Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/18/2000, 4 - CHC NOMINATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1317 BROAD STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. Council j acEnaa nEpom " C I T Y OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director0 PREPARED BY: Jeff Hook,Associate Planner SUBJECT: CHC Nomination of property located at 1317 Broad S eet to the Master List of Historic Properties. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution adding the property to the Master List of Historic Resources. DISCUSSION Advisory Body Recommendation On April 26, 1999 the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council add 1317 Broad Street to the Master List of Historic Resources,primarily due to the rarity of the building's"Falsefront Pioneer"architectural style(minutes attached). Site Data Property Owner. Roland Maddalena Zoning: O General Plan Designation: Offices Site Area: 7,500 square feet Site Description: The 50'X150', level site has a small parking lot and yard in the rear and is bordered by A&R Furniture to the north (formerly Nearly New Furniture), St. Stephen's Episcopal Church to the rear, offices to the south, and offices and two single family residences across.Broad Street. Background On March 14, 2000, the City received an application for demolition of the building at 1317 Broad Street and replacement with a two-story office building. The CHC first discussed the property in March 1999 in the broad context of threatened older buildings, demolitions and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for assessing effects of new development on historic and potentially historic resources. Committee members were concerned that 1317 Broad Street aswell as certain other properties were not designated historic resources and thus,could be demolished without appropriate consideration of preservation alternatives. Members asked that this property, which was then for sale, be placed on a CHC agenda for consideration of historic nomination since it appeared to be one of the few Falsefront Pioneer buildings remaining in San Luis Obispo. Subsequently, at a publicly advertised hearing the Committee nominated the property to the Master List,noting that additional research was needed to establish a historic name. They suggested that a chain-of-title search be done to determine the range of the property's land uses and owners. Unfortunately, the CHC has not yet accomplished that work. However, due to the pending application, Committee members asked that the nomination be forwarded now to the City 4-1 Council Agenda Report— 1317 Broad Street Page 2 Council for consideration because members felt that the chain of title information and historic name of the building were only minor components of its historic significance. ArchitecturaMstorical Background This single-story, wood fi-ame building covers about 1500 square feet and consists of the original laundry building and an attached shed. The building is generally rectangular but its original shape appears to have been modified. A medium-pitched roof gable runs side-to-side with the main roof ridge running perpendicular to Broad Street. The facade consists mainly of horizontal shiplap wood siding. The windows have been modified from their original type and location. The building exterior is in fair to poor condition. A "hitching ring" remains embedded in the sidewalk in front,presumably used for hitching horses and wagons parked in Broad Street. G The building's construction �^ date is unknown, however it appears to be the same building shown in the 1904 San Luis Obispo Fire Department Souvenir Book, labeled as "San Luis Steam Laundry, M. Pacifico, Proprietor, 1317 Broad Street." The 1904 City Phone Directory lists a . "Steam Laundry' located at 1317 Broad Street. Between 1904 � i and 1928, records indicate a steam laundry operated at both 1301 (comer lot now occupied by A&R Furniture) and 1317 Broad Street. By 1928, a laundry is no longer listed at either address. At various times the building has also been used for a retail store, offices and apartments. Evaluation The building's primary architectural feature is its rectangular false front facade, located immediately behind the public sidewalk facing Broad Street. The stepped, wood parapet and horizontal wood siding present a simple, distinctive character with relatively minor modifications from the original building design. The "Guide to Architectural Styles in San Luis Obispo" describes this building as a "Falsefront Pioneer" building. Once the predominant architectural style of commercial buildings in mid-19t` Century San Luis Obispo and in many other cities in the U.S., few buildings of this style remain. Other examples in San Luis Obispo include the San Luis Soda Works Building on Nipomo Street(original building demolished in 1998) and the Del Monte Cafe on Santa Barbara Street. Although the building exterior has been modified, it retains much of its original architectural character, owing to its 4-2 Council Agenda Report— 1317 Broad Street Page 3 distinctive facade, horizontal shiplap siding and zero setback. Based on adopted criteria in the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, buildings' architectural significance is evaluated in terms of: 2. Relative purity of the a traditional architectural style; 3. Rarity of existence of this style at this time, although the structure may reflect a once popular style; 4. Traditional or Vernacular or eclectic architectural influences that represent a particular social milieu or period in the community; and 5. The degree to which the structure has maintained its integrity (i.e. an assessment of alterations and structural conditions, if known). Following these criteria and based on the building's age and rarity of architectural style, the Cultural Heritage Committee nominated the property to the Master List of Historic Resources under the Aichitectural category, subject to the following findings: a. The relative purity of the building's Pioneer Falsefront architectural design remains intact, as evidenced by the prominent rectangular Falsefront facade at zero setback behind the property line,horizontal wood siding, and horse hitching ring in the public sidewalk; b. The building's design reflects a once common architectural style for commercial buildings in 19th century San Luis Obispo but is now rarely seen, limited to only a few remaining examples; c. The building's design represents .traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular. social milieu and period of the community, and d. Prominent design features, namely the building facade and wood siding have undergone only minor alterations and the building's original architectural integrity has been preserved. Master List of Historic Resources. The Master List of Historic Resources consists of about 175 distinctive structures Broad Street Elevation that have significant historic or architectural value to the community and which merit special honor and recognition. Some of these properties are also eligible for State or Federal historic designation, and may qualify for favorable tax status,more flexible development standards or other benefits. 4-3 Council Agenda Report— 1317 Broad Street Page 4 Effects of Historic Listing. Once properties are added to the Master list based on Council-adopted criteria such as age, architectural style, neighborhood context, and history, physical changes to the property are possible,provided that such changes promote the structure's original architectural style and character. Demolition is also possible but is strongly discouraged by City policies. The General Plan Land Use Element says, "historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to avoid the threat are infeasible. The street appearance of buildings that contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained. According to the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, demolition of an historical resource should be done only when: "l)the condition of the building poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of community residents or people living or working on or near the site, or 2) the project sponsor demonstrates that it financially infeasible to rehabilitate the structure or preserve tho.historic nature of the site." Given the building is proposed for 5 demolition and new development F ' is pending, historic listing would s - i have these effects: ,f 6. As part of architectural review,the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) would evaluate the project under the Demolition and Building Relocation Code. To demolish the building would require that the ARC find the proposed replacement structure to be"as or more compatible with neighboring Rear Elevatron development than the existing structure,consistent with ARC guidelines; and either the condition of the structure poses a threat to the health,safety or welfare of the community or people living or working near the site,or the applicant has submitted written documentation that it is financially infeasible to rehabilitate the structure of preserve the historic nature of the site." 7. Building demolition,remodeling or additions would require CHC review for consistency with Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. 4-4 Council Agenda Report— 1317 Broad Street Page 5 ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not adopt a resolution adding the property to the Master List. This would allow the property to be demolished, subject to the requirements in the Demolition and Building Relocation Code that 1) the property owner advertise the availability of the building for moving, for a period of at least 90 days before permit application and on at least three separate occasions, fifteen days apart; and 2) the property owner provide photographic historic documentation of the building in accordance with criteria established by the Community Development Director and the CHC. 8. Continue the item for additional information or study, and specify the additional information or analysis needed. Attachments: 1. Draft resolution 2. CHC draft minutes 3. Excerpt,Historical Preservation Program Guidelines(Appendix C)Historical Designation Criteria 4. Demolition Regulations 5. 3/12/00 Application Completion Status Letter to Warren Hamrick 6. 3/22/00 Letter From Waren Hamerick Council Reading FUe: Historic Resource Inventory,Documentation of Historical Significance. Th1Uc=port1317broxdhis = 4-5 Attachment 1 Council Agenda Report - 1317 Broad Street Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. (2000 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES TO INCLUDE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1317 BROAD STREET. WHEREAS, in 1983 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5197 establishing the "Master List of Historic Resources", along with procedures for adding properties to the listing; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 1999 the Cultural Heritage Committee held an advertised public hearing to consider recommending to the City Council the addition of 1317 Broad Street, historically known as the "San Luis Steam Laundry" building, to the Master List of Historic Resources due to its historical and/or architectural significance to the community; and WHEREAS, at said meeting, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the historical documentation on the property and recommended that the City Council add the property to the Master List of Historic Resources; and; WHEREAS, this City Council considered this recommendation during a public hearing on April 18,.2000 pursuant to historic preservation guidelines established by Council Resolution No. 6157 (1987 Series); NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that based on the Cultural Heritage Committee's recommendation, documentation as described in the Historical Resource Inventory for the property, on file in the Community Development Department, public testimony, the staff report, and on the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines the following: 4-6 Council Agenda Report- 1317 Broad Street Page 7 Council Resolution No. (2000 Series) Page 2 SECTION 1. Findings. A. The building located at 1317 Broad Street meets the Historic Resource Criteria For Building Evaluation and Recommendations as listed in the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, under the category "Architectural Style", based on the following findings: 1. The relative purity of the building's Pioneer Falsefront architectural design remains intact, as evidenced by the prominent rectangular Falsefront facade at zero setback behind the property line, horizontal wood board siding, and horse hitching ring embedded in the public sidewalk; 2. ^` The building's design reflects a once common architectural.style for commercial buildings in 19th century San Luis Obispo but is now rarely seen, limited to only a few remaining examples in the City; 3. The building's design represents traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and 4.. Prominent design features, namely the building's facade and wood siding have undergone only minor alterations and the building's original architectural integrity has been preserved. B. Historic designation does not constitute a "project" as defined under Section 15378 of Title 14, Ch. 3 California Code of Regulations and therefore is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). SECTION 2. Addition to Master List of Historic Resources. The building located at 1317 Broad Street is hereby added to the Master List of Historic Resources with the numeric historic ranking as a Type #5 historic property (historically significant at.a local level but not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places), as further described in the Documentation of Historical Significance and Historic Resources Inventory for the property, on file in the Community Development Department. SECTION 2. Publish Revised Master List. The Community Development Director is hereby directed to amend the Master List of Historic Resources to include the property listed above, and to publish a revised Master List for public distribution. SECTION 3. Recording of Historic Properties. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record the properties' historic designation with the County Recorder, pursuant to State Law. On motion of , seconded-by and on the following roll call vote: 4-7 I Council Agenda'Report - 1317 Broad Street Page'8 AYES: NOES: .ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this-18th day of April 2000. Mayor A11en.K. Settle ATTEST: . CityClerk APPROVED: . ff forie en, ty rney 4-8 Council Agenda Report - 1317 Broad Street Page 9 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LISTED HISTORIC PROPERTY Following is the legal description of the property added to the City of San Luis Obispo's Master List of Historic Resources, by City Council Resolution No. (2000 Series): 1317 Broad Street. (Historic Name: "San Luis Steam Laundry Building" City of San Luis Obispo, Murray and Church Addition, Block S, Lot 3 (Assessor's Parcel Number (APN#) 003-522406). Owners: Gary D. and Jose L. Todd. lh/Lc=p=1317W=d.hiso 4-9 Attachment 2 MINUTES SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Regular Meeting of Monday,April 26, 1999 The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9), San Luis Obispo City Hall, 990 Palm Street. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Steve McMaste ,Margot McDonald,Bob Pavlik, and Matt Whittlesey. Absent: Paula Carr,Amy Kard ,Bob Schrage. Staff: Jeff Hook,Associ a Planner. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF M04UTES: The m utes of March 22, 1999 were approved as amended, on a motion by Committee member McDonald, s onded by Committee member Whittlesey, on a 4-0 vote. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: On a motion by C ttee member Pavhk, seconded by Committee member McDonald, the elections were continued to a May 24, 1999 meeting to allow all CHC members to be present. The motion carried,'4-0. It was eed that Committee members McMasters and Whittlesey would continue serving as Chair and Vice-C until the elections could be held. Committee member Kardel arrived at the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. ARC 69-99: Storefront remodel for the historic er Building,located at 962 Monterey Street. Mark Rawson, Project Architect, described a planned remodel as a "more historically correct" treatment of the building. New concrete brick detailing on the Monterey Street building facade would closely match the building's exis ' g architectural details. He presented a modified building elevation rendering showing a wains t treatment with brick instead of tile. .He explained that the main entry to the planned Aaron's rothers Art Store was being shifted to provide handicapped access into the building, and a new xit door from the street level was being added as required by the Uniform Building Code. He also oted that early photos showed awnings at the lower level, but the new tenant didn't want awnings du to possible conflicts with planned signs. Chairperson McMasters opened theublic hearing. There was no public comment. He then closed the public hearing and asked for Co 'ttee member comments. Committee member McDonald felt it w unfortunate that awnings were not included and said she would like to see awnings included fro an architectural standpoint, in addition to providing 4-10 CHC Minutes, Regular Meeting of April 26, 1999 Page 2 pedestrian protection on a south exposur . She felt the new exit should not be an exact copy of the existing second story exit but shoul a in harmony with it, to comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards For The Trea nt of Historic Properties. She felt the new wainscot brick details appeared somewhat busy and pr erred the tile wainscot treatment. She asked that the brick detailing on the new columns repeat th 'amond-shaped dentil details. Committee member Pav ' asked if street trees could be added. Mr. Rawson responded that street trees might conflict with lilies in the public sidewalk. Mr. Rawson explained at there would be minor differences between old and new work but that the new work would be arc 'tecturally"compatible." Committee members gen ally supported the proposed storefront remodel and complemented the project architect On a mote by Committee member McDonald, seconded by Committee member Kardel, theCommittee voted - finding that the proposed storefront changes would alter the building's historic and architectural c cter, and recommending that the following design changes be incorporated into the remodel to mitigate ' toric preservation concerns: a. The design of the new exit door shou be compatible with the existing exit door but sufficiently differentiated so as not to exac y match the existing exit door, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards fo Treatment of Historic Properties. b. The new brick work should be comp le with the existing brick work but not attempt to match exactly. - c. If a herringbone pattern i sed along the building wainscot it should be set in panels; otherwise, a tile grid w ' scot is acceptable as shown in the project rendering. d. Storefront awnings sho nsidered for sun and weather protection and to recall the building's historic street character. 2. Consideration of nominating property located at 1317 Broad Street(former San Luis Steam Laundry building)to the Master List of Historic Resources. Mr. Hook introduced the item. Chairperson McMasters opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He then closed the public hearing and asked for Committee member comments. Committee member Kardel felt this was a unique false front building with relatively minor changes from its original design, but questioned whether its original architectural integrity may have been compromised by building additions and window changes. Chairperson McMasters felt that building alterations notwithstanding, the building's rarity of style as one of possibly two or three Pioneer Falsefront buildings in the City warranted preservation. Committee member McDonald felt that the building was transitional along the street and between the 4-11 CHC Minutes, Regular Meeting of April 26, 1999 Page 3 Downtown and Old Town Historic Districts. Committee member Kardel added that the building was a charming addition to the streetscape and that the existing hitching"ring"in the sidewalk in front of the building should be retained. Committee member Pavlik felt that the building had retained its architectural integrity and that it was a distinctive building worth keeping in place. On a motion by Committee member Kardel, seconded by Committee member McDonald, the Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council that 1317 Broad Street be added to the Master List of Historic Resources as a Type 5 property, based on these findings: a. The relative purity of the building's Pioneer Falsefront architectural design remains intact, as evidenced b_y.:the prominent rectangular Falsefront facade at zero setback behind the property line, horizontal wood siding, and horse hitching ring in the public sidewalk; b. The building's design reflects a once common architectural style for commercial buildings in 19`h century San Luis Obispo but is now rarely seen, limited to only a few remaining examples; c. The building's design represents traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and d. Prominent design features, namely the building facade and wood siding have undergone only minor alterations and the building's original architectural integrity has been preserved. Committee members discussed a possible historic name, including San Luis Steam Laundry, and felt that additional research was needed to establish a historic name. They suggested that a chain-of-title search be done to determine the range ofthe property's land uses and owners. 3. Demolition permit applications buildings located at 505 and 521 Higuera Street, and at 1136 Carmel Street. In response to questions, Mr. ook explained how the Demolition and Building Relocation Regulations evolved and when and w ey were changed. Committee member McDonald found it embarras ' g that the City was losing buildings shown in the City's 1904 Fire Department Souvenir booklet to olition. She said that existing buildings shown in the Souvenir booklet should probably be consid "endangered structures." Chairperson McMasters felt these demo ' ' ns and the proposed demolition of the Southern Pacific Milling Warehouse at the Pacific Ho o-It Center on Santa Barbara Street(also shown in the Fire Department Souvenir booklet) w good examples of "pre-development projects" which should actually be considered as part of main development project so that the historic preservation provisions of the California Environmen ality Act(CEQA) would apply. He felt that the current demolition procedures puts the City,the CHC historic preservation in a difficult,if not impossible 4-12 t t. 1i ` odp ,. i It I Y X11 ! fi�ll T.l.�rJJaI 1 --- is IIIR _ .1.• 1 City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage committee DELINEATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCE CRITERIA FOR BUILDING EVALUATION AND RECOMNMNDATIONS ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA I. Style Describes form of building such as size,structural shape and details within that form (i.e., arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.) Building style will be evaluated as a measure of: 1. The relative purity of a traditional style (as compared to building styles in San Luis Obispo); 2. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style; 3. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together. 4. The degree to which the structure has maintained its integrity (i.e., assessment of alterations and structural condition, if known). II Design Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit and craftmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements. Also, suggests degree to which the architect (i.e., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of: I. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its uniqueness, artistic merit, details and craftsmanship; 2. Overall attractiveness because of craftsmanship and aesthetic value, though not necessarily unique; 3. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. 4-14 III. Age Age is a measure of how relatively old a structure is in the context of the history of San Luis Obispo, primarily Anglo-American history (circa 1850). (See Scale of Building Age). CRITERIA FOR BUILDING EVALUATIONS IV. Architect Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to: 1. A master architect (e.g., Wright). 2. A known architect who made significant contributions to the state or region (e.g., Julia Morgan). 3. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at 810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's home - built between 1927 - 30). 4. An early architect who is otherwise of no special significance but can be identified as a professional (e.g., pioneer architects of the region as confirmed by AIA archival membership records of California and the Central Coast). V. Environmental Design Continuity Describes the inter-relationship of structures and their relationship to a common environment. Refers to the continuity, spatial relationship, and visual character of a street, neighborhood, or area. Environmental design continuity will be evaluated as a measure of the: 1. Symbolic importance of a structure to the community and the degree to which it serves as a conspicuous and pivotal landmark (i.e., easily accessible to the public, helps to establish a sense of time and place). 2. Compatibility of a structure with neighboring structures in its setting on the basis of period, style (form, height, roof lines), design elements, landscapes, and natural features; and how these combine together to create an integral cultural, historic, or stylistic setting. 3. Similarity to and/or compatibility of a structure with its neighboring structures which, collectively, although of no particular aesthetic value, combine to form a geographically definable area with its own distinctive character. 4-15 1' HISTORICAL CRITERIA VI. History y-Person Describes a person, group, organization, or institution that has been connected with the structure, either intimately or secondarily, for at least two generations (i.e., 40 years). Historical person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was: I. Significant to the community as a public leader (i.e.;-mayor, congressman, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally. 2. Significant to the community as a public servant who has made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to important local affairs or institutions (i.e., councilmen, educators, medical professionals, clergMen, railroad officials). 3• Contributions which, though minor, directly or indirectly, had a beneficial effect on the community (i.e., firemen, law enforcement officers, postal workers, businessmen/shopkeepers, city employees, etc.). VII. History - Event Associated with a social, political, economic, governmental, educational or other institutional event that has been important to the community. Historical event will be evaluated as a measure of: I. A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city. 2. A relatively unique or interesting contribution to the city (i.e., the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis Obispo history). 3. A contribution which, though minor, nonetheless was important to the community (i.e., local interest groups); or, alternatively, a unique or interesting contribution only loosely connected with the structure, object, site, or district. VIII. History- ontext Associated with and also.a prime illustration of predominant patterns of Political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historical context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects: 4-16 1. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historical effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (i.e., County Museum). 2. Secondary patterns of local history but closely associated with the building (i.e., Park Hotel). 3. Secondary patterns of local history but loosely associated with the building. Historical context will also be evaluated on the basis of: 4. Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the original foundation has been changed, if known. 4-17 Attachment 4 Substructure means the foundation of a building official shall refer the application to demolish or structure including the piers and piles. the structure to the Cultural Heritage Commit- tee(CHC)for placement on its next open agen- SECTION 114 — PERMIT REQUIRE- da. The CHC shall review and process the MENTS application as follows: I. If the CHC determines that the structure 114.1 Permit Required.The demolition or relo- to be demolished has no historical, architec- cation (moving) of any building or structure shall tural. or aesthetic significance to the com- not commence until a permit has been issued by munity, it shall refer the matter back to the the building official in accordance with the provi- building official with direction to issue the Bions of this chapter and the Uniform Administra- demolition permit. tive Code. 2. If the CHC determines that the structure to be demolished has historic, architectural EXCEPTION: Temporary construction of- or aesthetic significance to the community, frces. it shall direct the applicant to submit plans for Architectural Review Commission A permit to move a building shall be a building (ARC) review pursuant to Section 114.4 of permit when the building is relocated within the this chapter and Section 2.48 of the Munici- limits of the city. A permit to move a building pal Code. The owner shall secure the build- shall be a demolition permit when the building is ing to prevent further degradation, if relocated to a site outside of the city limits. necessary, to the satisfaction of the building official. 114.2 Moving and Relocation of Buildings. 2. Demolition of Structure Not Designated _ Historical. For any structure constructed 50 114.2.1 Inspection of buildings. to be moved. years or more-prior to.the date of application All buildings to be moved into or within the city for a demolition permit and not located on a shall be inspected by the building official to de- property listed on the Inventory of Historical termine compliance with this code and suitability Resources, the building official shall, as a con- for moving prior to permit issuance. dition of permit issuance, require that the ap- plicant provide the following: 114.2.2 Transportation and building permits 1. Evidence that, for a period of not less required. For moving projects, a transportation than 90 days from date of permit application, permit shall be obtained from the public works di- the building was advertised in a local news- rector subsequent to issuance of a moving permit. paper on at least three separate occasions not Building, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical less than 15 days apart, as available.to any permits shall be required for all work necessary interested person to be moved; and for the placement of a moved or relocated build- 2. Photographic documentation of the ing. structure in accordance with criteria estab- lished by the community development di 1143 Procedure for Permit Application Pro- rector and the CHC. cessing. Upon receipt of a permit application to EXCEPTIONS: 1. A building or structure demolish or move a building or structure, the determined by the building official to be a building official shall, prior to permit issuance, dangerous building as defined in the Uni- process the application subject to the following: form Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings which poses an imminent, serious 1..Demolition of Historical Resource. For threat to the health, safety or welfare of any structure located on a property listed on the community residents or people living or Inventory of Historical Resources, the building working on or near the site, and for which s 1 309 (San Luis Obispo 2-00) 15.04.020 photographic documentation acceptable to nancially infeasible to rehabilitate the structure the community development director has or preserve the historic nature of the site. been submitted. 2. For relocation or moving of a structure, the 2. Accessory buildings, sheds, garages and structure to be moved will be compatible with similar structures, unless determined to be a the new site and other buildings in the neigh- potential historic resource by the communi- borhood. ty development director.' Upon receipt of the permit application, the 114.5 Guarantee. Prior to issuance of a permit building official shall notify the chairman of to demolish or move a building or structure, the the CHC of the proposed demolition project. applicant shall provide the city with a guarantee 3. Moving to New Site.For any structure con- in such form and amount as may be deemed nec- structed 50 years or more prior to the date of essary by the building official to assure comple- application for a permit to move a structure to tion of demolition or moving, removal of all a new site, the building official shall direct the debris, cleanup of the site, repair of damage to applicant to Submit an application for ARC re- public improvements, erection of barricades view pursuant to Section 114.4 of this chapter when required and filling of depression below ad- and Section 2.48 of the Municipal Code. jacent grade. The amount of the guarantee for EXCEPTION:Accessory buildings,sheds, demolition shall be not less than one thousand garages and similar buildings, unless deter- dollars or twenty percent of the value of the dem- mined to be a potential historic resource by olition contract price, whichever is greater. The the community development director. amount of the guarantee for moving a building or structure shall be twenty percent of the total value 114.4 Approval Process for Demolition or of all work to be accomplished and associated Mo_vin_of Structures on Historic Properties. with moving of the building,but not less than five thousand dollars. Work required to comply with 114.4.1 General. ARC review shall be required this section may be completed by the city after the for the demolition or moving of a structure when time limits stated have expired and shall be paid determined necessary by Section 114.3 of this from the deposit.The deposit shall not be released chapter. The application for ARC review shall in- until such work is completed. clude architectural plans,including plans for a re- placement structure or structures in the case of EXCEPTIONS: I. No guarantee will be re- demolition. The application, architectural plans quired when the demolition permit is issued at and any applicable CHC recommendation shall the same time as a building permit for a rede- be reviewed and acted on by the ARC. velopment project. 2. When the structure to be moved is to be re- 114.4.2 Findings Required. The building otfi- located outside the limits of the city, the cial shall not issue the permit unless the ARC de- amount of the guarantee may be reduced when termines that: approved by the building official, but in no case shall be less than one thousand dollars. 1. For demolition of a structure, the proposed replacement structure is as, or more, compati- 114.6 Indemnity.Every person,firm or corpora- ble with neighboring development than the ex- tion to whom permission has been granted under isting structure, consistent with ARC guide- the terms of this chapter and other ordinances to lines; and either the condition of the structure utilize public property for the demolition or mov- poses a threat to the health,safety or welfare of ing of any building or structure shall at all times the community residents or people living or assume responsibility for any damage to public working on or near the site,or the applicant has property. Such permission shall be further condi- submitted written documentation that it is fi- tioned that any person, firm or corporation shall, 4-19 (San Luis Obispo 2-00) 310 Attachment 5 � N�NII(I1�{ �@IIII�II INIIII N II citYO SM ,lila voles m 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 March 22, 2000 Hamrick Associates Warren Hamrick 1609 Costa Brava Shell Beach, Ca 93449 Subject: ARC 50-00 (Office Development on 1317 Broad) Dear Warren: Planning staff has completed its preliminary review of your application to develop a new office building at the subject location. Preliminary review is necessary to ensure that staff has adequate information to evaluate your project. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that your application for an Administrative Use Permit and Architectural Review has been determined to be deficient. The Community Development Department is not able to certify your application complete at this time. We will be unable to process your application,_or schedule an Architectural Review Commission hearing,until all of the items contained on the application cheeklist.have been submitted,to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Preliminary review of your application indicates that your application will remain in an incomplete status until the following information is submitted: 1) Historic Preservation Review. On April 26, 1999,The City's Cultural Heritage Committee nominated the structure that you are proposing to demolish to the City's Master List of Historic Structures. The City Council will be considering the CHC recommendation to list the structure during an upcoming meeting. If you have any questions about the nomination and listing process please contact Jeff Hook at 781-7176. A checklist for Historic Preservation Review is attached, please review and submit the required information for demolition of historic buildings. There is no additional fee for Historic Preservation Review. 2) Environmental Review. Section 15300.2(f) of the California Environmental Quality Act does not allow the City to use a categorical exemption for this project since it may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. As a result, an Initial Study of Environmental Impact is required for TThe elecommunications D for the Deaf(805) dude the disabled in all of its services,programs and"- 720 your project. An Initial Study checklist is attached. Please review the checklist and submit the appropriate information (including an Archeological Resources Inventory)along with additional fees in the amount of$1,209. 3) Property Owner Authorization. The property owner must authorize this application in writing. 4) A grading and drainage plan. Please show how runoff from additional impervious surfaces will be disposed. 5) Colors and Materials Board. Colors and textures of exterior materials securely mounted on one or more 8.5" x 14" size illustration or poster boards. The above list includes all of the items initially identified as necessary for us to certify your application as complete. The City may ask for additional information upon more detailed-review of your project.•If you have any questions regarding this letter or the .specific items necessary to submit for a complete application,please contact me immediately at 781-7169. Your project has been assigned to Whitney McIlvaine. When you are ready to submit the above information please contact Whitney directly at 781-7164. Sincerely, o � - Mi 1 Codron Planning Technician Cc: Plannin File ARC 50-00, Whitney McIlvaine M&M Company 1329 Broad Street SLO, CA 93401 Attachments: Initial Study checklist, Historic Preservation Review checklist 4-21 Attachment 6 Mamrick Associates Architecture • Planning 1609 Costa Brava •Shell Beach,CA 93449 805.773.9377 March 30, 2000 WEIVED Arnold Jonas APR 0 5 2004 Community Development Department GI Y OF S City of San Luis Obispo, CA YV Luis o OOMMUNITY DEVELOPMEjjs NT RE: Planning File ARC 50-00 Dear Arnold: In respoAse to Michael Codron's March 22 letter, I need to point out the following issues. I am sympathetic to the goals of the Cultural Heritage Commission and their desire to preserve historic treasures. It is a stretch however to subjectively consider this building as one of those treasures. Its true that the building is old.That alone does not constitute a historic treasure. Its also true that it is one of several"false front' style buildings typical of the period. Why then, has the city allowed the demolition of other similar style buildings in recent years? If you have surveyed this building, you know that it is in a severe state of disrepair, and although it may be one of the last remaining"false front' buildings in the city, it is only a matter of time before the structure fails.The owner can no longer get fire insurance and it is in the flood zone. This building needs to be demolished. It would be economically unsound to try and rehabilitate the building to current safety standards. The termite infestation and lack of concrete building 4~j;nas have decayed the acture to the point where it will soon be a threat to public safety. The property owners will in no way accept that liability and have no intention of funding any repairs, espedally when the building is in the City's own front yard setback and additional setback for future street widening. If the Cultural Heritage Committee is interested in having the building moved to a new location, or simply documenting the structure you can count on our assistance. Sincerely, HAMRICK ASSOCIATES Warren Hamrick,Architect cc: M and M Company Architectural License No . C- 14 , 999 4-22 SETING AGENDA DATE I b oo ITEM #= M& MCo 1329 Broad Street San Luis Obispo,Ca 03401 (805)543-9312 (805)543-9317(fax) FErAkTTORNEY DD DIR ❑FIN DIR April 18,2000 ❑FIRE CHIEF ❑PW DIR❑POLIC'c CHFCouncilman John Ewan ❑UTILDIIRCity of San Luis Obispo ❑PERS DIR City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 Re: Resolution Of The Council Of The City Of San Luis Obispo Amending The Master List Of Historic Resources To Include Property Located At 1317 Broad Street. Dear Councilman Ewan, The matter above will come before you LATE this evening. Therefore,in an effort to minimize time and presentation I want to encourage you,at this time,to DENY the above resolution for the following reasons: 1. This property does not have adequate significant historical value,let alone enough to justifiably qualify it as a Historical Resource.To do so would degrade the qualifications,which have been heretofore established. 2. The designation of this site as a Historical Resource would mandate that any future remodel or development design complies with the present. Is a bulky looking,false front,lapboard,tin roofed designed structure what the City wants? 3 The designation of this site as a Historical Resource would delay, if not indefinitely postpone the redevelopment of this already deteriorated structure. tXvemh, Roland Maddalena RECEIVED APR 1 g 2000 SAO CITY c,r-RK RECENT. : —I AP? 1 r x;90 S? _, . n . tri �:; ��•' '� \y q ,'-tea__._ �° ��� "1 ►(� _ 7-1 o lr c Ho •a 1 'i .�s . � a , . I R� ✓ Yf Ri'Ci- �. •-L�J\t"„� V ;',T JC 7 ,. �_y_..._Y. J..�..r.�.� }i f '}' a ZN '•',D• '. �A � 1 � �( 1. ; li l� I -a�• - /J 1 .=`�.l Lam_ � �. nni iJyni ill il��l�l I li G �\r J�41.,1 1 ti. rpl, xX'f4Ei� i ✓ i � i ar x Gi - _• r I �sI i . ., •: 1 �1�. F -' �f...LL.v.^'Sy ercf mak-+ 5ry - .� 1_i , -�'4.1 I I I I. may,`/ � °__��,��f ��f���r ❑ �' �e � � "r-s vll aA' I. j n ti 1 y J 1 iv l I 111 A Ilr ����I ���I��� 111 1 - 1 n IFw\fir ham` err 3a Ihy� tti Rsb t I 1 *'ter ,we r x���rti .��µ� � �tiT�� ,Rt�p��X�Jy.,�g4 �� p R 1 a� �' 1 r � � r s'u > •r.� I� -e�� ���Icyf-'-.�. k� rr �i 4a% � �`.� •�}�°�� � T I �i � � �r�,�� 1 � � I � �- E_ 1 1 _ v � S Y f 1 I 1 f -1� -• {tea.[. _ i� a ,.�.� �. �ti•n_- �t .�.� --=` 3;nZZ�. _i u ..... ...-s '-,may - .` "'meq► I _ '� a �i � I � �1➢ I � i 11�i�. o • ' ti � I 'fl � o:.Al 1' � .. ��•p ,1 1 ;i I I - 41 `� .\�\ tii y� �e#.Yti �-.'•3'�q' i�� Y.e°. � x".,mow zt `".s.,,�—�'...-, _ E,I r r f{�. �yy,, �:tcr3�2«V✓l3 WY -�I 1k J. S'�' '�b 1 ,. J. •� t e mt 14 LL "'*NT MEETING AGENDA► DATE ITEM # 4� M& MCo 1329 Broad Street San Luis Obispo,Ca 03401 RECEIVED (805)543-9312 (805)543-9317(fax) April 14,2000 APR 1 4 2000 SLO CITY COUNCIL Honorable Mayor Allen Settle City of San Luis Obispo City Hall 990 Pahn Street San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 Re: Resolution Of The Council Of The City Of San Luis Obispo Amending The Master List Of Historic Resources To Include Property Located At 1317 Broad Street. Dear Mayor Settle, I am one of the owners of the property at 1317 Broad Street and acquired it in August 1999.The enclosed pictures describe the poor design and condition of the property. Historical Significance: I feel that this property does not have any Historical Significance. It was once a steam laundry and a shoe repair shop for a limited time.Neither use would be allowable today.During the last 30 years it has been used as a residence,Real Estate and Property Management Office.Does this make it"Historically significant?" Architecturally: Mayor,and now Vice Mayor Kenneth Schwartz,appointed me to the fust Architectural Review Committee when it was originally established in San Luis Obispo. I have always maintained a special interest in good and desirable architectural design in our City. A"false front,fake facade"building may speak well of Knotts Berry Farm,or Virginia City,Nev,but,not San Luis Obispo. Such a design ignores the use of soothing and pleasing lines. Authentically designed it mandates the use of`clap board'siding with little or no roof overhangs. In turn,this causes rapid deterioration of the building from the weather elements. It also dictates the use of a corrugated tin roof, which is poor insulation and noisy,and suggests small windows that discourage good air circulation and natural lighting. Furthermore,it must be built to the front and side property lines,which portrays visual bulk,and conflicts with many of today's fire and safety codes. The submittal,which we have proposed,for a new building at this location speaks to San Luis Obispo with its Mediterranean character. It reflects the true Heritage of our City. (note: the new building at 339 Marsh Street has received an unusual amount of recognition because of its strong Portuguese influence.) In conclusion, I am requesting that you not support the passage of the above-mentioned resolution. Thank You very much, �i CDD DIR ❑FIN DIR 0 ❑FIRE CHIEF Roland C.Maddalena,Partner ❑PW DIR pµf ORIG Y 0 POLICE CHF Q.erSKIORIG REC DIR C M ❑UTIL DIR ❑PERS DIR IlIz - - a-C rlz, `/ • ► w , �i i - �i • i171 -_t I � t >,,, t _.t � . +r. '{'':` NS �•,r.TI'�""'.?\ .'� ` r 4.'sx"`r'� .fir• t�X C�•: i zw, t .. i,. ti s �� f ]' ¢ giir �raur e. Y K.�n1� �' 'i sy..+.• 1<• r�-'y -'" .. . � •t• 'r JL r a -.t..:74 i r .. -� .' ''\ < � t Y� J ^:�k�'?W'i,fd k��r""-.me�44r�A''Y"�.S�1"�iw e t � x�•r`1 R.ti I y ;� x , ', y41!p v 4•Z � '� +, v'�+.� i yct �r ti itq !M�. , .r ' '-N ' it gat ,a:��"'•'w¢��v i,l t.ti .f�,4`cYiY r� .6i�Lq, '. 1 I I t t ry�xt+any h �M �;rl t��yY.`tI`�L 7Mrwit� Y4�'�"i l� r, ♦ Y Jyt S .w� LlA -�. � 4 '� • LIM - • i l • r i t, Y q _ Iv call \` 4yl '�����.ar �ti..t`�r", 1 i�5 mow\ In. / ✓ 1 7 r r t�'• \ - •t_ ..-• ..Ci e+.:+..._+.- „ �11; _u W'yt +7�Gi i '� ti I l + -.�..+T•..,+_ np.n +•`-�'Ivr�50 .n4 r},. :r J :-. I tr f t_ - _ - cam' .e+` •• M of�f ...5•., � _ r.�'1 tl ti� ,' ' ti� '^^'.ter••-�,«.Y-r+� -tF'+..-�+• �:-�.+�'1-t..^.��- _ rA -t.:�� - - v: V,l 1.