The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/07/1999, 4 - CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE NOMINATION OF PROPERTIES TO THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES jCouncil M�� ,� ti9 acEnaa wporzt ,�4 N= C I T Y OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir�tnr Prepared By: Jeff Hook, Associate P1anr,L:, / SUBJECT: CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE NOMINATION OF PROPERTIES TO THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution adding 28 properties to the Contributing Properties List. DISCUSSION Advisory Bodv Recommendation. At advertised public hearings on May 24', June 28' and August 23d, 1999, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) voted unanimously to nominate the following properties to the Contributing Properties List: • 491 Hill Street; • 249 Mission Lane; • 728, 734, and 752 Mission Street; • 501, 644, and 676 Mountain View; • 764, 807, 814, 815, 822, 823, 829, 836, 851, 854, 859, 869, 871, 883, 884, and 894 Murray Avenue; • 747, 750, 762 and 783 Rougeot Place. Situation. One of the CRC's 1997-99 workprogram priorities is updating the City's Master List of Historic Resources. Last year the CHC began its update by reviewing properties in the Mt. Pleasanton Square/Anholm neighborhood for architectural or historical significance. This is the fourth and final group of properties nominated for historic status from that neighborhood. The City Council has previously designated 55 Contributing historic properties and one Master List property in this neighborhood. Of 111 properties surveyed, a total of 84 (76 percent) were nominated for historic designation, including the above properties. Contributing properties are nominated based on their age, (at least 50 years old), condition, and the degree to which the building has retained its original architectural style. City Council approval is required to add properties to the Master or Contributing List of Historic Resources. The purposes of the historic listing are: 1) to recognize buildings which contribute to the City's architectural, cultural and historical diversity, 2) to help preserve and restore buildings which are historically or architecturally significant; 3) to help preserve the historic character of neighborhoods, and 4) to make certain historic properties eligible for preservation incentives, such as rehabilitation loans, tax incentives, or more flexible building or zoning codes. Based on the properties' historic documentation, advisory body recommendations, and public testimony, the City Council should decide whether the properties meet the eligibility criteria for adding 4-1 Council Staff Report - CHC Historic Resource Nominations Page 2 them to the Contributing Properties List. These criteria were adopted by the City Council and are listed in the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (criteria attached). If the Council concurs with the CHC's nomination, it should adopt the attached resolution adding the properties to the Contributing Properties List. Mt. Pleasanton Square/Anholm Neighborhood. All of the properties are located within the Mt. Pleasanton Square/Anholm neighborhood, an area comprised of two residential subdivisions developed in the 1920s and 1930s and located northwest of Downtown between the base of Cerro San Luis Obispo and Stenner Creek. Predominant architectural styles are Mission Revival, Spanish Colonial revival, Tudor Revival, Craftsman, and California Bungalow, reflecting popular architectural styles of that time. The area's popularity was due, in part, to its proximity to Downtown and sheltered location on the lee side of Cerro San Luis. Early residents include many prominent educators, business owners and professionals. This continues to be an attractive, recognizable neighborhood, with most homes in good condition and many in original or near-original architectural character. Because of the apparent concentration of architecturally and historically important homes, the CHC has discussed the possibility that the Mt. Pleasanton Square/Anholm neighborhood may merit historic district status. As an initial step, the CHC is reviewing all properties within these two subdivisions for their architectural and historical significance. G q .AV�!SY'.• Y Master and Contributing Properties Lists. Procedures for historic nomination are found in the Historic = Preservation Program Guidelines. There are two categories of historic resources: Master List properties and Contributing properties. The Master List of Historic Resources consists of 167 of the City's most important residential and commercial structures which have significant historic or architectural value to the community and which merit f special preservation and recognition. Figure 1: A Master List Property - Myron Angel Master List properties are eligible to Home, 1886 receive a historic plaque, commemorating the historic name and date of the building. Some of these properties are also eligible for State or Federal historic designation, and may qualify for tax incentives such as the federal tax credits or the Mills Act Program. Once added to the Master List, exterior building changes are possible, provided that such changes promote the structure's original architectural style and character. Demolition is also possible, subject to Architectural Review Commission approval. According to the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, demolition of a historical resource should be done only when: "1) the condition of the building poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of community residents or people living or working 4-2 Council Staff Report - CHC Historic Resource Nominations Page 3 on or near the site, or 2) the project sponsor demonstrates that it financially infeasible to rehabilitate the structure or preserve the historic nature of the site." The Contributing Properties List contains - ,r .• �J hw about 400 properties, most of which are '_= -' ._ houses within designated historic districts. Contributing properties consist of structures, gardens or other features - which are at least 50 years old and which, while not necessarily unique or associated with an important person or w historical event, contribute to the architectural or historical character of , their neighborhood. Contributing r Properties listing is primarily an honorary designation. Changes to Contributing properties do not require any architectural or historical review — beyond that which would normally be Figure 2: Contributing Historic Property - 829 required (none, for additions and Murray Street, 1928. remodels to single dwellings or duplexes), although city policies encourage their preservation. Both Master List and Contributing List properties are considered "historic" and may qualify for more flexible zoning and building codes to encourage their preservation and upkeep. General Plan Policy. Policy 6.6.1 of the General Plan Land Use Element says that the City should identify, preserve and where possible restore historic resources. By designating eligible properties as historic, the City helps preserve important buildings and features of the community's heritage. In so doing, the City and property owners work together to maintain the distinctive architectural character and "sense of place" of both residential and commercial neighborhoods. Contributing Properties List Nominations 491 Bill Street Property Owner: Anthony Bramwell Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story, Spanish Colonial Revival style house on a 1.4 acre lot. Date Built: HRS estimate 1935. 249 Mission Lane Property Owner: Karen A. Diefenderfer Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential 4-3 Council Staff Report - CHC Historic Resource Nominations Page 4 Description: One-story Spanish Colonial Revival style house on an .57 acre lot. Date Built: HRS estimated 1930. 728 Mission Street Property Owner: Susan C. Webster, Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Mission Revival style house on an 8685 square foot lot. Date Built- HRS estimated 1930. 734 Mission Street Property Owner: Lavin Margaroli, Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Mission Revival-style house on a 8,415 sq. ft. lot.. Date Built: HRS estimate 1930.. 752 Mission Street Property Owners: Mark and Amy Sensenbach Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Tudor Revival style house on a 8,004 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1932. 501 Mountain View Property Owners: Rodney and Shirley Keif Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: Two-story Spanish Colonial Revival-style house on a 2.06 acre lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1936. 644 Mountain View Property Owner: Bonnie Snyder Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Colonial Revival Bungalow on a 7;500 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimate 1925. 676.Mountain View Property Owner: C.G. Miller Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description:. One-story Rowhouse on.a 5,000 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimated 1931.. 4-4 Council Staff Report - CHC Historic Resource Nominations Page 5 764 Murray Avenue Property Owners: T.A. and B. C Wheeler Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: Two-story Spanish Colonial Revival-style house on a 7,500 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimate 1935. 807 Murray Avenue Property Owners: Berkeley M. and Jacqueline L. Johnston Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Cape Cod Shingle house on a 8,389 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1937. 814 Murray Avenue Property Owners: Terry C. and Camille A. Turney Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story, Mission Revival-style house on a 6,245 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1930. 815 Murray Avenue Property Owner: August F. Hoenack, Tre Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story, Tudor Revival-style house on a 6,205 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1937. 822 Murray Avenue Property Owner: Patricia Farrow Tre Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Tudor Revival style house on 6,245 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1931. 823 Murray Avenue Property Owner: Robert E. Metz Jr. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Tudor Revival style house on 6,205 sq. ft. lot Date Built: HRS factual 1931. 829 Murray Avenue Zoning: R-1 4-5 Council Staff Report -CHC Historic Resource Nominations Page 6 Property Owner: Deborah B. Schlanser General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Tudor Revival style house on 6,205 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1928. 836 Murray Avenue Property Owner: LaVerne Osborne, Tre Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Colonial Revival Cottage on a 6,245 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1923. 851 Murray Avenue Property Owner: Russell H. Marks Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Mission Revival-style house on a 7,725 sq. ft. corner lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1932. 854 Murray Avenue Property Owner: B. Sparks Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Vernacular Bungalow on a 6,245 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimate 1935. 859 Murray Avenue Property Owner: Theodore F. Hiltel, Tre Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Spanish Colonial Revival style house on a 9,225 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1931. 869 Murray Avenue Property Owner: Kenneth R. San Filippo, Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Neoclassic Rowhouse on a 7,725 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimate 1920. 871 Murray Avenue Property Owners: Peter C. and R. B. Grow, Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential 4-6 Council Staff Report- CHC Historic Resource Nominations Page 7 Description: One-story Mission Revival style house on a 7,725 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1927. 883 Murray Avenue Property Owners: Mark and Margaret A. Roberts Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Mission Revival style house on a 7,725 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimated 1930. 884 Murray Avenue Property Owner: Maino Brothers Corporation Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Craftsman Bungalow on a 6,245 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1927. 894 Murray Avenue Property Owner: C.R. Maino, Tre Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: Two-story Tudor Revival style house on a 9,300 sq. ft. corner lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1926. 747 Rougeot Place Property Owners: Herbert M. Bailey, Tre Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Mission Revival style house on a 5,500 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimated 1930. 750 Rougeot Place Property Owners: Heirs of Alfred Damaso, % Virginia A Damaso Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Mission Revival style house on a 5,600 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimated 1930. 762 Rougeot Place Property Owners: Terry and Julee Bauer Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Mission Revival on a 4,300 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimated 1930. 4-7 Council Staff Report - CHC Historic Resource Nominations Page 8- 783 Rougeot Place Property Owners: Christopher P. and Ann M. Slate Zoning: R-1 .General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Spanish Colonial Revival on a 5,500 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimated 1930. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not adopt a resolution adding_ one or more of the candidate properties to the . Contributing List. 2. Continue the nominations item for additional information or study, and specify the the additional information or analysis needed. There is no mandated.deadline for action on this item. Attachments: 1. Draft resolution - 2. Vicinity Map 3. Mt. Pleasanton Square/Anholm Neighborhood 4. CHC minutes 5. Excerpt, Historical Preservation Program Guidelines (Appendix C) 6. Historical Designation Criteria Council Reading File: Historic.Resource Inventories ih/L:Ws=m9=99.ccrpt 4-8 RESOLUTION NO. (1999 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADDING PROPERTIES AT 491 HILL STREET; 249 MISSION LANE; 728, 734,AND 752 MISSION STREET; 501, 644,AND 676 MOUNTAIN VIEW; 764, 807, 814, 815,822, 823, 829, 8369 851,854, 859, 869, 8719 883, 8849 AND 894 MURRAY AVENUE; 747, 750, 762,AND 783 ROUGEOT PLACE TO THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES WHEREAS, in 1983 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5197 establishing the "Master List of Historic Resources" and "Contributing Properties List" (collectively referred to as "Historic Resources"), along with procedures for adding properties to the listing; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 1999, June 28, 1999, and August 23, 1999, following such procedures the Cultural Heritage Committee held public hearings to consider recommending to the City Council the addition of several properties in the City of San Luis Obispo to the Contributing Properties List due to their historical and/or architectural significance to their neighborhood and to the community; and WHEREAS, at said meetings, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the historical documentation on the following properties and recommended that the City Council add these properties to the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources: • 491 Hill Street; • 249 Mission Lane; • 728,734, and 752 Mission Street; • 501, 644, and 676 Mountain View; 0 764, 807, 814, 815, 822, 823, 829, 836, 851, 854, 859, 869, 871, 883, 884, and 894 Murray Avenue; • 747,750, 762 and 783 Rougeot Place. WHEREAS, this City Council considered this recommendation at an advertised public hearing on September 7, 1999 pursuant to historic preservation guidelines established by Council Resolution No. 6157 (1987 Series). NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that based on the Cultural Heritage Committee's recommendation, documentation as described in the Historical Resource Inventory for each property, on file in the Community Development 4-9 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page 2 Department, public testimony, the staff report, and on the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines the following: SECTION 1. Addition to Contributing Properties List. The following properties have been found to contribute to the historic and architectural character of the City, meet the criteria for inclusion on the Contributing Properties List, and are hereby deemed Contributing Properties: • 491 Hill Street; • 249 Mission Lane; • 728, 734, and 752 Mission Street; • 501, 644, and 676 Mountain View; 0 764, 807; 814, 815, 822, 823, 829, 836, 851, 854, 859, 869, 871, 883, 884, and 894 Murray Avenue; • 747, 750, 762 and 783 Rougeot Place. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby determines that this action is not a "project" as defined in Article 20 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since it does not have the potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, and therefore, is not subject to environmental review requirements. SECTION 3. Publish Revised Contributing Properties List. The Community Development Director is hereby directed to amend the Contributing Properties List to include the properties listed above and to publish revised historic resource listings for public distribution. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: 4-10 Resolution.No. (1999'Series) Page AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution avas:pass_ed and adopted this 7th day of September, 1999. Mayor Allen K. Settle .ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: _ity tome eff aensen jh/L:hismsnorri5xcres *41 b�Fierra CHC Historic Property Nominations VICINITY MAP �f El �r� �„ � Proposed Historic properties Q N a-1z Mt. Pleasanton Square/Anholm Neighborhood IL 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet N E S 4-13 MINUTES SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Regular Meeting of Monday,June 28, 1999 The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9), San Luis Obispo City Hall, 990 Palm Street. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Steve McMasters, Paula Carr, Margot McDonald, Bob Schrage, and Matt Whittlesey. Absent: Amy Kardel and Bob Pavlik. Staff: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chris Collins, 715 Grand Avenue #3, felt the proposed Marsh Street Parking Structure expansion would detract from the Downtown's cultural resources and historic character. He hoped the CHC could address the issue in its review of the proposed garage expansion. Chairman McMasters explained the CHC's review role in connection with historic resources and districts and suggested Mr. Collins also attend Architectural Review Commission and City Council meetings when this project is discussed. Astrid Gallagher announced a historic information program on the town and Hearst Castle in San Simeon, sponsored by Heritage Shared, to be held Saturday and Sunday, September 11' and 12`h, 1999. She said the event would be free to the public. She also expressed concerns that a report entitled the Santa Barbara Street Operational Study was not provided to the CHC for a "courtesy review", in that the study area is within a historic district. She added that road work and excavation may disturb cultural resources and provided a copy of the report to the CHC staff. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the May 24, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted, on a motion by Committee member Schrage, seconded by Committee member McDonald, on a 5-0 vote. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 1. Consider nominating the following properties to the Contributing Properties List: 501 Mountain View; 249 Mission Lane; 829, 836, 851, 854, 859, 869, 871, 883, 884, and 894 Murray Avenue; and 747, 750, 762 and 783 Rougeot Place. (501 Mountain View and 249 Mission Lane continued from May 24, 1999 meeting). 4-14 Jeff Hook introduced the item and presented slides of the candidate historic properties. He also reviewed the categories of historic properties (Contributing and Master List) and explained property owner benefits and responsibilities of historic listing. Chairperson McMasters opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, the hearing was closed and discussion by Committee members followed. Committee member McDonald noted that she had not had a chance to revisit and photograph 501 Mountain View and 249 Mission Lane and suggested continuing these properties to the next CHC meeting. On a motion by Committee member Schrage, seconded by Committee member McDonald, the Committee nominated the following properties to the Contributing Properties List: 829, 836, 851, 854, 859, 869, 871, 883, 884, and 894 Murray Avenue; 747, 750, 762 and 783 Rougeot Place. Consideration of properties located at 501 Mountain View and 249 Mission Lane was continued to the July CHC meeting to allow subcommittee members to revisit and photograph the homes. The motion carried, 5-0. 4-15 MINUTES SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Regular Meeting of Monday,May 24, 1999 The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9), San Luis Obispo City Hall, 990 Palm Street. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Steve McMasters, Paula Carr, Margot McDonald, Bob Pavlik, Bob Schrage, and Matt Whittlesey. Absent: Amy Kardel (arrived late). Staff: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of April 26, 1999 were approved as submitted, on a motion by Committee member Whittlesey, seconded by Committee member McDonald, on a 6-0 vote (Committee member Kardel absent). Committee member Kardel arrived at the meeting. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:Elect a Chair and Vice-Chair to serve one-year terms. This item was moved to the end of the agenda to allow the Committee to consider the public hearing item first. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Consider nominating the following properties to the Contributing Properties List: 501 (formerly 610), 644, 654, and 676 Mountain View; 249 Mission Lane; 728, 734, and 752 Mission Street; 764, 807, 814, 815, 822, and 823 Murray Avenue. Jeff Hook introduced the item and presented slides of the candidate historic properties. He also reviewed the categories of historic properties (Contributing and Master List) and explained property owner benefits and responsibilities of historic listing. Chairperson McMasters opened the public hearing. Ernest Rhode, 654 Mountain View, asked that his property not be included on the Contributing Properties list. Chairperson McMasters explained that it was the CHC's policy to abide by property owners' wishes 4-16 regarding listing of contributing properties, and that the minutes should reflect that this property, while eligible for listing, was being removed from further consideration at the property owner's request. Mr. Rhode thanked the Committee and left the meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Keif, 501 Mountain View, observed that their property appeared to be the "mystery house" since there was no current photo of the property available to the CHC. They stated that the house appearance had not changed from the older photo included in the CHC's agenda packet. They did not object to Contributing Property listing and invited CHC members to come to their home to see it and take a photo for the June CHC meeting. Chairperson McMasters closed the public hearing. On a motion by Committee member Schrage, seconded by Committee member Carr, the Committee nominated the following properties to the Contributing Properties List: 644 and 676 Mountain View; 728, 734, and 752 Mission Street; and 764, 807, 814, 815, 822, and 823 Murray Avenue. Consideration of properties located at 501 Mountain View and 249 Mission Lane was continued to the June CHC meeting to allow subcommittee members to revisit and photograph the homes. The motion carried, 7-0. Committee members noted that property located 654 Mountain View, while potentially eligible for the Contributing Properties List, was being removed from consideration at the owner's request. 4-17 APPENDIX C. Procedures for adding properties to the Master List of Historical Resources. 1. Who Can Apply. Any person may request that a property be added to the Master List of Historical Resources. The Cultural Heritage Committee, Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission or the City Council may also initiate an application. 2. Where and How to Apply. ' 1 A standard application form must be completed and submitted to the Community I Development Department. The form must be accompanied by all available information that documents the historical importance and architectural character of the building or site. i. s There is no fee for applying for Historical Resource designations. For information about data sources and help with preparing an application, contact the Cultural Heritage Committee. 3. Actions by the Cultural Heritage Committee. The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) will review the application and decide whether it merits consideration. If the CHC finds that an application merits consideration, a public hearing will be scheduled and the applicant will be notified. The time, date and place of the public hearing will be advertised in the Telegram Tribune newspaper. At the public hearing, or in no case more than 60 days from the hearing date, the CHC will recommend that the property be added or not added to the Master List of Historical Resources. When evaluating an application, the CHC will use I the attached criteria. I i 4. Actions by the City Council. i I Within sixty days from the CHC action on an application, the City Council will decide if the property should be added to the Master List of Historical Resources. These decisions will be made at an advertised public hearing. The applicant will be notified of the hearing date. In making these decisions, the City Council will consider the CHC's recommendations, public testimony and application materials. The action of the City Council is final. If the City Council approves the addition of a property to the Master List of Historical Resources, the City Clerk will send the applicant a copy of the council resolution that affirms this action. 4-18 i City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage committee DELINEATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCE CRITERIA FOR BUILDING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA I. Style Describes form of building such as size, structural shape and details within that form (i.e., arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.) Building style will be evaluated as a measure of: L The relative purity of a traditional style (as compared to building styles in San Luis Obispo); 2. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style; 3. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness Of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together. 4. The degree to which the structure has maintained its integrity (i.e., assessment of alterations and structural condition, if known). II Desien Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit and craftmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements. Also, suggests degree to which the architect (i.e., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of: 1. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its uniqueness, artistic merit, details and craftsmanship; 2. Overall attractiveness because of craftsmanship and aesthetic value, though not necessarily unique, 3. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. 4-19 III. Aae 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. 4-20 HISTORICAL CRITERIA VI. History - Person Describes a person, group, organization, or institution that has been connected with the structure, either intimately or secondarily, for at least two generations (i.e., 40 years). Historical person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was: I. Significant to the community as a public leader (i.e.,-mayor, congressman, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally. 2. Significant to the community as a public servant who has made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to important local affairs or institutions (i.e., councilmen, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad officials). 3. Contributions which, though minor, directly or indirectly, had a beneficial effect on the community (i.e., firemen, law enforcement officers, postal workers, businessmen/shopkeepers, city employees, etc.). VII. History - Event Associated with a social, political, economic, governmental, educational or other institutional event that has been important to the community. Historical event will be evaluated as a measure of: 1. A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city. 2. A relatively unique or interesting contribution to the city (i.e., the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis Obispo history). 3. A contribution which, though minor, nonetheless was important to the community (i.e., local interest groups); or, alternatively, a unique or interesting contribution only loosely connected with the structure, object, site, or district. VIII. History-Context Associated with and also.a prime illustration of predominant patterns of Political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historical context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects: 4-21 1. 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.e., County Museum). 2. 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. NYhether of not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the original foundation has been changed, if known. 4-22 MEED._ i AGENDA DATE �- �yq ITEM # Gmmurlia.( vl communication item DATE: September 7, 1999 TO: Mayor&Members of the City Council FROM: Lee Price, City Cler SUBJECT: Request by RRM Design Group for Study Session Proposed Project: Vineyard Community Church Campus & Private School The attached letter from RRM Design Group addressed to the Mayor was received by my office this morning. RRM, who is representing the Vineyard Community Church, is requesting that the City Council review the preliminary details of the project during a study session during the month of November. Consistent with agenda-setting policy, I am forwarding this request to the City Council for direction to staff and the applicant's representative. MCOUNCIL =DD DIR I'B'CAO ❑FIN DIR 9KCAO ❑FIRE CHIEF EMoATTORNEY ❑PW DIR C "CrLERKIORIG ❑POUCE CHF ❑MG T EA I ❑REC DIR El" ❑RUTILEC DIR Q' ❑PERS DIR Attachment: RRM letter dated 9/7/99 received via fax RECEIVED SEP 7 - 1999 SLO CITY CLERK 09/07/99 TUE 11:19 FAX 805 543 9149 RRM DESIGN Z001 R R M D E S I G N G R O U P September 7, 1999 Yta Fax 781-7109 Attn: Lee Price,City Clerk The honorable Mayor Allen Settle City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle: On behalf of our client, Vineyard Community Church, we are requesting to be included on the forthcoming agenda for the City Council Study Session in early November to mid November. At your request, we would like to present the potential church project to the Council at this meeting. The Vineyard Church would like to build a new church campus with associated ancillary uses and a small private school (approx. 60-75 K-6 students) on a 63-acre parcel located on Calle Joaquin, between Los Osos Valley Road and the KSBY building. The site contains approximately 2 acres (APN 053-161-010) of City property and 61 acres (APN 067-241-021) of County land. The City portion is zoned Open Space and the County portion is zoned Agriculture and Rural Lands. The parcel is considered part of the City's greenbelt area and deemed valuable to that end. The Vineyard Church is proposing to utilize only 10 to 15 acres as a developable area and dedicate in-fee, the remaining portions to the City as permanent open space. Victor Montgomery and I, met with various members of the County and City over the past several weeks to determine which jurisdiction the entitlement processing should occur. You encouraged us to request a study session, and others supported the idea with the intention of finding shared solutions for the development of the property as a future home for the Vineyard Community Church. We also agree that a study session will benefit all parties in determining the direction of the property. We look forward to presenting and discussing this project with you and your Council. Please call me at 543-1794 x232 to confirm a meeting agenda. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter. cerely, ROUP Diane Fredrick Principal Planner cc: Ken Hampian,City of San Luis Obispo Victor Montgomery,RRM Design Group Thom O'Leary,Vineyard Community Church Jim Beaver, Vineyard Community Church Bob Kitamura,Vineyard Community Church dp99430\govt\df-S tudyScssionReq.9-3 .Sun Lui;:Ohe:q:n.llrkd:d,•rrlPn, ,-,•f nulfi I IiCua']Stfcul'•Sun Lu t!t')Li::�•o.Ca Ii omia-it dtn Phnnr:5"• A 1 791 �,•:.:. .�.,,-I/'^n A u..l.l....fit...� .n,...:V;.�� nl.. ..i:-i'1 rrp,i:u+no:. r1.:^r idid;v;1.BlC n,.........f r•-.• /C•ii,.•1,c L:1.5.Y