The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-24-2015 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 August 24, 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:Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENT:At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. The action of the CHC is a recommendation tothe 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 July 27, 2015, regular meeting. Approve or amend. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1.624 Grove Street.HIST-1633-2015; Historic significancedetermination ofa potentially-contributing structure, with anexemption from CEQA (General Rule); R- 1 zone; David Spiegel, applicant. (Kyle Bell) 2.1504 Santa Rosa Street.ARCH-1664-2015; Review of an approximately 80- square foot addition on a Contributing historic property, with a categorical exemption from CEQA; R-2-H zone; Catherine Sheel, applicant. (Kyle Bell) 3.Railroad Historic District.PDEV-1445-2015; Establish a new Engineering Standard for the boardwalk sidewalk area in the Railroad Historic District to replace the current design, with a categorical exemption from CEQA; City of San Luis Obispo –Public Works Dept., applicant.(Phil Dunsmore) COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4.Staff a.Agenda Forecast 5.Committee ADJOURNMENT Meeting Date: August 24, 2015 Item Number:#1 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT:Review of the historic status of a potentially contributing historic property in the Low- Density Residential (R-1) zone. PROJECT ADDRESS:624 Grove St.BY:Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner FILE NUMBER:HIST-1633-2015 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council place 624 Grove Street on the Contributing List of Historic Resources. SITE DATA Applicant David Spiegel Historic Status Potentially Contributing Zoning R-1(Low-Density Residential zone) General Plan LowDensity Residential Site Area ~5,000square feet Environmental Status Exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. SUMMARY The applicant has indicated interest in pursuing a remodel of an existing residence and garage on a property that was designated as “potentially contributing” in a1989 historic resource survey due to its architectural style. Properties noted as “potentially contributing” are not considered to be historically designated but rather reflect the need to review the property to determine merit for designation. The residence was originally built in 1927. The residence was constructed in a Mission Revival style that is similar to the adjacent structures in the neighborhood that are also identified as “potentially contributing”. Since a future proposal for a remodel and/or addition could alter the potential historical significance of the property, ahistorical significance determination is needed.If the CHC and City Council CHC 1-1 HIST-1633-2015 624 Grove Street Page 2 determine that the property is eligible for listing, the development project would be referred to the CHC for review of consistency with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards. If the CHC determines that the property is not eligible for listing, Historic Preservation Guidelines would not be applicable and existing structures could be demolished and/or the development project would go through architectural review at the staff level with the Community Development Director taking final action on the project. PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information/Setting The property is within the Low-Density Residential (R-1) zone, located on Grove Street between Wilson Street and Hillcrest Place. The site is not within nor adjacent to a historic district. The surrounding neighborhood developed during the late 1920’s and early 1930’s. The subject property is surrounded by several residences which were also identified as “potentially contributing” historic resources. The immediate adjacent residences are of a similar Mission Revival style, other residences in the vicinity include an eclectic mix of styles significant to the early 20th century residential development. According to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, the property at 624 Grove Street was built in 1927, and is of the California Mission Revival style. The residence exhibits character-defining features that include; red tile roof and arched lintels over windows, and a flat roofline over the structure with a sloping tile roof over the veranda. The veranda is supported by four flat columns that are squared with acenter block detail. (Attachment 3, Historic Resources Inventory). Project Description The applicant has interest in potentially remodeling the structure and a historic determination will inform future plans for the project. If the CHC determines the residence is eligible for listing as a Contributing historic resource, the applicant will be required to design the proposed modifications consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation as required by the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The project also would return to the CHC for review. Figure 1: Photo from Historic Resource Inventory compared to current photo. CHC 1-2 HIST-1633-2015 624 Grove Street Page 3 EVALUATION The CHC’s role is to provide a recommendation to the City Council on whether the property qualifies as a historic resource under the historic significance criteria of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Historic Resource Designation There are two primary categories of historic significance: Master List and Contributing historic resources. Master List resources are the most unique and important resources in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the City’s past. Contributing properties include those properties that by virtue of their age, design and appearance, contribute to and embody the historic character of the neighborhood or historic district which they are located.1 While the property does not appear to exhibit architectural features or style of a rare or unique form that would support listing as Master List Historic Resource, staff has provided evaluation below which could support listing the property as a Contributing Historic Resource. Listing of a Contributing Historic Structure Section 14.01.050.B.of the Historic Preservation Ordinance states that “contributing list of resources or properties are buildings or other resources at least 50 years old that maintain their original or attained historic and architectural character, and contribute, either by themselves or in conjunction with other structures, to the unique or historic character of the neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole.” The ordinance also states that non-contributing resources are “buildings, properties and other features in historic districts which are less than 50 years old, have not retained their original architectural character, or which do not support the prevailing historic character of the district.” When determining if a property should be added to the historic resources list, the Historic Preservation Ordinance states that the in order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least 50 years old, and satisfy at least one of the significance criteria.2 As discussed below, staff has found the property to be eligible for listing based on the criteria of Architectural Style, Design, and Integrity. Historical research has not been completed to determine if the property could also qualify for listing based on events or persons associated with the property. 1.Architectural Criteria (Style & Design) Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements. Also, 1 Historic Preservation Ordinance. 14.01.050. & 14.01.050.A. 2 Historic Preservation Ordinance, 14.01.070. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing. Architectural criteria, Historical criteria, and Integrity Criteria. CHC 1-3 HIST-1633-2015 624 Grove Street Page 4 suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Staff Analysis: The structure located at 624 Grove Street, is over 50 years old, and contains architectural design features that are reflective of the Mission Revival architectural style. The Mission Revival style wasonce apopular style in the early 20th century, with character defining features that include; red tile roof with overhanging eaves, flat roof and arched lintels over the windows, and stucco exterior wall cladding. The immediate adjacent properties are of a similar style built approximately at the same time, which reflects a neighborhood pattern through compatibility and detailing of elements. Since the residence was built in 1927 it has retained its quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the original construction. 2.Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Staff Analysis: The building has retained a significant portion of its design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association since the original construction. There have been no significant modifications to the residence since the time of construction; however, a few of the original windows with divided mullions have been replaced with double hung windows. The building maintains authenticity and integrity because the building occupies its original site and maintains enough of its historic character and appearance to be recognizable as a historic resource. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from CEQA under the General Rule (Section 15061(b)(3)) which states a project is not subject to CEQA if it can be seen with certainty that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment. Since the project only involves a determination of historic significance, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the draft Cultural Heritage Committee Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council add the property to the Contributing List of Historic Resources, based on the findings, and subject to the conditions of the draft Resolution. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 2. Provide findings and a recommendation to the City Council that the property does not qualify for the City’s list of Contributing Historic Resources. CHC 1-4 HIST-1633-2015 624 Grove Street Page 5 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Historic Resources Inventory 4. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing CHC 1-5 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADD 624 GROVE STREET TO THE CITY’S LIST OF CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC RESOURCES, R-1 ZONE, HIST-1633-2015 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 August 24, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under HIST-1633-2015, David Spiegel, 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 thetestimony 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. The character of the building is historically significant due to the Mission Revival design that maintains ahigh level of its historic character and appearance to be recognized as a historic resource. Character defining features include; red tile roof and arched lintels over the windows, flat roofline over the structure with a sloping tile roof over the veranda supported by four square columns with a center block detail. 2. The residential structure retains a high level of integrity and retains a significant portion of its design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association preserving its original historic character and appearance reflecting the Mission Revival style. The building maintains authenticity because there have been only slight exterior modifications to the residence since the time of construction and the residence occupies its original site. 3. The designation of the existing structure to the list of Contributing Historic Structures is consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance because the structure meets the definition of “Contributing List Resource or Property”, in that the structure is of at least 50 years old and maintains its original historic architectural character and authentic integrity.retaining Section 2.Environmental Review. Section 15061(b)(3) states a project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Since the project only involves a determination of historic significance, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3.Action. The Committee hereby recommends the City Council add 624 Grove Street to the City’s list of contributing historic structures. CHC 1-6 Resolution No.XXXX-15 Attachment 1 624 Grove (HIST-1633-2015) Page 2 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 24th day of August 2015. _____________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee CHC 1-7 G R O V E HILL C R E S T WILSON PHIL L I P S TU R N E R VICINITY MAP1633-2015 624 GROVE ¯ CHC 1-8 CHC 1-9 CHC 1-10 CHC 1-11 CHC 1-12 =RQLQJRUUHPRYHWKHSURSHUW\IURPKLVWRULFOLVWLQJLIWKHVWUXFWXUHRQWKHSURSHUW\QRORQJHU PHHWVHOLJLELOLW\FULWHULDIRUOLVWLQJIROORZLQJWKHSURFHVVIRUOLVWLQJVHWIRUWKKHUHLQ (YDOXDWLRQ&ULWHULDIRU+LVWRULF5HVRXUFH/LVWLQJ :KHQGHWHUPLQLQJLIDSURSHUW\VKRXOGEHGHVLJQDWHGDVDOLVWHG+LVWRULFRU&XOWXUDO5HVRXUFH WKH&+&DQG&LW\&RXQFLOVKDOOFRQVLGHUWKLVRUGLQDQFHDQG6WDWH+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ2IILFH ³6+32´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± %+LVWRULF&ULWHULD +LVWRU\±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±(YHQW$VVRFLDWHGZLWKHYHQWVWKDWKDYHPDGHDVLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQWR WKHEURDGSDWWHUQVRIORFDORUUHJLRQDOKLVWRU\RUWKHFXOWXUDOKHULWDJHRI&DOLIRUQLDRUWKH 8QLWHG6WDWHV+LVWRULFHYHQWZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUHRI L$ODQGPDUNIDPRXVRUILUVWRILWVNLQGHYHQWIRUWKHFLW\UHJDUGOHVVRIZKHWKHU WKHLPSDFWRIWKHHYHQWVSUHDGEH\RQGWKHFLW\ LL$UHODWLYHO\XQLTXHLPSRUWDQWRULQWHUHVWLQJFRQWULEXWLRQWRWKHFLW\HJWKH$K /RXLV6WRUHDVWKHFHQWHUIRU&KLQHVH$PHULFDQFXOWXUDODFWLYLWLHVLQHDUO\6DQ/XLV 2ELVSRKLVWRU\ +LVWRU\&RQWH[W$VVRFLDWHGZLWKDQGDOVRDSULPHLOOXVWUDWLRQRISUHGRPLQDQW SDWWHUQVRISROLWLFDOVRFLDOHFRQRPLFFXOWXUDOPHGLFDOHGXFDWLRQDOJRYHUQPHQWDO PLOLWDU\LQGXVWULDORUUHOLJLRXVKLVWRU\+LVWRULFFRQWH[WZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUH RIWKHGHJUHHWRZKLFKLWUHIOHFWV D(DUO\ILUVWRUPDMRUSDWWHUQVRIORFDOKLVWRU\UHJDUGOHVVRIZKHWKHUWKHKLVWRULF HIIHFWVJREH\RQGWKHFLW\OHYHOWKDWDUHLQWLPDWHO\FRQQHFWHGZLWKWKHEXLOGLQJHJ &RXQW\0XVHXP E6HFRQGDU\SDWWHUQVRIORFDOKLVWRU\EXWFORVHO\DVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHEXLOGLQJHJ 3DUN+RWHO CHC 1-14 &,QWHJULW\$XWKHQWLFLW\RIDQKLVWRULFDOUHVRXUFH¶VSK\VLFDOLGHQWLW\HYLGHQFHGE\WKH VXUYLYDORIFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKDWH[LVWHGGXULQJWKHUHVRXUFH¶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³+´]RQLQJ3URSHUWLHV]RQHG³+´VKDOOEHVXEMHFWWRWKHSURYLVLRQVDQGVWDQGDUGVDV SURYLGHGLQ2UGLQDQFH=RQLQJRIWKH0XQLFLSDO&RGH %3XUSRVHVRI+LVWRULF'LVWULFWV7KHSXUSRVHVRIKLVWRULFGLVWULFWVDQG+]RQHGHVLJQDWLRQDUH WR ,PSOHPHQWFXOWXUDOUHVRXUFHSUHVHUYDWLRQSROLFLHVRIWKH*HQHUDO3ODQWKH SUHVHUYDWLRQSURYLVLRQVRIDGRSWHGDUHDSODQVWKH+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQDQG $UFKDHRORJLFDO5HVRXUFH3UHVHUYDWLRQ3URJUDP*XLGHOLQHVDQG ,GHQWLI\DQGSUHVHUYHGHILQDEOHXQLILHGJHRJUDSKLFDOHQWLWLHVWKDWSRVVHVVDVLJQLILFDQW FRQFHQWUDWLRQOLQNDJHRUFRQWLQXLW\RIVLWHVEXLOGLQJVVWUXFWXUHVRUREMHFWVXQLWHG KLVWRULFDOO\RUDHVWKHWLFDOO\E\SODQRUSK\VLFDOGHYHORSPHQW ,PSOHPHQWKLVWRULFSUHVHUYDWLRQSURYLVLRQVRIDGRSWHGDUHDDQGQHLJKERUKRRG LPSURYHPHQWSODQV (QKDQFHDQGSUHVHUYHWKHVHWWLQJRIKLVWRULFUHVRXUFHVVRWKDWVXUURXQGLQJODQGXVHV DQGVWUXFWXUHVGRQRWGHWUDFWIURPWKHKLVWRULFRUDUFKLWHFWXUDOLQWHJULW\RIGHVLJQDWHG KLVWRULFUHVRXUFHVDQGGLVWULFWVDQG 3URPRWHWKHSXEOLFXQGHUVWDQGLQJDQGDSSUHFLDWLRQRIKLVWRULFUHVRXUFHV &(OLJLELOLW\IRULQFHQWLYHV3URSHUWLHV]RQHGDV+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ+VKDOOEHHOLJLEOHIRU SUHVHUYDWLRQLQFHQWLYHDQGEHQHILWSURJUDPVDVHVWDEOLVKHGKHUHLQLQWKH*XLGHOLQHVDQGRWKHU ORFDOVWDWHDQGIHGHUDOSURJUDPV CHC 1-15 Meeting Date: August 24, 2015 Item Number: #2 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT:Review of asmall exterior addition to a contributing historic structure in the Old Town Historic District. PROJECT ADDRESS:1504Santa Rosa Street BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner FILE NUMBER:ARCH-1664-2015 FROM:Brian Leveille, Senior Planner SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend the Community Development Director approve the project based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Catherine Sheel Historic Status Contributing List Submittal Date July 9, 2015 Complete Date August 7, 2015 Zoning R-2-H (MediumDensity Residential with Historic Overlay) General Plan Medium Density Residential Site Area ~7,710square feet Environmental Status Categorically Exempt from environmental review under Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) SUMMARY The applicant is proposing an 80-square foot addition at the rear of the structure to expand the master bedroom area at the back of the residence. The property was added to the Contributing Historic Resources list in 1986 as the Whitmer Home, and is within the Old Town Historic District. The residence is estimated to have been built in 1900 and is in good condition (Attachment 3, Historic Resources Inventory). CHC 2-1 ARCH-1664-2015 1504 Santa Rosa Street Page 2 The project requires review by the Cultural Heritage Committee pursuant to Historic Preservation Program Guidelines section 3.1.2 (review of development projects) because the project is located within a historic district and on a property with a listed Historic Resource. PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information/Setting The property is within the Old Town Historic District and is adjacent to other Contributing List properties. This project is within the Medium Residential (R-2-H) zone with a Historic Overlay, and located on the southeast corner of Santa Rosa and Buchon Street. The project site currently contains a primary residence with an additional shed and garage toward the rear of the lot. The primary residence provides direct access to Santa Rosa Street from an entrance walkway. The driveway and garage are accessed from Buchon Street. The property is a Neo-Classical Rowhouse style with an offset pediment facing Santa Rosa Street and covered veranda. Character-defining features include Neo-classical pediments with fishscale shingles, steeply pitched hipped rooflines, exterior walls with channel rustic horizontal siding,the windows are double hung one over one style with wide wood trim and the front window has a Colonial shelf above the window. The Historic Resources Inventory states the home was built in 1900 as a 1,244 square foot one level single family residence, and was home to B.F. and Mrs. Whitmer, and Katherine Carwline. Project Description The applicant is proposing to construct an 80-square foot addition to the master bedroom and to replace the master bedroom’s current windows with French doors for exterior access. The addition to the side of the existing structure (which will be located approximately 60 feet from the public right-of-way and 35 feet behind the front façade) will be able to be viewed from the public right-of- way on Santa Rosa Street. The addition will incorporate exterior materials intended to match the existing structure, including tan foundation material, wood sash windows, composition shingles, and matching exterior colors. The siding, trim, moldings, and fascias will be of wood construction to match existing (Attachment 4, reduced scale project plans).There will be no changes to the main façade facing Buchon Street. EVALUATION The CHC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards. Figure 1:1504Santa RosaStreet August 4, 2015 CHC 2-2 ARCH-1664-2015 1504 Santa Rosa Street Page 3 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines New Additions: Section 3.4.1(d) of the Guidelines states “additions to listed historic structures should maintain the structures original architectural integrity and closely match the buildings original architecture…in terms of scale, form, massing, rhythm fenestration, materials, color and architectural details.” Staff Analysis: The proposed addition incorporates architectural details, massing, colors, and materials of the primary structure, including the exterior wood siding, roof pitches, and matching wood framed double-hung windows and doors. The proposed 80-square foot addition is setback approximately 35 feet from the front façade of the structure and can only be seen from Santa Rosa Street from limited view sheds along the public right-of-way. The proposed additions complement the primary structure, and do not alter the character defining features found in the existing contributing historic structure. The proposed modifications will not affect the existing height or location of the existing residence, and architecturally, will be compatible with the primary use with similar colors, siding, roof lines, and windows. 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, and rehabilitation is the only treatment standard which includes an opportunity to accommodate a contemporary use through alterations and additions.1 SOI Rehabilitation 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. SOI Rehabilitation Standard #10:New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Staff Analysis: The proposed addition is small in scale and setback significantly from the front façade, includes materials to match existing, and would not change the proportions and scale of the structure as seen from Santa Rosa Street and would not be visible from Buchon Street. The new work will not detract or destroy any of the character defining features of the existing residence since no modifications are proposed to the front facing gable, hip roof, and covered porch. The addition will preserve the essential form and integrity of the historic property. The CHC recommendation will inform the Director regarding compatibility of the proposed project with the existing Contributing resource and the Old Town Historic District. The Director will incorporate this recommendation into review of the project for compliance with other site 1 Secretary of Interior Standards, Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, Introduction CHC 2-3 ARCH-1664-2015 1504 Santa Rosa Street Page 4 development requirements such as parking, setbacks, height, and building code requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project consists of new construction of small addition to an existing single-family residence in an urbanized area. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the draft Cultural Heritage Committee Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending the Director approve the proposed remodel and addition to 1504 Santa Rosa Street. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Historic Resources Inventory 4. Project Plans CHC 2-4 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC PROPERTY AT 1504 SANTA ROSA STREET, ARCH-1664-2015 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 August 24, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-1664-2015, Catherine Sheel, 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 Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1.Findings. 1. 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, building codes, and other applicable City development standards. 2. The project is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines since the architectural character of the existing residence is retained, and new construction is consistent with the existing character including site design, roofing style, siding materials, finish, and scale. The proposed project does not alter the scale or historical character of the existing residence. 3. The project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation because the proposed addition will not detract or destroy any historic character defining features of the existing residence and is designed so that the essential form and integrity of the historic property are preserved. 4. The project is consistent with the General Plan policies for compatible development (LUE 2.3.9), and housing conservation (HE 3.5) since the project retains the scale and character of the existing residence andmaintains the existing residential use. Section 2.Environmental Review. The project is exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. The project consists of new construction of small addition to an existing single-family residence in an urbanized area CHC 2-5 Resolution No.XXXX-15 Attachment 1 1504 Santa Rosa Street (ARCH-1664-2015) Page 2 Section 3.Action. The Committee hereby recommends approval of the proposed project toconstruct a small exterior addition to a contributing historic property (ARCH-1664-2015). 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 24th day of August 2015. _____________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee CHC 2-6 PF R-2-H R-2-H R-3 R-3 R-2-H R-2-H R-3-H R-3-H R-3-H R-3-H R-2-H R-2 R-2-H R-2-H ISLA Y BUC H O N S A N T A R O S A PISM O VICINITY MAP File No. ARCH-546-001 1504 Santa Rosa St.¯ Attachment 2 CHC 2-7 Attachment 3 CHC 2-8 Attachment 3 CHC 2-9 Attachment 4 CHC 2-10 Attachment 4 CHC 2-11 Attachment 4 CHC 2-12 Attachment 4 CHC 2-13 Meeting Date: August 24, 2015 Item Number: 3 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review proposed modifications to the boardwalk style design standard for the Historic Railroad District to address accessibility, safety and maintenance issues. PROJECT ADDRESS: Railroad Historic District BY:Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner Steven Orozco, Planning Intern FILE NUMBER: PDEV-1445-2015 (AP)FROM:Brian Leveille, Senior Planner SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Amend the Railroad District Plan to allow greater flexibility in the use of materials for the boardwalk and recommend the Public Works Director revise the engineering standards for boardwalks in the Railroad Historic District. SITE DATA Applicant Owner City Of San Luis Obispo Representative Jennifer Lawrence Historic Status Railroad Historic District Submittal Date May 29, 2015 Complete Date June 29, 2015 Zoning C-S, C-R General Plan Services and Manufacturing, General Retail Site Area ~80.73 acres Environmental Status Exempt from CEQA under Section 15301, Existing Facilities. SUMMARY The City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Division is seeking to establish a new Engineering Standard for the sidewalk area in the Railroad District to replace the current wood boardwalk design. The current wood boardwalks have proven difficult and time-consuming to maintain and do not meet accessibility (ADA) requirements. PJD CHC 3-1 Railroad District Sidewalk City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works. PDEV-1445-2015 (AP) Page 2 PROJECT INFORMATION Project Description The Railroad District Plan Architectural Guidelines specify that public sidewalks in the district should be a City approved wood boardwalk design1. A supplemental memo provided by City Engineer, Jennifer Lawrence outlines challenges with the current standard and provides recommendations to improve the current standard with the goal of improving accessibility, safety, and maintainability (Attachment 2). As shown below, the standard wood boardwalk does not stand up well over time. While the boardwalk is aesthetically pleasing when newly installed (Figure 1), boardwalk maintenance has proven to be a challenge and is labor intensive and expensive. Boardwalk maintenance challenges include loose screws (Figure 2), warped and splintered boards (Figure 3), rotting boards (Figure 4), and wide gaps between the boards caused by shrinkage, all of which result in a rough walkway and trip hazards. In addition, the current standard does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements because of the gap and trip hazard issues. This poses a challenge for the City, since it is committed, as well as required, to provide accessible sidewalks and walkways. Figure 1 - Boardwalk installation at the Railroad Transportation Center Figure 2 – Loose Screws 1 Railroad District Plan (RRDP) Architectural Guidelines- Site and Public Improvements 6 (page 80): “Public sidewalks along portions of Osos, Santa Barbara, Church, Emily, High, and Roundhouse streets within the Railroad District should be a City approved wood boardwalk design.” Also refer to Figure 23: Boardwalk Detail (page 69 of the RRDP). CHC 3-2 Railroad District Sidewalk City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works. PDEV-1445-2015 (AP) Page 3 Figure 5 – Stamped Concrete Installation Figure 3 – Warped Board Figure 4 - Rotted Wood EVALUATION Railroad District Plan The Railroad District Plan (RRDP) is a design plan that provides guidance for development and investment for both private and public improvements. The RRDP identifies the historic theme and context of the area as it relates to the era of development associated with arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad in San Luis Obispo. The General Plan identifies historic resource preservation as an important goal2 and the RRDP was developed to describe the character of the historic district and resources to be protected. As part of preserving the character of the area, architectural guidelines were developed to describe public area improvements, such as lighting, landscaping, fencing, seating areas, sidewalk design, trash containers, and other improvements reminiscent of the railroad era character. The wood boardwalk design is part of this guidance. Replacing the wood standard with another material should be reviewed in light of the replacement material’s ability to convey the historic feeling of the district. City public works staff has evaluated several material and design alternatives towards a solution to replace the wood boardwalk design while maintaining consistency with the Railroad District Plan. The following discussion highlights the various materials and potential design solutions that were explored. Boardwalk Design Options 1.Alternative Materials A. Poured Concrete. A concrete sidewalk such as others throughout the City would provide the most cost-effective and low maintenance solution. Concrete requires less overall maintenance than wood and large sections of concrete are not required to be removed in order to replace small failures. 2 Conservation and Open Space Element Policies 3.2 and 3.3 CHC 3-3 Railroad District Sidewalk City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works. PDEV-1445-2015 (AP) Page 4 Figure 7 – Painted Wood Figure 6 – Composite Decking Material The concrete would be dyed and/or stamped to create a design to complement the historic nature of the Railroad District. Replacing the boardwalks with stamped concrete walkways (Figure 5) that mimics the color and texture of wood will provide a long lasting surface without built-in gaps, screws, warping or board failure issues. Color retention may potentially be an issue in the long term, with a dark brown fading to a paler color. When the concrete is patched, as occurs in the downtown Mission Sidewalk district, the new color will not match for a period of time until the newer portion fades. B.Composite Materials. Composite materials such as “Trex” or “DuraLife” (Figure 6) can provide a durable surface. Composite deck material would maintain the overall appearance of the existing walkway, although for most of the composite materials it would likely be apparent the material was not genuine wood. Mold growth and warpage from heat are known issues for composites. Also, materials are often difficult to obtain because of long lead times and products may be discontinued. C.Wood. The current standard is aesthetically pleasing and creates a feel of the bygone “Old West” era. A much more expensive hardwood such as Ipe could be used; however it is anticipated that similar problems to the existing wood could occur. Finding wood from responsibly managed and sustainable sources may prove difficult, and maintenance issues similar to those experienced with wood materials would still exist. D.Painting or staining the existing boards (Figure 7), or using a higher quality wood may reduce the weathering and increase longevity of the boardwalk, but a high level of maintenance would still be required to keep the boardwalk from failing. Board gaps and loose screws can be expected to continue to occur. 2.Alternative Designs A complete change from the current adopted wood board walk was explored as another potential alternative. Public Works reached out to local designers and Cal Poly to provide concept drawings of alternative sidewalk options. Designers were asked to take into account constructability and maintainability as well as incorporate the historic, cultural and aesthetic values of the Railroad District. Additionally, the designers were to provide enough detailing to show compliance with accessibility requirements, a six-foot walkway with room for street trees, and a four-foot clear path of travel. Image from www.Trex.com CHC 3-4 Railroad District Sidewalk City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works. PDEV-1445-2015 (AP) Page 5 Concept materials included using pavers, stamped and/or stained concrete, exposed aggregate and Corten steel. Interestingly, nearly all of the submissions included the common theme of train tracks running the length of the walk; a very different approach than emulating the boardwalk- style walkway currently in use. Each concept submitted provides an intriguing connection to the historic nature of the Railroad District. Images of the concepts are provided in the memo from Public Works, Attachment 2. Replacing wood with stamped concrete that has a wood appearance and texture is solution favored by public works staff in order to reduce maintenance and to maintain the appearance developed with the Railroad District Plan. However, there are other options that could maintain the appearance and intent of the “wood boardwalk” design. Staff will bring images of design alternatives to the CHC hearing. The CHC should provide direction to staff on the appropriate material. Railroad District Plan Amendments and CHC Purview Engineering standards are maintained to ensure public infrastructure is developed in a way that meets state, federal and local standards. These standards may change over time in response to changes in legislation, safety or access concerns, availability of materials, and to respond to aesthetic and design concerns. Due to their evolving nature, engineering standards are typically not a component of architectural guidelines such as the RRDP. The CHC is being asked to provide input on materials that would appropriately convey the feeling of the Railroad District so that the engineering standards may be updated to reflect material options that meet the aesthetic concerns of the District along with federal and state standards for accessibility and safety. The CHC is also being asked to provide input on amendments to the RRDP to remove specific references to “wood” so that other materials may be considered if they meet the multiple objectives of aesthetics, safety, and accessibility (as well as changing requirements over time). Staff recommends that Figure 23, provided on page 69 of the RRDP be eliminated (Attachment 3) and that the word “wood” be removed from the Site and Public Area improvements section of the guidelines on page 80 as shown below: 6. Public sidewalks along portions of Osos, Santa Barbara, Church, Emily, High, and Roundhouse streets within the Railroad District should be a City approved wood boardwalk design. These amendments would allow the Public Works engineering division to move forward with revised material standards while still maintaining the spirit of the RRDP. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) because the project would simply replace the surface of an existing public sidewalk. CHC 3-5 Railroad District Sidewalk City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works. PDEV-1445-2015 (AP) Page 6 ALTERNATIVES 1.Continue the item with direction to the staff to return with alternative boardwalk designs. 2.Recommend that the wood boardwalk design be maintained and that changes be denied based on inconsistency with the intent of the Railroad District Plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Memo from City Public Works 3. Railroad District Plan, figure 23, page 69 CHC 3-6 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE RAILROAD DISTRICT PLAN AND OPTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO APPROVE MODIFICATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING STANDARD FOR WOOD BOARDWALKS, PDEV-1445-2015 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 August 24, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under PDEV-1445-2015, City Public Works Division, 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 Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1.Findings. 1.The proposed amendments to the Railroad District Plan to allow a substitute material other than wood for the boardwalks 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, building codes, and other applicable City development standards and will improve accessibility and public safety. 2.The project is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines since the wood boardwalk character in the historic district would be retained, and the proposed new material would simulate a wood boardwalk. 3.The project is consistent with the intent of the Railroad District Plan Architectural Guidelines because the new standard will preserve the character of the “wood” boardwalk design as stipulated in the required site and public area improvements of the guidelines. 4.The amendments to the boardwalk design will reduce maintenance costs of the public infrastructure while improving accessibility and safety. Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt under Class 1, Existing Facilities, Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. The project consists of the future replacement of existing sidewalk material. Section 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Railroad District Plan to remove specific references to “wood” thereby allowing a substitute boardwalk material with the appearance of wood subject to the following conditions (PDEV-1445-2015). CHC 3-7 Attachment 1 Resolution No.XXXX-15 Railroad Historic District (PDEV-1445-2015) Page 2 1.The engineering standard amendment shall be implemented with final sidewalk design that shall be approved in conjunction with the Community Development Director and shall maintain the character, spirit and feel of the intended boardwalk design. 2.The Railroad District Plan shall be amended to remove the engineering standard for wood boardwalks, Figure 23 on page 69. 3.The Railroad District Plan Architectural Guidelines shall be amended on page 80, item 6 to remove the word “wood” as follows: Public sidewalks along portions of Osos, Santa Barbara, Church, Emily, High, and Roundhouse streets within the Railroad District should be a City approved wood boardwalk design. 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 24th day of August 2015. _____________________________ Phil Dunsmore, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee CHC 3-8 Attachment 1 CityofSanLuisObispo,PublicWorks,919PalmStreet,SanLuisObispo,CA,93401Ͳ3218,805.781.7200,slocity.org May29,2015 TO:PhilDunsmore,Planner FROM:JenniferLawrence SUBJECT:SupplementtothePlanningApplicationtoestablishadditionalRailroadDistrict sidewalkoptions. Discussion: Thecurrentstandardwalkwayrequiredinthehistoricarea,inaccordancewiththeRailroadDistrict Planadoptedin1998,isadeckͲstyleboardwalk(Attachment1).TheRailroadDistrict(Attachment 2)isreadilyidentifiablebytheseboardwalkswhichareusedasawaytohonorthehistoricand culturalrootsthatSanLuisObispohaswiththerailway.Thissupplementalmemooutlines challengeswiththecurrentstandardandprovidesrecommendationstoimprovethecurrent standardwiththegoalofimprovingaccessibility,safety,andmaintainability. Asshownbelow,thestandardboardwalkdoesnotstandupwellovertime.Whiletheboardwalkis aestheticallypleasingwhennewlyinstalled(Figure1),boardwalkmaintenancehasproventobea challengesinceitislaborintensiveandexpensive.Boardwalkmaintenancechallengesincludeloose screws(Figure2)warpedandsplinteredboards(Figure3),rottingboards(Figure4),andwidegaps betweentheboardscausedbyshrinkage,allofwhichresultinaroughwalkwayandtriphazards.In addition,thecurrentstandarddoesnotcomplywiththeAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA) requirementsbecauseofthegapandtriphazardissues.ThisposesachallengefortheCity,sinceit iscommitted,aswellasrequired,toprovideaccessiblesidewalksandwalkways. Figure1ͲBoardwalkinstallationattheRailroad TransportationCenter Figure2–LooseScrews Memorandum CHC 3-9 Attachment 2 RailroadDistrictSidewalkProblems Figure5–StampedConcreteInstallation Figure3–WarpedBoardFigure4ͲRottedWood Goal: ImproveorreplacethecurrentstandardfortheHistoric RailroadDistricttoimproveaccessibility,safety,and maintainability. Alternatives 1.AlternativeMaterials 1.A.Pouredconcretewalkssuchasthosethroughout theCitywouldprovidethemostcostͲeffectiveandlow maintenancesolution.Concreterequireslessoverall maintenancethanwoodandlargesectionsofconcrete arenotrequiredtoberemovedinordertoreplacesmall failures.However,itwouldneedtobedyedand/or stampedtocreateadesigntocomplementthehistoric natureoftheRailroadDistrict. Replacingtheboardwalkswithstampedconcrete walkways(Figure5)thatmimicsthecolorandtextureof woodwillprovidealonglastingsurfacewithoutbuiltͲin gaps,screws,warpingorboardfailureissues.Color retentionwillbeanissueinthelongterm,withadark brownfadingtoapalercolor.Whentheconcreteis patched,asoccursinthedowntownMissionSidewalk district,thenewcolorwillnotmatchforaperiodoftime untilitfades.MorroBayisinstallingsomecolored concreteaspartofawalkwayproject,butdoesnotas yethavemuchexperiencewithit(Figure5). 1.B.Compositematerialsarebeingsubstitutedformany applicationswherewoodhashistoricallybeenused. Materialssuchas“Trex”or“DuraLife”(Figure6)can provideadurablesurface.CompositedeckmaterialFigure6 –CompositeDeckingMaterial Imagefromwww.Trex.com CHC 3-10 Attachment 2 RailroadDistrictSidewalkProblems Figure7–PaintedWood wouldmaintaintheoverallappearanceoftheexistingwalkway,althoughitwouldbeapparentthe materialwasnotgenuinewood. MorroBayhasexperimentedwiththismaterialandhasareaswhereithasworkedwell,andareas wherethematerialhaswarped.Moldgrowthandheatareknownissuesforcomposites.Also, materialsareoftendifficulttoobtainbecauseoflongleadtimesandproductsdiscontinued. Usingboardsmadeofacompositematerialsuchas“Trex”orplasticsuchas“Azek”offerasolution requiringlessmaintenancethanwood.Analternatetorealwood,patternsandcolorsavailablecan servetosimulatethelookoftheboardwalkscurrentlyinstalledinthedistrict.However,itis primarilyplasticandsomeusersmayobjecttotheartificiallookoftheboardscomparedtothe restoredandhistoricfacilitiesinthearea.Dependingonthequalityoftheproduct,itmaybecostͲ prohibitiveandalthoughlessmaintenanceisrequiredonthismaterial,itisstillsubjecttomolding, canbeslipperywhenwet,cangetoverlyhotinwarmclimatesandisnotasstrongasrealwood. Additionally,althoughmostbrandsareconsidered“green”anduseaveryhighpercentageof recycledmaterials,boardswillneedtobereplaced ratherthanrestoredwhendamagedandits sustainabilityisquestionableasthediscarded materialisnotbioͲdegradableorrecyclable. 1.C.Wood,thecurrentstandard,isaesthetically pleasingandcreatesafeelofthebygone“OldWest” era.AmuchmoreexpensivehardwoodsuchasIpe couldbeused;howeveritisanticipatedsimilar problemswouldoccur.Findingwoodfrom responsiblymanagedandsustainablesourcesmay provedifficultandmaintenancewillstillbeneeded morefrequentlythanresourcesallow. 1.D.Paintingorstainingtheexistingboards(Figure7),orusingahigherqualitywoodmayreduce theweatheringandincreaselongevityoftheboardwalk,butahighlevelofmaintenancewouldstill berequiredtokeeptheboardwalkfromfailing.Boardgapsandloosescrewscanexpectto continuetooccur. 2.AlternativeDesigns Acompletechangefromthecurrentadoptedboardstylewalkwasexploredtoprovideother alternativesforconsideration.PublicWorksreachedouttolocaldesignersandCalPolytoprovide conceptdrawingsofalternativesidewalkoptions.Designerswereaskedtotakeintoaccount constructabilityandmaintainabilityaswellasincorporatethehistoric,culturalandaestheticvalues oftheRailroadDistrict.Additionally,thedesignersweretoprovideenoughdetailingtoshow compliancewithaccessibilityrequirements,asixͲfootwalkwaywithroomforstreettrees,anda fourͲfootclearpathoftravel. AdecisiontomakeamoredramaticchangetotheadoptedstandardfortheDistrictwilltake additionalstepsandpublicinvolvement,butisworthconsideringifthechangeisgoingtobeforan improvedappearanceandaccessibilityforthearea. CHC 3-11 Attachment 2 RailroadDistrictSidewalkProblems Figure8–TrackThemewithConcreteandBrickPavers DesignConcepts: PublicWorksreceivedsubmissionsfromthreedesignfirms.Conceptmaterialsincludedusing pavers,stampedand/orstainedconcrete,exposedaggregateandCortensteel.Interestingly,nearly allofthesubmissionsincludedthecommonthemeoftraintracksrunningthelengthofthewalk;a verydifferentapproachthanemulatingtheboardwalkͲstylewalkwaycurrentlyinuse.Eachconcept submittedprovidesanintriguingconnectiontothehistoricnatureoftheRailroadDistrict.The varioussuggestedmaterialscomplementthearchitecturalstyleoftheneighborhoodaswellas implyalongevitybefittingofthedistrict.Figures8through13illustratetheconceptssubmitted. Thedesignsproposeuseofaconcreteorbrickpavers,bothofwhicharerelativelyeasytoinstall, arestronganddurableandweatherresistant.Theyareavailableinalargevarietyofcolors,shapes, sizeandpatternswhichallowsforagreatdealofflexibilityinwalkwaydesignreflectiveofthe RailroadDistrict.However,ifnotproperlyinstalledormaintained,paversaresubjecttoshifting makingforaroughwheelchairrideortrippinghazard.Weedscangrowinjointsunlessproperly sealedcreatinganunsightlywalkway.Oneofthestrongpointsofpaversisthatmostpaverscanbe salvagedwhereanareaofwalkwayneedstoberemoved,andreusedaftertheworkiscomplete. Thisreduceswasteandincreasescolorcompatibilityattherepair. CHC 3-12 Attachment 2 RailroadDistrictSidewalkProblems Figure9ͲBrickTrackTheme Newwalkwaywithbrick paversina90degree Herringbonepatternanda darkrunningbondpattern “railroadtrack”.Treewells aregalvanizedpanlidsthat acceptthebrickpavers. TypicalconcretepavingwithsawͲ cutandstained“railroadtrack”. Figure10Ͳ ConcreteTrackTheme Figure7ͲBrickTrackTheme CHC 3-13 Attachment 2 RailroadDistrictSidewalkProblems ConcretesurfacestainedandstampedtoemulatetheappealoftheexistingdeckͲstylewalkway. Figure11ͲStampedConcreteBoardwalkTheme Smoothconcretewithexposedaggregateareasprovidestheillusionofthesidewalkbeing rippedawaytoexposeafauxrailroadtrack(Cortensteel)beneaththesurface. Figure12ͲTrackThemeinStampedConcrete CHC 3-14 Attachment 2 RailroadDistrictSidewalkProblems AmoreelegantapproachtoasimilarthemeusingacidͲetchedconcreteandblackpaverinsets. Figure13–ConcreteandPaversTrackTheme Recommendation: Thealternativematerialsaswellastheideasoftheconceptsubmittalseachhavetheirownsetof advantagesanddisadvantages(Attachment3).Consideringthecosts,maintenanceissues,the flexibilityindesignoptionsandADAcompliance,replacingwoodwithstampedconcreteisthe recommendedsolutiontomaintaintheappearancedevelopedwiththeRailroadDistrictPlan. Ifanalternativeappearanceispreferred,anyoftheconcreteandpaveroptionsprovidedcanbe pursuedasalternatives.StaffwillproceedwithreviewofachangetotheDistrictplan,andreturn totheCommissionwithrecommendations. CHC 3-15 Attachment 2 ToBeDeleted CHC 3-16 Attachment 3 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES July 27, 2015 ROLL CALL: Present:Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, James Papp, 2Positions Vacant, Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill Absent:None Staff:Senior Planner Brian Leveille,Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell,Assistant Planner Kyle Bell,and Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as amended, reordering Item 2 to be heard prior to Item 3. MINUTES:Minutes of June 22, 2015,were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were nocomments from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1.1053 Islay Street.ARCH-1170-2015; Review of remodel and addition to an existing dwelling at the rear of a Contributing property in 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. Brian Leveille, Senior Planner, provided an update to the CHC on the recent window replacements on the main residence. He discussed that the original windows were replaced with vinyl windows without permits and that they do not comply with Historic Preservation Guidelines or Secretary of Interior Standards. He stated that staff was hopeful to work with the property owners to obtain permits and replace the most visible windows with alternatives that are more compatible with the historic structure. Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommendingthat the Committee adopt a resolutionrecommending that theCommunity Development Director grant final approval ofthe project, based on findings,which heoutlined. Lou Smith, project architect, summarized the history of the project. PUBLIC COMMENTS:There were no comments from the public. Draft CHC Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 2 COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Committee Member Papp, Vice-Chair Brajkovichand Committee Member Baerspoke in support the project as presented. Chair Hill commented that it would be desirable to move vinyl windows from the front structure for use in the rear structure, and replace the windows in the front structure with windows made of wood or other historically-sensitive materials. There wereno further commentsfrom the Committee. On motion by Vice-Chair Brajkovich, seconded by Committee MemberBaer,to adopt a resolutionrecommending that the Community Development Director grant final approval ofthe project, based on findings, with the following additional direction: A.Applicant shall consider moving vinyl windows from the structure at the front of the property for use in the new structure, and replace windows in the structure at the front of the property with windows made of wood or another historically- sensitive material. AYES:Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Hill, Kincaid, and Papp NOES:None RECUSED:None ABSENT:2 Positions Vacant The motion passedon a 5:0 vote. 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, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommendingthat the Committee adopt a resolution findingthe project consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and recommend theCommunity Development Director approve the project design based on findings and subject to conditions. Committee Member Kincaid commented on the subjectivity of the term “high quality” materials; noted that it would be desirable to provide additional defining parameters in the Community Design Guidelines. Rick Rengel, project architect,summarizedthe project concept andplans for the treatment and refinement of the brick thatwill be exposed by the project; described plans for the protection of Bubblegum Alley. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from the public. Draft CHC Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 3 COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Committee Member Kincaid spoke in support of the project and its crown molding and arch elements. Committee Member Baer concurred. Vice-Chair Brajkovich spoke in support of the project and the use of exposed brick, crown molding, and smaller, understated signage. Committee Member Papp commentedonthe difficulty of evaluating a façade remodel of a historical building for which the historical appearance is not known; noted reservation about the use of arch-shaped forms andthe proliferation of exposed-brick buildings in the downtown area. Chair Hill spoke in supportofthe project and the use ofwood doors; noted concern aboutthecurvilinear element at top of the façade and its apparent conflictwith design guidelines. There were no further commentsfrom the Committee. On motion by Committee Member Papp, seconded by Chair Hill, toadopt a resolution findingthe project consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines andto recommend the Community Development Director approve the project design subject to findings and conditionscontained in the staff report, with the following revision: A.Condition 1. shall be modifiedto indicate that plans submitted to the Director for reviewshall include the modification of the existing façade and roofline to include simplified linear brick molding. AYES:Committee MembersHillandPapp NOES:Committee MemberBaer, Brajkovich,and Kincaid RECUSED:None ABSENT:2 Positions Vacant The motion failed on a 2:3vote. On motion by Vice-Chair Brajkovich,seconded by Committee MemberBaer,to adopta resolutionfindingthe project consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and recommend theCommunity Development Director approve the project design subject to findings and conditionscontained in the staff report, with the following revision: A.Condition 1. shall be modified to indicate that plans submitted to the Director for review shall include the modification of the existing façade and rooflineto include simplified linear molding. Draft CHC Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 4 AYES:Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Hill, Kincaid, and Papp NOES:None RECUSED:None ABSENT:2 Positions Vacant The motion passed on a 5:0vote 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,Assistant Planner, presented the staff report recommendingthat the Committee adopt a resolution recommendingthat the Community Development Director approve the proposed two new residential units, based on findings and subject to conditions,whichshe outlined. John Cutter, applicant and owner, summarized the project, noted measures taken to achieve compatibility with,and historical sensitivity to,the surroundings. PUBLIC COMMENTS:There were no comments from the public. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Committee Member Papp noted concern about the potential forfalse historicismin the use ofimitation craftsman-styleconstruction. Vice-Chair Brajkovich spoke in support of the project and its compatibility with surroundings; commented that it would be desirable to includeadditional bracing on building corners,rather than just the peak and additional detail around the windows. Chair Hillspoke in support of the project and its compatibility with surroundings; commented that additional detail such as corbels would be desirable. There were no further comments from the Committee. On motion by Committee Member Papp, seconded by Committee Member Kincaid,to adopta resolutionrecommending that the Community DevelopmentDirector approve the proposed two new residential units, based on findings and subject to conditions contained in staff’s report. AYES:Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Hill, Kincaid, and Papp NOES:None RECUSED:None ABSENT:2 Positions Vacant The motion passed on a 5:0vote. Draft CHC Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 5 COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4.Staff-Senior Planner Leveille gave a forecast of upcoming agenda items. 5.Committee-None ADJOURNMENT:The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Erica Inderlied Recording Secretary