Historic Preservation Commission Meeting

MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, February 11, 2016 4:00 pm - 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: O'Neil, O'Brien, Barlow, Hawley, Petty, Denley Commissioners Absent: Smith-Crivello Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Caraker, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair O’Neil called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. January 14, 2016 Action: Approved. On a motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Hawley, and carried by the following vote, the Historic Preservation Commission approved the Consent Agenda as submitted. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Barlow, Hawley, O'Brien, O'Neil, Denley, NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Smith-Crivello ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Petty RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS Sherna Stewart, a Monterey resident since 1962, said that she would like to see the City designate a Historic Preservation district that would span the Lower Presidio Historic Park to the Royal Presidio Chapel. She said that she realized there are approximately 40 historic properties which are truly unique to the City and she would like to see more of them mentioned on the City’s website. She asked that the HPC consider discussion of a comprehensive historic district on their work program. She said she believes it would be imperative for the preservation of the City and suggested NIP (Neighborhood Improvement Program) funding could be a method to finance the project. She said that the adobes are integral to the City and she wants to see their restorative character maintained. PUBLIC HEARING  Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Thursday, February 11, 2016 2. Consider 1320 David Avenue; Application P-15-426 for Removing 1320 David Avenue from the New Monterey Reconnaissance Survey List; Applicant Seth Bergstein; Owner Lynda Gibbons; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA per Article 18, Section 15270 Action: Adopted resolution denying the historic permit application. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Comments Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Commissioners’ questions. Commissioner Hawley asked why the style of the house was considered Victorian Vernacular if its style was Post-War. She said that she would need more clarification on the style of home. Ms. Roveri said that the type of house was found in the historic context statement, which was prepared by Past Consultants. Chair O’Neil said the historic report may be stating that the house was a Vernacular-style cottage with Victorian features. Ms. Roveri referenced page nine of the Agenda packet, noting the definition of Victorian Vernacular cottages. She said that their defining characteristic is a simple, rectangular floor plan. Commissioner Petty noted that the purpose of the reconnaissance survey is to identify potentially historic buildings, and that every building could be potentially historic. He said that it is important to note that everyone is on the list and that they can be removed from the list once they no longer meet the criteria. Commissioner Denley asked if the carport built in 1973 was reversible. Ms. Roveri said yes, but that the connection to the house would still be visible. She noted that it was not attached to the original residence, but to an addition so it would not affect the integrity of the house. Applicant Seth Bergstein with Past Consultants presented Lynda Gibbons, the Applicant. Ms. Gibbons said that she bought the house in 2013 and that her daughter will eventually live there. She said that she lives in a historic home within a historic district in Boulder, Colorado. She expressed her appreciation and support for historic homes and said that she was surprised when she learned that 1320 David Avenue may be potentially historic because it did not appear to be so at purchase. Mr. Bergstein said that confusion seemed to be that the phrase “Victorian” is often used to describe properties, but is not always accurate. He said that there are four time periods and four types of Victorian cottages that appear throughout different time periods. He noted that the garage was built to match the style of the house and that it was not listed as a character-defining feature. He said that he did not believe the carport or many of the features listed in the staff report to be reversible because of the damage that would be done to the house in the process. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 11, 2016 2 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Thursday, February 11, 2016 Public Comment Nancy Runyon, a New Monterey neighborhood resident, said that she believes this house is historically significant. She said that it contributes to the character of the neighborhood and she said that she supports staff’s recommendation to keep the house on the reconnaissance list. She said that she fears if it is removed, then it will be demolished and something out of character will replace it. Kent Seavey said that he believes the house has been altered excessively and that he believes this property is setting the bar too low for future houses with historic potential. He noted that carports now need review and garages are a key element of twentieth century design. He suggested that the Neighborhood Association create design guidelines in order to prevent this type of situation in the future. Patricia Domingo, a resident of New Monterey and member of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association Board, referenced the letter written to staff regarding the Board’s wishes for 1320 David Avenue to stay on the New Monterey Reconnaissance Survey. She said that this is a very thorough process and her property just missed the survey in New Monterey, although she would have been thrilled to be on it. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Petty noted that the opinions of staff and Past Consultants are opposed and he saw no nuances between the two. Commissioner Petty asked if the original structure had been so altered that it was no longer a worthy example of a historic property and if it should be removed from the list. Chair O’Neil said that the addition seemed very intact and that it seemed to follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. She noted that outside of the carport the rooflines were visible, but it looked similar to other houses in the area. Commissioner Hawley said that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards apply to historic buildings, but they would not apply in this case because when the addition occurred the building was not classified as historic. Commissioner Barlow said that this was a difficult determination to make, taking into account the consideration of a possible Mills Act contract regarding the house, and that nothing had been radically changed on the exterior. Chair O’Neil asked what process the Applicant would need to follow if they were denied being taken off the list and they would like to modify the house in the future. Principal Planner Caraker explained the options for alterations to a historic property. Vice Chair O’Brien said she would not like to see the house taken off of the list because it is a vernacular cottage. She noted that this is a sensitive issue to Monterey’s historic background. Commissioner Hawley noted that removing the garage would be a very big move because it would involve removing half of the building. Ms. Roveri said that the garage is not a character-defining feature. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 11, 2016 3  Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Thursday, February 11, 2016 Commissioner Hawley said that vernacular cottages did not have garages. Ms. Roveri said that she did not speak about the garage because it was not a finding she had to make in order to keep the property on the New Monterey Reconnaissance Survey. Commissioner Petty said that he believes unless there is a preponderance of evidence, the house may have to remain on the list regardless of the modifications previously made. Chair O’Neil said that when little houses are lost and large houses replace them, it is then that the character of the neighborhood begins to vanish. She said that character is what makes Monterey such a wonderful place to live. Commissioner Barlow said that he believed in preservation, despite the alterations already made to the home. He said that he supported staff’s recommendation for keeping it on the reconnaissance survey. Commissioner Hawley said that vernacular cottages, on a small scale, are a lovely part of Monterey’s fabric. She noted that this one had been significantly altered and said that she believed the HPC may be setting the bar too low for future, similar properties and that by doing so, the HPC may be requiring the homeowner to adhere to costly standards. She also asked that the vernacular cottage descriptors be updated. On a motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Barlow, and carried by the following vote, the Historic Preservation Commission adopted a resolution denying the historic permit application. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Barlow, O'Brien, O'Neil, Petty NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Hawley, Denley ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Smith-Crivello ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Consider Application P-16-047 for Adopting a Historic Preservation Report for 720 Via Mirada (Monterey Museum of Art). Owner: Monterey Museum of Art, Applicant: Charlotte Eyerman; Zoning: R-E-20-D1-H1; General Plan: Low Density Residential; Exempt from CEQA per Section 15331 Action: Adopted a resolution adopting a Historic Preservation Report (application P-16-047) for 720 Via Mirada (Monterey Museum of Art). Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 11, 2016 4 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Thursday, February 11, 2016 Staff Presentation/Commissioner Comments Principal Planner Caraker presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Dan Fletcher, on behalf of the Monterey Museum of Art, said that the report is being done at this time because of ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Compliance and that there is currently no project at the time. Seth Bergstein of Past Consultants said that the goal is to determine a historic context for the building. Charles Moore, Architect, said that at the moment they are working to establish an interpretive period with character-defining characteristics. Public Comment Julie Work-Beck, the oldest remaining member of the Work family, said that she did not know this application was under consideration until the day prior when she read the report. She thanked the HPC and staff for their work and said that history in Monterey is undervalued and that she would like to keep historic fabric of the City intact. In reading the report, she said there seems to be some more information she could add because she is the keeper of the Work family archives and they are extensive. She said that she has many things and many memories of La Mirada. She said that she also has bills of sale from Frances Elkins to the Work family and she believed they could be of great value to the report. Commissioner Hawley asked if Ms. Work-Beck could prove her ownership. Ms. Work-Beck said that she could present the bills of sale. Chair O’Neil suggested that Ms. Work-Beck and the Applicant work together. Mr. Bergstein said that this was a more challenging project because Ms. Elkins designed interiors, but they cannot accurately document what the rooms looked like. He said that he was not aware of Ms. Work-Beck’s archives, but that he would like to see them. He noted that a true challenge is putting interiors together without knowledge of what they previously looked like. He said that Ms. Elkins’ work was very important, but he was not sure if it was of primary importance to the report. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Hawley asked if it was necessary for the report to be limited to one interpretive period. Chair O’Neil said that often primary and subordinate periods will be featured as a guide within a report. Commissioner Hawley asked if any additions or alterations would need to respect the interpretive period of the adopted report. Ms. Caraker said once the report is adopted, the proposed alterations should remain consistent with that is outlined within the report. She explained that a report has a life of Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 11, 2016 5 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Thursday, February 11, 2016 three years and it can be updated after it expires. Commissioner Hawley said that it seems that there are three periods outlined within the report. She said that the floor-to-ceiling windows seem like a significant architectural feature that she would worry could be altered if the Work Period was not encompassed as a part of the Interpretive Period. Chair O’Neil noted that the museum is classified as an H-1 building and therefore all alterations must be reviewed. Ms. Caraker said that the windows could not be altered or destroyed unless the report was altered to reflect that. She said the restoration projects on the last page of the report recognized a single interpretive period. Commissioner Petty said that all of the periods listed on the report took place during the Morris Period and he felt inclined to accept staff’s report that the HPC approve the Morris Period at the primary period for the report. Vice Chair O’Brien said that she would like to see the Work Period included and the family’s personal records put to use in restoring the history of the project, as well as the Morris Period. Commissioner Hawley noted that those could be the touchstones by which the rehabilitation should be designed. Commissioner Petty asked Mr. Bergstein if he believed that the Morris Period is mostly significant because of the changes to the exterior whereas the Work Period is significant because of interior modifications. Mr. Bergstein said that the report does not denounce other periods and that both periods are equally significant. Commissioner Petty said that he understood and he would like to more fully understand each period. Mr. Bergstein explained that the Work family collected antiques and that preservationists are having a difficult time accurately placing the items in the rooms in the museum, as they have no visual guide of the placement of the furniture from the time period. Chair O’Neil noted that they are taking into consideration the building itself, not how it’s furnished. Commissioner Hawley asked if exterior modifications should be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Ms. Caraker said yes, and alterations would also need to be consistent with the report. It would also be able to be amended. Commissioner Barlow said that he would like to see the Work family archives explored with an open mind. On a motion by Commissioner Barlow, seconded by Commissioner Denley, and carried Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 11, 2016 6 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Thursday, February 11, 2016 by the following vote, the Historic Preservation Commission adopted a resolution adopting a Historic Preservation Report (application P-16-047) for 720 Via Mirada (Monterey Museum of Art). AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Barlow, Hawley, O'Brien, O'Neil, Petty, Denley NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Smith-Crivello ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Hawley asked if there was a way to obtain Charles Morris’ thesis on contemporizing adobes. Ms. Caraker said that she would look into that. Chair O’Neil said that they the HPC had been asked for their input on a commemorative plaque for Virginia McLain and the HPC discussed and decided upon wording options for the plaque. Commissioner Petty said that some Commissioners had mentioned that the bar was being set too low for the reconnaissance list and he said in the spirit of preservation, the bar needs to be set high before properties can be removed. Commissioner Barlow: said that approximately 30 people attended the Hartnell Gulch Community meeting. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:48 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Elizabeth Caraker, AICP Chair Principal Planner Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 11, 2016 7