HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/15/1991, 3 - APPEAL OF A CONDITION WHICH THE ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC) PLACED ON THE DEMOLITION REQUEST FOR TWO HOUSES AND A GARAGE AT 2572 AND 2574 LAWTON STREET11111�l►►►I 1111/1110 IIIIII / f MEETING DATE:
I'lu ►► ci v,' or San LUIS OBlspo -1 N - y
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: ST
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Department
PREPARED BY: Whitney McIlvaine, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of a condition which the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) placed on a demolition request for
two houses and a garage at 2572 and 2574 Lawton
Street.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal, but only if approval of
Minor Subdivision 90 -286 includes a condition accomplishing the
same intent as the appealed ARC condition.
DISCUSSION
Situation
On December 17, 1990 the ARC reviewed a demolition request for two
small houses and a garage at 2572 and 2574 Lawton Street. The
demolition request is part of a minor subdivision proposal (Refer
to staff report for MS 90 -286, also on this agenda). The applicant
wants to remove the structures because they cross proposed new lot
lines and would preclude access to the new lots. (See attached site
plan.)
After considering the demolition request, a Cultural Heritage
Committee survey, staff recommendations, and public testimony, the
ARC approved the demolition request subject to the following
finding and conditions:
Finding
1. The structures to be demolished are not historically,
architecturally, or culturally significant.
Conditions
1. A color photo study shall be done of the interior and exterior
of the structures prior to demolition. The photo study shall
be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to
demolition and prior to final map approval.
2. The design of the new houses shall be at least as compatible
with the neighborhood as the existing house in terms of
massing, architectural style, and height.
The vote was 5 -0 with Commissioner Phillips absent and one vacancy.
The appellant is objecting to Condition No. 2. (Appellant's
statement is attached.)
3e 1
►►M�,�,���Illifi�p °N"��I�IIII city OF San tins OBISPO
Isms i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ARC 90 -127
Page 2
Data Summa
Address: 2572 and 2574 Lawton Street
Subdivider: Jerry and Janet Veith
Representative: Joe Boud
Zoning: R -1
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Environmental Review Status: Negative Declaration approved by the
Community Development Department Director on November 29,1990.
Consequences of Not Taking the Recommended Action
As a condition of approval for Minor Subdivision 90 -286, staff has
recommended architectural review of future development on the 3 new
parcels. The appellant concurs with this condition. If the
subdivision is approved with staff's recommended condition, a
mechanism for reviewing issues of compatibility - such as massing,
architectural style, and height - would exist whether the council
upholds or denies this appeal. (Please refer to Condition No. 3 in
the draft resolution to approve MS 90 -286.)
Citizen Participation
Same as for Minor Subdivision 90 -286, also on this agenda.
Project and Neighborhood Description
Please refer to the attached staff report for ARC 90 -127, review
of the demolition request for structures at 2572 and 2574 Lawton
Street.
For a description of the subdivision proposal, please refer to the
staff report for MS90 -286, also on this agenda.
ISSUES OF APPEAL
Constraints on Design
The appellant argues that condition 2 "limits the new homes to
tiny, single story buildings." A broader reading of the condition
is supported by the commissioners' comments (noted in the minutes
of their December 17th meeting, attached). The condition does not
require the houses to be exact replicas of existing structures, but
does require them to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, in light of the fact that:
1. New houses will be built on a flag lot subdivision in the
center of a well - established residential block, where
surrounding lots are already developed with housing; and
3
��ih���iiiWill llil�lii����►i���lU City of San tuts OBISPO
C-- =JNCIL AGENDA REPORT
2. The Cultural Heritage Committee has considered an
historic designation for this neighborhood; and
3. Many neighbors have expressed concern with the project's
impact.
This neighborhood contains a number of architectural styles and a
few two story houses. Staff believes that, even with the ARC
condition, numerous design opportunities are available to the
applicant, which would be in keeping with the scale and character
of the neighborhood, without seriously constraining marketability.
Redundancy of conditions
The appellant argues that this condition is unnecessary because the
ARC will have an opportunity to review proposed designs as a result
of a condition on the parcel map, which would require architectural
review and approval of future site development.
In addition to reinforcing staff's recommendation for future
architectural review, the ARC condition also provides clear
direction to the applicant and architect regarding issues of
compatibility likely to be addressed as part of future review.
Demolition Recrulations
The Municipal Code demolition regulations do not offer clear
direction when a project involves a structure to be demolished
which is not in and of itself significant, but which does
contribute the character /integrity of a neighborhood.
The appellant argues that the ARC has no legal basis for
conditioning the demolition of a "nonsignificant" building; that
when a structure is not found to be "significant," it is
automatically referred back to the building official with direction
to issue a demolition permit.
Staff thinks that a demolition project is ministerial, and
therefore not subject to conditions, when the ARC cannot determine
any historical, architectural, or aesthetic significance and the
project is not in conjunction with a replacement project (Section
15.36.150 c.l of the Municipal Code). Despite the fact that
architectural plans have not yet been submitted, this project does
involve replacement structures. (See project description in the
attached appeal letter.)
conclusion
Staff believes the intent of the condition is clear: to ensure that
new homes built on lots created by Minor Subdivision 90 -286 will
not disrupt the character and integrity of the surrounding
3
��� H��ib►i►��►IIIIII�Pu�nuil����ll city of san Luis oBispo
NjiSCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
neighborhood. However, the wording of the condition is subject to
interpretation. Most important, there is question if it is
procedurally correct for the ARC to condition replacement
structures for "nonsignificant" buildings. Staff therefore
supports upholding the appeal and removing the ARC condition, so
long as the recommended Condition No. 3 of MS 90 -286 includes
adequate direction to address architectural review concerns.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the appeal, finding that the condition placed on the
project is procedurally correct and consistent with applicable
residential land use objectives and with the intent of the
demolition regulations.
2. Continue with direction to the subdivider and staff.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal with a finding that
conditions for approval for Minor Subdivision 90 -286 are sufficient
to ensure that development on the site will be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Attachments: draft resolutions
vicinity map
site plan
appellant's statement
ARC staff report
ARC minutes, 12 -17 -90 (forthcoming)
gm
E:arc90127.wit
RESOLUTION NO.
(1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF AN ARC CONDITION FOR BUILDING
DEMOLITION AT 2572 AND 2574 LAWTON STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration
of the Community Development Director's recommendations, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed demolition is a ministerial project for purposes
of environmental review.
2. Imposition of a condition concerning future replacement
structures by the Architectural Review Commission, for
demolition of existing buildings which are not historically,
architecturally, or culturally significant, does not comply
with the city's demolition regulations or architectural review
guidelines.
3. The concerns which prompted imposition of the condition are
within the purview of the Architectural Review Commission, and
reflect general plan policy, but they will be adequately
addressed though a condition of approval for Minor Subdivision
90 -286.
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal is hereby upheld and the
condition requiring, "The design of the new houses shall be at
least as compatible with the neighborhood as the existing house in
terms of massing, architectural style, and height," is deleted.
On motion of
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
, seconded by
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this
. 1991.
day of
3.5
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Page 2
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Pam Voges
ative Officer
y ttor ey
Community Development Director
3.b
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
DENYING AN APPEAL OF AN ARC CONDITION FOR BUILDING
DEMOLITION AT 2572 AND 2574 LAWTON STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration
of the Community Development Director's recommendations, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed demolition is a ministerial project for purposes
of environmental review.
2. Imposition of a condition concerning future replacement
structures by the Architectural Review Commission, for
demolition of existing buildings which are not historically,
architecturally, or culturally significant, does comply with
the city's demolition regulations and architectural review
guidelines.
3. *The concerns which prompted imposition of the condition are
within the purview of the Architectural Review Commission, and
reflect general plan policy.
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal is hereby denied and the
condition requiring, "The design of the new houses shall be at
least as compatible with the neighborhood as the existing house in
terms of massing, architectural style, and height," remains in
effect.
On motion of•
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
seconded by
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this
, 1991.
day of
3-,,07
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Page 2
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Pam Voges
APPROVED:
City Mministrative Officer
Cif, 19*tYorn¢y �� 0
AZrn
Community Development Director
gm
E:90127res
H
W
W
N
CAUOILL
STREET
W I w 1 63, 1 s.. 1 646 1 "s
010 0,0:010 O O_ W 0� �"' 0 '0 01 O O
1 L! i
1
AI190 '
O®
O J& 0 O O r0 O OAO'._ 0 OIO'O�O O O O Oa
LAWRENCE Im' CRIVE
w ✓ w , ! .,. Y• .K 41 O. . s• , sM
O�O
0i0�0 a 0 0.0 0i0 O O 010 O O O 0
mm"""" AtN
.,.,.
=' Goya n DGE
VICINITY MAP I Ms 90-286 NORTH
2572 and 2574 Lawton
60 -9
ps Awe
V
:. �� Nt
9 a i
do
.V
ji
IL
e J -w
Vol
• K �
05e
4111111 1A1 Ir
Mr B city
M1h;fi of san luis OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post 0111ce Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter
1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of GUNdt►OJON rendered
on M 1'It9gd which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed►:
COND1710417 "-M.Q V DFMObtsl -( -Mv C.h}011gff� Di1�4iGrk'Yj
C " of AORIC 4ir�T1/qr A7Vc4PD'
aLOO �-4V4`C�D 1V A 1X-rrf4L F9W uWWfR )ot,�4A%M &UATW
-P T4ig tip-(A
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
"44 b4AXE _ f AF4M1Nb 131T on polo Z6 1490
DATE & TIME APPEAL RECEIVED:
I �i V :
DEC 2 6 1990
6TY CLEp19
W! LUIS OBISPO. r-A
Appellant:
VWf Utz /PRuysN GuiN6h
Name /Title
uO0-WAQ
Representative
100°1 Mow s-t yw
Address
643 o5b5
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Copy to City Administrative Officer
Cop a following departments ?:
3,1I
JOSEPH BOUD'
d ASSOCIATES
December 26, 1990
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100
Re: ARC 90 -127: 2572 & 2574 Lawton Street, Demolish Houses
On December 17, 1990 the Architecture Review Committee approved the
demolition permits for the project referenced above. At that meeting, the ARC
made a Finding that the "structures to be demolished are not historically,
architecturally, or culturally significant."
This project involves the removal of the two existing residences and detached
garage and construction of three new homes on the new lots created by Parcel
Map SLO 90 -286. The ARC Finding seemed realistic, since these two cottages
are on failing foundations, are termite infested and have very little character or
interesting features.
However, the ARC also established two conditions. They are: (1) A color slide
photo study shall be done of the interior and exterior of the structures prior to
demolition. The photo study shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to demolition and prior to the final map approval; and, (2) The
designs of the new houses shall be at least as compatible with the neighborhood
as the existing houses in terms of massing, architectural style, and height.
This is very disturbing for a number of reasons: (1) Condition #2 limits the new
homes to tiny, single story buildings which is unrealistic and a marketing disaster.
The new homes have not yet been designed and Condition #2 would seriously
interfere with exploring a variety of design opportunities. (2) The ARC will have
an opportunity to review the designs and their compatibility with the neighborhood
on the parcels anyway because Condition #3 of the Parcel Map requires
architectural review and approval. (3) The determination was that these structures
are "Nonsignificant Structures." In this case the matter is referred back to the
building official with direction to issue the demolition permit. (SLO Municiple
Code Section 15.36.150). Only in cases where a finding that the structure(s) are
determined to be "Significant Structures" can any conditions be assigned. The
finding of significance did not occur in this case, therefore there is no legal
authority to establish any conditions associated with this demolition request.
Thank you for considering this information during your review of this matter.
Sincerely,
Ve Boud
Joseph Boud & Associates
1009 Mono Street Suite 206 I�
San Luis Obispo, G 93101
8OSIS13.0S6S
city of San tins OBlspo DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
FOR Architectural Review Commission MEETING DATE December 17, 1990
BY Whitney
McIlvaine
ITEM NO.
e�2
PROJECT ADDRESS
2572 and 2574 Lawton Street
FILE NO.
ARC 90 -127
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a request to demolish two wood frame houses and
a garage on the eastern side of Lawton Street between Mitchell
Drive and Caudill Street.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Approve subject to findings and conditions.
BACKGROUND
Situation
Demolition requests are referred to the Commission for a
determination on whether a structure to be demolished is
historically, culturally, or architecturally significant. If a
structure is found to be significant, the Commission may require
that it remain or may allow it to be relocated. The Commission may
also allow a significant structure to be demolished with the
finding that plans for a replacement structure are at least as
compatible with the neighborhood as the structure to be demolished.
If the structure is not found to be significant, it may be
demolished or relocated (SLO Municiple Code Section 15.36.150,
attached).
Two houses and a garage are proposed to be removed as part of a
subdivision application, because they cross proposed new lot lines
and would preclude access to the new lots. The two clapboard houses
are in good condition and are being used as rental units.
The subdivider proposes a flag lot subdivision, creating three lots
where two now exist. The proposed subdivision represents an
improvement over the current land division. The existing parcel at
the rear of the property is nonconforming because it does not front
onto a street and has no guarantee of access. This project would
provide a common driveway for access to all three lots. (See
vicinity map and site plan.)
Data Summary
Address: 2572 and 2574 Lawton Street
Subdivider: Jerry and Janet Veith
Representative: Joe Boud
Zoning: R -1
General Plan: Low Density Residential
,,,.6U
3, P
ARC 90 -127
Page 2
Environmental Review Status: Negative Declaration approved by the
Community Development Department Director on November 29,1990.
Site Description
The property is currently divided into two parcels (see the
attached vicinity map). The rear parcel is effectively land-
locked. The front parcel has a flag lot configuration. Together
they cover approximately 29,600 square feet of area.
The site is relatively flat, sloping slightly to the northeast. A
natural drainage channel crosses proposed parcel three at the
eastern end of the subdivision. There are two apricot trees on site
which are proposed to be removed. The only other significant
vegetation are riparian shrubs along the drainage channel.
Two small (650 sq.ft. each) wood frame houses and a separate
garage /storage structure are currently on the site. The property
is surrounded by low- density residential development in a well -
established, older neighborhood.
EVALUATION
The houses to be demolished are not in an historic district, nor
are they listed on the City's Master List of Historic Resources.
However, the Cultural Heritage Committee has continued to survey
older neighborhoods in the community. They have recently completed
initial field work in the neighborhood contained by Lawrence and
Meadow Streets. The preliminary survey form (attached) lists 1930
as the estimated date of construction for the structures at 2572
and 2574 Lawton.
The Committee is considering an historic district designation for
this neighborhood, and has tentatively classified 2572 Lawton as
a contributing property in this potential district. The
consideration of historic designation grows, in part, out of
concern for the destruction of traditional working class
neighborhoods, where modest, older homes are typically replaced by
much larger, expensive, and often two -story structures.
While individual structures in this area may not be architecturally
significant, together they may represent a neighborhood of historic
significance for the community. To protect the integrity of the
neighborhood, staff has recommended - in a report for the
Director's Subdivision Hearing, scheduled for December 21, 1990 -
that as a condition of subdivision approval, the three new parcels
be designated as "sensitive" sites, thereby requiring architectural
review for any new development proposed on these lots.
03 " 4
ARC 90 -127
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES
The Commission may determine that:
1. The existing structures are not historically, architecturally,
or culturally significant and may be demolished or relocated;
or
2. The existing structures are historically, architecturally, or
culturally significant because (the ARC states reason, based
on standards in the attached Historical Preservation Program
Guidelines). Prior to demolition, plans for replacement
structures shall be submitted to determine compatibility with
neighboring development. The replacement structures must be
found to be at least as compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood as the structures to be demolished; or
3. The existing structures are historically, architecturally, or
culturally significant because (ARC states reasons). The
structures should not be demolished. The Commission may
specify whether they should remain at their present location.
or whether they should be relocated.
4. The ARC may continue consideration of the demolition
application, and request that the CHC provide additional
information concerning the history of the property and
surrounding neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the demolition subject to the following finding and
condition:
Finding
1. The structures to be demolished are not historically,
architecturally, or culturally significant.
Condition
1. A color slide photo study shall be done of the interior and
exterior of the structures prior to and during demolition. The
photo study shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to final map approval.
3,15
i
i..
J
J
_ �'�•��� Y� ate" .... �F. —�
twenty feet from public property lines, adequate
protection shall be provided for pedestrians and
public property, to the satisfaction of the building
official. (Ord. 920 § 2 (part), 1982: prior code §
8800.11)
1536.120 Damage to public property.
As a condition of obtaining a permit to demol-
ish, remove or move any building, structure or
utility, the permittee assumes liability for any
damage to public property occasioned by such
moving, demolition, or removal operations.
Applicants for demolition permits shall provide
information and plans when requested, for pro-
tection of public property. Information (and
plans) shall be specific as to type of protection,
structural adequacy and location. Approval to
use or occupy public property shall be obtained
before proceeding with demolition work. (Prior
code § 8800.12)
1536.130 Disconnecting service lines.
A. Electrical Service. The power to all electric
service lines shall be shut -off and all such lines
cut or disconnected outside the property line
before demolition or moving work is com-
menced. Prior to the cutting of such lines, the
property owner or his agent shall notify and
obtain the approval of the electric service agency.
B. Other Service. All gas, water, steam, storm
and sanitary sewers. or other service lines shall be
shut -off and capped at the property line or curb
before demolition or moving work is com-
menced. Prior to the shutting offof such lines, the
property owner shall obtain the approval of the
utility service agency or department involved.
C. Temporary Service. If it is necessary to
maintain any power, water, or other lines during
demolition or moving, such lines shall be tem-
porarily relocated or protected on the satisfac-
tion of the construction regulations division and
utility agency and in accordance with all applica-
ble ordinances. (Prior code § 8800.13)
15.36.120-15.36.150
1536.140 License
Contractors en demolition and mov-
ingworkwithin cityshallhaveavalidGalifor-
nia State Con cling License and a city business
license.
Exception. ne story, wood frame buildings,
may be demoli by the owner thereof, provid-
ing the distance the public sidewalk or
right -0f - -way to the buil is equal to one -half
the height of the building m ured to the highest
point on the roof. or t t, whichever is greater.
(Ord. 956 § 1 (p , 1983: prior code § 8800.14)
Article 11. Demolition to Buildings
1536.150 Permit— Required— Application-
Contents— Processing
procedure — Expiration.
A. Permit Required. The work of demolish-
ing any building or structure shall not commence
until a permit has been issued by the building
official in accordance with the provisions set
forth in other portions of this chapter.
B. Application for Permit. All applications for
permits to wreck, demolish. or raze a building or
structure shall be made to the building official
and every application shall state:
1. The precise location of the building or
structure to be wrecked:
2. The type of equipment to be used to wreck
the building;
3. The length. width. height and principal
materials or construction of the building;
4. The length of time required to complete the
proposed work:
5. The name and address of the owner(s) of
the building;
6. Proof of permission from the owner(s) and
other vested interests to do the proposed work:
7. Method(s) of demolition.
C. Procedure for Processing Application for
Demolition Permits. Upon receipt of a demoli-
tion permit application for a primary structure
located on a property listed on the Inventory of
351 _ (San Luis Obispo 747)
3.1%
welfare of community residents or people living
or working on or near the site, or (2) the applicant
has demonstrated that it is financially infeasible
to rehabilitate the structure or preserve the his-
toric nature of the site.
4. Exceptions. Exceptions to this section shall
be as presented in subsection C4 of this section.
E. Bond. As a condition for issuing a permit
to demolish a building or structure, the applicant
shall provide the city with surety bonds as fol-
lows:
On all demolition projects, a cash deposit,
certificate of deposit or bond payable to the city,
in an amount set by the building official as a
reasonable estimate for the guarantee set forth
herein, but not less than one thousand dollars or
twenty percent of the value of the demolition,
contract price, whichever is greater, to guarantee
the completion of the demolition, removal of all
debris, cleanup of the site, erection of barricades
when required and filling of depression below
adjacent grade.
Exceptions:
1. On wood frame, one and two story single -
family or two-family residential buildings, the
city building official may reduce the amount of
the cash bond to not less than five hundred dol-
lars.
2. On single -story structure not exceeding five
hundred square feet, the building official may
reduce the amount of the cash bond to two hun-
dred fifty dollars.
3. No bond will be required where the demoli-
tion is permitted as part of a redevelopment
project (Ord 1086 § 2 Ex. B, 1987; Ord. 956 § l
(part), 1983; prior Sode § 8810.1)
1536.160 Flethods.
A. Gen, for the cutting of holes in
floors for chutes a es through which to drop
materials, preparation storage space, and
other necessary p ry work, demolition of
exterior walls and r construction shall begin
at the top of the cture and proceed downward
and inward, and eac ry of exterior wall and
floor construction sh removed and dropped
15.36.160- 15.36.170
into the storage space before commencing the
removal of walls and floors in the story next
below This requirement shall not prohibit the
demolition of a structure in sections if means are
taken to prevent injury to persons or damage to
property. The use of other methods are permitted
when approved by the building official.
B. Protection of openings All floor openings
and shafts not used for material chutes, shall be
floored over or enclosed with guardrails and We-
boards.
C. Protection of Pedestrians. On all demoli-
tion projects, where the distance from the public
property line to the building is less than the
height of the buiding being demolished, there
shall be provided, on or adjacent to the public
sidewalk, pedestrian protection as set forth in
Chapter 44 of the Uniform BuildingCode, latest
edition. (Prior code § 8810.2)
1536.170 Removal of materials.
A. Through Chutes. Materials shall not be
dropped by gravity to any point lying outside the
exterior walls of the building except through
enclosed wooden or metal chutes.
Exception: Where the distance from the city
property line or sidewalk to the building is equal
to or greater than the height of the demolition
work, materials may be dropped by gravity to the
ground provided dust control is maintained in
accordance with the provisions of other portions
of this chapter.
B. Through Floor Openings. If debris is
dropped through holes in the floor without the
use of chutes, the total area of the hole cut in any
intermediate floor (one which lies between the
floor that is being demolished and the storage
floor) shall not exceed twenty-five percent of
such floor area
C. Control of Dust. All dust caused by mate-
rials dropped through chutes, floor openings or
by other methods of removal, shall be controlled
in accordance with subsection E of Section
15.36.090.
D. Building Rubble and Debris. All building
rubble and debris shall be removed from the
353 (San Luis Obispo 7$7)
3' 6
Age is a measure of how relatively old a structure is in the context of the
history of San Luis Obispo, primarily Anglo- American history (circa 1850). (See
Scale of Building Age).
CRITERIA FOR BUILDING EVALUATIONS
IV. Architect
Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for the
building design and plans of the structure.
The architect will be evaluated as a reference to:
1. A master architect (e.g. Wright).
2. A known architect who made significant contributions to the state or region
(e.g., Julia Morgan).
3. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions
to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources,
designed the house at 810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's home - built
between 1927 - 30).
4. An early architect who is otherwise of no special significance but can be
identified as a professional (e.g., pioneer architects of the region as
confirmed by AIA archival membership records of California and the Central
Coast).
V. Environmental Design Continuity
Describes the inter - relationship of structures and their relationship to a
common environment. Refers to the continuity, spatial relationship, and visual
character of a street, neighborhood, or area.
Environmental design continuity will be evaluated as a measure of the:
1. Symbolic importance of a structure to the community and the degree to which
it serves as a conspicuous and pivotal landmark (i.e., easily accessible to
the public, helps to establish a sense of time and place).
2. Compatibility of a structure with neighboring structures in its setting on
the basis of period, style (form, height, roof lines), design elements, .
landscapes, and natural features; and how these combine together to create
an integral cultural, historic, or stylistic setting.
3. Similarity to and /or compatibility of a structure with its neighboring
structures which, collectively, although of no particular aesthetic value,
combine to form a geographically definable area with its own distinctive
character.
510 \9
Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the
historical effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected
with the building (i.c., County Museum).
Z Secondary patterns of local history but closely associated with the
building (Le., Park Hotel).
3. Secondary patterns of local history but loosely associated with the
building.
Historical context will also be evaluated on the basis of:
4. Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and /or whether or not
the original foundation has been changed, if known.
State of California — The Resou- >gencv -r. No. _
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND F. - 4EATION I HABS._ HAER,_ JR SHL Loc_
UT_M: A - B
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY C D
IENTIFICAT10N
1. Common name:
2. Historic name:
3. Street or rural address:
City Zip County
4. Parcel number:
S. Present Owner: Address:
City Zip Ownership is: Public Private
6. Present User Original use:
DESCRIPTION
7a. Architectural style:
7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its
original condition:
8. Construction date:
Estimated ��.L Factual
9. Architect
10. Builder
11. Approx. pro size (in feet)
Frontage Depth
orapprox. acreage
12. Date s) of enclosed photograph(s)
r8
3 •af
13. Condition: Excellent _Good . _ Fair _ Deteriorated _ No longer :istence
14. Alterations:
15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land _Scattered buildings _ Densely built-up
Residential _Industrial _Commercial Other:
16. Threats to site: None known —Private development_ Zoning _ Vandalism
Public Works project _ Other:
17. Is the structure: On its original site? Moved? Unknown)
18. Related features:
SIGNIFICANCE
19. Briefly state historical and /or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site.)
�4 W
20. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is
checked, number in order of importance.)
Architecture Arts & Leisure
Economic /Industrial —Exploration /Settlement
Government Military
Religion Social /Education
21. Sources (List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews
and their dates).
22. Date form prepared Q
By (name)
Organization
Address:
City Zip
Phone:
Locational sketch map (draw and label site and
surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks):
NORTH
N
I I I %� -r c -
AGMA 2
E L_1 ITEM # y-
DECEMBER 28, 1990
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM ST. \P.O. BOX 8100
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. 93403 -8100
ATTN: S.L.O. CITY COUNCIL
REFERENCE: PETITION TO THE NOTICE OF-PROPOSED APPEAL TO
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286
WE AS LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCE REJECT ANY APPEAL TO
BUILD ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE STORY HOMES ON THE
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286. WE ALSO WISH TO EXPRESS TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OUR DEEP CONCERN FOR VIEW
IMPOSING ROOF HEIGHTS OF THE STRUCTURES.
NAME LykA g1AJ Slb
DATE L-
• / iL: I! 'G���w ' is •
G J •r,r r
r • ■ ,r. • uy
• ■ • r r
U)_e 0u-e C=ar-nJ RAA ►'1' d1wfct t L1"j Ilu 5(r, le. �anu lc�
qokL densr o� �l -bias 'l,.bwi�e�, 410-4is
Wass t+t4 � 4, c� � CL- L)S it VD) ('s- CU4, Ctsri'U IS
k4l�o_ vdL�gk VAuinh%4L:)
RECEIVED
JA 7/1991
C CLERK
SAN LU OBISPO. CA
f
DECEMBER 28, 1990
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM ST. \P.O. BOX 8100
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. 93403 -8100
ATTN: S.L.O. CITY COUNCIL
PETITION TO THE NOTICE OF-PROPOSED APPEAL TO
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286
WE AS LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCE REJECT ANY APPEAL TO
BUILD ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE STORY HOMES ON THE
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286. WE ALSO WISH TO EXPRESS TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OUR DEEP CONCERN FOR VIEW
IMPOSING ROOF HEI6HTS OF THE STRUCTURES.
NAME i
ADDRESS v I
DATE
SIGNATURE
RECEIVE®
AAN 7 1991
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA
DECEMBER 28, 1990
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM ST. \P.O. BOX 8100
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. 93403 -8100
ATTN: S.L.O. CITY COUNCIL
REFERENCE: PETITION TO THE NOTICE OF-PROPOSED APPEAL TO
SUBDIVISION NO: 9.0 -286
WE AS LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCE REJECT ANY APPEAL TO
BUILD ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE STORY HOMES ON THE
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -296. WE ALSO WISH TO EXPRESS TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OUR DEEP CONCERN FOR VIEW
IMPOSING ROOF HEIGHTS OF THE STRUCTURES.
NAME
o N
SIGNATURE
DEC 3 S ,
DECEMBER 28, 1990
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM ST. \P.O. BOX 8100
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. 93403 -8100
ATTN: S.L.O. CITY COUNCIL
REFERENCE: PETITION TO THE NOTICE OF-PROPOSED APPEAL TO
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286
WE AS LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCE REJECT ANY APPEAL TO
BUILD ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE STORY HOMES ON THE
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286. WE ALSO WISH TO EXPRESS TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OUR DEEP CONCERN FOR VIEW
IMPOSING ROOF HEIGHTS OF THE STRUCTURES.
SIGNATURE
DEC 3 1991
DECEMBER 28, 1990
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM ST. \P.O. BOX 8100
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. 93403 -8100
ATTN: S.L.O. CITY COUNCIL
REFERENCE: PETITION TO THE NOTICE OF-PROPOSED APPEAL TO
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286
WE AS LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCE REJECT ANY APPEAL TO
BUILD ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE STORY HOMES ON THE
SUBDIVISION NO: VO -286. WE ALSO WISH TO EXPRESS TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OUR DEEP CONCERN FOR VIEW
IMPOSING ROOF HEIGHTS OF THE STRUCTURES.
NAME
ADDRES:
DATE
SIGNATURE
7?,
i
C� r
i T '
v
,�! Z�-•4_ CiCCi' .c..l� 1-- sL� 0-- c�.��d, �t✓�
'6
RECEIVE
IAN 2 1991
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA
DECEMBER 28, 1990
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM ST. \P.O. BOX 8100
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. 93403 -8100
ATTN: S.L.O. CITY COUNCIL
REFERENCE: PETITION TO THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED APPEAL TO
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286
WE AS LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCE REJECT ANY APPEAL TO
BUILD ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE STORY HOMES ON THE
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286. WE ALSO WISH TO EXPRESS TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OUR DEEP CONCERN FOR VIEW
IMPOSING ROOF HEIGHTS OF THE STRUCTURES.
NAME
ADDRES!
DATE
SIGNATURE
LISTED BELOW /ARE OTHER STRUCTURAL DESIGNS AND PLACEMENT CONCERNS WE
HAVE AND WIS TO EXPRESS TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION.
1. THE TERM MASSING IS OF GREAT CONCERN TO ME. THE HOUSES TO BE
BUILT SHOULD BE PLACED WITH SIZEABLE BACKYARD AREAS ADJOINING
EXISTING BACK YARDS OF MITCHELL. THE HOMES SHOULD BE BUILT FORWARD
TO THE ACCESS DRIVEWAY.
2. SETBACKS OF STRUCTURES SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. THE EXPANSE OF THE OPEN AREA SURROUNDING THE NEW
STRUCTURES SHOULD BE TO THE REAR TOWARD MITCHELL AND BETWEEN THEM,
GIVING A SUBSTANTIAL AIRY PROSPECT FOR LANDSCAPE AND USAGE
CONFIGURATION.
3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF PROPOSED HOME DESIGNS IN THE SUBDIVISION
SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN STYLE - SPANISH STYLE
TO BE THE THEME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
rr
CEIVED
iw 2 1991
CITY CLEIRK
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DECEMBER 28. 1990
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM ST-\P-O. BOX 8100
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. 93403 -8100
ATTN: S.L.O. CITY COUNCIL
REFERENCE: PETITION TO THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED APPEAL TO
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286
WE AS LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCE REJECT ANY APPEAL TO
BUILD ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE STORY HOMES ON THE
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -2B6. WE ALSO WISH TO EXPRESS TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OUR DEEP CONCERN FOR VIEW
IMPOSING ROOF HEIGHTS OF THE STRUCTURES.
SIGNA
LISTED HEM A�E OTHER STRUCTURAL DESIGNS AND PLACEMENT CONCERNS WE
HAVE A IrS TO EXPRESS TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION.
1. THE TERM MASSING IS OF GREAT CONCERN TO ME. THE HOUSES TO BE
BUILT SHOULD BE PLACED WITH SIZEABLE BACKYARD AREAS ADJOINING
EXISTING BACK YARDS OF MITCHELL. THE HOMES SHOULD BE BUILT FORWARD
TO THE ACCESS DRIVEWAY.
2. SETBACKS OF STRUCTURES SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. THE EXPANSE OF THE OPEN AREA SURROUNDING THE NEW
STRUCTURES SHOULD BE TO THE REAR TOWARD MITCHELL AND BETWEEN THEM,
GIVING A SUBSTANTIAL AIRY PROSPECT FOR LANDSCAPE AND USAGE
CONFIGURATION.
3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF PROPOSED HOME DESIGNS IN THE SUBDIVISION
SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN STYLE - SPANISH STYLE
TO BE THE THEME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
r
/
�R
r. d:
i
i
It 1.
.:
i l
1 •j 1 u o l •
� i �
/
as 46" I
W,
K
V
e
o
7 C -�
.i
�a
0
0
. z
DECEMBER 28, 1990
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM ST. \P.O. BOX 8100
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. 93403 -8100
ATTN: S.L.O. CITY COUNCIL
REFERENCE: PETITION TO THE NOTICE OF-PROPOSED APPEAL TO
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286
WE AS LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCE REJECT ANY APPEAL TO
BUILD ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE STORY HOMES ON THE
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286. WE ALSO WISH TO EXPRESS TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OUR DEEP CONCERN FOR VIEW
IMPOSING ROOF HEIGHTS OF THE STRUCTURES.
NAME IV1�nit�t, ,� P+�GLI�;,dlll�
ADDRESS httG Ih;�It�,� it lli
DATE
SIGNATURE
RECEIVED
C X
C CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA
DECEMBER 28, 1990
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM ST AP.O. BOX 8100
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. 93403 -8100
ATTN: S.L.O. CITY COUNCIL
REFERENCE: PETITION TO THE NOTICE OF-PROPOSED APPEAL TO
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286
WE AS LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCE REJECT ANY APPEAL TO
BUILD ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE STORY HOMES ON THE
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -296. WE ALSO WISH TO EXPRESS TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OUR DEEP CONCERN FOR VIEW
IMPOSING ROOF HEIGHTS OF THE STRUCTURES.
NAME'
ADDRESS
DATE
SIGNATURE
RECEIVED
aN 3 1991
C 71' CL €f$K
SA4nl UIS 081SRf]. CA
DECEMBER 28, 1990
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM ST. \P.O. BOX 8100
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. 93403 -8100
ATTN: S.L.O. CITY COUNCIL
REFERENCE: PETITION TO THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED APPEAL TO
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286
WE AS LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCE REJECT ANY APPEAL TO
BUILD ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE STORY HOMES ON THE
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286. WE ALSO WISH TO EXPRESS TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OUR DEEP CONCERN FOR VIEW
IMPOSING ROOF HEIGHTS OF THE STRUCTURES.
NAME
ADDRESS
DATE
Ic-
S I G N A T U R E 72 a4ie, '�"
RECEWED
JAN 1 1 19Q/�
CITY CiltRI
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DECEMBER 28, 1990 DEC •) 14911
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM ST. \P.O. BOX 8100
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. 93403 -8100
ATTN: S.L.O. CITY COUNCIL
REFERENCE: PETITION TO THE NOTICE OF-PROPOSED APPEAL TO
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286
WE A LOCA NEIGHBORH OD RESIDEN REJECT ANY APP AL TO
BUIL ANY RING OTHE THAN SING E STOR HOMES N THE
SUB IVISI N NO: 90— 6. WE ALS WISH T EXPRESS TO THE
ARC ITEC URAL REVIE COMMISSIO OUR DEE CONCERN OR VIEW
IM OSIN ROOF.HEIG TS OF THE % RUCTUR
NAMEA Avrt `l i�ucC�[
lGt9N; L Uif, 0 h, S PO C14 23y0 j
DATE
SIGNATURE
0 g n:� l .lI -�
+r' &�' C/ (19-�
V -7-cv-fl
crn J
wot
�M
DECEMBER 28. 1990
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM ST. \P.O. BOX 8100
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIF. 9340:1- 81()c.i
ATTN: S.L.O. CITY COUNCIL
REFERENCE: PETITION TO THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED APPEAL TO
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286
A—e.S LOCAL NE L;HBORHOOD RE�I ZnCE REgf -CT ANY APPEAL TO
BUILD ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE STbRY HOMES ON THE
SUBDIVISION NO: 90 -286. WE ALSO WISH TO EXPRESS TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OUR DEEP CONCERN FOR VIEW
IMPOSING ROOF HEIGHTS OF THE STRUCTURES.
NAME
ADDRESS
DATE
SIGNATURE
c
Dam '`�
Q FYI
❑ G'mca
❑ CDDDa
❑ FIN. DIR
AGCAO
❑ ATiCRNEY
O FWD
�
❑ M(24T
O RBC
Dt
❑ CRFADFILE
a
IAII.DIR.
O
Draft ARC Minutes
December 17, 1990
I_LXU5 TAD:
11 Acbm
Q FYI
-DDaw6n
,faa�l
�CDD DIR.
❑ FIN. DIR
'!SAO
L EACAO
❑ FIREOIU
❑ Fw DLR
a.�uc /auc.
❑ FoucE cx
❑ MGMT. TEAM
❑ REC DIR
❑ R FILE
EAD -T-7--
11 �rITL DIR
2� F /LE
MUE:F " %�G AGENDA
DAT& -, /S 2l ITEM #
C -2. ARC 90 -127: 2572 -2574 Lawton Street; demolish houses; R -1
zone.
Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report,
recommending the commission approve the demolition subject to
findings and conditions listed in the staff report.
There was no public testimony.
Commr. Bradford understood that the demolition of contributing
properties requires commission approval of replacement structures.
She was concerned with approving the demolition without reviewing
replacement plans.
The commission asked questions about the Cultural Heritage
Committee's progress in reviewing neighborhoods in terms of
historical significance.
Commr. Gates wanted to know if the ARC could suggest that new
houses be limited to one -story structures.
Commr. Cooper questioned the house's importance in terms of
neighborhood history.
Commr. Morris felt that requiring architectural review of
replacement structures and a photo study would be sufficient
mitigation to approve the demolition.
Commr. Bradford moved to approve the demolition of the existing
structures based on the finding and subject to the following
conditions:
Findincr•
1. The structures to be demolished are not historically,
architecturally, or culturally significant.
Conditions:
1. A color slide photo study shall be done of the interior and
exterior of the structures prior to demolition. The photo
study shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to demolition and prior to final map
approval.
2. The designs of the new houses shall be at least as compatible
with the neighborhood as the existing house �g in t
massing, architectural style, and height. P* a. � F,
JA(��1��1 Q :DD R•rh.
ciry o 'ci
-sm Lm 081s2m C6
Draft ARC Minutes
Page 2
Comma. Cooper sedonded the motion.
AYES: Bradford, Coopet, Gates, Moir_ -is., Underwood
NOES: None
ABSENT:: Phillips (one vacancy)
'The motion pa §sed: