The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/22/2020 Item 2, Cooper Wilbanks, Megan From:Allan Cooper < To:Advisory Bodies; Bell, Kyle Subject:CHC's June 22,2020 Review of Item #2 - 1144 Chorro Street Attachments:306_21_20...lettertochc.pdf Dear Kyle - Would you kindly refer the letter attached below to the Cultural Heritage Committee? This letter pertains to their Monday, June 22, 2020 review of 1144 Chorro. I would also like to see this letter placed in the City's correspondence file. Thanks! - Allan 1 Save Our Downtown ______________________________________________________________________________ Seeking to protect and promote the historical character, design, livability and economic success of downtown San Luis Obispo. To: San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee Re: June 22, 2020 Meeting Item Number 2: 1144 Chorro Street  From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown Date: June 21, 2020 On Monday, June 22, 2020 you will be reviewing a proposed project located at 1144 Chorro Street. We fully supported your November 26, 2018 determination that the scale and mass of the structure above the fourth story, referred to as the “stucco portion”, was considered incompatible with the Historic District. Moreover, you also recommended that the project should consider a height reduction with sensitivity to adjacent historic resources. We would like to inform you that the Architectural Review Commission at their June 1, 2020 meeting wished to neither approve or disapprove the project (see below my rough transcript of this meeting). And they did not (contrary to the City’s minutes which are included in your staff report) recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project. Rather their motion was to simply forward their recommendations on to you and the Planning Commission for further consideration. Your “Action Alternatives”, like those submitted to the ARC, suggest that you are only allowed to recommend approval or denial. In fact, staff made it clear to the ARC on June 1st that a motion for continuance was not off the table. They could request that the changes they would like to see made to this project could come back to them. There was, however, a weak argument coming from staff that the Council “promised the developer” that this project would be fast-tracked simply because the Council’s ﬁnal review could more easily ﬁt into a meeting scheduled over the summer months. If you believe this project should come back to you then don’t allow yourself to be rushed by staff or Council. After all, this is one of the most signiﬁcant projects in terms of height and scale to ever come before you. As you well know, this project is located within our Downtown Historic District. The City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state that 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…” and massing and that 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.” The Secretary of Interior Standards states: “New construction should be appropriately scaled and located far enough away from the historic building to maintain its character and that of the site and setting.” We understand that the recently revised Downtown Concept Plan makes recommendations for taller (3-4 story) buildings on blocks typically located outside the Downtown Historic District. But nowhere in the Downtown Concept Plan are there recommendations for 7-story buildings, especially in historic districts. The Community Design Guidelines state that for “…new projects adjacent to buildings included on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources there shall be a heightened sensitivity to the mass and scale of the signiﬁcant buildings.” The Wineman Hotel is listed on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. In conclusion, we are urging you to continue this project with direction. Thank you! __________________________________________________________ Rough Transcript of the Architectural Review Commission’s June 1, 2020 Review of 1144 Chorro Street Christie Withers Concerned with the overall scale. Design Guidelines She cites 1-A-4: Design of the site context to be compatible with the best nearby buildings. This project doesn’t protect the scale of the Wineman and the Sensheimer Buildings. She cites 2.2.F: Does not coordinate with other structures. Doesn’t meet three development credits 1) 25% moderately affordable. We know these housing units will not be affordable; 2) it meets the alternative transportation requirements, but she thinks it’s absurd that there are only 7 parking spaces provided. The height comparison diagram included in the staff report shows that the building is stepped back but it is still taller than most buildings downtown. Micah Smith Micah thinks this meets all of the following Community Design Guidelines: 1) articulation at street level; 2) pedestrian scale at street level; 3) patios along the sidewalk gives pedestrian scale; 4) three story facade addresses the scale of surrounding buildings; 5) brick and colors tie in with other buildings; 6) it matches the horizontal lines of the Wineman’s eave; 7) the roofs are articulated; 8) the building at its corner reﬂects the clock tower of the garage; and 9) works with the downtown concept plan, i.e., reduced parking. However Micah said that the columns need articulating and the cornices need to be looked at as they are not substantial enough. Mandi Pickens Mandi thought this was an innovative design. This was redesigned to meet the ARC’s comments. It recognizes other buildings. However, Mandi is struggling with inconsistency with the Downtown Guidelines relative to the obstruction of views. She refers to T-3-5 on visual study. The public will lose the view of San Luis Mountain from Marsh Street. The back corner near the stairwell is obstructing the view of the peak. Christi Withers agrees with this. Richard Beller feels that this policy only applies to publicly owned plazas. Kyle Bell, planner, agrees with Richard. Kyle added that “public gathering spaces” also includes intersections. The LUCE update contradicts this General Plan policy. Christi Withers notes Chapter 1.4 in the Design Guidelines (A-4 & C-2) requires maintenance of views of the hills. Michael De Martini The changes made are all beneﬁcial. He likes the three story facade. There is enough detail at the street level. This is a good model for 75 foot buildings. It features traditional details. The City will be having “growing pains” with the dearth of parking. The material speciﬁed is sophisticated. He is in favor of the project. Richard Beller Richard liked the building height comparison diagram. He walked downtown and tried to understand the building heights. This building has a higher degree of articulation, i.e., wall articulation. It is a gateway project for the downtown. The corner is activated. However the corner doesn’t appear special and is not a contrasting focal point. The metal screens are unique and special. To support this project, it would have to go a lot further into enhancing its special character. In order to respect the Wineman Hotel, the treatment of the cornice needs to be accentuated to create more of shadow line. It needs to pick up the rhythm of the Wineman. The bulkhead color should be darker as it would deﬁne the base of the building. Look at the B. of A. building. Study brickwork precedents on other buildings downtown, i.e., the Museo Building and Urban Outﬁtters where there is more visual interest. The project should be continued with direction. The ARC should not recommend consistency with the Guidelines. We should not cite chapter and verse from the guidelines because a literal interpretation of the guidelines would suggest that this building is too tall relative to the surrounding buildings. Christi Withers disagrees with Beller on this. Allen Root is trying to comply with City Council’s wishes. By doing so, this makes the ARC’s current approach unique. Allen Root The applicant is moving in the right direction. It needs more study at the corner. The columns could be enhanced. He likes herring bone brickwork. It was speciﬁed for the building at Monterey and Santa Rosa. He was surprised to hear that the square footage increased but this was a result of eliminating the atrium. He likes the height at the center of the block as was the case with the Hotel Cerra. He thinks this should be continued. Turnbuckle awnings are very faddish. The architect should break up the long expanse of the awnings. Kyle Bell, planner Staff is not wanting a continuance, Either approve it or deny it. The Council wants move forward on a tight schedule. Staff is not wanting a continuance because it would not be compliant with the City Council’s time schedule and the reason for the rush is that it would be convenient for Council to have a hearing on this project this summer. An ARC representative could attend both CHC and Planning Commission meetings and make testimony. This project will next go to the Cultural Heritage Committee Richard Beller We don’t have to approve or disapprove the project. Rather we can make recommendations. We can determine that this project is compatible with the surrounding listed historic properties. Richard Beller moves to refer the following items to the PC. Micah Smith seconds this motion. Shawna Scott, planner She assures that the ARC does have the option to continue this project. Shawna describes the ARC’s concerns by citing the City’s guidelines, chapter and verse: 1.4 A-4 1.4 C-2 4.2 B 4.2 C 2.2 F L 1.1 (Micah Smith thinks that this is too tough to follow as it suggests matching historic details) Richard Beller He says that it was not the intent of his motion to cite the City’s guidelines chapter and verse. The ARC can’t meet all the guidelines. Micah Smith thinks the City needs reference to guidelines for its legal defense. Richard Beller - Amends the motion to include references to particular the Community Design Guidelines where more consideration is needed. Richard agrees that viewsheds should be considered and that we should consider the CHC’s recommendation in that there should be more compatibility with the listed historic properties (2.2F). He would like a more well-deﬁned entry detail. It currently looks like a residential entry with a gate designed to deter the homeless. Recommendations: The PC should consider effects on view sheds from the crosswalk along Marsh Street in view of Cerro San Luis. Coordinate the new with the old (CDG 2.2.F) for compatibility with listed historic properties in the immediate vicinity. Design of the metal screening should be more ﬁne-grained The bulkhead and spandrels should contrast more in color The ornice needs more prominence maybe using a different material Ensure quality design at street level Need more detailing of columns Need more reﬁnement on the detail of the brick work particularly at the building corner Reﬂect the government center’s tree planting on the roof terrace, not the forest of shrubs which detracts from the cornice More prominent cornice at the corner Recommend further reﬁnement of the brick Final Vote: Richard Beller Yes Micah Smith Yes Michael De Martini Yes Mandi Pickens Yes Christie Withers No Allen Root Yes