Cultural Heritage Committee Action Update

Monday                                    March 14, 2005                                      5:30 p.m. 

ROLL CALL:      Chairperson Paula Juelke Carr, Vice-Chair Tom Wheeler, Sandy Baer, Barbara Breska, Chuck Crotser, Robert Pavlik, and Frank Scotti.  Committee members Wheeler, Breska and Scotti were absent.

STAFF:                Jeff Hook, Senior Planner; Claire Clark, Seismic Retrofit Program Coordinator; and Tom Baasch, Chief Building Official

DISCUSSION ITEM:

1.   Permit processing for Seismic Retrofitting of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings. (Claire Clark, Seismic Retrofit Program Coordinator)

Jeff Hook introduced the item.  Claire Clark presented the staff report requesting staff authority to review certain minor changes to historic buildings as part of seismic strengthening permit applications. She also explained that only about 10% of Unreinforced Masonry Building (URM) owners had expressed interest in demolishing their buildings.  She explained the challenges facing property owners and the City in processing and issuing strengthening permits for about 75 Downtown historic buildings by the January 1^st, 2006 deadline.

Chairperson Carr did not object to bricking in windows that were not publicly visible, provided that the lintel was saved, the infill material matched the surrounding building materials and finish, and a reveal was maintained showing the window’s original shape and location. 

Committee member Baer was comfortable with staff handling the requested minor changes.

Committee member Crotser was concerned that angle brace frames for strengthening URM buildings could impact a building’s appearance from the street and its interior architectural character.  He felt windows were important historic features but if infill was essential, he agreed with Chairperson Carr on changes.  He suggested that staff develop a list of recommended preferences for window infill, and also that staff provide URM applicants with a list of preservation architects and engineers.  He mentioned that the Obispo Beautiful Awards Association had an awards program which would be ideal to recognize exemplary seismic retrofit/historic preservation projects.  Committee member Crotser asked that staff ensure that replacement materials used for infill and parapets avoid “simulated materials.”   He felt exterior building materials on historic buildings should accurately reflect original building materials and wanted to avoid a “Disneyland treatment” to the Downtown Historic District.

Other Committee members agreed with Committee member Crotser.  All members agreed with the notion that it was OK to remove a “modern” building façade to expose the original building façade which was more or less intact or being rehabilitated according to the Secretary’s Standards.  They felt it was important to be clear on what “period” the building façade was being returned to. 

Committee Crotser would like to see structural frames moved back from building storefronts an undetermined distance to minimize their visibility from public streets and viewing areas.

Chairperson Carr was concerned about preserving historic interior and exterior signage, and asked staff to be aware of and try to preserve unexpected or “surprise” architectural and site elements that are uncovered during seismic strengthening, where feasible.  She also asked that special care be taken to protect and preserve distinctive interior elements such as staircases and architectural ornamentation.  On a motion by Committee member Crotser, seconded by Chairperson Carr, the Committee voted 4-0 to approve action alternative number 1, which includes approval of the following types of changes to historic buildings being delegated to the Community Development Director:

1.  Filling in original window openings that are not publicly visible and do not significantly alter the building’s historic character.  In such cases, the infill material must be recessed from the building façade to maintain a reveal showing the windows original shape and size, and the infill material matches the façade closely. 

2.  Use of thru bolts and exterior plates are allowed when not located on the front of the building.

3.  Removal of parapets is allowed but only when bracing is not feasible.  Where replacement of the parapet is necessary, reuse of the original materials in the original design is preferred so that the replacement is visually identical. Use of simulated or non-original replacement materials shall require review by the CHC and is discouraged.

4.  Minor exterior building changes that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the City of San Luis Obispo publications, The Community Design and Historical Preservation Program Guidelines.

5.  Removal of “modern” building features and materials and the rehabilitation or restoration of the building’s original façade.   Projects that include recreation of missing architectural features should be based on historic photos or other documentation; other changes to architectural features or materials or finishes shall require CHC review and shall conform, as closely as possible, to the building’s original appearance, material, and layout.

In reviewing such requests, the Director will apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the City of San Luis Obispo’s Community Design Guidelines to determine appropriateness of changes to the historic building.  To ensure changes are compatible, the Director may apply conditions of approval addressing design details, materials, and colors.  When the Director determines such changes are not consistent with these standards, the project will be scheduled for CHC review at the first available meeting.

The meeting ADJOURNED to the regular CHC meeting to be held on Monday, March 28, 2005, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.