The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-27-2015 CHC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Cultural Heritage Committee A G E N D A San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee Council Hearing Room (Room 9) 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo July 27, 2015Monday5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL:Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, James Papp, 2 Positions Vacant, Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill STAFF:Brian Leveille, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENT:At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director, another advisory body, or City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee or staff may modify the order of items. MINUTES: Minutes of the June 22, 2015, regular meeting. Approve or amend. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1.1053 Islay Street.ARCH-1170-2015; Review of remodel and addition to an existingdwelling at the rear of a Contributing propertyin the Old Town Historic District. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA(Section 15301: Existing Facilities); R-3-H zone; Lesa Jones, applicant. (Walter Oetzell) 2.549 Buchon Street.ARCH-1387-2015; Review of two new residences in the Old Town Historic District. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review(Section 15332: Infill Development Projects); R-2-H zone; John Cutter, applicant. (Rachel Cohen) 3.733 Higuera Street.ARCH-1187-2015; Review of a façade remodel to accommodate proposed expansion of the restaurant by enclosing the outdoor dining area. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (Section 15301; Existing Facilities); C-D-H zone; SLO 825, LLC, applicant. (Kyle Bell) COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4.Staff a.Agenda Forecast Cultural Heritage Committee Page 2 5.Committee ADJOURNMENT CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Remodel and addition to a dwelling behind a Contributing historic property in the Old Town Historic District ADDRESS: 1053 Islay St BY:Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner Phone: 781-7593 E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org FILE #: ARCH-1170-2015 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment1), recommending that the Director grant final approval of the project, based on findings. SITE DATA Applicant Lesa Jones & Michael Olsten Representative Louisa Smith Submittal Date 4/1/2015 Complete Date June 10, 2015 Zoning R-3-H (Medium-High Density Residential with Historic Overlay) General Plan Medium High Density Residential Site Area 12,750 square feet Historic Status Contributing List Resource Environmental Status Categorically Exempt (CEQA Guidelines §15301: Existing Facilities) SUMMARY The applicant has submitted an application for architectural review of a remodel and addition to an existing 1-bedroom dwelling built over a garage at the rear of the project site. The project includes an addition to the structure, creating additional living space over a two-space carport. Meeting Date:July26, 2015 Item Number:1 r CHC1 - 1 ZR ARCH-1170-2015 (1053 Islay) Page 2 1.0 COMMITTEE’S PURVIEW The Committee’s role is to provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director on the application of historic preservation standards and guidelines.1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information The site is located on the south side of Islay Street, about 100 feet west of Santa Rosa Street in a Medium-High Density Residential and Historical Preservation Zone (R-3-H). It is within the Old Town Historic District and surrounded by single-family residences that are Contributing List and Master List Resources. Many properties in the neighborhood are also developed with smaller units behind the primary residence. Table 1: Site Information Access Islay Street (entry and exit) Site Dimensions (approx.) Area: 7,500 square feet; Width: 50 feet; Depth: 150 feet Street Frontage: 50 feet (Islay) Topography Slope: Flat Natural Features: Small trees on site; ± 45’ NW of San Luis Obispo Creek Present Use & Development Single-family residence (3-BR); Apartment (1-BR) over garage Surrounding Use / Zoning Single-family dwellings with additional units behind primary residences Medium-High Density Residential and Historical Preservation Zone (R-3-H) Buildings on site: The primary residence on the site is a single-story house in a Neo-Colonial style sheathed in wood clapboard siding. It has a medium sloped hip roof with exposed rafters and a large gable decorated with fish-scale shingles at the front of the house. Double-hung 1 Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.030(B)(4) and (B)(5)) CHC1 - 2 ARCH-1170-2015 (1053 Islay) Page 3 windows face the street.2 The building is set back 20 feet from the sidewalk and a wide walkway leads through square corner posts framing an elevated porch. Recessed 45 feet behind the house, in the rear yard, is a two-story structure built in 1947 with a two-car garage on the lower floor and a one-bedroom dwelling above. The garage is sided in cement plaster and the upstairs apartment in horizontal wood siding. The building also has a hip roof with exposed rafters, but has vinyl windows and lacks the decorative details that characterize the primary residence. 2.2Project Description The project involves modification of the two-story garage and 1-bedroom apartment (480 sq. ft.) structure. The interior of the apartment will be remodeled, removing an interior wall to create a dining area adjacent to the kitchen. An addition will be made to the east side of the structure, adding living area, a bathroom, and a bedroom to the upper-floor apartment, and a yoga room, stairway, storage area, and carport to the lower floor of the structure. The modified structure will have 834 sq. ft. of living area, 105 sq. ft. of exterior storage area, and 2 new parking spaces. 3.0EVALUATION This project is located in the Old Town Historic District, one of the City’s oldest residential neighborhoods, built up historically around the turn of the 20th Century. Common site features and architectural characteristics within the district are summarized in Table 23 Table 2: Old Town Historic District Site Features and Characteristics Predominant Architectural Features Prominent street yard setbacks of 20 ft. or more Coach barn (garage) recessed into rear yard Finish floors raised 2 3 above finish grade Front building facades oriented parallel to street Front entries oriented toward street, with prominent walk, stairs and porch Two- and rarely three-story houses Mostly gable and hip roof types Highly ornamented roof features, including prominen t fascias, bargeboards, gable end treatments, decorative shingles, prominent pediments or cornices Traditional fenestration, such as double-hung, wood sash windows, divided light windows, ornamental front doors, wood screen doors Painted wood surface material, including siding and decorative moldings 2 These windows were originally wood-framed, but were replaced by vinyl-framed windows. 3 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines § 5.2.1 CHC1 - 3 ARCH-1170-2015 (1053 Islay) Page 4 Projects involving new construction in historic districts should be architecturally compatible with the historical character of the district4; should not detract from historically designated structures adjacent to the property;5 and,accessory structures and additions on properties with historic resources should complement the primary structure’s historic character.6 Applicable Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards applicable to the project are discussed below. Staff Analysis: The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines require that new structures be designed to be architecturally compatible with the prevailing historic character of the historic district “as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district’s historic structures,…” (§3.2.1) and architecturally compatible with nearby historic resources: New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically designated structures…(HPPG§3.2.2) New accessory structures should complement the primary structure’s historic character through compatibility with its form, massing, color, and materials. (HPPG§3.4.1(c)) The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties also provide guidance for designing new construction adjacent to historic buildings: …related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.(Standards for Rehabilitation, #9) Staff Analysis:As a two-story residential structure, the building’s form and scale is in keeping with the primary residence on the site and with other residences in the vicinity. The addition extends the structure along its existing roof height and is complementary to the existing structure’s massing and architectural style. It is not visible from the street. The original cement plaster and wood siding of the garage and apartment are being retained, and are compatible with the wood siding of the primary residence. The cement-fiber siding used on the addition has an appearance and texture reflective of the wood siding on the primary residence. Plans indicate that the modified garage and apartment will be painted to match the primary residence. 4 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines § 3.2.1 5 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines §3.2.2 6 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines §3.4.1(c) CHC1 - 4 ARCH-1170-2015 (1053 Islay) Page 5 Architectural details of the addition include wood trim around doors and windows, overhanging eaves with fascia, wood deck guardrails, and a heavy timber wood beam feature along the bottom of the upper-floor deck detailed to match the primary residence’s entry feature. The materials and architectural details of the addition appear compatible with the primary residence and are sufficiently differentiated from the character-defining features of the historic primary residence. 4.0ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It consists of the minor alteration of an existing structure, with addition of less than 10,000 square feet of floor area, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15301(e)(2) (Existing Facilities). Public services and facilities are available, and the project is not located within an environmentally sensitive area. 5.0ALTERNATIVES 5.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 5.2.Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Historic Preservation Ordinance, or Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 8.0ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity map 3. Project plans (reduced size) CHC1 - 5 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF AN ADDITION TO AN APARTMENT AND GARAGE STRUCTURE LOCATED BEHIND A RESIDENCE THAT IS A CONTRIBUTING LIST HISTORIC RESOURCE, IN THE MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3-H) ZONE WITH HISTORICAL PRESERVATION OVERLAY, LOCATED AT 1053 ISLAY STREET (ARCH-1170-2015) WHEREAS, the applicants, Lesa Jones and Michael Olsten, filed an application on April 1, 2015, for review of a proposed addition to an apartment and garage structure at the rear of the lot at 1053 Islay; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 27, 2015, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed addition to an apartment and garage structure at the rear of the lot at 1053 Islay; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicants, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Cultural Heritage Committee makes the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. The project is architecturally compatible with the historic character of the Old Town Historic District area, does not sharply contrast with, block public views of, or visually detract from the historic architectural character of historically designated structures, and retains and preserves character-defining features of historically listed buildings. 2. The project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The property continues to be used for its historical use, and the project retains and preserves the distinctive materials, features, and finishes that define the property’s historical character. 3. The project is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan’s Conservation and Open Space Policies. The new structure is designed in a ATTACHMENT 1 CHC1 - 6 manner that protects the historical character of the property and the neighborhood. SSection 2. Environmental Review. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as described in §15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (Existing Facilities).The project consists of minor alteration of an existing structure with an addition to a one bedroom residential unit and carport to an existing apartment and garage. SSection 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee does hereby recommend approval of the proposed addition to an apartment and garage structure at the rear of the property at 1053 Islay to the Community Development Director. On motion by Committee Member, seconded by Committee Member, and on the following roll call vote: AYES:. NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of July, 2015. _____________________ Brian Leveille, Senior Planner Community Development Department CHC1 - 7 R-3-H R-3 R-2-H R-3-H R-3-H PF R-3 R-3-H R-2-H R-3-H R-3-H R-2-H R-3-H C-N-H R-3 R-2-H ISLA Y LEFF S A N T A R O S A O S O S BUC H O N VICINITY MAPFile 1170-2015 1053 Islay St ¯ ATTACHMENT 2 CHC1 - 8 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 9 CHC1 - 10 CHC1 - 11 CHC1 - 12 CHC1 - 13 CHC1 - 14 Meeting Date: July27, 2015 Item Number: 2 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of two new residential units within the Old Town historic district ADDRESS: 549 Buchon Street BY: Rachel Cohen,AssociatePlanner FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1387-2015 FROM:Brian Leveille, Senior Planner SUMMARYRECOMMENDATION Recommend the Director approve the proposed two new residential units. Applicant/Owner John Cutter Historic Status Not Historic Zoning R-2-H (Historic Old Town District) General Plan Medium Density Residential Site Area ~7,380 square feet Environmental Status Categorically Exempt from environmental review under Section 15332, Class 32, In-fill Development Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines. 1.0SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to demolish two existing residential units and construct two, new residential unitswithin the Historic Old Town District.The project requires review by the Cultural Heritage Committee pursuant to Historic Preservation Program Guidelines1 because the CHC is responsible for evaluating the conformance of new construction in an historic district. 2.0BACKGROUND 2.1 Site Information The subject site is located in the Old Town Historic District on Buchon Street between Beach Street and Nipomo Street(Attachment 2, Vicinity Map).The site is zoned Medium-Density Residential with a historic overlay (R-2-H) and contains two, attached,residential structures (a 1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Section 3.1.2: The Director shall refer a development project application for a property located within a historic district or on a property with a listed Historic Resource to the CHC for review. CHC2 - 1 ARCH-1387-2015 (549 Buchon Street) Page 2 three bedroom house and a one bedroom apartment over a two car garage).The project site is surrounded by other residential structureswithin the same zone, many of whichare contributing historic structures. Theneighborhood contains mostly single, andseveraltwo story bungalow style residenceswithpitched roof features that face the street(see Figure 1 below). Figure 1: View of Buchon Street where the subject siteis located 2.2Previous Review x October 27, 2014, the CHC unanimously adopted a Resolution recommending the City Council remove 549 Buchon Street from the City’s list of contributing historic structures. A Historic Resource Evaluation by Bertrando and Bertando Research Consultants and staff analysis revealed that the subject property did not meet the evaluation criteria ofthe Historic Preservation Ordinance. x February 3, 2015,the City Council reviewed the project and approvedthe removal of property located at 549 Buchon Street from the City’s list of Contributing Historic Resources. x July 17, 2015, the Zoning Hearing Officer approved a request to allow tandem parking and an upper story side yard setback exception of 8 feet where normally 9 feet is required. 2.3Project Description The applicantis proposingto remove all current structures on the site in order to constructtwo 2- bedroom residential units.The design of the structures is based on 1920s Craftsman stucco architectureand includes period specific details such as doors and windows, the 3/12 pitched roofand gable end kickers (seeproject plans). The project proposes to use high quality windows with powdercoated fiberglass,miter finished mullions.The exterior of the two houses will Figure 2: North elevation of the front house (top) and the rear house (bottom) CHC2 - 2 ARCH-1387-2015 (549 Buchon Street) Page 3 be finished with a hand troweled smooth stuccofinishand woodor wood-looking composite trim. The porch and patio arch supports will also be finished with a smooth finish. 3.0EVALUATION/DISCUSSION The City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state, “Newstructures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district’s historic structures”2. The Old Town Historic District prominentsiteand architectural features include3: x Street yard setbacks of 20 feet x Garage recessed to the rear of the yard x Finished floors raised 2-3 feet above finish grade x Front entries oriented toward the street with prominent walk, stairs and porch x Front building facades oriented parallel to the street x Two-story houses x Mostly gable and hip roof types x Highly ornamental roof features x Traditional fenestration x Painted wood surface material Staff Analysis The proposed residential units include site designand architectural features that are compatible with the existing characteristics of the Old Town District. Theproject’stwo-story design and massing with gabled roofsis consistent with other structures found in the Old Town Districtand in the immediate vicinity of the project, without creating a false sense that the structures are historic.The proposed front house of theproject includes a 16 foot front yard setback, which is consistent with street yard averaging4 standards provided in the Zoning regulations, and includes a prominent front porch and entrywhich aredefining characteristics of the district. Both houses include windows with divided lights,craftsman styled doors andfront facades that are oriented parallel with the street. The front house includes a craftsman styled garage door that complements the overall design of the house.Overall, the proposed project is consistent with Historic Preservation Guidelines since the new residential units complement and not detract from the architectural significance of theOld Town Historic District.Staff is recommending condition of approval #1 to ensure building permit submittals demonstrate consistent and quality architectural treatments are incorporated into final construction plans. Recommended condition of approval #1: Plans submitted for final construction permits shall incorporate details and callouts for architectural details (i.e. dimensions, materials, colors) 2 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts 3 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 5.2.1 Old Town Historic District 4 Zoning Regulations. Section 17.16.020.E.1.c. Street Yard Averaging. Where these regulations require street yards and where buildings have been erected on at least one-half of the lots on the block … the minimum required street yard shall be the average of the street yards on the developed lots, but in no case less than 10 feet nor morethan would otherwise be required. CHC2 - 3 ARCH-1387-2015 (549 Buchon Street) Page 4 including but not limited to: windows and trim, porch supports, vents, fascia, plaster finish (smooth), and garage doors to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4.0ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 32 (Section 15332) In-fill Development Projectsof the CEQA Guidelines because the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project will not result in significant impacts on historic resources, traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. 5.0RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the Director approve the project, based on findings, and subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. 6.0ALTERNATIVES 6.1.Recommend that the project be denied based on inconsistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 6.2.Continue the item with specific direction for additional discussion or research. 7.0ATTACHMENTS 1.Draft Resolution 2.Vicinity Map Included in Committeemember portfolio:project plans CHC2 - 4 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPOCULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDING THE DIRECTOR APPROVE THE DESIGN OF TWO NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT AT 549 BUCHON STREET (ARCH 1387-2015) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committeeof the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Roomof City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 27, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application #ARCH-1387- 2015, John Cutter, applicant; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committeeof the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1.Findings. 1.The proposed construction of the two newresidential units isconsistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines for new construction within Historic Districtssince the new construction is compatible with the scale, size, massing and architectural features ofexisting development within the Old Town Historic District. 2.The project is consistent with Housing Element and Land Use Element Policies of the General Plan by providing new residential developmentthat respects and preserves the neighborhood character and identity (LUE 2.1 and HE 3.6 & 7.1). 3.The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project conforms to all Zoning Regulation requirements and the conditions of approval of Use Permit USE-1388-2015. Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 32 (Section 15332) In-fill Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.The project will not result in significant impacts on historic resources, traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. Section 3. Action. The Committeehereby recommends approval of application #ARCH- 1387-2015, subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1.Plans submitted for final construction permits shall incorporate details and callouts for CHC2 - 5 ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No.XXXX-15 ARCH-1387-2015 (549 Buchon Street) Page 2 architectural details (i.e. dimensions, materials, colors) including but not limited to: windows and trim, porch supports, vents, fascia, plaster finish (smooth), and garage doors to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. On motion by Committee member _____, seconded by Committee member _____, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of July, 2015. _____________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee CHC2 - 6 R-2 R-2-H R-2-H R-3-H R-2-H R-2 R-2 R-2 PF-H R-2-H R-3 R-2-H R-2-H ISLA Y B E A C H BUC H O N N I P O M O PISM O VICINITY MAP File No. 1387-2015 549 BUCHON ST ¯ ATTACHMENT 2 CHC2 - 7 Meeting Date: July27, 2015 Item Number:3 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a proposed façade remodel for a tenant improvement on a Contributing historic property, with a categorical exemption from environmental review. PROJECT ADDRESS:733Higuera Street BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1187-2015 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and recommend the Community Development Director approve the project design subject to findings and conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Dan Harper Representative RickRengel,Rengel+CO Architects Historic Status Contributing Submittal Date April 6, 2015 Complete Date June 23, 2015 Zoning C-D-H General Plan General Retail Site Area ~2,710square feet Environmental Status Exempt from CEQAunder Section 15301,Existing Facilities. SUMMARY The applicant has proposed a facade remodel of the Contributing historic structure located at 733 Higuera Street in the Downtown Historic District. CHC review is required to determine conformance with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines for Construction in an Historic District and on properties with Historic Resources. Following CHC review, the project will be forwarded to the Community Development Director for consideration of final project approval. CHC3 - 1 733 Higuera Street ARCH-1187-2015 Page 2 PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information/Setting The site is currently developed with a one-story commercial building of approximately 2,500 square feet. The site has an alleyway at the rear of the building and the east wall of the structure comprises the west wall of Bubblegum Alley.The property is located on the south side of Higuera Street near the center of downtown between Broad and Garden Streets. The future site of the Garden Street Terraces project (mixed use) is located to the south, Mothers Tavern (restaurant/bar) to the west and Ambiance (general retail) to the east (Figure 1 & 2). The property is a Contributing historic structure located within the Downtown-Commercial(C- D-H) Zone in the Downtown Historic District. Other nearby development includes a mixture of common Downtown Core uses (e.g. retail and restaurants), parking lots, and office buildings. The Downtown Historic District has common site features and characteristics including: x Zero setbacks x Recessed front entries x Flat or low pitched roof, often with a parapet x Wide entablature or projecting cornices that often include classical architectural details x In multi-story structures, upper windows are vertically oriented and symmetrically arranged to be taller than wide x Rectilinear or “boxy” forms x Contrasting bulkheads along base of street façade x Use of awnings, historic signs, second-story overhangs and canopies x Masonry or smooth stucco wall siding x Transom windows above storefronts The existing design of the building is described as Step in Style that has been modified over time (Attachment 4, Historic Inventory Report). Character defining features that remain include; x Flat roof x Brick façade x Recessed storefront entrance Figure 1: East Higuera Street perspective Figure2:West Higuera Streetperspective CHC3 - 2 733 Higuera Street ARCH-1187-2015 Page 3 x Arched openings x Detailed ventilation openings The closest historic resource to the site is the Master List Carrisa Building across the street at 736 Higuera Street (built in 1905)and its architectural style is described in the Historic Resources Survey as “Classic Revival/Renaissance Revival.” Additional historic resources in close proximity to the project include; the Vollmer Grocery Building,Kluver Cigar Factory, Home Dairy Building, Union Hardware Building, and the Smith Building. Bubblegum Alley (Figure 3) began in the late 1950s and was fully established by 1970, though it is not listed as a historic resource, the Chamber of Commerce lists the alley as a “special attraction”. The alley has been recognized on television though The Tonight Show, MTV, and Ripley’s Believe It or Not,as well as featured in books and through music over the last few decades. Staff recommends Directional Item #4 to ensure that no damage to Bubblegum Alley will be undertaken through the building modifications. Project Description The project scope involves a tenant improvement to the existing 2,500 square foot building into anew restaurant use. The existing structure includes recessed outdoor dining area that is proposed to be enclosed. The proposed exterior modifications are summarized below: x Reorganize interior space with new interior walls under the existing roof (Attachment 3, Reduced Project Plans); x Remove stucco along the north façade to expose existing brick beneath; x Enclose recessed outdoor dining with new matching Arched French Doors; x Install new bronze surround; x Install new smooth finish plaster crown molding; x Install new arched parapet with finish to match existing; EVALUATION The below evaluation includes staff analysis of Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of a historic property and Historic Preservation Guidelines for construction on historic properties and in historic districts. Secretary of Interior Standards The most appropriate treatment is best characterized as “rehabilitation” under the SOI Standards of Treatment since the project proposes a continuation of a compatible use for the property, Figure 3: Bubblegum Alley CHC3 - 3 733 Higuera Street ARCH-1187-2015 Page 4 proposes restoration of key elements of the building’s exterior to approximate its appearance during the historic era. SOI Rehabiliation Standard #3:Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Staff Analysis: The applicant is proposing to add a plaster crown molding to the top of the parapet. Historic records of the building at this site do not indicate that the building had a cornice during the historic era. Distinctive historic features should not be replicated or added to a historic structure without documentary or physical evidence. The proposed cornice parapet design does not reflect the historic character of the property and would detract from its historical significance. Staff recommends Directional Item #1 to remove plans for the proposed corniced parapet design and to retain the original façade. (Condition No. 1). SOI Rehabilitation Standard #5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. SOI Rehabiliation Standard #9: New additions, alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Staff Analysis: The applicant is proposing to remove the existing plaster and expose the brick façade of the building. The Historic Inventory report (Attachment 4) indicates that the building has been extensively altered over time. The removal of the plaster and exposing of the underlying brick is consistent with SOI Standards #5 and #9. The proposed bronze surround along the arched windows and entryway are compatible with the historic features of the building and do not detract from the essential form and integrity of the historic property. Staff recommends Directional Item #2 to ensure that character defining features are retained including the arched windows and entryway, the detailed ventilation openings, and the existing brick façade (Condition No. 2). Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Policy 3.2.1 indicates that new structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible1 with the district’s prevailing character, including massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting, and setbacks. New structures are not required to copy or imitate historic structures. 1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts 3.2.1:New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district's historic structures, as described in Figures 2 and 3. New structures are not required to copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new building is historic. CHC3 - 4 733 Higuera Street ARCH-1187-2015 Page 5 Staff Analysis Scale, massing, rhythm: The proposed remodel maintains the scale, mass, and overall rhythm of the existing structure and would remain compatible with the form, scale, and massing of nearby development and the overall Downtown Historic District. The subject location (which is one story) abuts single and two story structures and there are a range of two to three story structures in the area. Architectural elements, exterior materials: Proposed materials include; brick façade (existing, revealed, and new to match existing), existing arched openings with bronze surround, and the addition of the proposed crown molding with an arched parapet feature (Attachment 3, Reduced Project Plans, Sheet A200). Modifications are limited to the north façade and include removal of the existing plaster to expose brick façade and to enclose the recessed outdoor dining area. New features added to historically-listed buildings should preserve the original architectural character and appearance of the building2, and should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements with the original style of the structure3. The proposed crown molding design is inconsistent with the original style of the structure and does not comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, as discussed. Directional Items #1 & #2 ensure that the original building’s architectural style is preserved and that new features will not detract or conflict with the building’s character defining features, consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. The Downtown Historic District has a variety of architectural styles but most structures appear to be constructed with high quality materials and attention to detail. The design of the proposed project does not detract from defining features of adjacent historic buildings or from other historic resources within the Downtown Historic District because the modifications have a limited scope, which do not change the massing and overall architectural form of the structure. The overall character of the structure is also not significantly altered with the proposed exterior modifications. Staff recommends Directional Item #3 to the applicant to include the use of high quality door and storefront/window systems to be compatible with the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district (Condition No. 3) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Existing Facilities, Section 153301 of the CEQA Guidelines because the proposed project is an exterior alteration to an existing building that will have no significant impact on the environment. 2 Retention of character-defining features 3.4.3:Alterations of historically-listed buildings shall retain character defining features. New features on primary and secondary building facades, or features visible from a public area, should be completed in a manner that preserves the original architectural character, form, scale, and appearance of the building. 3 Exterior building changes 3.4.4:Exterior changes to historically-listed buildings or resources should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the building, its setting and architectural context. CHC3 - 5 733 Higuera Street ARCH-1187-2015 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Find the project compatible with the Downtown Historic District and consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and recommend the Community Development Director approve the project design subject to staff’s directional items and the findings and conditions. Directional Item #1: Plans submitted for Director Review shall include the removal of the plaster crown modeling, and retain the existing façade and roofline. Directional Item #2: Plans submitted for Director Review shall retain all character defining features including, arched windows and storefront system, detailed ventilation openings, and the original brick façade. Exterior alterations shall not destroy or alter any character defining features, and plans submitted for construction permits shall include sufficient detail and callout notes to ensure the project retains the essential form and integrity of the historic property. Directional Item #3: Plans submitted for Director Review shall include details on storefront systems including divider width, materials, finishes and colors. Storefront systems shall include high quality materials suitable for the downtown and complementary to the best nearby examples with materials such as metal, wood, or aluminum systems with appropriate dimensions, finish, and color. Directional Item #4:Plans submitted for Director Review shall detail how Bubblegum Alley will be protected from damage during the construction of the exterior modifications. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 2. Recommend that the project be denied based on inconsistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Reduced scale project plans 4. Historic Inventory Report CHC3 - 6 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPOCULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORAPPROVE PLANS TO REMODEL THE STOREFRONT OF THE PROPERTY AT 733HIGUERA STREET, DOWNTOWNHISTORIC DISTRICT, C-D-H ZONE, APPLICATION #ARCH-1187-2015 WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committeeof the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Roomof City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 27, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-1187-2015,; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings 1.As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guideline3.2.1 since the buildings materials, style, character, and form of the new storefrontwill promoteand complementthe architectural character, style, form, and materials ofthe Downtown Historic District. 2.The contemporary design of the proposed project will not detract from defining features of the adjacent historic buildings orfrom other historic resources within the Downtown Historic District, because the modifications do not change the massing or overall architectural form of the structure. 3.The project’s design is consistent with the design principles contained in Section 4.20of the Land Use Element since the building fits within the context and scale of nearby existing development maintaining the existing building’s street presence consistent with the historic pattern of development. Section 2. Environmental Review. Theproject is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities)because the proposed project is an exterior alteration to an existing building that will have no significant impact on the environment. Section 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee hereby recommends approval of the project, subject to the following conditions: CHC3 - 7 Resolution No.XXXX-15 Attachment 1 733 Higuera Street (ARCH-1187-2015) Page 2 Conditions 1.Plans submitted for Director Review shall include the removal of the plaster crown modeling, and retain the existing façade and roofline. 2.Plans submitted for Director Review shall retain all character defining features including, arched windows and storefront system, detailed ventilation openings, and the original brick façade. Exterior alterations shall not destroy or alter any character definingfeatures, and plans submitted for construction permits shall include sufficient detail and callout notes to ensure the project retains the essential form and integrity of the historic property. 3.Plans submitted for Director Review shall include details onstorefront systems including divider width, materials, finishes and colors. Storefront systems shall include high quality materials suitable for the downtown and complementary to the best nearby examples with materials such as metal, wood, or aluminum systems with appropriate dimensions, finish, and color. 4.Plans submitted for Director Review shall detail how Bubblegum Alley will be protected from damage during the construction of the exterior modifications. Note: Code requirements provided to applicant separately. On motion by Committee member, , seconded by Committee member, , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of July 2015. _____________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee CHC3 - 8 C-D C-D C-D-H C-D C-D-H C-D-H C-D-H C-D-H C-D PF-H C-D-H C-D MAR S H B R O A D HIGU E R A G A R D E N VICINITY MAP1187-2015 733 HIGUERA ¯ Attachment 2 CHC3 - 9 Attachment 3 CHC3 - 10 Sh e e t : Sh e e t t i t l e : Fi l e n a m e : Pr o j e c t # : Dr a w n b y : Da t e : Co p y r i g h t 2 0 1 3 . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . N o p a r t o f t h i s wo r k p r o d u c t s h a l l b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m o r b y an y m e a n s - g r a p h i c , e l e c t r o n i c o r m e c h a n i c a l , in c l u d i n g p h o t o c o p y i n g , w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n i n w r i t i n g fr o m R E N G E L + C O . Pr o j e c t n a m e : R. C . A . 05 . 1 4 . 1 5 Re v i s i o n s : No . D a t e D e s c r i p t i o n Hi s t o r y r e c o r d : Da t e D e s c r i p t i o n H: \ \ P r o j e c t s \ B l a s t 8 2 5 St a m p : 73 3 H I G U E R A S T . SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A BL A S T 8 2 5 TA P R O O M 39 4 0 B r o a d S t r e e t # 3 6 3 Sa n L u i s O b i s p o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1 O+ 8 0 5 . 5 4 1 . 7 1 1 5 F+ 8 0 5 . 5 4 1 . 7 1 1 6 ww w . r e n g e l a r c h . c o m 20 1 5 1 0 SI T E P L A N SC A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " KE Y N O T E S PA R K I N G S U M M A R Y TO T A L EX I S T I N G P A R K I N G A1 0 0 SI T E P L A N AD J A C E N T S T R U C T U R E S AD J A C E N T S T R U C T U R E S PR O J E C T AR E A EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G NO R T H PL A N EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G EX I S T I N G BL D G . A1 0 1 - H: \ P R O J E C T S \ B L A S T 8 2 5 \ C D ' S \ S I T E P L A N . d w g , 5 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 5 1 1 : 0 8 : 3 5 A M , D W G T o P D F . p c 3 Attachment 3 CHC3 - 11 RA M P U P 1 2 3 4F.O.W. F. O . W . BA F.O.W. F.O.W. F.O.W. F. O . W . Sh e e t : Sh e e t t i t l e : Fi l e n a m e : Pr o j e c t # : Dr a w n b y : Da t e : Co p y r i g h t 2 0 1 3 . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . N o p a r t o f t h i s wo r k p r o d u c t s h a l l b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m o r b y an y m e a n s - g r a p h i c , e l e c t r o n i c o r m e c h a n i c a l , in c l u d i n g p h o t o c o p y i n g , w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n i n w r i t i n g fr o m R E N G E L + C O . Pr o j e c t n a m e : R. C . A . 05 . 1 4 . 1 5 Re v i s i o n s : No . D a t e D e s c r i p t i o n Hi s t o r y r e c o r d : Da t e D e s c r i p t i o n H: \ \ P r o j e c t s \ B l a s t 8 2 5 St a m p : 73 3 H I G U E R A S T . SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A BL A S T 8 2 5 TA P R O O M 39 4 0 B r o a d S t r e e t # 3 6 3 Sa n L u i s O b i s p o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1 O+ 8 0 5 . 5 4 1 . 7 1 1 5 F+ 8 0 5 . 5 4 1 . 7 1 1 6 ww w . r e n g e l a r c h . c o m 20 1 5 1 0 DE M O P L A N SC A L E : 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " A1 0 1 DE M O P L A N LE G E N D KE Y N O T E S GE N E R A L N O T E S NO R T H H: \ P R O J E C T S \ B L A S T 8 2 5 \ C D ' S \ D E M O P L A N . d w g , 5 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 5 1 1 : 0 8 : 4 0 A M , D W G T o P D F . p c 3 Attachment 3 CHC3 - 12 Attachment 3 CHC3 - 13 1 2 3 4F.O.W. F. O . W . BA F.O.W. F.O.W. F.O.W. F. O . W . 1 SC A L E : N . T . S . GY P . B R D . S O F F I T Sh e e t : Sh e e t t i t l e : Fi l e n a m e : Pr o j e c t # : Dr a w n b y : Da t e : Co p y r i g h t 2 0 1 3 . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . N o p a r t o f t h i s wo r k p r o d u c t s h a l l b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m o r b y an y m e a n s - g r a p h i c , e l e c t r o n i c o r m e c h a n i c a l , in c l u d i n g p h o t o c o p y i n g , w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n i n w r i t i n g fr o m R E N G E L + C O . Pr o j e c t n a m e : R. C . A . 05 . 1 4 . 1 5 Re v i s i o n s : No . D a t e D e s c r i p t i o n Hi s t o r y r e c o r d : Da t e D e s c r i p t i o n H: \ \ P r o j e c t s \ B l a s t 8 2 5 St a m p : 73 3 H I G U E R A S T . SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A BL A S T 8 2 5 TA P R O O M 39 4 0 B r o a d S t r e e t # 3 6 3 Sa n L u i s O b i s p o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1 O+ 8 0 5 . 5 4 1 . 7 1 1 5 F+ 8 0 5 . 5 4 1 . 7 1 1 6 ww w . r e n g e l a r c h . c o m 20 1 5 1 0 RE F L E C T E D C E I L I N G P L A N SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " A1 0 3 RE F L E C T E D CE I L I N G P L A N C E I L I N G L E G E N D KE Y N O T E S NO R T H -1 H: \ P R O J E C T S \ B L A S T 8 2 5 \ C D ' S \ C E I L I N G P L A N . d w g , 5 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 5 1 1 : 0 8 : 5 0 A M , D W G T o P D F . p c 3 Attachment 3 CHC3 - 14 Attachment 3 CHC3 - 15 Attachment 4 CHC3 - 16 Attachment 4 CHC3 - 17 Attachment 4 CHC3 - 18 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES June 22, 2015 ROLL CALL: Present:Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, James Papp, Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, 2PositionsVacant Absent:Chair Jaime Hill Staff:Senior Planner Brian Leveille,Assistant Planner Kyle Bell,and Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES:Minutes of May 26, 2015,were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no commentsfrom the public. DISCUSSION: Design Review Workshop –Feedback & Discussion Senior Planner Leveille summarized the activities that took place at the joint Design Review Workshop held forthe Architectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee on June 10-11, 2015. Committee Member Baer commented that some of the presentation materials seemed poorly plannedor reproduced; noted that the inclusion of community membersand Council membersaddedsignificantlyto the value of the experience. Committee Member Papp commented that the inclusion of CEQAand Secretary of Interior Standardstraining would have been helpful. Papp noted his recent attendance at an Architectural Review Commission meeting; stated that the presence of CHC members at that meeting was well-received and effective. The Committeediscussed ways in which the Committee’s recommendations may be more fully or usefully communicated to higher Advisory Bodies and the Council. Vice-Chair Brajkovich commented that the workshop was valuable; stated that increased advertisement of future workshops would be helpful for the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1.1144 Chorro Street.ARCH-1376-2015; Review of exterior building modifications in the Historic Downtown District, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-D-H zone; Discovery San Luis Obispo, applicant. Draft CHC Minutes June 22, 2015 Page 2 Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommendingthat the Committee findthe project consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and recommend that the Architectural Review Commission approve the project design based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. In response to Committee Member Papp, Senior Planner Leveille clarified that the Committee’s purview includes recommendations regarding the use of specific materials, when based on consistency with historical guidelines. Mark Rawson, property ownerrepresentative,summarized the project to date; noted that finding an appropriate use for the site has taken some time; clarified that the amount of sidewalk dining encroachment varies depending on the width of available sidewalk. Jeremy Pemberton, applicantrepresentative,summarized the various componentsof the use proposed for the site and its target clientele; noted commitment to thorough renovation and use and preservation of high-quality materials. PUBLIC COMMENTS:There were no comments from the public. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Committee Member Baer commented that the aesthetic appears somewhat dark overall; noted that windows that extend to the ground, and the lack of upper-story windows, appears to conflict with design guidelines. Member Baer spoke in support of the inclusion of brick andzinc elements; noted that the effect of wood elements imparts adark look, and that the aesthetic appears incongruous with many surrounding buildings. Committee Member Pappspoke in support of the project as a sensitive treatment of the building, removing stucco to expose brick and installing awnings along Marsh Street; commented that the potential for façade improvements is quite limited by the existing building construction, which is an example of amid-century modernbuilding, although not a good one. In response to inquiry from Committee Member Papp, Mr. Rawsonclarified that the plaques commemorating Riley’s Department Store employeeswould remain in place. Senior Planner Leveille clarified that staff’s recommendation of the proposed architectural styling was intended to avoid conjectural elements,andwas made in consideration ofthe scope of the project which includes a tenant improvement to accommodate thechange in use. Vice-Chair Brajkovich spoke in support of the proposal as an adaptive re-use project; commented that concernsabout historic guidelines regarding thetreatment of upper fenestration, articulated roofing, etc., do not need to be an issue given thearchitecture of the building. Draft CHC Minutes June 22, 2015 Page 3 There were no further comments from the Committee. On motion by CommitteeMemberKincaid, seconded by Committee MemberPapp,to find the project compatible with the Downtown Historic District and consistent with the HistoricPreservation Guidelines and recommend that the Architectural Review Commissionapprove the project subject torecommended conditions of approval in the draft resolution and including the followingcondition: Directional Item #3. The plaques commemorating Riley store employees shall be retained and the project shall include the use of authentic brick. AYES:Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Kincaid, and Papp NOES:None RECUSED:None ABSENT:Committee Member Hill(and 2 Positions Vacant) The motion passed on a 4:0 vote. 2.1053 Islay Street. ARCH-1170-2015; Review of remodel and addition behind a residence that is a Contributing List Resource in the Old Town Historic District;R- 3-H zone; Lesa Jones, applicant. (Continued to a Date Certain –July 27,2015) Senior Planner Leveille noted that staff recommended continuation of consideration of this application to the July 27, 2015,meeting ofthe Committee. This item was continued by general consent of the Committee. The motion passed on a 4:0 vote. 3.Staff a.Agenda Forecast Senior Planner Leveille gave a forecast of upcoming agenda items, including a joint meeting of the Architectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee scheduled for July 13, 2015,to review a mixed-use project adjacent to the Jack House. The Committee discussed the need to verify there will not be potential conflicts of interestfor the joint meetingthatmay arise from members’ involvement with the Jack House. 4.Committee In response to inquiry from Committee Member Papp, Senior Planner Leveille clarified that the Committee may make recommendations regarding issues such as building height, if the recommendation can be made within thescopeof the Committee’s purviewof the Historic Preservation Ordinance;and,he clarified that Draft CHC Minutes June 22, 2015 Page 4 the CHC’s scope was more limited with the recent action on the project at 1921 Santa Barbara Avenue because of a previous action of the CHC on the project; and that it was an unusual project from a process standpoint. ADJOURNMENT:The meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Erica Inderlied Recording Secretary