The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9/9/2019 Item 4, PappSauer Adams Adobe 964 Chorro Street 9 September 2019 Dear Architectural Review Commissioners, I'm writing regarding the proposed development at 545 Higuera/486 Marsh. This development, predominately a large glass block, is only ten percent smaller than the new terminal at San Luis Obispo Airport. It is, at 54 feet, functionally six -stories high, as well as being 300 feet long and 50,000 square feet. It is proposed for a neighborhood that consists overwhelmingly and historically of single -story bungalows and cottages and single business buildings. It would both overwhelm and clash with these, including the adjacent Master List Robert Pollard House, Master List David Norcross House, and the Master List - and NRHP-eligible Antonio Pinho House. The proposed development's next-door neighbor, the 1876 Pollard House, the oldest wood structure in the city in its original location, whose owner has lived in it for eighty-three years and her family for over a century, is one -fiftieth the size of the proposed development, which would offer three stories of glass and open viewing into it and its back yard. Pollard House, 1876 Henry House, pre -1903 Negranti Packard Repair Shop, 1928 F11_1_* �A Norcross House, 1874 E. D. Bray's Wilkinson House, 1915 Firpo Duplex, 1926 1 Pinho House, circa 1887 Logan Apartments/Racing Stable, before 1903 Howey Bungalow, after 1916 This block of Nipomo, Higuera, Carmel, and Marsh contains a greater concentration of Master List and NRHP properties and Master List- and NRHP-eligible properties than any of our currently designated historic districts, including the NRHP Jack House and Jack Wash House, Master List Kaetzel House and Downtown Creamery; Master List -eligible Logan Apartments/Racing Stable, Queen Anne Henry House, Neoclassic Lima House, Craftsman Howey Kit Bungalow, Pueblo Revival Firpo Duplex, industrial vernacular Negranti Packard Repair Shop, and Streamline Moderne Campbell Refrigeration Building; and NRHP-eligible Craftsman Wilkinson House, vernacular Jack Carriage House, and Gardenesque Jack Garden. That it was never designated a historic district is undeniably a product of wealth and class. Those who did the designation and mapped out our neighborhoods' futures had and have their residences and offices in the Downtown, Old Town, and Mill Street districts. The West End was seen as marginal and expendable because nobody anybody knew lived there. No one even bothered to inventory its buildings in the historic resources survey. Zoned Retail Commercial and Downtown Commercial, this modest neighborhood is currently undergoing a rate of development with a severity of impacts unmatched by any other in San Luis Obispo, with so far appalling results, e.g., the newly built and almost universally reviled insta-slum packed around the historic Norcross House across the street. All that is left to protect this neighborhood and its residents are the city's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Community Development Guidelines, and General Plan Land Use Element, which the proposed development at 545 Higuera/486 Marsh violates with a consistency that shows utter contempt for its proposed neighbors and neighborhood. Ironically, the new airport terminal would be a far better neighbor, as its scale is one-story and configuration gabled roofs. This is not a case for color tweaks and setbacks. The current proposal is not in the ballpark of anything that the Guidelines and Element would find acceptable. I urge you to apply the guidelines, reject the proposal in its current form, and recommend that—following the guidelines and precedent—any subsequent proposal be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee for its impact on adjacent historic resources. Yours sincerely, James Papp Member and former chair, Cultural Heritage Committee Historian and Architectural Historian, Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications 2 1. The proposed development should be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state that "the CHC reviews development in historic districts for compatibility with nearby historic resources" ("3.2.2. Architectural Compatibility") and that "listed historic resources outside of historic districts shall be subject to the same protection and regulations applicable to historic resources within historic districts" ("3.3.1. Historic Resources outside Historic Districts"). Hence the San Luis Square project was reviewed by both CHC and ARC for its adjacency to the Jack House and Garden, Downtown Creamery, and Kaetzel House. The proposed development is adjacent to the Master List Pollard House, the Master List Norcross House, and the Master List- and NRHP-eligible Pinho House. 2. The proposed development should be redesigned to incorporate mass, form, and design components that relate to existing historic elements of adjacent historic structures, including the incompatible flat roof and glass walls Figure 2- Examples of New Development in Historic Districts �q+11p411giix +nY'�YY� � ml-viw,gym, Ar, r� � 60AWNLINT6 2 LOraFI-AlF- Vie t YNe lhk"^s+W6TVNIIAL �V.-eMeHTl,5 OF THe rye -cam revue. [?raYLtiENG NwPr�a� FPE4'M. e�t� C,C�iPQN�T�a � T "�+� �YS5�1Pks FlST!'�F•4G lau- �TR4Y:T•Ut{ The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines gives the examples of a flat roof as "not compatible to existing district roofs" and block developments as being "too tall and thin" (3.2.2. Architectural Compatibility, Figure 3). 3 Figure 3 - Examples of Massing of New Development in Historic Districts MW_I: fN r', GIME i,>—,_ ...----14.h MIM"IF,[_ LA E"XG�'lYrik2 5W �YRap-OIj rw�xr r� a r — r�r rr��F�g p� H �.�. A 41sw V sr r,iw �'Xk rRa f mr rmnva/ IOVYv'AL lb 1PYA { u 3. The proposed development should be dramatically scaled back, broken up below 150 feet in length, pushed back from the street, and redesigned to be compatible with the surrounding small-scale, predominately one-story traditional residential and small business neighborhood The Community Design Guidelines state: "5.3.A.1. Infill residential development should be compatible in scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood." "5.3.13. An infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood, including window and door spacing, exterior materials, roof style and pitch, ornamentation, and other details." "5.3.C. The height of infill projects should be consistent with surrounding residential structures. Where greater height is required, an infill structure should set back upper floors from the edge of the first story to reduce impacts on smaller adjacent homes, and to protect solar access." "SA.A.1. Site planning for a multi -family ... housing project should ... consider the existing character of the surrounding residential area. New development should respect the privacy of adjacent residential uses through appropriate building orientation and structure height, so that windows do not overlook and impair the privacy of the indoor or outdoor living space of adjacent units." "5.4.A.3. Multi -family structures should be set back from adjacent public streets consistent with the prevailing setback pattern of the immediate neighborhood." "SA.C.1. A structure with three or more attached units should incorporate significant wall and roof articulation to reduce apparent scale.... Structures exceeding 150 feet in length are discouraged." "SA.C.2. Structures with greater height may require additional setbacks at the ground floor level and/or upper levels (stepped down)along the street frontage so they do not shade adjacent properties or visually dominate the neighborhood. Large projects should be broken up into groups of structures, and large single structures should be avoided." 0 "4.2.13.1.b. Downtown Design Guidelines: Height and Scale. New buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual transitions." The city's General Plan Land Use Element states that new buildings in downtown "should be set back above the second or third level to maintain a street facade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development" (Policy 4.16.4).