HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/1990, 2 - ARC 89-19: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING THE MEE
j� nvG DATE:
fP city of san tuts oBispo 2-20-90
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
b
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Developme:}t Director
,
BY: Judith LautnerAssociate Planneru1px
SUBJECT: ARC 89-19: Consideration of an appeal of the Architectural Review
Commission's action approving the demolition of a house on the north
side of Palm Street, opposite the County Government. Center.
CAO RE(OMMffiVIDATION
Adopt a resolution upholding the Architectural Review Commission's action,
denying the appeal.
SUMMARY
The applicants want to demolish a 1,660-square-foot single-story house and
replace it with a 2,516-square-foot office building. The new building would be
an enlarged version of the existing residence.
In 1989, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved the remodel and
expansion of the existing residence. During development of working drawings,
the representative engaged a structural engineer who discovered that the existing
foundation is not adequate for the present load, and must be replaced. The
applicants then requested and received approval of the demolition of the
residence, finding that the residence is historically significant but that the
replacement structure will be at least as compatible with the neighborhood as
the existing residence.
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) appealed the ARC's action, saying the
building is historically significant and should not be demolished. The former
owner of the building spoke at both the ARC and the CHC meetings, in opposition
to the demolition.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The request is categorically exempt from environmental review. No significant
impacts are expected to result from the demolition or replacement structure.
The project will have no impact on the city's resources or employees.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TARING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the council approves the appeal, denying the demolition, the applicant may
choose to remodel the building, including replacing the foundation and any
structural members that are failing, in accordance with approved plans. The
applicant could also choose to do nothing or sell the property as is.
RECEIVED
FEB 9 1990
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
41112411 city Of san tuis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ARC 89-19
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Data summary
Address: 1050 Palm Street
Applicants/property owners: Randy Duran and Wilbur Lorbeer
Representative: Bruce Fraser
Zoning: O, Office
Land Use element: Office
Environmental status: Categorically exempt
Site description
The relatively flat site slopes toward Palm Street and contains a variety of
trees, including two palm trees, several live oaks, two pittosporums, and several
other small- to medium-sized trees. Surrounding uses include offices to the
north and west, the county government center to the south, and a residence to
the east.
EVALUATION
1. Deterioration of the existing building. About three years ago, the new
owners removed much of the roofing. The house has sat vacant, with no
maintenance done to it since that time. During this period, while the
building was vacant, the building was vandalized and damaged by fire. The i
rains that have entered the house through the open roof have contributed
to the damage of the interior.
Because of this lack of maintenance, both the ARC and the CSC expressed
concern that the building may have been allowed to deteriorate
deliberately, to improve the owners' chances for approval of the
demolition. The applicants deny that the lack of maintenance has been
deliberate, and point out that the extent of the damage from the fire and
the condition of the foundation were not known until the structural and
soils engineers examined the building.
2. Historical value of existing residence. The city's survey of historical
resources (1983) does not list the residence as significant or contributing
to the historical character of the neighborhood. The CSC was not required
to determine the historical value of the residence when it reviewed the
remodelling proposal, but only to determine if the remodelling was
consistent with the city's historical guidelines. However, when the CSC
reviewed the demolition request, it found the house to be architecturally
and historically significant because it contributes to the architectural
character of the adjacent historic district and fits into the architectural
pattern in the block.
3. Now a significant structure may be allowed to be demolished. The city's -
Historical Preservation Program Guidelines say that the demolition of a
GA111g.41111► city of san Luis oBispo
MINGO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ARC 89-19
Page 3
historical resource should be approved 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 on or near the site, or (2) the
project sponsor demonstrates that it is financially infeasible to
rehabilitate the structure or preserve the historic nature of the site."
The applicants contend that it is financially infeasible to rehabilitate
the structure. The ARC concurred.
The city's architectural review guidelines ('Architectural Review in San
Luis Obispo') also address demolition of significant structures. They say
that if a structure is found to be historically, culturally, or
architecturally significant, then the commission must find, to approve a
demolition, that the design of the replacement structure is at least as
compatible with the neigbhorhood as the structure to be demolished'. Since
the replacement structure is identical to the approved remodelled
structure, the ARC was able to make this finding.
The CHC, on the other hand, was unable to find that it is financially
infeasible to rehabilitate the structure, saying that insufficient evidence
was provided by the applicants to prove financial infeasibility.
4. Appearance of the new structure. The replacement structure approved by
the ARC will be virtually identical to the building that now exists, if
it were remodelled. The applicants say they will use as many of the
original building elements as is possible in the new structure, including
fixtures, cabinetwork, and redwood molding.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may uphold the ARC's action by denying the appeal. The building
would then be able to be demolished and the replacement structure built. Or,
the applicant could do nothing, or sell the property.
The council may approve the appeal, denying the demolition. The applicant would
be able to remodel the residence, do nothing, or sell the property.
The council may choose to continue consideration of this request to a future
date. Issuance of the demolition permit would be delayed until a final action
is taken.
PREVIOUS REVIEW
On May 26, 1989, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved the conversion of
the residence to an office and the use of tandem parking.
•3
41%11111R§N city of San tins OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ARC 89-19
Page 4
On June 19, 1989, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved the
conversion of the existing residence into an office building, with portions of
the building to be demolished or remodeled, and enlarged. The ARC approved
several project details on September 5, 1989.
On January 15, 1990, the ARC approved the demolition and replacement structure,
with a condition that the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) review the request
prior to issuance of the demolition permit.
The CHC reviewed the request on January 29, 1990 and appealed the ARC's action.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
No other department had concerns with this request.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project will have no impact on the city's fiscal resources.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution upholding the Architectural Review Commission's action
approving the demolition, thereby denying the appeal.
Attachments:
draft resolutions
vicinity map
letter of appeal
minutes
ARC meetings
CHC meetings
I
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION
APPROVING THE DEMOLITION OF A RESIDENCE ON PALM STREET (ARC 89-19)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San. Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION ' zkawnM. That this council, after consideration of public
testimony, the demolition request ARC 89-19, and the Architectural Review
Commission's action, the Cultural Heritage Committee's appeal, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1• The existing structure is significantbecause it contributes to the
historical character of the neighborhood.
2• The replacement structure is at least as compatible with the
neighborhood as the structure to be demolished.
3• The demolition and construction of a replacement structure will not
have a significant impact on the environment:
SECTION 2. The request for approval of the demolition of the existing
residence is hereby approved.
On motion of
seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this
day of
1989.
L � v
U
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
ARC 89-19 �J
Page 2
Mayor
ATTEST:.
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Administrative officer-
. _
Ci At r y
Community Developmen Director
JL1:restrl82.wp
M
RESOLUTION NO.• (1990 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING AN APPEAL, OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION
THEREBY DENYING THE DEMOLITION OF .A RESIDENCE ON PALM STREET (ARC 89-19)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1- Zing-in—cLa. That this council, after consideration of public
testimony, the demolition request ARC 89-19, and the Architectural Review
Commission's action, the Cultural Heritage Committee's appeal, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1• The existing house is architecturally and historically significant
because it contributes to the architectural character of the adjacent
historical district.
2• The applicants have not demonstrated that it is infeasible to
rehabilitate the existing structure or to reinforce the existing
foundation to support additional construction.
3• The demolition would have a significant impact on the environment.
SECTION 2. The demolition request ARC 89-19 is hereby denied.
On motion of
seconded by
and on the following roll Call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this
day of
1989.
d��
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
ARC 89-19
Page 2
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED-
City ini tr ive ficer
itirt
Community Developm n Director
i
i
jr dr
o4 dill %
Ma 4 1
EC r rJ DIN
PF
Yleo
AA
to tl v
a a
ti Qf`
OG
8 y
P
b r � � toy
14
1p
Dv T-)
t
♦ � �„+'`�d �p-tip Q
PF
Clay Or VICINITY MAP
San Luis OBISp0
Department of Community Development ARC 89-19
990 Palm Street/Post office Box 321,San Luis Obispo,CA 9341
O�TIIN�IMT Nly�l _
MMM II Cfty Of SAn WIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Boz 8100 • San Luis Obispo. CA 93403-8100
January 30, 1990
San Luis Obispo City Council
City Hall, 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Subject: Cultural Heritage Committee Appeal of a Determinationof the ARC
concerning property at 1050 Palm Street.
Dear Mayor Dunin:
At its January 29, 1990 meeting, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed a proposal
to demolish a house at 1050 Palm Street and replace the house with a new office
complex This project had been referred to the CHC by the Architectural Review
Commission who had determined that the house could be demolished consistent. with
the city's demolition regulations.
The CHC had previously supported the office project with the understanding that the
house would be repaired and incorporated into the new complex. However, the project
applicant subsequently requested that the house be demolished and the new project
would be built to look like the original house from Palm Street
In discussing the proposal, the CHC was concerned that the roof of the house had been
removed years before and the building may have been intentionally left to deteriorate..
The CHC cited a general concern for allowing this to happen to older historic buildings.
The CHC also did not feel that the replication of historic buildings is the same thing as
-historical preservation. Also, the applicants had not presented conclusive evidence to
demonstrate the need for demolishing the building in order to install new foundations
and undertake repairs.
On motion by Leo Pinard, seconded by Daniel Krieger the CHC approved the following
motion:
(A) The CHC reaffirms its previous action to support the preservation of the
existing house as part of a project to develop offices on the site.
(B) The CHC finds that the house is architecturally and historically significant
because it contributes to the architectural character of the adjacent historic district
1440
Page 2 — CHC Appeal of ARC Determination (1050 Palm Street)
U (C) Sufficient information was not presented to the CHC to support the applicants
contention that it is infeasible to rehabilitate the existing structure or to reinforce
the existing foundation to support additional construction.
(D) The CHC appeals the action of the ARC concerning the demolition of the
house at 1050 Palm Street. (Motion passed 9 ayes, 1 no.)
If I can be of any assistance concerning the CHC appeal, feel free to contract me
directly or through Terry Sanville, Principal Planner.
Respectfully,
J ichael, Chairperson
ltu Heritage Committee
TS:ts
cc Allen Cooper, Chairperson, ARC
� l
ARC Minutes
. June 19, 1989
Page 6
Commr. Gates wanted the pilasters on the rear of Bui ng B to be installed
immediately. She liked the high lighting proposed t still had a concern with the
walkways and linkages to the restaurant. She f some directional signage may be
necessary.
Commr. Cooper wanted a strong conncc i n between the buildings: He was confused
with the overall master plan.
Commr. Gates moved to deny re sions with Building B detailing to be completed now,
trash enclosure and lighting t return to staff for approval and complete now, a
walkway connection provid between Building A and the Monterey Street sidewalk
completed now and walk y connections provided between Buildings A and B with a use
of different surface m crial to be approved by staff, and allowing for bonding for
the spa and deck arc , and directional signage to return to the commission for
approval.
Commr. Chath seconded the motion.
AYES: tcs, Chatham, Cooper
NOES: radford; Starr
ABSE Morris, Jones
Th motion passes.
ommr. Jones returned to the meeting.
6. ARC 89-19: 1050 Palm Street, remodel and addition to house for offices; O zone,
final review.
Pamela Ricci, Associate Planncr, presented the staff report recommending the
commission determine that the existing,shed and garage to be demolished have no
cultural, architectural, or historic significance and grant final approval to the
building's remodel and parking improvements with details to return to staff.
Bruce Fraser, architect, responded to the staff report and supported staff's
recommendation. He preferred to bring the colors back as a consent item and was
willing to work with staff on other details. He offered the use of obscured glass
as a solution to overlook concerns.
John Sykes noted his mother owned a residential house to the east of the project.
He indicated that removing the palm trees were acceptable but was concerned with the
overlook problem from the second story windows.
Commr. Starr felt the architect had created an attractive project. ' He wanted the
size and/or number of windows reduced on the easterly elevation.
ARC Minutes
June 19, 1989
Page 7
Commr. Chatham concurred with Commr. Starr's comments and the architect's input
regarding design solutions.
Commr. Joncs indicated he liked the palm trees but understood the reason why this
particular palm tree needed to be removed. He wanted to know the reasoning behind
the bicycle lockers and felt the lawn arca didn't necessarily need to be ripped out.
Commr. Gatcs liked the architectural screen but felt the shallow balcony detail was
not usable. Shc suggested using higher windows from the office to minimize overview
concerns. She concurred with staff on the bicycle and landscaping comments.
Regarding building colors, she suggested using high value color for the main body of
the building with a lighter accent color.
Commr. Bradford felt bicycle parking and parking lot changes could.return to staff
for approval, but the landscaping, lighting, and colors should return to the
commission. She supported the use of a screening fence and felt opaqueing the
bottom of the windows would address overlook concerns. She was concerned with the
highest gable on the front elevation.
Commr. Cooper suggested using the dormer as a ridge.
Commr. Starr moved to determine that the existing shed and garage to be demolished
have no cultural, architcctural, or historical significance and grant final approval
with the following details to return to the commission for approval:
I. Plan for bicycle parking.
2. Revised parking to accommodate obstructions such as the trash enclosure.
3. Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans consistent with the city's landscape
guidelines for water conservation.
4. Window details noting use of dimensioned wood mullions consistent with the
existing house's windows:
5. Lighting plan showing design of all exterior lighting.
6. Due to overlook concerns with the windows on the easterly elevation, the bottom
half to have obscure glazing.
7. Building colors.
8. Revisc roof gables to hips.
Commr. Jones seconded the motion.
AYES: Starr, Joncs, Bradford, Chatham, Cooper
NOES: Gatcs
ABSENT: Morris
Tk,z
�-/3
draft
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
San Luis Obispo, California
Regular Meeting - September 5, 1989
PRESENT: Commrs. Melinda Bradford, Dan Chatham, Madi Gates, and Duane Morris
ABSENT: Commrs. Paul Jones, Brian Starr, and Chairperson Allan Cooper
OTHERS
PRESENT: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner; and Ken Bruce, Senior Planner
Since both the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson were absent-, Commr. Morris served as
the Acting Chairperson.
1. ARC 89-19: 1050 Palm Street; remodel and addition to house for offices; O zone;
plan details and colors.
Jeff Hook, Association Planner, presented the staff report recommending approval
with minor changes to return to staff.
Bruce Fraser, representative, responded to the staff report and explained plans for
lighting, windows, and the roof skylight and disagreed with suggestions made by
staff regarding these items. He noted that the Uniform Building Code required a
4-inch lip above the roof for the skylight frame. He felt that lighting could be
lowered but thought using gothic or antique fixtures would be inappropriate.
Commr. Bradford wanted to.see the light fixtures.lowercd and requested that the
style be consistent with the building design. She felt a compromise could be
reached somewhere between the architect's proposal and staff's recommendations. She
felt the colors seemed bland but could support the skylight design.
Commr. Gates felt that landscaping, lighting, .and skylight were acceptable. She
suggested that the color of the skylight frame match the roof color and that a
warmer grey be used for the lower color band on the building.
Commr. Chatham thought the skylight and lighting style was acceptable but suggested
lowering the site lighting to 8 feet. He agreed with Commr. Bradford's comments on
color.
Commr. Morris thought the skylight was acceptable but wanted the frame color to
match the roof. He agreed with Commr. Gates regarding the building color change.
He felt the landscaping plan was inadequate as to the existing tree types and
requested that a corrected tree plan be submitted to staff for review. He disagreed
with the arborist regarding removal of a diseased palm tree and felt it could be
saved.
i
ARC Minutes
September 5, 1989
U Page 2
Commr. Gates moved to approve details to the project with the following details to
return to staff for approval:
1. Lowering site lights to eight feet.
2. Matching the color of the skylights to the roof color.
3. Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans which are consistent with the city's
landscaping standards for water conservation.
4. Building colors to be warmer.
Commr. Bradford seconded the motion.
AYES: Gates, Bradford, Chatham, Morris
NOES: Nona
ABSENT: Jones; Starr, Cooper
The motion passes:
.2: ARC 89-86: 412 Marsh Street; convert house to offices with addition of parking
lot; C-R zone; landscaping and color review.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval with
any changes and/or details to be resolved with staff.
Tom Martin, designer, responded to the staff report, and explained the handicap lift
vs. the ramp issue. He indicated that only the stucco color. would be darkened and
additional seating would be added to the entry. Changes to the hedges and other
portions of the landscaping were planned.
Commr. Gates felt the ramp would be acceptable. She was concerned with the proposcd.
cool colors, feeling they looked ominous. She suggested using darker, warmer color
for the outside window fraise and supported the, concept of•a two-.tone color for the
building.
Commr. Chatham had no problems with the proposal.
Commr. Bradford was unsure about the colors. She suggested using a higher, denser
planting to screen the handicap ramp.
Commr. Morris felt the landscaping was much improved over the original submittal.
He felt the colors were acceptable.
Commr. Gates moved approve the landscaping with the Arbutus shown on the plans to be
saved and with direction_ to bring back warmer, darker building colors for commission
review and approval.
J
Draft ARC Minutes
January 15, 1990
S. ARC 89-19: 1050 Palm Street; demolish house; O zone.
Judith Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
commission approve the demolition of the building with a finding that the
design of the replacement structure is at least as compatible with the
neighborhood as the structure to be demolished.
Bruce Fraser, architect, responded to the staff report and indicated he agreed
with staff's recommendation. He noted that nothing had actually changed from
the original project except that now the soils and structural engineers were
concerned about the use of the existing wood to support the addition and
wanted to demolish the existing house. He preferred to 'deinstall' the
columns and other details of the house and reinstall them later. He indicated
that everything forward of the peak would change.
Mike Seitz, next door neighbor, felt the owner had allowed the property to
become deteriorated.
Helen Beeshey, adjoining business owner, agreed with Mr. Seitz's comment. She
wanted to see the existing house remodelled.
Marjorie Fisher, 1041 Mill, property seller, expected an addition just to be
added on to the existing house. She noted a building inspector had indicated
that the building was structurally sound. She noted that the building has
been vandalized and set on fire and she has been unable to repair it. She
noted the building had been sold with the understanding that the house would
remain as is with an addition.
Bruce Fraser noted the new owners would prefer to keep the existing building
but the structural and soils engineers found that the footings were not sound.
Commr. Chatham felt that replacement of the building was compatible with the
neighborhood but wanted Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) input on the demoli-
tion.
Commr. Morris indicated he could support the demolition request, however,
having heard the history of the building, he also would like CHC input.
Commr. Gates agreed with Commrs. Morris and Chatham. She was sorry that the
house had not been better cared for.
Commr. Starr was pleased that the new structure would be a duplicate of the
one that would be demolished. He didn't see the need to refer the project to
the CHC for that reason.
Commr. Bradford preferred that the CHC review the project. She noted that
this house was the only one on the block that had not been restored. She was
happy that a replacement house would be the same as the one demolished. r.
Draft ARC Minutes
� January 15, 1990
u' Page
Commr. Jones agreed with Commr. Starr and felt nothing more had to be done
than to approve the demolition request. He was disappointed with the lack of
care for the house.
Commr. Cooper's only concern was with the word •deinstall'. He wanted as much
of the original house salvaged as possible and if any materials were not used,
they should be put up for salvage. He wanted to see the interior
photographed.
Ms. Fisher indicated that the real estate agent had advised her that the old-
fashioned fixtures had already been salvaged.
Commr. Gates moved to continue consideration of the project and refer it to
the Cultural Heritage Committee for comments.
Commr. Bradford seconded the motion.
AYES: Gates, Bradford, Morris
NOES: Cooper, Jones, Starr, Chatham
ABSENT: None
JThe motion fails.
Commr. Jones moved to approve demolition of the house finding that the design
of the replacement structure is at least as compatible with the neighborhood
as the structure to be demolished. and referred the project to the Cultural
Heritage Committee in case that committee wanted photographic records of the
existing building to be made for historical purposes.
Commr. Chatham seconded the motion.
Commr. Cooper indicated that no,demolition would be allowed until after the
CHC had a chance to review the project.
Commr. Gates indicated she would vote no because she wanted a second opinion
from the CHC.
AYES: Jones, Chatham, Cooper, Starr
NOES: Gates, Bradford, Morris
ABSENT: None
The motion passes.
MINUTES
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting of March 2, 1989
Present: James Fickes, Priscilla Graham, Mark Hall-Patton, Gloria Heinz, (at 8.30 pm)
Dan Krieger, Jerry Michael, Patricia Nicholson, Leo Pinard, Charles Quinlan,
Bruce Sievertson, Wendy Waldron, .
Absent: None
Staff: Gary Price, Randy Rossi
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Charles Quinlan at 7:00 pm. The minutes of
the regular meeting of February 2, 1989 were approved unanimously after the following
correction: Alex Gough should be Gough.
Item 1: Proposed Office Proicct at 1050 Palm Street
Gary Price introduced the project and requested CHC comment on the exterior renovation
and proposed additions to the structure. The applicant's representative, Bruce Frasicr
addressed the CHC and described the project and the design approach. On a motion by Leo
Pinard, seconded by Priscilla Graham, the CHC found that the proposed changes to the
structure and site will not adversely alter the area's historic or architectural
character. (Motion passed 10-0.)
Item 2: Demolition of a Singic Family Residence at 738 High Street
Gary Price briefly described the intended use of the property for a new commercial use
and that the house proposed for demolition was not on the CHC's master list of historic
structures. The applicant's representative, Sake Reindcrsma addressed the CHC about the
reasons for the demolition request and the difficulty of moving the structure due to the
type and condition of the foundation. On a motion by Brucc Sicvertson, seconded by
Gloria Heinz, the CHC found that the existing structure is not historically,
architecturally or culturally significant and may be demolished after a sixty day period
during which it is to be offered for relocation. Further, that evidence that the house
has been advertizcd as offered for relocation be provided to the staff of the CHC in the
Community Development Department (newspaper receipt or copy of listing would be
sufficient for this purpose). (Motion passed 10-0.)
Item 3: Remodel of the Interior of a Historic House at 550 Dana Street
Gary Price introduced the item noting that the reason it was before the CHC was at the
City Council's request that the CHC have final judgement on the appropriateness of the
proposed interior modifications required for conversion of the house to an office use.
The applicant's representative,.Tim Rhonda addressed the CHC briefly describing the
requested modifications using the plans that had been distributed to the CHC. On a
motion by Jerry Michael, seconded by Patricia Nicholson, the CHC found that the project
is approved with conditions because proposed changes to the structure alter its historic
MINUTES
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting of January 29, 1990
Meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Chairperson Jerry Michael, Gloria Heinz, Priscilla Graham, Dan Krieger,
Patricia Nicholson, James Fickes, Mark Hall-Patton, Leo Pinard, Bruce
Sievertson
Absent: Wendy Waldron
Staff: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
On unanimous voice vote, the Minutes of December 7, 1989 were approved.
1. Comments/recommendations concerning the demolitionof a houcP A. 1050 palet
Terry Sanville introduced the item indicating that the CHC had previously reviewed and
support a proposal to enlarge and expand the existing house to accommodate offices.
Because of the deteriorated condition of the building and the need for a new foundation
to support the proposed office additions, the applicant is asking that the house be
demolished and the new office project be design to replicate the architecture of the
house as seen from Palm Street.
CHC members said that they were concerned that the roof of the house had been
removed three years ago, that the house had been left to deteriorate, and that the
demolition of the house was being requested on the purposeful neglect of the property
owner. On motion by Pinard, seconded by Krieger:
(A) The CHC supports it previous action to support the preservation of the
existing house as part of a project to develop offices on the site.
(B) The CHC finds that the house is architecturally and historically significant
because it contributes to the architectural character of the adjacent historic district
and fits into the architectural pattern in the block.
(C) There is not sufficient information presented to the CHC to support the
applicants contention that it is infeasible to rehabilitate the existing structure or
to reinforce the existing foundation to support additional construction.
(D) The CHC appeals the action of the ARC to declar that the existing house is
not historically or architecturally significant and may be demolished.
(Motion passed 8 Ayes, 1 No)
Page 2 -- CHC Minutes, January 29, 1990
2. Review of proposed development at 850 Buchon Street
Terry Sanville introduced the proposed changes to the Norton House and the
development of a new garage and studio apartment to the rear of the property. Rob
Rossi, property owner, discussed the proposed changes with the CHC. The CHC
discussed the proposal to use a flat roof on the kitchen to the rear of the house, and the
size and design of the gable-end window facing Chorro Street.
After discussion of the detatils, on motion of Fickes, seconded by Hall-Patton:
The CHC found that the proposed changes to the Norton Home are compatible
with its historic character. (Motion passed unanimously.)
On Motion by Hall-Patton, seconded by Heinz:
The CHC found that the proposed garage and one-bedroom apartment are
compatible with the historic character of the Old Town Historic District and the
Norton Home and its grounds. (Motion passed unanimously.)
The CHC noted for the record that it continued to support its previous action concerning
support for demolition of the existing garage..
3, status Report' The City's unreinforced masonry building survey and mitigation
Pcogmnl
Tom Baasch was unable to attend the meeting and Terry Sanville indicated that this
item will be continued to the next regular CHC meeting.
4.A. Historical Plaque Program SubcommitteeReport
Sanville reported that the CHCS recommended program had been sent to the City
Council for comment, that no comments had been received, that there is money in the
budget to support the program, and that program development should proceed.
Sanville will contact subcommittee members to establish a time for working out the
administrative details of the program.
4.B. Progress on Phase 11 _Survey Work
Sanville reported that rating sheets had been completed by seven of the ten CHC
members; that the ratings of individual members demonstrated that there were a variety
of methods being used to suggest an. appropriate numerical rating.
After discussing various strategies for proceeding with the completion of the survey work,
she CHC decided that:
Page 3 — CHC Minutes, January 29, 1990
U
1. CHC meetings should begin at 6:30.
2. The first hour of each CHC meeting be reserved for work on the survey with
public action items being considered after 7:30.
3. The CHC should be given three pages worth of tally sheets at each meeting..
It would be the committee's goal to complete its review of this properties each
meeting.
Sanville indicated that he would like to get the rating sheets for the other three CHC
members (Waldron, Sievertson, Michael).
4.C. Archaeological Subcommittee-ft-ort
Sanville reported that the city had received four proposals from archaeological consultants
to conduct city wide data collection activities. Sanville will contact subcommittee
members to set up a time to screen the proposals and schedule consultant interviews if
necessary.
S. Correspondence
The CHC discussed the Sunny Acres building. Sanville reported that the county had
offered the building to the city. Heinz indicated that she had written a letter to the
county as an concerned citizen (not representing the CHC) that the building was of
significant architectural and community importance.
Meeting adjourned 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Terry Sanville, Principal Planner
Secretary to the CHC
uATE - o-90 ITEM # �-
Theitectural
Arch
pfflce00%%,0
Of
f1 G_nuies action by Lead Perm
t
12 February 1990 R��rd by:
r r�Council
V CAO
Pl/giq Arty.
l
Clerk orig.
Mayor Dunin and Members of the City Council (0 ,4.xo/uws
City of San Luis Obispo 7-77
e 990 Palm Street yic E
San Luis Obispo, CA
RE: Cultural Heritage Commission Appeal of Architectural Review Commission
® Approval for Demolition of Residence at 1050 Palm Street
Dear Mayor Dunin and Councilmembers:
e We respectfully request, on behalf of our client Mr. Rudy Duran, your
denial of an appeal made by the Cultural Heritage Commission, challenging
the Architectural Review Commission's approval of a demolition permit for
an existing house at 1050 Palm Street. We feel that the CHC appeal
represents a misunderstanding of the requirements. placed on Mr. Duran's
project by other City agencies, specifically structural life safety
criteria enforced by the Building Division.
The proposed project at 1050 Palm Street has proceeded exactly according
to the City's prescribed review process and has already received the
unanimous endorsement of the Cultural Heritage Commission. It was
designed as a remodel and addition. After receiving design approval from
the Architectural Review Commission, our office initiated structural
engineering in connection with the preparation of construction documents.
As discussed in the attached correspondence from our consulting structural
engineer, the old structure did not meet the engineering criteria
necessary to: be re-used. The project now involves the demolition and
reconstruction of the front portion of the building, initially slated for
remodeling. Existing porch columns and front windows are to be saved and
reinstalled.
Construction documents are complete and have been plan-checked, corrected,
and resubmitted for a building permit. Construction should begin shortly
after issuance of a demolition permit and building permit.
URE C E I V E D psos Street. SAt 93401
pblsP
gg0 0.
FES 1 41g4n San X549.0403
(g05)
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
City Council
2/12/90
Page 2
We feel that several issues are important to the discussion of this
appeal:
1. The subject demolition permit involves no change whatsoever in the
approved design of this project.
2. According to the previous owner of the building, all fixtures and
fittings of potential historical value were purposefully removed from
the house a number of years ago.
3. The visible damage suffered by the house was related to a fire, which
occured before Mr. Duran owned the property.
4. The CHC's objective with this appeal is apparently to punish Mr. Duran
for not re-roofing the house after the fire. In fact, neither Mr.
Duran nor our office anticipated the length and complexity of the
regulatory process the project has experienced. Otherwise, temporary
re-roofing would probably have been pursued.
5. Any structural damage that may have occured to the house due to its
being open to the weather - to floor and roof framing - is a moot
issue, in that the C_ structural engineer does not feel that those components could be maintained in any case.
6. Staff has recommended for issuance of a demolition permit and has
argued against this appeal at the CHC hearing.
7. Finally, the issue of real concern to the community is the existence
of an eyesore in the downtown. The sooner permits can be issued and
construction begun, the sooner that eyesore can be resolved.
We will be available to discuss these issues further at the public hearing
of February 20..
Sincerely,
Br (r---e Douglas Fraser, AIA
xc: Rudy Duran
Judy Lautner
C'
Robert S. Vessely, RCE Civil Engineering
- ... r.... .r. . r...t•J4`Y.yp....i .�....ti..—.r.4�.r•.r.�..u..—....r...+-wu..r+_r__r—nn«r.... •r n. .1
738 Higuera Street, Suite D San Luis Obispo,California 93401 (805)541-2003
February 14, 1990
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 9;:401
To whom it may concern:
My firm was retained last year by the architectural office of
Bruce D. Fraser, AIA to provide structural design services for
the conversion to an office of the existing residence at 1050
Palm Stre,-t. As is usually the case, our design was based on the
requirements of the Linifcrm Building Code, generally accepted
standards o•f :_engineering practice and on a soils report of the
site prepared by Pacific Geoscience, inc. .
It was my opinion, after studying the approved design of the
remodel/addition that there was little of the existing structure
C that could be reused. The house was not originally designed to
sustain the floor live loads now required by the Code for an
office use_ The foundation was in poor condition even for a resi-
dence and the wails had insufficient bracing to meet the require-
+nents for earthquake or wind loads.
Aftcr consultation with the architect, we provided a structural
design which required the demolition and reconstruction of some
portions of the house originally identified by the architect as
to be ' -omodvled"- This deL^c-rmination was not based, in any part,
on structural deterioration due to weathering.
If I can answer any questions regarding this, please don't hesi-
tate to contact me.
Sincerely,
RoUert Vessel y, RCE
c. Bruce D. Fraser, AIA