������� �����;������,���������� �� ���� r_a��1��; _ _ _.__ _ _._ FTisto�iu�lly. i-�z�-�s�]:��il��in4� �zr�d 1�i�ldac�p�� ��r�,r4� n�t�! �c.�i.�n�,�� �t� le r�a�ilv�c��ssi�1�� fcr��aple ���itl� das�til�ti�s� �ti �•ecellt�re�z� ��7���7�a�s�s l��s E���z� �pl���el ��� p�re��;r�a��� Y�i��<�i�c,�Jly bi�►�i9��c�n� �fa�ae��kzcs, a�a� a��z-o��aat�:1�:��trt�'itti��a�;t11es� �rop��rt��s ��;��si��������viti��h� ����-�,t��°_y c��[�,�t�.�zc�x �t�.����r�l� fc��° �t�e �'r�s�i-va�ion c�f �I�b�ar�c �t�i�r����s az�cl La��na���.s fc�r �n.��r �C�i��i�ti�.s ��id. c�nc�7rrer�tiy �����i��;� tt���n� �cc;cssil�le �t:c� ������le ��i1��7 ��iy�.l�ilitieso �%i�t� �h� �7ass��e c�i` �k�; �.���r;�ca��s �wit�a I�is��saliti�� l���f in ���0, �cc�s� ��c� �res���-�i�� c��a��� �� 11Zc �}���lal��c is �����r � �iv�� ribh��, �li�tc�ric pr�perti�s are alat �;��,mpt�`r�m t1�e v�c;t, b�t��aa�x�q�aest�n�. I�� ���ck�.r.e��aest��as ��rz�.c�.�t��s t1��, Cify�i� t11�� i�1.i:ar�ce. Ar� a����Ii��tic��a �� a�i� �n �c��,��a��Iu r���.�xp ���cl ;,t�irs tti� tI��: �r���;f��% �t ti�t) ���i�a S�r��t ���ts r�viv���c� by ��+�z��i��zi�v�����.1c;�rler�i�tatf i�� Nc��-�i�z�a�l�, 2�11�. St��'f' ���rc���-��� tP�� �p�r€�j�ct laa�ecl rz7 zts �.o���i��e��1c�� u�i�eh �I�e Se�°���t�ry e��" t1�� I��t��-�r�r'y S�u?��rds �n�l t��� �it���� t���Y�ar��. i'�:c.se;z�a=�ii.<jlx �r���i� C�u�c3�;I��7�;5. �"l,apt�:r� �.1,� c�f tl�� ��a�i.��li��� ��� ��:�ic�i� ��.�91,��4) c��tli� �Iis�o��ic �'��s�r��atz�� C���•�i�����:�c� a�.���tius ��ta#� �a d�te����i��� t�ZaE a ��acs���t ��es r�e��t s-�;����.�r�; C-�3C �•�;����:�� r;•1sQ�7 it: i� ���;rnpt ir��� �;�C�.=� <�nd ��l�cx� zt z� unza�ast���t �s-i�l� tl�� S�c.r�,t�ry: ��f T�z��,��icrr �t;�z�c�z����� Fc�x tl:a�; t����t���zz� ��1'lais�c�ri� ��rc��c.o�i�g. S���i�cl�;�i:.�-��az�:c:c�. th�� tts��; �r�aj�:ct T(Ee;����of'tllc ��n��;c.tc�il� ;;c:�.�d�d�c;�a :��.�;ri��•�;;. �F'3;: Ci7Yl�Iti'[:2,11� �:'ai�i i��c'St: `.s`E���Ce�ll"C�� �1:1f� l�'� l�C)1 �:::L'!�I 311 lll7]?W��,�g �€� C'�li?o;3C��°I-����fltllll`? ��,�S�E?['E�: (?� t.Ise I��sic��ic. re�c���zc�°. T�ll� ��ci�ic=a� �t� a;�er��t �his ��r�jee� lrarr� C�1C: r���i�:�v �w sirz�ila��tc� rl����ra�ti^� �f c�va�z���ii1�� ��oti�r�atc��n sei�s�r���ac re�rc��it ;��c�jects �r�r�� CI�� r�vie;.e }'�-e�jti�is tlz�i i���nc�ilst���aa ho� tl-�� '•.Ilwt(?TiC- 51v,��]Ifl�„�I1�':� t�L�cl.�7I'v�?�t'$�' i��)l"C'��:I>'d',� i4'�11�� Ii�vti55a3:'v' �od� ���c���ir��z�ezais <�ae Fiilfill�� �Qr�= �.Si`-�.�� a �;tr���nlix��c:t �°e��i�� �����c����tis. C3n i��1ar�F� 1�, �UO�, �Ii� �`I�I:4� �i�c���t�c�sp�uif�� cri�ver�� �zs t� ���h�t i���s �f`�uild�i��cl�a�e���s c�?��Ic��e,h�ndle�17;,s�af�� z��th�;�-�h�z�xe�aii���a��r��ra:,ti���v tl�� C,���'. ��'��le�:E�e c�-iter�i��r�` ��%�s f��r tl�e p�rpo��s E7f��evie�,r��«+� ���1�1 ����rca��ts t� �T�.�toric S��iil�i����, it h�s be��1 i�s�c� f�r �����k���� s����iar �lete�la���a��ic���s e�.�� ���h�;z� �r�jec�-t� c�G�l.d b�:. :��-vie:��� a.����r�str�iiv�Yy° ���tl��r tl:at�n �c�ii�l�;t��r�u�;h.1h.� CH� �re��i��!�r�E,�s�. ��� e�a�1��1u af tt�is ����a�E�ac la ����� lati.�.���d. tc� }����raz3t tl�.e cQn��z°�ar�rz c�f tl�.e F�i�;tc���ie ��v�z�a�n�.a��i �I��t�1 i�1t� 7-�sid.���ti�1 n�}�a�tn�e�is �n� �-et�3il s���c�s. �I'��e �•��abii�tatia� �f �tl�c �'ine��a���, a �c��ca�i��r�c ic��r��[���`ieCi on �the ��ty's N��ste� �,isf L���i,;ior��; RL.s���.rc��, v���as 1�v�i�;u��d �tc�r cc�n:; s��n��' ���itl-i ��17� ��cr�t�r}� �f I.�at�;�ic��° staa�s�a�°cl�, ths� C:it�;�s iTist�a•�c. I��°���°s��,2ti�r� C�uz��I����e� aa�c1 C.�C�A p�-ic�r t� a�����c��a� of c�a�at����ti��� p�:.rn3iis, 1�u-� �%�as �r�t xec��r�i��� t� �b� L��;?�i����e�� �,y t11� �'1-IC Qr th�.�a°c���t�ct��r�l ���•ic�n%t;�i�missic��., ---- ---._.._____________________.� ,� �.����`���:- '`J i ���1���� �i��9' i�.�iti��ly �e�is�.rr�ec� �.h� �l��s�� �`c3� t�zL � ��- �.�•�-�"��� � < �� :: B�rz�cl��z-� z�esac.�e���;eq ���f�?z�� a�a� �:ft��� ir.�i�bes $7F __F __ ; : � ���.����� ��� �� ���� ��� � � � �G��.� p��j�.et v��r� d��I}r��� to d�.��e1-��i�� if [h� � � � �_. __. �� ; ��.c�j�c��t w�o�.rlti ��crer�6.ly i��i��ct t�a� ]��stc�ric � ,��, � �, ° � �� � resot�t��e ai��i ��s cl���z°act�r-c��,�"iz�i��� 1'�a�aar��;. , ��� ,�!n����J���—,���� �._' � ��� � I ;. � ---- �: '" � J - — �'la� prc�jLct'� �c�essib���ty i:n�p�c�����i�ts ����I�c� E��(ST!?4�F'�.C%N i E�,�tr�l�B+���i ' ' � ' ' � , :�fl'T1t3C�E',T"$1 �Oa1C���t?�3���1L�r'1�'�:�2r�.���l�11C)�;s,C9T1518�€I£�� ___� a ����������r-a��fir�iF�� f��t���� c��� ���� �esi����c�. �'�r.�tlae�.r:�no�xe, �.� ��� nflte� C:l��t �I�� ari<�i���l sY�irs t�nd ��c3����n�r�rk �ib���f.il��; th� ���v ac������ility� ���2�� ����L�lcl l�� �rfl��cCed in �1���� a�n� �:c��ae��� tiv�t�z �� n��t�1���5 �l�at �o��lcl ��re�r��nt� C���e �a��v� �;t��cr�::[� �voxk trc?:z�a ����aeras3� t� t��e�;�, 'T�1�is ��� c����e so t1�at �t�2e r��r�t� i�1��a��vei1l���t� s;�.�ui:� �1�� �u����d i7� tl�e �'�ai�rre �vi��vi�� ������i�n�nt tc� ��� �ri�iz��� st��c��r�. _� ���r �v���l �v�� d�sz�,n�ec'� �� - � �� � c�����,al �:h� r�z��a ai�d ;.oz�a����z��rat t1�� �zat�r� of �s Y4" }�;�E��"� �,��c'.S�'�IS.P�"'C1CG'. � �: � � k.. _ . _._ _ _ � ---,. ( � � , r > � � __ � _ � �� � ,. I � � �. � �� �� �� ��W , . . � � # �,� - � � � � - "�_ - _ , I ,���-.C,.,�) '� .�Tt(jS£ :' .,....n. ��'�111`J"C�.te'I'tCE E?i.;€�C,�tt7'u.C:17.�..:t�t:3 1:1c1�r�9'f;L.;�,.til;rL�l1l 4�SE:; C�1�S�C;t'°�:k�."ti Oi`vl.+..I�.i1C-;`tC)7�;i '..il:<IttLtii7'C�5 1.�i)€'�1.}]c',��{,:l�i�li;iiP. r.i'1��::t�x,Eu�',oFaer°t��:<��aci th�,�;iti} �:��`�a�L�ais C?��is� �? .��63-rlic�ti�.:�i:, �'E7��('r,��;t��init� L)�si=,*n a�z���i�;t��ie,�: }'r�5���-���P3c7:, r,ac����•aa��c�T�,;�3�:ineG; .. � Two considerations were given to this project that assisted staff with deternliiling it should Ue exeillpt from CHC review: 1. The project implements a code required accessibility requirement, consistent with the 1990 ADA act; and 2. The project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards and the City's policies for treatment of a historic property. 4n November 10, 2011, the project was approved through the minor ar incidental architectural review process and included the following findings: 1. As conditioned, the proposed additions will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living, working, or visiting the site or the vicinity because it includes only minor modifications to an existing structure that conform to the California Building Code. 2. As conditioned, the proposed additions are consistent with the Cornmunity Design Guidelines for commercial project design because the additions follow the same general scale,proportion, rnassing, and detailing of the original structure to ensure the front farade of the building appears relatively unchanged. 3. The accessibility improvements enhance the ability of the building to continue an active use (currently office), and provide for adaptive reuse, rnaintenance, and preservation of a historic building. 4. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interiar's Standards far Treatment of Historic Properties because the new features complement the old in design, color,texture,and other visual qualities. 5. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties because new construction will be undertaken in such a rnanner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the Yvistoric property and its environment would be unimpaired. 6. The project is exernpt froxn environmental review under Class 1 (Section 15301), Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. The pending minor or incidental review action was noticed in the Tribune, the project site was posted with a sign explaining the request, and notices of the request and action date was sent to adjacent neighbors. The minor or incidental architectural review action is appealable to the Architectural Review Cornmission. No appeals of the action were filed within the stipulated 10- day appeal period. How pro_berties are removed from the list of Historic„Resources The Historic Freservation Ordinance indicates that the CHC shall review and znake recommendations regarding changes to the Inventory of Historic Resources. This includes both additions and removals from the Tnventory. Section 14.41.060C of the Ordinance indicates that "It is the general intention of the City not to remove a property frorn historic listing. Council may, however,....remove a property from historic listing if the structure on the property no 3 longer meets eligibility criteria for listing, following the p�-ocess for listing set forth herein". This rneans, the proposal to de-list the property would Ue determined by the Council at a public hearing after the GHC had reviewed the proposal to remove tl�e property at a public hearing and forwarded a recommendation to the Council for consideration. Conclusion The determination to allow the addition of accessibility improvements to the property was consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Historic Preservation pro�ram guidelines. The improvements have been done in such a way that they may be removed at a future date without damage or alteration to the original structure and they do not impair the character-defining features of the structure that communicate its historic nature. The Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic properties suppo�rt rehabilitation and appropriate adaptive reuse of historic stzuctures. The structure still conveys its historic nature and it deserves to remain on the City's list of Historic Resources. Please contact Phil Dunsmore at pdunsmore@slocity.org or at 78l--7522 should there be additional questions. 4 Review Level for Projects on Historic Properties and within Historic Districts ProjeCt Mas�er Contributing Historic Commen#s List List District Building addition �/ �/ o Minor buifding additions not visible from public right-of-way that do not ✓ o o Minor= single story, 450 s.f or less alter character definin features In-Kind window replacement o 0 0 New window openings or significant window changes �/ ,/ o ReEocation af structure ,/ ' �/ -, o Demolition af structure (Requires CEQA) .% �/ - o New accessory structure (i.e garage, guest house, studio) unless ✓ o o Accessory structures over 450 sf shall reater than 450 s.f. does not include demo of existin structures be considered a primary structur Canstruction of new primary structure ./ ,/ ;/ Addition or alteration to non-cantributing structure o- : o 0 Awnings, canopies and in-kind door replacements o 0 0 Changes in use that do not alter character defining features m . . o ' Q o Driveways and sidewalk changes that do not alter or obscure character "` �, o, o :_ o Does not include improvements that definin features may interfere with historic fabric Fencing that does not aEter or obscure character,defining features o 0 0 �nterior Remodel that does not alter character ct�f�ning feat�;rre� ��:�o � �o�� o Minor landscaping improvements (no removal of frees, significant : o 0 0 ori inal landsca e s ecimens or radin Re-painting of structure with appropriate Color�cheme (not.painting:of ` o: o 0 un ainted mason or other ori ina[1 �in ainted�urfaces Re-roofing (no change in material or color or remo�ral of surviuing o 0 0 historic fabric Signs or public Art (unless replacement conforming sigr�) ✓ o ./ Removal of original building features (i.e chimney, dormer) ✓ ✓ o Solar Collectors that don't alter or obscure character defining features o 0 0 Accessible ramps attached to structure ✓ �/ o Accessibility improvements not visible from public right,of'way that do o 0 0 not alter or obscure character definin features Plotes: ✓ CHC Review. CHC makes a recomrnendation to the Community Development Director or to the ARC for action. o Cammunity Develo�ment De�artment Re�iew. Projects forwarded to CHC if not consistent with Secretary of the Interior Standards.