Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/15/1989, 1 - ACTIONS RELATED TO THE HISTORICALLY AND ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT BIDDLE HOUSE LOCATED ON THE SOU KREETNG 11 city of Safi LUIS OBISPO 89 ITBN NUM�1: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM Randy RgssiL Interim Community Development Director, BY: Pam Ricci, Assoc. Planner SUBJECT ' Actions related to the historically and architecturally significant Biddle House located on the southwest side of Pismo Street between Nipomo and Beach Streets: 1. Consideration of City providing financial assistance to owners of the Biddle House to help assure its timely restoration and preservation. 2. ARC 88-51 - Appeal of an Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval of four studio apartments behind the house. CAO RECOMN[ENDATION 1. Indicate a preference for one of the approaches discussed in the attached outline. Authorize the Community Development Director to negotiate with the property owners and assemble the necessary agreements. Direct those agreements to return for council approval on their next available agenda. 2. Continue action on the pending appeal until one of the approaches above is successfully executed. BACKGROUND i Discussion On June 6, 1989, the City Council continued action on the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action approving the addition of a four-unit apartment project behind the Biddle House. The council directed staff to work with the property owners and appellants (Citizens to Protect the Biddle House) on alternatives to the construction of the apartments as a means of financing the renovation of the Biddle House. City staff has met with the property owners on several occasions to discuss possible alternatives. Because of the preliminary nature of these discussions, the appellants were not included. Now that more information has been assembled, staff is better equipped to discuss with both groups the particulars of alternatives. Both groups could be consulted prior to formal execution of agreements at the next meeting. The property owners are living in the house despite it being in a state of disrepair. Both the interior and the exterior of the house needs immediate attention. The property owners have been unable to proceed with the restoration of the house until a decision is made on the proposed apartment project and they know alternative financing is available. Significant Imoacts The most immediate concern for the property owners is that a $100,000 short term loan is due by September 27, 1989. They stand the risk of losing the house if they are unable to pay this loan off by that date. 011111 1 City of San LUIS oimspo MaZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Biddle House Page 2 Consequence of Not Taking the Recommended Action Restoration of the house will be-further delayed if a decision on a approach to financing is not decided on soon. Attachments: Outline to approaches for City assistance in preservation Previous Council agenda report on the appeal issue pr/enf:biddle I I I I- BIDDLE HOUSE Outline to approaches for City assistance in preservation The following outline is intended to describe alternative approaches to components of possible city assistance in the preservation, restoration and maintenance of the historic Biddle House. These alternatives have been discussed with the present owners, City staff and other interested parties: However, no single "preferred" approach has been selected at the time that this report was prepared (August 2, 1989) . The overall approach has been subdivided into six components: 1. The $100,000 short term loan that is due September 27, 1989; 2. The renovation of the exterior; 3. The renovation of the grounds; 44 The maintenance of the exterior (no. 2 above.) and the grounds (no. 3 above) ; 5. The restoration of the interior; and 6. Additions such as a garage and/or solarium (not additional "units") . Three kinds of alternatives are discussed below for each of the components. These are: 1) Loans; 2) Purchase (or "equity" involvement) ; and, 3) Grants. 1. The $100,000 short term loan due. September 27, 1989 a) Loan approach (The City would loan $100,000 to the present owners for the sole purpose of paying off their "first" on the property. ) i ) Deferred (The principal and interest could be deferred to some future date (10 or 20 years) and then be due and payable. It could also be due upon resale, if sooner. o When due, the loan could "convert" to an equity position, .i .e. the City would become co-owner of the property proportional to the amount of the principle and interest. b) "Purchase" approach (The City would pay off the $100,000 loan that is due and take a real property interest of one of the following types. ) i) Purchase of development rights (In other words, the payoff of the $100,000 would represent the City buying away the future development rights of the property, preventing any current or future addition of units or subdivision of the property. Enforcement would be by deed restriction. ) /-3 Biddle House Page 2 ii) Co-ownership (The City's $100,000 would "buy" an interest in the property and the City would co-own the house and land with the current owners. At the present assessed value, the City would probably own about one-third of the Biddle House under this alternative.) Note: Under this approach, there would also be a propor- tional share of the property taxes that would be paid by the City. c) Grant (The City could grant the $100,000 in return for some considera- tion, agreement or restrictions.) 2. Exterior renovation a) Loan approach (The City would loan the current owners an amount sufficient to cover the costs of renovating the porches, doors and windows, siding, etc. to weather-proof and repair the "envelope" of the house. ) i) Deferred (This alternative is the same as described above for the $100,000 loan. The loan could either be due at some future date, or convert to an equity position. ) Note: The amount necessary for the exterior work is not known at present; it would have to be the subject of a detailed assessment (both for cost and for authenticity) . b) "Purchase" approach (Again, this is the same concept as described above for the $100,000. For example, if the exterior renovation cost $50,000, then the City would become owner of that proportion of the current assessed value (i .e. the value prior to restoration) . c Note: Another approach would be for the City to purchase a "facade easement" from the Biddle House owners. The amount of the renovation of the exterior could represent either some or all of the cost of the easement. The difference here is that the City would not be a co-owner per se, but have deed restriction interest in the building. When a facade easement is purchased it is usual for the purchaser to also take the long term maintenance obligation (see below) . c) Grant (The City could outright grant the present owners a sum equal to the cost of exterior renovation; even with the grant approach, some consideration or agreement would likely be put in place. ) J Biddle House � Page 3 3. Grounds and landscaping a) Loan (The City would loan the present owners an amount necessary for renovation of the rock wall and fencing, landscaping and other ground work. The proportion of the total grounds which should be City assisted is undetermined; it is likely that it would be only the front "half" or what is visible from the street and contributing to the historic setting.) b) "Purchase" approach (Similar to process outlined above for the exterior; it could be a proportional interest in the current assessed. value or purchase of a "grounds easement"..) c) Grant 4. Maintenance (Applies to Nos. 2 and 3, above) a) City-only (Under this approach, the City would be responsible for the full cost and conduct of maintaining the exterior and the grounds. ) i) "Sunk cost" (All the money that the City put into the main- tenance over the years would be out of pocket and not in- 1, crease or accrue to the City's i.ntere.st in ownership (if, as described above, there is a City ownership component.) ii) Proportional sunk cost and equity contribution (The City's cost of maintenance could be split between some that would be considered "sunk" and some accrue to equity (say at a 50/50 proportion) .) b) Shared cost (The City 'and the owner would share in the cost of mainten- ance of the exterior and grounds; each would consider it part of the cost of maintaining its investment.) 5. Interior renovation and maintenance After discussing this with the owner and other interested parties, it has been determined that this aspect of the project should be the sole responsibility of the owner. The only City involvement would be an agreement executed with the owner that any interior work would not damage or destroy historic features or create any irreversible changes. This language would be mutually developed and approved. � 6. Additions The addition of garage or solarium (the only two likely additions pro- posed by the current owners) would be solely at their cost. Additions would be subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission, and if the City has an equity position, the City Council . �—� mullill gg COUNCIL f san tins omj)o 6-6-89 WRIZe COUNCIL AGEN®A REPORT ITBut N FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director Prepared By, Pam Ricci SUBJECT: ARC 88-51 - Appeal of an Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval of four studio apartments behind the historically and architecturally significant Biddle House located on the southwest side of Pismo Street between Nipomo and Beach Streets. CAO RECOMMENDATION: After considering the staff report, the plans approved by the ARC, hearing minutes, appellant's testimony and any public testimony, adopt resolution upholding or denying appeal as deemed appropriate. BACKGROUND Discussion The project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission on five separate occasions. At these meetings, the main concerns with the project were the amount of open space and landscaping in the project and the compatibility of the new units with the existing house. The project design originally involved dividing the Biddle House into five apartments and adding a building containing three studio apartments in the rear. This design received final architectural approval on June 6, 1988, and was later appealed. The appeal never reached the council because the property changed hands and the new property owner wanted to make significant changes to the project design. It was determined that a new appeal of the revised project once it received final architectural approval would need to be filed to forward the project to the council for final action. The project was revised to leave the Biddle House as a single family residence and to construct a building containing four studios in the rear. This change significantly reduced the project parking requirement allowing a much greater proportion of the site to be dedicated to open space and landscaping, rather than parking and driveway areas. Testimony was received from several members of the public with concerns with the project on February 13, 1989 when the revised project was considered for final architectural approval by the ARC. The commission continued the project directing the project architect to modify the building to help reduce its scale. The revised project incorporating changes suggested by the ARC, staff and the public received final architectural approval on April 17, 1989. No members of the public were in attendance at this meeting to provide testimony. An appeal of that decision was filed on April 27, 1989. Significant Imoacts Significant environmental or fiscal impacts are not expected from either approval or denial of the appeal. Conseauences of Not Taking the Recommended Action If the council upholds the appeal, then very specific direction should be given to the applicant and staff on appropriate changes. Revised project plans could then be review by the ARC or staff, or if desired, return to the council. �i191p acy of San IS OBISpO MmA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 88-51 Page 2 If the council denies the appeal, then the ARC's action to approve the project would stand. This would allow the applicant to proceed with the project. Data Summary Address: 559 Pismo Street Applicant/Property Owner: Eugenia. D. De Forrest Representative: Barry Lorenz Williams Zoning: R-3-H General Plan: Medium-High Density Residential Environmental Status: Categorically exempt under Section 15303. of CEQA Guidelines, Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small. Structures. Site Description The relatively flat site consists of 15,000 square feet: It is presently developed with the three-story historic structure known as the Biddle House. A metal shed behind the house is proposed to be removed. The site contains a wide variety of mature tree specimens. Most prominent trees are proposed to be retained with site development. Surrounding land uses include a variety of residential uses - single-family homes, apartments and condominiums. The condominiums nearing completion of construction immediately to the south of the site are on a separate parcel that once served as the grounds for the Biddle House. Proiect Description The applicant is proposing to continue to use the Biddle House as•a single-family residence and add a new two-story structure containing four studio apartment units to the rear of the site. Plans show six parking spaces to serve the existing house and proposed apartments. EVALUATION The appeal was submitted on the grounds that the design and configuration of the proposed units are incompatible with and insensitive to the existing historic structure. Specific changes to the project that would mitigate the appellant's concerns were not included on the appeal form or on attachments. The. ARC in granting the project final approval on April 17, 1989, concluded that serious concerns with the project had been addressed in amended plans. The following paragraphs discuss major project design issues: 1. Proiect'Conceot/Building Siting: The Biddle House was constructed in the 1890's and is one of the city's most prominent old Victorian homes. The house which is included on the city's master list of historic resources has a ranking which makes it eligible for the National Register. A copy of the historic resources inventory is attached. i - Obviously the most important issue with further developing the site is protection of the street view of the house. Additional structures and site improvements should be located where they do not detract from the prominence of the existing house by screening them as much as possible from the street. city of san ictis-owpo Oft' COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 88-51 Page 3 Parking spaces are substantially screened from the street by the house itself and landscaping along the driveway. The new building will be visible from directly across the street and for limited distances beyond the direct vantage. Landscaping in the street yard and a rose garden and hedges proposed in front of the new building will assist in screening it from the street. Z New Building Design: There are two distinct approaches to designing a new building on a site with an important architectural resource. The first would be to design a.new building which mimics the architectural style of the prominent building to provide consistency between structures. The second approach would be to design a simpler structure that would not compete with the main house. Staff feels that the ultimate solution contains components of both approaches - designing a building that contains architectural elements of the prominent building, but is understated enough in its design and appropriately located on the site so that it does not detract from the main resource. The new proposed two-story structure that would contain the four studios is about the same height and mass as the apartment building originally approved by the ARC for the site, but is simpler in its design and detailing. Much of the. ARC discussion at the February 13th meeting focussed on suggested architectural changes to the new building to help reduce its scale and to simplify its design to keep it from competing with the main house. The architect made the following changes to building design in response to ARC direction: ' The height of the roof ridge was reduced by 1'8". • Windows and doors were eliminated from the side elevations. • A cross-gable was added to the roof form to make it a hip-on-gable and appear more "barn-like". ' Second-story windows on the west elevation were changed to look more like true dormers. ' Muntins were added to slider windows on the second-story of the east elevation to appear more in character with other windows on the west side of the building and the.main house. Staff feels that approved changes to the building improve the building's appearance, reduce its apparent bulk and mass and are consistent with commission direction. 3. Revised Driveway Design: Project plans originally showed a two-way driveway at the site's street entry divided by a planter to save a large palm and two fruit trees. There was a concern with this driveway design because it encroached fairly significantly into the street yard landscaping in front of the house, further detracting from the Biddle House. crty o� SM his OBISpo :. All COUNCIL AGENDA EP®1�°1' ARC 88-51 Page 4 Plans last reviewed by the commission had been modified to show a single lane driveway 10 feet wide between the previously mentioned trees and the east property line. The modified project has a parking requirement of six spaces. Parking lots with six or fewer spaces can be served by the narrower driveway and still meet city standards. The original project with a parking requirement of 11 spaces needed a minimum of a 16-foot wide driveway that could accommodate two-way traffic. Staff and the ARC have been supportive of the narrower, single lane driveway because it preserves more of the yard area around the house and minimizes visual impacts of the driveway. ALTERNATIVES 1. The council may uphold the appeal requiring revised project plans to be reviewed and approved either by the -ARC or staff based on specific council direction. 2. The council may deny the appeal. In this case, the council would endorse the project as approved by the ARC and the applicant could proceed with working drawings. 3. The council could continue consideration of the appeal. Specific direction should be given to the applicant and staff as to what additional information the council desires return to them. PREVIOUS REVIEW The project was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) on February 4 & 19, 1988. A copy of the CHC's recommendations regarding the project are attached. The new building design was revised to respond to CHC concerns by reducing its overall height, adding dormers to the upper floor of the west elevation and eliminating the exposed rafters (trellises). On May 2, 1988, the ARC granted the project schematic approval with landscaping, fencing, rear elevation of the Biddle House and building colors to return in plans for final review. On June 6, 1988, the ARC granted the project final approval with colors and detailing of the rear units, and landscaping and parking to return to the commission. The ARC's decision was appealed to the City Council by an individual representing a group known as Citizens to Protect the Biddle House. The basis for the appeal was that proposed additions to the site (new units and parking and driveway areas) compromised the historical integrity and architectural significance of the Biddle House. The appeal was originally calendared for the July 19, 1988 council meeting, but then was rescheduled at the request of the appellant. After the appeal was filed, the architect at the request of the new property owner made significant changes to the project design. It was determined that a new appeal of the revised project once it received final architectural approval would need to be filed to forward the project to the council for f inal action. On August 1, 1988, the revised project received schematic approval with direction to eliminate the rear outdoor stairwell on the Biddle House, revise the parking lot area, modify elements of building design and-detailing and reduce the amnunt nr lawn nrpv C 011!01 City of san tws owpo J WINGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 88-51 i Page 5 On February 13, 1989, the project was continued by the ARC with direction to modify the form of the new building to help reduce its scale and to allow input from the City Arborist on the proposed removal of the Silk Oak tree. Public concerns raised at the February 13th meeting included the scale of the new structure in relation to the main house, lack of space between the two buildings, height of the new structure, removal of the Silk Oak tree and protection of the main house's historical significance and architectural integrity. On April 17, 1989, the project was granted final architectural approval with changes to the landscaping plan (Silk Oak tree to be retained) and revisions to the parking lot to return to to staff for approval. RECOMMENDATION After considering appellant and public testimony, minutes and the staff report and project plans, the council.should deny or uphold the appeal as deemed appropriate. Attachments: Draft Resolutions Vicinity map Reduced copies of site plan/elevations Appeal request ARC minutes Historical resources inventory Memo from CHC Letters from architect dated 7-28-88 and 5-22-89 Letters from Citizens-to Protect the Biddle House dated 8-14-88 & 8-22-88 Enclosed: Approved architectural plans NOTE: Previously approved project plans are available for council review in the � project file. i pr#6:88-51 I .r Y" RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE• THE 3-UNIT APARTMENT-BUILDING BEHIND THE BIDDLE HOUSE AT 559 PISMO STREET (ARC 88-51) WHEREAS, the.Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and City Council have held public hearings on this request for architectural approvals of the apartment project in accordance with Chapter 2.48 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, the item has come to the council on appeal from an individual representing a group known as the Citizens to Protect the Biddle House and the council has considered the staff report, commission minutes, applicant, appellant, and public testimony, and project plans; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves to deny the ~' appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action to grant final approval to the apartment project (ARC 88-51) based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The project is architecturally compatible with the surrounding structures and is appropriate at theproposed location. 2. The proposed project will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: � 1 l Resolution No. (1989 Series) Page 2 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of , 1989. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Administrative Officer City Attorney u Community Development Director J i RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE.ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE THE 3-UNIT APARTMENT•BUILDING BEHIND THE BIDDLE HOUSE AT 559 PISMO STREET (ARC 88-51) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and City Council have held public hearings on this request. for architectural approvals of the apartment project in accordance with Chapter 2.48 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the item has come to the council on appeal from an individual representing a group known as the Citizens to Protect the Biddle House and the council has considered the staff report, commission minutes, applicant, appellant, and public testimony, and project plans; and NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of.San Luis Obispo resolves to uphold ! the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action to grant final approval to the apartment project (ARC 88-51) based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The proposed apartment building is incompatible with and insensitive to the existing historic Biddle House. 2. The project conflicts with the established and distinctive historical character of the Old Town Neighborhood. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Resolution No. (1989 Series) Page 2 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of 1989. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: i City Administrative O icer City Attorney Community Development Director VICINl'TY MAP ARC 88-51 Q r 13 �s�Q 4 1 {P�.� " •� (tel( O � •e v H O A �D Oy PF - H IN lk �♦ .:: ^� wi •Mi rY' *ad,^,rlt .. iso, m — .� P a^ f d � � tid' h^♦S� � R �jAf �9 oO t► y�i ��` O �P p� O � �y�i�✓ Fin L J� Q O O , � � �O• t �• IIS♦� Q ?5,�� y �'O e ,>>� ,yam ♦ O O 'js' ► O O ' O g� O G � � - 0 t^� �♦ O �13 01 lid F.7 q LIDDLE HOUSE RESTORATIM OF 0= Ii 411. Irk t-J IIE' , Alii Xr I it !I ill: A Nil I I T =1 BIDDLE HOUSE RESTORATI ..re In 7-T- Zj - SE APARTMENTS B I DDLE HOU + J ����u8����1�1►►i�i����i�Ill�lllll�►�►►►������► IIIII cityof son tuis oBispo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 - San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of 7M ARCE371ECTUPIAL REV32CC"C=C rendered on April 17.1989 , which decision consisted of the following (i.e. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed) : Design and configuration of proposed units are =ccirpatible and ; sem3.t ve to the existing historic structure. The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with: Senior Planner Ken Bruce on April 27th Appellant: /�{{1/y�,.� 1..1114GLVJ 1V rS\V'1 J:��1. 113G DILLIJL:' i"NVJL1 '7 Name/Title Representative • `5 70 /YJ- San Luis Obispo, California Address (805)541-8748 Phone Original for City Clerk Copy .to City Attorney Ca end ed Por: G Copy to City Administrative Officer Copy to the following d partment(s) : Mrs/'fswl A 1S City Clerk Address on file with Planning Departrent /9 Appeal to City Council The Biddle House The proposed project violates the agreement and defies the spirit of the directives of Council relative to the site. Council heard and upheld the Appeal of the condominium project on the Buchon Street side of the parcel on April 19, 1988 for virtually the same reasons as this Appeal. However, subject proposal encroaches and infringes even more on the "eligible for the Register of Historic Places" Biddle House. The piecemeal approach to this project conflicts with proper planning procedures. The pretty, not drawn to actual perspective, pictures will translate to wood and concrete, never to be removed, buildings. There appears to be a complete disregard for the special character of the House, e.g.: the rose garden which in no way blinds us to the new buildings but rather spotlights them. The attitude of simply tolerating the historic structure instead of respecting its integrity prevails in all the wheeling and dealing over the site, from condos to apartment plans. We respectfully request that the Council stop the prospective destruction of this site. Critical to your deliberations, we hope, will be that our San Luis Obispo historic preservation efforts should not defile the intrinsic personality of the preservation in the name of "ft's failing down" scare tactics while the developer focuses on development of other portions of the parcel. In summary, the project heavily 'impacts on the existing wonderful, gracious historic structure known as the Biddle House and violates the spirit of previous Council directives and Old Town in terms of scale, character, and appropriate setting. See supporting documents attached. 4/27/89/hab RESOLUTION NO. 6429 (1988 SERIES) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE THE BUCHON STREET ELEVATION OF A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 550 BUCHON STREET (ARC 87-124) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission and City Council have held public hearings on this request for architectural approvals of the condominium project's street elevation in accordance with Chapter 2.48 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the item has come to the council on appeal from an individual who lives in the neighborhood the .proposed project is located in and the council has considered the staff report, commission minutes, applicant, appellant, and public testimony, and project plans. WHEREAS, the council continued consideration of the appeal and referred the design of the project's Buchon Street elevation to the ARC for further study; and WHEREAS, the ARC recommends that the revised elevation be approved by the council. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves to uphold the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action to grant final approval to the Buchon Street elevation of ARC 87-124 based on the following findings: Findines: I. The proposed street elevation is architecturally incompatible with the surrounding structures and is not appropriate at the proposed location. 2. The proposed street elevation conflicts with the established and distinctive historical character of the Old Town Neighborhood. On motion of Cattle- , seconded by „_--_,,,,,,,,ma and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Rappa, Reiss and Mayor Dunin NOES: None ABSENT: Councilwoman Pinard . o Resolution No. 6429 (1988 Series) Page 2 the foregoing resolution waspassedand adopted this 1 gr lay of Apr;7 1988. F / Mayor Ron Dunin AT � o City lerk Pam V es APPROVED: City A ministrative fficer r---�'o City AttokAcy i Acting Commu ty Development Director 0 Wanted : - 4 -- me buyer, wh [ 1-des history By Mark pa�p}m America's Great Gatsby age. condo.' He even said he could sell pcoy�ns Jomaal Suvari and his wife, Candice, that room alone for a hundred and bought it. They spent the neat 15 something." I remember it as one of my years refurbishing it. Last Jane, What more does Dr. Savari want favorite corners of the world, a with their children getting older, than a good price? F of East Coast shoreline that they decided it was time to move. "Peace.of mind," he says. "A felt .like' 19th-century England. It They listed the house with Janet good conscience." was an old estate named Bonnie- Shea of Century 21 for 0A million. This story isn't meant to paint all crest and its centerpiece was a It's rare for three full acres to developers as uncaring. As busi- great Tudor mansion. The grounds, come up in a prime area of New- nessmen, they'd be irresponsible if carefully landscaped, rolled like a port, now a hot resort community. they didn't think about getting a big green sea right down to the vast Almost immediately,Janet was con- good profit out of a purchase.In the blue ocean off Newport,R.L tacted by a half-dozen buyers. All end, they are only responding to the Then It was put up'for sale. A were developers.She conveyed their needs of people. This is the IM, developer bought it. Construction offers to the Savari& not the 1880s. We have to adapt our began Soon you could no longer see The Suvaris said they were not way of living, and often that means the mansion.It was blocked by huge interested. adapting old estates. dorm4ike buildings containing doz- Mrs. Suvari remembers some of Suvari understands that. But he ens of condominiums. the developers'visits dearly. says it is a question of balance.The All states have places like New- "Their attitude was basically to best communities in America are port: historic cities whose once- rip it aPsiV'ehe-ssys-``9ne didn't those that preserve the past while gracious estates are being bought even look at the home. He just creating the present. He feels that and overdeveloped into dozens of looked at the land." Newport, like many historic cities, condominiums. Some say it is an- According to zoning, it would be is fading to do that. avoidable. When the time comes to possible-to build five additional I asked him why he should care. sell old mansions, developers are buildings on the grounds. Almost all He will be leaving Newport. And often the readiest buyers. And what the developers have said that would besides, with so many estates in owner would say no to a best offer? be their plan. The Snvaris feel that that city already bristling with con. But sack owners do exist. would ruin a piece of history. That dominiums, what difference would Ando Suvari first saw the house in is why they've refused the offers. it make to add one more? 1973. It was made of granite, sat on 'Dr. Suvari is willing to see the "Why should I be part of the three acres near Newport's most building naturally divided into two trend?" says Dr. Suvari. "If there historic section and was in terrible residences — one in the 12-room was even one house left in Newport i" condition. Cobwebs were every- main house, a second in the 8400m that was like it used to be,that is at where, the wood floors black, a wing. But the developers, he said, least something." wing filled with pigeons. almost all want to go beyond that. For sale. Eighteen-room house. But Suvari, a psychiatrist, under- They speak of cutting the house up Three acres of grounds. Piece of stood that he'd found a piece of into six or more condominiums. history. Owner interested in good history. The house was designed in "One came in," he recalled, price. But holding out for good 1870 by Richard Morris Hunt, one of "looked at the ballroom, and said, values. the most notable architects of 'That would make a nice little —Scripps Howard News Service b- 3 iii illlilllllll!Nlll I���V� I(;��hlllii�Hli� ������ c�-� of stuis oBic '"o y 990 Palm Street/Post office Boz 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 TO: Cultural Heritage Committee FROM Pam Ricci, Associate Planner DATE: August 12, 1987 - — SUBJECT:Buchon Street Condominiums In conjunction with the request to restore the Biddle House, the applicant is proposing to develop the rear portion of the site with seven condominium units. The site the Biddle House is located on consists of two existing lots of record. The applicant has also filed an application for a lot line adjustment to relocate the existing lot line to accommodate new development. The rear portion of the site served as the grounds for the main house historically. The grounds are no longer well maintained, but contain a variety of mature tree specimens. Several of the most prominent trees are proposed to be retained with development. Two accessory buildings, a barn and a shed, are proposed to be removed. These two buildings are located on the rear of the site closer to the house. The site plan for the condominium project indicates that the units will be located on the sides of and at the end of a central driveway off of Buchon Street. A project recreational and open space area is located in the northwest corner of the site. Proposed two-story units will be wood-sided and pitch-roofed. Staff would suggest that the committee discuss the following in its review of the project: 1. Removal of the barn and shed; 2. Relocation of the lot line; 3. Impact of the condominium project on the historical character of the Biddle House;and 3. Site planning (primarily the layout of the units) and building design (appropriateness of architectural style and materials) in terms of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The condominium project is scheduled for schematic architectural review by the ARC on August 31, 1987. ��►I a IIII I I IIS II i�������������@11111111111► I `�� city of sAn bms oaspo A MW 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 August 18, 1987 TO: Architectural Review Committee FROM 4UGloria Heinz, Chairperson, Cultural Heritage Committee SUBJECT: CHC review of the Biddle House Condominium Project. At its August 12, 1987 meeting, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the condominium project planned for the rear of the Biddle House property with frontage on Buchon Street. The CHC supported the condominium project with the following suggestions: 1. Additional attention should be given to the Buchon Street elevations of the proposed condominiums -- ie. features like windows or doors facing the street might be included to give the project more of a street frontage appearance. 2. Additional attention should be given to the views through the condo project westward to the Biddle House. Visual integration of the condo project with the Biddle House site may be desirable_ i DRAFT ARC MINUTES April 17, 1989 2. ARC 88-51: 559 Pismo Street; add 4-unit apartment to site with existing historical house; R-3 zone; final review. Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the commission grant final approval with revisions to the parking lot, landscaping plan, and lighting fixtures to return to staff and concur with the staff's determination that the existing shed is of no historical, architectural or cultural significance and allow its demolition. Barry Williams, architect, responded to the staff report, and noted changes to roofline, banding, and window detailing that were made to make the building appear less massive. Commr. Jones asked Barry Williams about the proposed rose garden. Mr. Williams indicated that his client wanted the rose garden at the location shown on plans and that roses had been growing in that vicinity of the site in the past.. Commr. Cooper questioned the windows used on the upper floor of the easterly elevation. Mr. Williams noted the windows had muntin additions and were not true divided lites. Commr. Morris had not serious problems with the project, and felt it had improved since last reviewed by the commission. He wanted the lawn areas separated from the rose garden and the apricot tree retained. Commr. Gates liked the project and proposed colors. Commr. Bradford appreciated the architect's changes and the owner's efforts on the project but could not support it because of inherent concerns with the potential negative impacts of adding the new building to the same site as the historic house. Commr. Jones was glad to see the site improved. Commr. Cooper wanted the window muntins to be the same color as the trim. Commr. Morris moved to grant final approval with changes to the landscaping plan and revisions to the parking lot to return to staff for approval and found that the existing shed is of no historical, architectural, or cultural significance, and approved its demolition. Commr. Jones seconded the motion. AYES: Morris, Jones, Gates, Cooper NOES: Bradford ABSENT: Starr (one vacancy) The motion passes. ARC Minutcs February 13, 1989 Page 3 The motion passes. 3. ARC 88-51: 559 Pismo Street; add 4-unit apartment to site with existing historical house; R-3 zone; pian revisions. Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending final approval with revisions to the driveway, parking lot, colors, lighting fixtures, and windows on the new building to return to staff for approval or to continue with these items returning to the commission. She noted that the commission should also concur with staff's determination that the existing shed is of no historical, architectural or cultural significance and allow its demolition. Barry Williams, representative, responded to the staff report and discussed the parking lot options, including the possibility of angling spaces. He was open to suggestions on widening the driveway. He felt that the only time of year that the new building would affect the solar exposure of neighbors would be from late November to January. He discussed color choices and indicated that slider windows on the east elevation were Ci needed for egress to meet code requirements. He indicated that dividers could be added to slider windows to make them look more like others on the addition and main house. He preferred using fewer but taller light standards. Commr. Morris questioned removal of the silk oak tree. Barry Williams was concerned that the silk oak tree would cause maintenance problems. He would prefer red planting another specimen tree in its place. He was also concerned with the proximity of the tree to the house. Commr. Gates asked for clarification on previous additions made to the house. Jacob Feldman wanted the number of 'units reduced to three and the roof lowered. Michael Wouk was against further development of the site. He felt the addition was too close to the existing structure. David Hannings was concerned with the cumulative impacts on infill projects in Old Town. Don Cutter felt different scales for the additions to the site would make them more subservient to the main house.. Lawrence Holgate felt there was a need to protect Victorian resources. Ken Haggard discussed space volume and scale concerns he had with the project. He saw a problem with the four units getting too close to the main house. He suggested lowering the roof pitch to decrease the volume of the addition. He wanted the specimen trees preserved. ARC Minutes February 13, 1989 Page 4 David Brody felt existing condominium projects in the area impinge on the character of the neighborhood and historical resources. He felt the proposed project impacts the grandeur of the main house and was concerned with the proximity of the new building to the existing house. Tory Holgate-West agreed with Mr. Brody's remarks. She felt the Biddle House was an "irreplaceable jewel" that should be preserved. Ray Ball, owner of property at 1428 Beach Street, supported the project and felt it would improve the neighborhood. Martha Stewart, 1053 Islay Street, would like to see the silk oak remain and felt the new building was not compatible with the existing residence. Erin Noterman, 836 Murray, was concerned with the addition of units to the site. Barry Williams responded to the public comment and discussed scale concerns and economic considerations. Commr. McClave commended the owners.sensitivity in retaining the main house as a single family residence. He liked the proposed colors but thought there may be too much contrast between the siding and trim colors. He wanted the silk oak tree retained and supported the roof pitch_ He felt banding_ was lost in the rear and suggested banding the shed roof around the westerly elevation. He wanted the water heaters enclosed. He also suggested bringing the dormer cave into the side elevations to complicate the roof planes which was more in keeping with the main residence. He wanted to see the mail box integrated into the wall design. Commr. Gates felt the project would be attractive. She wanted to see the roofing mass reduced to add more character to the small upper story windows. She also wanted the balustrades eliminated on the addition. She felt the applicant could work with staff on parking. She liked the color and lighting details. Commr. Starr explained how the zoning enables further development of the site to the audience. He felt the new units would allow for restoration of the main house and could support a barnlike building in the rear. He felt the applicant's design solution was also an acceptable alternative. He did want the roofline lowered. Commr. Bradford discussed the project background for benefit of the audience and the commission's purview in reviewing the project for aesthetic and compatibility concerns. She did not like the form of the new building and felt they were too close to the main house. She felt landscaping had improved and wanted the window detailing kept consistent with the existing building. Commr. Morris expressed how much the building had improved since the original submittal. He felt the siting of the building-was best for preserving trees and vegetation. He was 'on the fence" regarding the roof pitch of the new building. He felt staff and the applicant could work out the parking lot details. He wanted to see more dense foliage and trees in the front of the units. He wanted the silk tree retained and felt an v ARC Minutes February 13, 1989 Page 5 arborist could effectively prune it to reduce maintenance problems. He also felt there should be less emphasis on the rose garden and, wanted to see other flowering plants used in this area. Commr. Cooper suggested introducing a gable addition, lowering the roofline, eliminating the window on the upper floor of the westerly elevation, and cutting down the volume of the rear structure. He liked the proposed colors and wanted the silk oak tree retained. Commr. Bradford moved to continue the project with changes to the form of the new building to return in plans for final approval and for staff to review a proposal to remove a silk oak tree with the city arborist. Commr. McClave seconded the motion. AYES: Bradford, McClave, Starr, Morris, Gates, Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: Jones The motion passes. 4. ARC 88-120: 660 Peach Street; new 24-unit apartment complex; R-3 zone; final review. Commrs. Morris and Cooper stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Pamela 'Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending a continuation with direction regarding design issues. Steve. Pults, architect, responded to the staff report and discussed project changes since last reviewed by the commission. He had no problem with assigned parking. .He indicated that he and the applicant had met with the Mission School Board regarding traffic safety issues. He noted that changes to tree proposals were based on suggestions made by the arborist to remove two walnut trees in the parking lot.. Judy Newhauscr of the Creeks Council explained the need for space to encourage restoration of the creek habitat. She would like to see 207foot setback from top of bank for all improvements. She would also like to see the parking lot closest to the creek removed. She discussed alternatives for reducing. parking demands. Steve Putts indicated he could take out a parking space in the small parking lot near the creek or use grasscrete in that area. William Roalman, 546 Higucra, supported a 20-Coot setback from the creek and wanted the applicant to explore the alternative of reducing the project by one unit. Jean Light, 570 Peach Street, was concerned with the project's impact on on-street parking in the area and traffic safety. f ARC Minutes August 1, 1988 Page 5 Commr. Bradford mov/ybarger, nt fi l approval to the project with the following items to be resolved with staff: tio to the lawn area and the periphery of the lawn to be landscaped, fencing, cna ve #3, recreational amenities to be relocated to the lawn area, lighting detding A set back 5 feet to allow for an increased planter and the addition of a acement tree for the pepper tree proposed to be removed. Commr. Gates secondeion. AYES: Bradford, Garger, Jones, Starr NOES: None ABSENT: Morris, Co The motionpasses. 3. ARC 88-51:, 559;Pismo Street; add 4-unit apartment to site with existing historical house; R-3 ione; plan revisions. Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the commission grant schematic approval with revisions to the parking lot, new building design and detailing, landscaping plan changes and other project details to return to the commission for approval and concur with staff's determination that the existing shed is of no historical, architectural or cultural significance and allow its demolition. Barry Williams, architect, responded to the staff report, and indicated the new property owner plans to use the existing house as a single family residence. He explained that revised plans show more landscaping around the main house. He noted that the new building has the same basic footprint as the previous building with 3 studios did. He tried to simplify the new building design so it did not compete with the Biddle House_ He indicated that he would eliminate the sliding glass doors on the studios and had an idea of using a different type of fencing around the entries to the studios. In response to a question from Commr. Jones, Mr. Williams indicated a rear stairway was needed if the third floor was made habitable. Heather Bryden, representing Citizens to Protect the Biddle House, appellant of the ARC action regarding the Biddle House on June 6, 1988, presented petitions signed by hundreds of supporters. Several members of the committee were also in attendance. She was concerned with the project's impact on the Biddle House. She noted that the Biddle House was recognized as a historical resource outside of the San Luis Obispo area. She felt the following items needed to be addressed: (1) view of the building from the street; (2) decrease impact of new structure; (3) rear stairwell; and (4) fenestration and other details of new apartment building. She felt the current proposal was an improvement over the previous proposal but requested that the Citizens to Protect The Biddle House be involved in working on recommendations regarding structures and landscaping. Commr. Bradford was pleased with the changes, especially with the house being retained as a single-family residence. She hoped the rear stairwell could be deleted, she wanted a perennial herb edge around the lawn. She indicated that there needed to be more ARC Minutes August 1, 1988 Page 6 consistency with proposed windows and doors. She wanted the trash enclosure turned so that the narrow side was facing the street. She felt it was important that parking and the studios be well screened from street views. If possible, she wanted the rear building lowered. She asked if any thought had been given to using a fountain as an alternative screening device to the arbor/pergola. Commr. Jones hoped the rear stairwell would be eliminated and that the new property owner would work with the appeal group on project changes. However, he understood the economic need for having studios. He felt the pergola gate was too trendy and asked if a gazebo was considered instead of the pergola. He liked the window changes but felt more work was needed on the rear building's roofline where the gable feature extends from the main roof. He liked the new project, but felt more attention to details was needed. Commr. Gates liked Commr. Bradford's landscaping suggestions. She felt the slider windows should be eliminated, but liked the bay windows. She felt the parking space should be left as is but the angle of the adjacent driveway should be altered. She also liked the trash enclosure as it is proposed. She felt the new colors were good. She also supported the elimination of the rear stairwell. Commr. Starr liked the revised site plan. He felt the studios were fairly well-screened from the street and that the gazebo landscaping suggestion might help screen them also. He felt the changes to windows presented at the meeting were good. Commr. Jones moved to grant schematic approval to the project with direction to eliminate the rear outdoor stairwell to the Biddle House and with revisions to the parking lot (locations of bicycle and motorcycle parking, trash enclosure, and north-westernmost standard parking space), new building design and detailing, and elimination of some lawn area on the landscaping plan. Commr.. Gates seconded the motion. - AYES: Jones, Gates, Bradford, Lybarger, Starr NOES: None ABSENT: Sfsrr, Cooper moms The motion passes. 4. ARC 88-105: 989 Chorro Street; modify mphitheater in Mission Plaza; PF zone; final review. Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presente the staff report, recommending final approval. Marshall Ochylski, representative, respo ed to the staff report. He indicated that in response to amphitheater uses, the co I budgeted funds to make requested improvements. He noted that new seati g would only be visible from across the creek and that the rock wing walls will be added o match the existing. He also noted that the only grading will occur in the project mprovement area. He explained that drainage would be received behind the top tier f seats and would be routed to a drain in the stage area, then directed to the creek. 0090-03R State of Califomia-The Rnz- .ncv DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND A.-AFATION HAGS_ HAERNP, SHL lot UTM_ : A 10/7125!T0/390568r HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY C D IDENTIFICATION Biddle House ( 1. Common name: I Z. Historic name: Biddle House ( 3. Street or rural address: 559 Pismo Cit, San Luis Obispo Zip 93401 County San Luis Obispo 4. Parcel number: 03-615-15 S. Present Owner: Northinaton, H.H. and E.A. Address: 572 Islay Street City San Luis Obispo Zip 93401 Ownership is: Public Private X S. Present Use: Residential Original use: Residential DESCRIPTION 7a. Architectural style: Victorian Carpenter Gothic Revival w/ Eastern Stick motifs 7b. Briefly describe the present physieW descriodan of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This three story irregular shaped structure on a raised stone foundation with { steeply pitched gables covered with composition shingles. The house has a variety of influences: Queen Anne in the irregualr floor plan and details in the gable ends. Eastern Stick and Carpenter Gothic are also seen in details, the verandah is Queen Anne; curving around and projecting gables . Carpenter Gothic in the porch posts and details along eaves and in stickwork. One projecting .side gable is typical of a northern European influence with gabled dormer projecting'out over a hipped roofed two story bay. Dormer is supported by two stickwork brackets. C:. 8. Construction date: Estimated Factual 1889- 9. Architect Unknown r 10. Builder Unknown - I " 11. Approx.property size (in feet) Frontage 170' Depth 1'7r' or approx. acreage f 12 Datgj:) offmber enclosed photograph Dece( DPR 523(Rev.4f79) 1. `%r 1 11 Condition: Excellent -]_Good Fair_ Deteriorated No longer in existence 14. Alterations: 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land _Scattered buildings_Densely built-up Residential .Industrial _Commercial Other: 16. Threats to site: None known Private development_ Zoning _ Vandalism Public Works protect _ Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? Vee Moved? Unknown? 1& Related festuras: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates,events,and persons associated with the site.) This three story "high Victorian" house was constructed between 1889 and 1897 for the widow of John Biddle. He died inl891. The Biddles were an influential ranching family in ..the county. Mrs. Biddle and her children occupied a house in back of where the present structure now stands- The Biddle house is important for both its historical association with a prominent family and its meritorious architecture, the style of which incorporates profuse stick motifs. its actual design, however, is proto- typically Victorian-Carpenter Gothic Revival, in particular. The detailing is largely Eastlake and Queen Anne, such as the spindled porch. Of note is the fact that this house, in keeping with general 19th century building trends in the area, was constructed quite late for its style. in contrast, a house of this sort may have appeared in San Francisco in the early 1880's or even 18701s. Locational sketch map(draw and label site and surrounding streets,roads,and prominent landmarks): 20. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is NORTH checked,number in order of importance.) Architecture I_Arts& Leisure Economic/Industrial 2 Exciorabon/Settlemettt Government Military Religion Social/Education 21. Sources (List books,documents,surveys,personal interviews and their dates). Gebbhard, David and Winter, Robert A. Z Guide to Architecture in Los Angeles and 'Southern California, 1977 Heritage Walking Tour. OTNA � 5• • 22 Oats form prepared jimp In- 19 By (name) Historic Res.Survey Sta Organization City of San Luis Obispo Address: P.O. Box 321 , City San Luis Obispo 23MT p ?•: (8051 541-1000 �fi Phone: gw;ye.\ V . . .4�. Yet., tip.• ':, .= �',y ti.atY: x _ 22 ilillllill!IIIIIIIIIII��!I�I(�I�I�Ijl���lllllllllll IIII city of sAn luis oaspo . 990 Palm StreetfPost Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 February 19, 1987 TO: Architectural eview Commission FROM Gloria Heinzhairperson, Cultural Heritage Committee SUBJECT: CHC comments on a proposal to further develop the Biddle House property at 559 Pismo Street. At its regular meeting of February 4, 1988, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed a proposal made by Mr. Barry Williams (project architect) to further develop the Biddle House property. The proposal is to divide the existing house into five apartments and to build three studio apartments and required parking at the rear of the site. After some discussion, the CHC decided to visit the site and review the specific proposals. On February 19, 1988, the CHC met with the project architect and staff at the Biddle House. After discussing various aspects of the projec% the committee voted (10-0) to forward the following comments to the ARC for its consideration: 1. There is a concern for the overall height of the new studio apartment building. The plate line of the second story could be lowered to reduce building height. Dormers could be used in the west elevation of each studio apartment and in the north and south ends of the building to provide light and ventilation. 2. The use of trellises on the west elevation of the studio apartment building is not consistent with the historic character of the site. Some other treatment that is more in keeping with the site's historic character should be considered. 3. Alternative paving materials (such as crushed granite) for driveway and parking areas that are more in keeping with the historic character of the.site should be considered. 4. There is a lack of amenities (ie. usable open space and green area) relative to the site's historic character. 5. Archaeological resources should be surveyed during the time that the site is rolled and grubbed and when foundations are dug for the new studio apartment building. Also, a literature search should be conducted to collect and preserve all pertinent materials and expand information about the site and the Biddle House. The CHC appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If ARC members have questions about the CHC's comments, feel free to contact me or Terry Sanville in the Community Development Department. TS:ts � 0 Architectural Offices of Barry Lorenz Williams Associates, AIA July 28, 1988 Alan Cooper Architectural Review Committee 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Biddle House Dear Alan: On June 6, 1988, you granted the Biddle House project a final approval of colors and detailing for the proposed studio apartments with landscape design to return to the commission. There was a strong suggestion on the part of the A.R.C. to reduce the parking requirement, if Possible, to one space per unit. thus opening up the rear area to more landscaping. Since our last meeting we've had a change of direction that I feel the commission will view as positive. The property has recently been put into escrow by a woman who, as part of the Purchase. has commissioned our firm to restore the house with minor modifications to a gid family residence, as opposed to the previously proposed five apartments, and to construct four studio apartments on the rear of the property. The redesign of the studios has permitted four units to fit within the same overall footprint of the three previously proposed units, thus not encroaching any further into the landscape area. Furthermore, the reduction in the total number of dwelling units on the property has resulted in the reduced parking the commission was seeking while still meeting the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Due to this reduction in parking area. which allows a larger landscape areas we're proposing a lawn area which is more in keeping with the idea of victor.ian landscaping. In working with the Planning Department we've been allowed to use the same driveway approach that currently exists, again allowing the project to remain the same when viewed from the street. We've also simplified the studio structure and color scheme so as to compete less with the Biddle House. I'm hoping these changes will be a pleasant compromise to those on the commission* as well as those in the public sector. who didn't want to see any hind happen to the site other than the restoration of the house. ' (805)541-0997 1110 California Boulevard Suite E Sen Luis Obispo.California 93401 Architectural Review Committee July 28, 1988 Page 2 Timing is very critical in regards to this proposal. Not only do we have the on going decay of the structure. but we recently have had a difficult time with transients. Although there has been relatively little in the way of vandalism. I'm very concerned about the possibility of a fire being started. I'm asking that you support this proposal with a final approval which will allow us to get started restoring the house to its former elegance that much sooner. If you have Questions please don' t hesitate to call me any time at my office or home (541-1972) . Sincerely. Barry Williams BLW/lw ARC1-bidl y i 'w c• i Tr +J May ?A".`.1989:_ : issa !Mayor:.Ron'. Duntz City -Council •Members .ter r SLo "City.:Fish 990' Palm- Street San Luis" "Obispo:.: Dear Mayor. DunLin Members "of' the' City " Coiric3li On June 6, .1980 you will,'be hearing an appeal to an Architectural Review" decision which. graat-ed:' final approval for the renovation of the. .Biddle -House "and:-:the •.addition of four studio apartments to the rear. property-. you to:"deny" the 8ppealland upho"id the Architectural Review: . L"urge _ .. , . .decision:;. No one knows. better than :the members of the ARC what scrutinl► this praJect,.-has been under. 'I". along .with my " clients-.(the' owners and .. residents,of the Biddle House)_,-. have been more than polite"and"`patient-and. -Vh.",Ms.:Bryden•s. . (the .appealer's) uninformed and . of. Teri '- incomprehensible attacks. We : have made genuine attempts" :- to .Igbrk " witkz' ""`Fier. as should be evident in the attachments:"2:;have, inc udedrin regard, t.o her correspondence. In. direct- respoase,..to her= appeal. I rebuff with the following: 1) The "developers'•`. of this project are Genie deForrest and her mother Sara Beth who own and reside in the Biddle House:: 2) Althou¢h .I- "dam-the Architect for both this project and the Buchan Condos'; there •is no other link between the projects. The appeal to the'- Buchon. Street facade has no relevance to this project. and, "is-'nothing more than a good example of the fact that :Ms. . Bryden's appeal has. no founding. 3) I do not believe all of the time and research the deForrests. and my office have done can be considered "piecemeal. " In my professional opinion as a licensed architect I believe. as did the members of the ARC and The public, that the siting of the project as proposed was the best possible solution (please see Ms. Bryden's - solution as she. proposed it to the ARC) . We have not only'-. looked into the history of the Biddle House. itself, but Ialso into the history of Victorian homes in general to. derive. The best solution. for this project. (805)541-099 ILIO California Boulevard Suft-E' ` San Luis Obispo,California 93401 ��+ "T .en,,!-,-states. -t-,that,.'our "drawing. lw %)m but. notL lexception to . Mas.i'­done--,-;b 3V ou ins a ♦ Per Constr ro Bed- studios: We 'vh t a ocraphed ttie. .-I- of. he 'sstiQios_ fr front,e.... ... s -:using these -then enlarged these pictures.:'-onto• the drawince filling in .the . , _ . 7. Werest -of -the Sketch-- to -fit. the Proper position of .','.the corners ;and. heiCht-! of. the -` building. Vith the ekeeptlon..of...-actually c.onst,ru.c.tinc a . `it.I . . .. .. ­ . , -+ - - .--tne. project' -and then: pfiotokr.&phIhj; I • idaK. think of -no other. Way. of `-get-tin&, a more -.'accurate: A= In ter.sPeAtIve, way ' of representihc-- ,theproject; .,,I will -however, that ahe drawnt,' well as the Zhave - 'been:-A. • .tart Of '-,this- project, :as you probably know;. O ,1-r- .over .two ye.ar.a .., ­.MY,'-,inten,t .from the firi.it dew:I forward h.".-been:-to brine th.e Biddle..-House- and crounds back` tothe grandeur or..rormer.:,-.. times..- AS- you - alsii- -- probably know. I ; have- investigated, marw-'- approaches in my..attempt to* reach my -coal Unf ortunatelY-many of the--appro.aches which once were viable alternatives- are no longer in existence: -Th4wapproach we used that was approved by the ARC is not: onlv vlable ,ln thIs ,casei. :but- has been -used. tha world over to 'brine ii - ow 'drearvi, - e,:' but once`, grand stjyuctiirei. =back t, o. life. This approach .tir ealled-.:"adaptive--'redse. In. this: -,case' we are planning: - -on- leavingexisting structure .intact as a single family dw4Xlj*nc'.-- .6ringinz it up `.to aa3istandards in terms - of ..�creature :'.comforts 9 and ' making ;an adaptive., reuse of the -Our studio arbuAds'"'." 'The '..reude here means adding -f -4:50 sa-'ft- 8. apartments- and s2x parking spaceswhich will make the rehabilitation* of'--the house.. possible. As the late Commissioner McClave Stated In the: February, 139.. .1989 ARC.meeting, "It Is these studios that -are the. --modern-day' endowments for re-habilitating old .structUres. ", M-ciouldn't agree, more.. In conclusion, I urge you to deny the appeal. and support. the .decisions *-ofthe CHCO :-the ARC and the many members who have taken an active role in making this a fine project. As usuax, .I am available to answer your questions. day or night. Respectfully submitted, Birry L.' Williams BLW/law, Enc bddl&pp'i;-:jo3 of /^+_Q CI?IzEsV5 70 PROTECT THE BIDDLE HOVSE August 22, 1988 Barry Williams BARRY LORENZ WILLIAMS ASSOCIATES,Architects 1110 California Street San Luis Obispo, California Re: The Biddle House Plans Our Recommendations Dear Barry Williams: Our Committee has carefully reviewed your site plans. We appreciate your affording us the time necessary to satisfactorily scrutinize them. Input has been received from historians, architects, and other interested parties. No landscape suggestions have been offered, since we were told by David LeClaire that those would not be required at this planning stage. The attached is a synthesis of many hours of deliberation by many people. We hope your will see the appeal of our recommendations. We believe that their incorporation will preserve the character of the house, enhance the site, and introduce charm into the plan. Thank you again. 9 Heather den Chairma HAB/db Enclosures A 19L CI?IZE9l(,5 ?O PROTECT THE BIDDLE Hous- RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS DRIVEWAY Excellent Configuration Suggest plantings on west side ' HOUSE Good Use of Space Deletion of stairwell,which reads too "Disney", will improve rear elevation. ' SITING OF NEW STRUCTURE Strongly Recommend: Reorientation on the site Rationale: Focus will remain on the landmark and its landscaping. Secondary Benefits: 1. Not as much screening will be required. 2. Landscaping can be lush and exciting. _ 3. The house itself will have more open space. — Ac,,7 ALu•I 4. Yard will be morerivate/ useful to the owner. —o~ p 5. The family will not be immediately subjected to tenants at their back door. The Committee was split on preferred orientation. RLTERNRTIUE R: All units remain intact and are turned what you call North/South. They would run parallel to the rear of the lot RLTERNRTIUE B: Units are split in two, and second unit is placed across from the other, remaining East/West, to form a court effect. o�tr �ro Alternative A Alternative B CITIZENS TO PROTECT THE BI DOLE HOUSE Recommendations and Comments To: Barry Williams on August 21, 1988 Page Two of Two Pages ' PARKING Both alternatives would mean changes in parking. Alternatives would show two to,four parking spaces between the house and the units. —7Mu° "'O y This would mean that the house would have its own convenient and immediate spaces. DESIGN OF THE NEW STRUCTURE(S) Consensus was that exteriors should be simplified to almost a barn-like appearance. Example: Please visit 532 Dana Street, San Luis Obispo, for desired attitude -not duplication-versus Apple Farm approach. Rationale: It will not conflict with the impact of the Victorian. SPECIFICS: 1. Delete roof peaks and attempts at Victorianizing. Rationale: It will only look like a cheap modern imitation of the "real thing" next to the "real thing". 2. Paint colors that will make it recede and disappear into the landscape. Rationale: It will intensify house impact, lessen intrusion. 3. Windows should all be wood frame and of a sympathetic proportion and character to the main house. 4. Eliminate front fences. Rationale: a. Focus will then be on general landscaping, communal effect/setting. b. They are a difficult feature. No style, be it composed of iron or wood, blends naturally with site, except for screen of planting. c. They are a too modern element. SCREENING OF NEW STRUCTURE(S) Heavy Landscaping - Use of eugenia hedges, etc. Other: Gazebos and arbors would provide fanciful old-fashioned element. NOTE.:. Trendy gate and mailbox are completely inappropriate. WALKWAYS Try using more brick. LIGHTING Site lamps should be metal for maintenance reasons. Any lighting on new structure should not be a dominant feature. HAB/db CI27ZE,J1(,S ?O PR,OrJEC r THE BIDDLE HOUSE August 14, 1938 The honorable Mayor Dunin and Council_members CITY COUNCIL OF SAID LUIS OBISPO City Hall San Luis Obispo, California Re: Biddle House Appeal 559 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo Mr. tTayor and Mesdames and Messieurs: We understand that our Appeal, which was scheduled to be heard this week, has been automatically extended, because the developer has brought a new plan to the Architectural Review Commission for review but has not as yet withdrawn his previously approved Biddle House site proposal. The new project received schematic approval from the ARC on the first of August. We presented our case to the ARC on August 1st, accompanving our testimony with petitions signed by hundreds of supporters. There has been intense and widespread community interest in our efforts to protect the landmark.. We are hoping that we will be able to resolve our differences with the developer and, in good faith, we are working with him to that end. We hope that he, in good faith, will voluntarily request downzoning the parcel to R-2, since his new plan fully complies with R-2 zoning. The developer has made the following promises, yet to be instituted. 1. The new structure will complement the landmark and be screened adequately and appropriately. 2. There will be a maximum of five units, inclusive of the house, on the site, RECEIVED Page One of Two Pages ) AUG 151988 arvCLERK SAW 1W50BtSM-CA : .J Citizens To Protect The Biddle House August 14, 1988 Letter to City Council Regarding Appeal Page Two of Two 3. The house will remain a single family residence. 4. The house will be lovingly and carefully restored. 5. There will be no alterations to the stone wall. 6. Landscaping will be Victorian in character. 7. The house will be made available to civic groups for functions and,. on occasion, to the general public. B. The. ARC, our committee, and other interested parties will assist in planning. We commend the developer and the ARC for reevaluting the situation, a development that might have forever destroyed a magnificent and important landmark. We regret that the City does not currently enjoy a suitably strong ordinance to properly protect structures such as the Biddle House from mutilation. We hope this embafassing oversight will be remedied. as soon as practicable. ely, e er ryden firman HAB/ma 10 RECEiVED AUG 2 21988 City of San Lu:5 VOISpO � Communhy Gav pmen[ CMZE91(,S TO PROTECT THE BIDDLE giOUSE August 22, 1988 Barry Williams BARRY LORENZ WILLIAMS ASSOCIATES,Architects 1110 California Street San Luis Obispo, California Re: The Biddle House Plans Our Recommendations Dear Barry Williams: Our Committee has carefully reviewed your site plans. We appreciate your affording us the time necessary to satisfactorily scrutinize them. Input has been received from historians,architects, and other interested parties. No landscape suggestions have been offered,since we were told by David LeClaire that those would not be required at this planning stage. The attached is a synthesis of many hours of deliberation by many people. We hope your will see the appeal of our recommendations. We believe that their incorporation will preserve the character of the house, enhance the site, and introduce charm into the plan. Thank you again. 6 Heather den Chairma HAB/db Enclosures �j, J CI7IZ�T(,5 70 PRpriECT THE BIDDLE HOUSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS DRIVEWAY Excellent Configuration Suggest plantings on west side ' HOUSE Good Use of Space Deletion of stairwell,which reads too "Disney", will improve rear elevation. SITING OF NEW STRUCTURE Strongly Recommend: Reorientation on the site Rationale: Focus will remain on the landmark and its landscaping. Secondary Benefits: 1. Not as much screening will be required. 2. Landscaping can be lush and exciting. 3. The house itself will have more open space. 4. Yard will be more private/useful to the owner. S. The family will not be immediately subjected to tenants at their back door. The Committee was split on preferred orientation. RLTERNRTI UE R: All units remain intact and are turned what you call North/South. They would run parallel to the rear of the lot RLTERNRTI UE B: Units are split in two, and second unit is placed across from the other, remaining East/West, to form a court effect. 00 C` Alternative A Alternative B �� CITIZENS TO PROTECT THE BIDDLE HOUSE Recommendations and Comments To: Barry Williams on August 21, 1988 Page Two of Two Pages J • PARKING Both alternatives would mean changes in parking. Alternatives would show two to four parking spaces between the house and the units. This would mean that the house would have its own convenient and immediate spaces.. DESIGN OF THE NEW STRUCTURE(S) Consensus was that exteriors should be simplified to almost barn-like appearance. Example: Please visit 532 Dana Street, San Luis Obispo, for desired attitude-not duplication-versus Apple Farm approach. Rationale: It will not conflict with the impact of the Victorian. SPECIFICS: 1. Delete roof peaks and attempts at Victorianizing. Rationale: It will only look like a cheap modern imitation of the "real thing" next to the"real thing". 2. Paint colors that will make it recede and disappear into the landscape. Rationale: It will intensify house impact; lessen intrusion. 3. Windows should all be wood frame and of a sympathetic proportion and character to the main house. 4. Eliminate front fences. Rationale: a. Focus will then be on general landscaping, communal O effect/setting.. b. They are a difficult:feature. No style, be it composed of iron or wood, blends naturally with site, except for screen of planting. c. They are a too modem element. SCREENING OF NEW STRUCTURE(S) Heavy Landscaping - Use of eugenia hedges, etc. Other: Gazebos and arbors would provide fanciful old-fashioned element. NOTE: Trendy gate and mailbox are completely inappropriate. WALKWAYS Try using more brick. ' LIGHTING Site lamps should be metal for maintenance reasons: Any lighting on new structure should not be a dominant feature. HAB/db << k,_JING AGENDA DATE&-4-g 2 iTEM # Dear Mayor Dunian and Members of the City Council: T Denotes action by Lead Feac In regard to the appeal by Ms Bryden to delay the restoring an Respond by: rehabilitaion of the Biddle House, I do not understand her intrest in this :9 ouncii project. What are her qulifications as an expert in this field? I L4%-,AO The proposed units are vital to fund the restoring of the dwellfWayAq. and tall these delays are very costly and ccause further deterioration. Th 'erk-orig. t►'�►f.ifi�,csw longer the delay the less the possibilities. EinI understood it would be three mounths that my things woul re 7-7- in storage and it has dragged into six mounths. I am concered as some o things are fragile antiques and extreme tempratures are hazardous to them.. This has become a real hardship for meas even my clothes are in storage. The kitchen and laundry are inopperational so meals etc. have to be taken out which is a great drain on my resorces and nerves. My health is beginning to suffer the toll. At the last ARC meeting at which Ms Bryden was not present the project was accepted. This seems to be a caprice on the part of Ms Bryden to wait until the last possible moment to file her appeal. Her clippings about green lawns rolling down to the sea in Newport is incomprehensible. I saw an article in the Sunday Times about the citizens of Germantown.Pa who desired to preserve their old dwellings and flavor of their town raising money to do so. Ms Bryden speaks of sensitivity to the cite and does everything to brutilize and destroy it.None of this is costing her a dime. She had ample time to purchase the property herself before we saw it as it was on the market a very long time. In reviewing the photocopy material this person has delayed and tried to block nearly every project before this council for the past two years. This seems frivilous and.irresponsible and a complete disregard for other peoples suffering. I pray you do not allow her to injure me further by further delays. Sincerely, Sara Bess de Forrest 559 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RECEIVED CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 11 :30 A ►'►1 . �AE€TiNG AGENDA. `J �D,ATE � OTEM June 6 , 1989 # San Luis Obispo California Design Associates Council Members RECEIVED City Council 1264 Higuera St, San Luis Obispo JUN 6 1989 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 990 Palm Street S.L.O. Calif . 805-5442212, 93401 CITY CLERK ' RE: SAN LUIS 091Sp0,CA Biddle House appeal , (June 6, 1989 meeting) Council Members , I would like to express my opposition to the current project being proposed for the rear portion of the historically significant Biddle house property . Although I understand the difficulty that confronts the council in projects such as this , where existing ordinances sugest that an approval might be the only prudent alternative , I believe that we , as a community , and you as our representatives must ask more of a developer when such a special site is — involved . _ This is by no means the worse"Backyard money maker" that I have seen approved in our city but it is lacking in matters of compatability and scale and in my opinion should be subordinate to the Biddle house creating a needed on site contrast more in keeping with the victorian site plan so greatly jeopardizded by this proposal . Harmony of craftsmanship and detail would be a wise choice for a compatable solution however harmony of mass and volume invites a terribly one sided comparison to the Biddle house and destroys a classic example of site planning . action by Kin"architec _ 1 y Leaa PBr;n i CdC;.p� "ty' on1• 1 CI?I,ZE,9i(,S TO PROTECT THE BIDDLB HOUSE July 18, 1989 Ms.Vickie Finucane,Acting City Attorney CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO City Hall San Luis Obispo,California K` Re: Biddle House Negotiations Buyer/Seller Disclosure 77 .. 10 Dear Vidde Finucane: �''r o, 8 ~ter Thank you for keeping us informed about.the Planning Department's activities relative to the Biddle House negotiations. When requesting information from the owner, it might be advisable to determine K she was informed at time of sale that(1)there was an existing Appeal on the parcel, (2)such CEQA requirements as environmental review and archeology might have to be performed at her expense, and(3)the house is fisted on a survey conducted by the City and was deemed*eligible for the National Register of Historic Places,' a designation which imposes both rights and restrictions. All these material facts had to be disclosed as part of the real estate transaction. If there were not, her recourse would properly be the seller,agent and broker. We think you will agree that the City basically was protected by the Appeal in process. it is our concern, having spoken with a few owners of properties in the area,that there will be a multitude of requests for development right buy-outs if we begin with this one. Justly so. We believe any buy-out should have many, many strings to protect the City. We hope you will concur with our recommendation that the owner be given the option to seek punitive damages from the seller and his agents. To protect the City in the long haul from possible damage to her historic resources,it would be. in our opinion,much more tidy for the City to give the CHC commission status and more discretionary power relative to uses of historic properties and far less costly to the City to simply downzone the entire Old Town neighborhood. We greatly appreciate your concern and efforts. trrmnanryur s, n cc: City Council Planning Director HABJdp 1AEE11NG AGENDA / p DATE ZIL q ITEM # _L Architectural Offices of Barry Lorenz Williams Associates August 14, 1989 L;dby R EC-E I V E D Mayor Dunin City of San Luis Obispo AUJi 1 'iCJ 0 Qty Aly. 990 Palm Street CITY.CIERK San. Luis Obispo, CA 93406 u" ran, t Dear Mayor Dunin: On August 15th you will be continuing the hearing on what is to happen with the Biddle. House. I hope that you will allow this letter to take the place of any presentation I might make as I am committed to a previous out-of-town engagement. I think it 's obvious that everyone wants to see the house revitalized. The problem is how that can be accomplished. As you know from my previous correspondence I 've tried several approaches. To date none of them have had any success. My previous correspondence, staff reports, etc. , explain the various approaches I 've taken in detail, so I won't bother to go through them again. It is my understanding that the City will be looking at possible way of funding the DeForrest ' s remodeling without the addition of more units. I hope that there is a vehicle to do this. My main purpose for writing was to clear up a couple of issues that came up at the last council meeting.. My staff recorded the meeting so my comments are in regard to specific statements. I would like to comment on three specific issues. 1. On several occasions Councilperson Pinard mentioned that she thought that the development rights had already been traded off so that the condominium iproJect could be built. This is incorrect. When I first approached the ARC with my development plan I was asking for a lot line adjustment that would have used the rear 50 feet of what is now the Biddle House lot so that I could develop 7 condos. I was also proposing to build a "carriage house" on the Biddle site. When our marketing efforts through Coldwell/Banker came up with nothing in the way of selling the house I was forced to abandon my idea of the condos and sell the lot off of Buchon Street. The purchaser of the site, Iron Eagle Development, recommissioned us to design the property for 6 condo units with the same approved schematic design. This plan met all of the City standards for its own R- 2 zone. 2. Councilperson Rappa said, "it ' s a shame that the City hadn't down-zoned the property to R-2 a long time ago and then we wouldn' t be faced with the problem now. " It ' s true that the (805)541-0997 1110 California Boulevard Suite E San Luis Obispo,California 93401 OMayor Dunin August 14. 1989 Page 2 property is zoned R-3, however in an attempt to minimize the impact on the site we proposed far less than what we could have. The site as it is being presented in our proposal would actually be allowed in a R-2 zone. 3. MY final point is one that I probably shouldn' t even bring up. but I feel I must address Councilperson Pinard's theory that the developer has "made enough money on this project". I suspect that Councilperson Pinard' s comments were directed towards me.. If it is in the Councils interest to know the financial dealings on this property I will gladly open our books to you. I can assure you that the only entity that has made any money to date on the property is the lender. For the first 9 months in which I owned the entire piece of property, i. e. , the 2 lots that belonged to the estate. I was making payments on an interest-only loan in the amount of $3750 per month. After the. back piece was sold I was able to buy down the loan to the more affordable amount of $2000 per month. This expense continued for an additional 12 months. In addition to these costs were the costs for taxes, insurance, as well as the costs of preparing the various proposals. The bottom line is that I lost over $20, 000 on the project. In short, it is a sore subject with me. In conclusion, I feel that our proposal is a very good and sensitive one. Many of the members of the ARC and CHC have kept in touch with me on this project and reassure me that they still feel we have a good proposal. In almost all instances they have cited examples of other projects that they are familiar with in other communities that have gone through adaptive reuse to bring new life to an old structure. I'm sure all of you could also cite examples. I trust that you will be able to work up something that will allow work to start quickly in whatever direction you feel is appropriate. One only needs to look at , the weather side of the house to realize that time is of the essence. Sincerely, Barry L. Williams BLW/ council2-bdi