Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/25/2024 Item 4a, Terry Wayne Terry < To:Advisory Bodies; Oetzell, Walter Subject:CHC Meeting 3/25/24 Attachments:CHC Letter 3_25_24.docx This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello, Attached are my comments for the proposed project at 1925 Santa Barbara. Regards, Wayne Terry 1902 Chorro St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1 To: The Cultural Heritage Committee From: Wayne Terry, 1902 Chorro St. Re: 1925 Santa Barbara Ave. Mixed -Use Development within the Railroad Historic District Obispo Investments Inc., - Applicant Meeting Date 03/25/24 It is disappointing the applicant has chosen to essentially disregard the thoughtful direction and guidance provided to them by the CHC at the January 22, 2024 meeting. The “revised” project before you is essentially the same project with a few minor cosmetic changes. Following are the specific areas where the project is not compliant with City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines: 3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts. New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior material, siting and street yard setbacks of the district’s historic structures, as described in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 3 (partial) The project is clearly represented by the “non-compatible” examples in these two figures. The project’s mass, form and design components do not relate to the existing historical elements of the neighborhood. Properties on either side of this property have single story units. 5.2.5 Railroad Historic District Predominant architectural details include: A. One- and two-story buildings predominate B. Gabel and some hip roof types of low to medium pitch, occasionally with parapets C. Predominantly painted wood siding, with some masonry or smooth plaster wall siding D. Traditional fenestration, such as double-hung, wood sash windows, and fixed divided light windows. E. Rectilinear massing, with equal or lesser volume on second floor F. Simple detailing often along the roof line including brackets Page 67 of the Railroad District Plan (RDP), Section 3.2 C. specifically states: “Preserve the scale, pattern and spacing of the existing buildings along the West side of Santa Barbara Street.” The west side of Santa Barbara has many single story residences and one and two story commercial buildings. There is spacing to accommodate trees, gardens and the enjoyment of outside space. The authors of the RDP apparently were sensitive at the time the document was drafted to what might happen in the future as this transition zone between commercial and residential areas develops. Clearly they intended to offer some protection to the existing residential neighborhood. The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Housing Element, Chapter 3 – Goals, Policies and Programs Goal 7: Neighborhood Quality Policy 7.1 states: Within established neighborhoods, new residential development should be of compatible design that respects the existing neighborhood character, to enhance the quality of life for existing and future residents. Policy 7.2 states: Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design privacy, security, amenities, and public and private open space. Policy 7.8 states: Preserve the fabric, amenities, yards (i.e. setbacks), and overall character and quality of life of established neighborhoods. This project neither protects the existing residential atmosphere per the General Plan nor does it preserve the scale, pattern and spacing of existing buildings per the Railroad District Plan. The project proposes a three story (with partially below grade parking) apartment complex adjacent to and to the east of 2 San Luis Obispo City Master List Historical Homes (the Chapek House and the Bittick Residence). Except for a small planter, the entire project site will be developed with parking, parking access or structures. In addition to the apartment complex, there is also a single story detached residential unit and a single story detached commercial space. The project site is at a higher elevation than the Historic homes which negates the first floor (parking) being partially below grade. Placing the ~3 story apartment building near the property line adjacent to the historic homes will have significant negative impacts to these important historic resources. Impacts include reducing access to sunlight (negatively impacting gardens, limiting solar power), increasing exposure to noise, the second story access to the front doors of the apartments looking down into backyards and into historic homes windows, and artificial light from multiple residential units towering above the current homes and outdoor spaces. There is no on-street parking at this site, so should the residents in the apartments, the detached residential unit or the commercial space ever have guests, they will need to park in the adjacent neighborhood impacting additional Master List Historic Resources including the properties already mentioned. In January, the CHC directed the applicant to consider placing the single story detached unit adjacent to the existing historic homes and move the apartment complex to a more central location on the project site. This would reduce impacts to the current historical residences. Per the 3/25/24 staff report, the applicant described this modification as “impractical” because it would make the single story residential unit less accessible (it would be farther from the sidewalk). I would counter that the future occupant(s) of this residence would likely appreciate not having all the apartment’s vehicle and pedestrian traffic constantly passing by their unit. In addition, Santa Barbara is a truck corridor and major vehicle route into downtown, one could expect a resident to appreciate some separation from road noise. Parking located in the center of the development would benefit the occupant of the commercial unit, making it more accesible closer for its occupants and their clients / guests (the current design has commercial users passing by the single-story residence as well). If there are technical challenges with moving the apartment complex/parking unit, I would propose the project consider utilizing two 2-story buildings instead of two single story and one ~three-story unit. This is not a large parcel – to be compliant with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and General Plan, it might be appropriate for the applicant to consider reducing the project scope to a more appropriate size for the space they have available to them. I would encourage your committee to once again request the applicant to modify the project. I believe it is possible to design a housing and commercial project which does not feature the significant negative impacts on precious City Historic Resources that the current design has.