HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/26/2018 Item 2, Lopes912 Bluebell Way
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
November 26, 2018
Cultural Heritage Committee
City of San Luis Obispo, California 93401
RE: 1144 Chorro Street— Conceptual Review
Dear Chair Papps and Commissioners:
RECEIVED
NOV 2 7 2018
��O_ CITY �ir�RK
I am asking you to find the proposed six -story building inconsistent with the City
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Community Design Guidelines.
Your task is to review the development proposal to determine its effect on the City's
historic districts, according to the Program Guidelines, page 1. More specifically,
Chapter 3 of the Guidelines states as a "standard," the following requirement:
City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
3.1.1 Conformance with design standards. Construction in historic districts and on
properties that contain listed historic resources shall conform with the goals and
policies of the General Plan, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, these Guidelines,
the Community Design Guidelines, any applicable specific or area plan, and the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties."
3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts. New
structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the
district's prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the
scale, More than twice the scale of existing buildings except the wineman — 47' is 62%
of 75'
- massing, Wall planes are large-scale elements as are second story windows. No
change in color reads as one plane.
- rhythm, Large scale wall planes read as massive, modern geometry. Subtlety is
understated. Storefront cadence of spacing and variety is understated and not
consistent. More like a shopping center such as Marigold.
- signature architectural elements; Power shopping center vs. fine grained street
presentation. Same lights, awnings, window framing and doorways. Metal
balconies on fourth floor are inconsistent and jarring. Second floor windows are
floor to ceiling — express a loft design that is modern and not consistent or
desirable historically. Cornices and vertical windows, and some insets are
pluses.
- exterior materials. Brick is too consistent on lower floors. Stucco is too bright on
upper floors — does not recede since it's bright; mid -tone color or hue is better.
- Siting. Monolithic line along the street.
- and street yard setbacks. Does not increase sidewalk width as needed on
Chorro. Uncomfortable width. Does not create a public space or seating area, or
room for sidewalk seating.
3.2.2 Architectural compatibility. The CHC reviews development in historic districts
for architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with
applicable design and preservation policies, standards, and historic district descriptions
in Section 5.2.
New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or
visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically designated
structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the
prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district.
- Building is not consistent with the surrounding building heights within the District.
- Detracts from the character of the Wineman by overwhelming it.
- Detracts from the frequent changes in vertical storefront rhythms in color, insets,
different window designs and doorway insets or vestibules.
Sincerely,
James Lopes
K