Historic Preservation Commission Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: FFEA3EFE-F3B1-43D1-8D8D-7E943C813DF3 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, October 8, 2020 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM TELECONFERENCE MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Napoli, Collum, Barlow, Dawson, O’Neil Members Absent: O’Brien, Smith-Crivello Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, Senior Associate Planner Roveri, Associate Planner Sabdo, Recording Secretary Cleary, Recording Secretary Ziel 1. Meeting Procedures CALL TO ORDER Chair Napoli called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 2. July 9, 2020 Action: Approved as Amended. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Dawson requested her comments on packet page 5 in the second paragraph be amended to the following statement: Commissioner Dawson questioned whether the proposed exterior alterations to the building were in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. The SOI states that exterior alterations should be designed in construction to be clearly differentiated from the historic building. Although, the roof line, shingles, railing, windows on the addition all match the existing, there was not an attempt made to differentiate. Public Comment None On a motion by Commissioner Barlow, seconded by Commissioner Collum, and carried by the following vote, the Historic Preservation Commission approved the July 9, 2020 HPC minutes as amended: Napoli, Collum, Barlow, Dawson, O’Neil AYES: 5 MEMBERS: NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: O’Brien, Smith-Crivello ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None DocuSign Envelope ID: FFEA3EFE-F3B1-43D1-8D8D-7E943C813DF3 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Thursday, October 8, 2020 PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Consider 946 W. Franklin Street; Application for a Mills Act Contract (MA-20-0204) and H-2 Historic Zoning (TM-20-0206); Applicant/Owner Laura Adame Fenwick; R-1- 6 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5 Action: Approved as submitted Commissioners Barlow and Dawson announced they had a conflict of interest due to owning property near the project site. Both commissioners recused themselves from the agenda item. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions. Commissioner O’Neil asked if there was an addition on the back of the building. O’Neil stated the outline of the building looks like its large in the back and small in the front and was wondering if that building feature was original or if it was added on to. Applicant Laura Adame commented the report should note that there was an addition on the back of the house, but the addition does not change how the house appears from the street. Commissioner O’Neil followed up by asking when the addition was completed. The applicant did not know the exact date but confirmed it was an old addition that was there when she purchased the property and was there when the previous owners owned the property. Applicant Comments Applicant Laura Adame noted the report speaks for itself and that they are pleased to have a historic property and excited to learn more about the history. Adame noted she would like to maintain it as a historic property and has no interest in changing the house. Commissioner Collum commented that she enjoys going by the home and they have done a wonderful job maintaining it. Senior Associate Planner Roveri noted that she read through the report and found that two newer vinyl windows were installed but they were identified as installed on secondary elevations not on the primary character defining elevation. Public Comments None. Commissioner Comments Commissioner O’Neil commented that it is subjective how well the property fits with the seven objectives that need to be looked at. O’Neil noted that the home looks historic and maintains some integrity even with newer modifications. On a motion by Commissioner O’Neil, seconded by Commissioner Collum, and carried by the following vote, the Historic Preservation Commission approved 946 W. Franklin Street; Application for a Mills Act Contract (MA-20-0204) and H-2 Historic Zoning (TM-20-0206) DocuSign Envelope ID: FFEA3EFE-F3B1-43D1-8D8D-7E943C813DF3 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Thursday, October 8, 2020 AYES: 3 MEMBERS: Napoli, Collum, O’Neil, NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: O’Brien, Smith-Crivello ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 2 MEMBERS: Barlow, Dawson PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Consider 491 Webster Street; Application for a Mills Act Contract (MA 20-0191) and H-2 Historic Zoning (TM 20-0192); Property Owners Gregory and Rebecca Beardsley; Commercial General Plan Designation; PC-D-ES Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5 Action: Approved as submitted. Commissioner Barlow and Commissioner Dawson rejoined the meeting at 4:48 p.m. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Sabdo presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions. Commissioner Dawson commented that the look of the house now is very different compared to the photos on page 77 of the packet. Dawson noted that Associate Planner Sabdo identified the changes to the tile door hood, the garage door being replaced with French doors, the patio space being expanded and the new tile of the Virgin Mary. Dawson noted that due to all of these changes it is not compatible with condition nine of the Secretary of the Interior Standards which states that the new work shall be differentiated from the old. Dawson stated she felt the new work was similar to the old and there was not an attempt to differentiate it. Commissioner Barlow asked if the presentation could expand a bit on the criteria regarding the builder that built the home and the maritime occupant. Barlow noted this history may be a compelling case for the commission. Associate Planner Sabdo responded to Commissioner Barlow’s inquiry. Sabdo provided more information about criteria three noting the builder, Frank Siino, was a native of Monterey who constructed many of the fishing boats in the Sardine Fleet of Monterey. Siino also constructed two of the adjacent houses on the corner of Webster and Figueroa. Applicant Comments Historian Kent Seavey spoke on behalf of the applicants and responded to Commissioner Dawson’s comment about the changes to the structure and explained that was a decision made with Planning Staff, predicated on the Section of Interior Standards of Rehabilitation that quote “an attached exterior addition to a historic build expands its outer limits to create a new profile, because such expansion has the capability to radically change the historic appearance. An exterior addition should only be considered after it has been determined that the new use cannot be successfully met by altering non character defining interior spaces. If the new use cannot be met in this way, then the attached exterior addition is usually an acceptable alternative.” Seavey explained the issue with this house was staircases and close rooms, it was simply a miniature interior. Seavey further explained that this project was carefully discussed with Planning staff and the determination was to go with the existing shed roof on that section. Seavey also noted it was required that the chimney, which was a character defining part of that building envelope, be placed in its original location with the flanking windows that were also in the envelope. In regard to the window hood over the balcony, Seavey shared the original DocuSign Envelope ID: FFEA3EFE-F3B1-43D1-8D8D-7E943C813DF3 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Thursday, October 8, 2020 balcony had to be removed because it was rotted from rain damage and the door hood was installed to preclude the infiltration of lowering damp that occurred. Commissioner Dawson followed up by asking why the changes were not differentiated from the original structure. Historian Seavey said the tile modifications had to be voted on and finalized by staff so he could not give a specific answer on the process. Seavey stated they were trying to keep the interior of the building functional. He also noted that the landscape plan will impact the appearance as it develops. Commissioner Dawson further commented the addition is still similar because it’s stucco with a tile roof. Seavey responded that the roof shape is different, it is stepped in a bit and the project is on a secondary altered elevation. Commissioner O’Neil asked when the home was redone if it was still considered historic. O’Neil noted the property was never taken off the historic list and asked if it went through the proper procedures for historic elements. Sabdo responded that it is on the reconnaissance survey and because of the Downtown Specific Plan is an Administrative Project, but they did submit a Phase 2 Historic assessment showing that the addition and alterations are consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Sabdo also noted that assessment was included in Attachment 3. Commissioner O’Neil asked for Seavey to elaborate on the four standards for reviewing and redoing historic structures. Seavey quoted the standards citing “new conditions should be designed and constructed so that the character defining features of the historic building are not radically altered or changed.” Seavey explained the idea of rehabilitation is to create a situation of dealing with contemporary standards while preserving the cultural character of the building. Seavey noted that the rehabilitation allows for some changes to meet current living standards. O’Neil asked who decides which of the four standards are used for a project. Seavey noted that the shed roof addition was approved by former Planning Staff due to the nature of the interior and that the priority was preserving the building envelope. He noted the additions to the rear were worked out with Planning staff. Seavey further clarified that the Rehabilitation Standards were followed on this property as stated in Phase 2 and subsequent letters. Associate Planner Sabdo added that the standards are based on the goals of the project and worked on with the property owner. Seavey also noted that the Rehabilitation Standards are applied taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility and that standards encourage placing a new addition on non-character defining elevations. He noted that as much as possible the building was brought back to its earlier configuration while making changes necessary to meet modern living requirements. Commissioner Dawson asked if you are supposed to follow all of the Secretary of Interior Standards. Seavey responded by stating that you only have to follow the particular standard for the project. He elaborated on each standard and explained that under the Restoration Standard you have to have physical or photographic evidence of the exact building and take it to that location. Seavey explained Preservation Standard indicates the building just needs maintenance and repair and that under the Reconstruction Standard, you have to have building plans, photographs and physical evidence of what the building looked like and rebuild it as much as possible. Commissioner Dawson clarified that she does not understand why the new additions are not differentiated from the original. Dawson elaborated that the addition is the same style with the tile and stucco, and she thought it should be clearly differentiated so you could tell what was added. Seavey indicated that wood cladding is typically used, or a different stucco or color is used to differentiate. Seavey noted that the owners could do a darker color if they were inclined. DocuSign Envelope ID: FFEA3EFE-F3B1-43D1-8D8D-7E943C813DF3 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Thursday, October 8, 2020 Owner Greg Beardsley noted that Planning staff mentioned differentiation and that Senior Associate Planner Hopper had them incorporate indentations coming down where the new addition is started. Beardsley noted there is a setback on the roof and an indentation on the side where the old house ended adjoining with the new addition. Beardsley added that staff had informed them those modifications would be adequate for differentiation. Commissioner Collum commented on Commissioner Dawson’s concerns noting it has to do with which standard is being used and that the City went with the Rehabilitation Standard. Collum noted that the addition looks different and that the rules were followed. O’Neil noted she has mixed emotions on this, but the applicant went through the City process and had a lot of involvement in the process. Seavey noted that City staff and the owner met on site several times discussing these items and were comfortable with the project. Commissioner Dawson shared she would be more comfortable if the addition were at least painted a different color because she feels it should be differentiated in a clear matter. Commissioner Barlow asked if the same builder of this property built the Tommy Boy boat that the first occupant owned. Seavey was unsure if the builder built that boat but noted the builder worked on other boat projects. He also noted that this property could fall under other historic and cultural standards. Public Comments None. Commissioner Comments Commissioner O’Neil commented she has two feelings on this project. O’Neil noted they have removed several properties off the Historic list that have similar changes but also understands the City was heavily involved in this project. Commissioner Barlow commented that the house is pretty well worked over in terms of successive remodels. However, Barlow further commented that this was a deliberative process and the owner put a lot of effort into this house. Barlow noted he finds the history of the boat industry is very interesting and that this historical element is enough to approve this Mills Act. Commissioner O’Neil made a motion to approve the project that was seconded by Commissioner Barlow. Commissioner Dawson asked if the commission would consider an amendment to require that the additions be painted a different color to be included in the Mills Act contract and approved by staff. Commissioner O’Neil responded that she feels that amendment would differentiate but would detract from the look of the house. O’Neil elaborated she did not want to add the amendment to her motion because that was not the intent of the rehabilitation. Commissioner Dawson asked if she could put forth a counter motion. Community Development Director Cole clarified that there was an existing motion and second that need to be voted on and if that motion failed, a new motion could be made. DocuSign Envelope ID: FFEA3EFE-F3B1-43D1-8D8D-7E943C813DF3 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Thursday, October 8, 2020 On a motion by Commissioner O’Neil, seconded by Commissioner Barlow, and carried by the following vote, the Historic Preservation Commission approved 491 Webster Street; Application for a Mills Act Contract (MA 20-0191) and H-2 Historic Zoning (TM 20-0192) AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Napoli, Collum, Barlow, O’Neil NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Dawson ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: O’Brien, Smith-Crivello ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 5. Planning Office Update  Update received.  Community Development Director shared that the City of Monterey meeting format will be switching to ZoomGov. Cole noted that staff will contact the commission to help them upload the system and participate in the next meeting. Chair Napoli suggested offering a test of the system prior to the next meeting.  Commissioner Dawson shared that she and Commissioner Smith-Crivello will be reviewing the Mills Act Historic list and review each property to add the Mills Act approval date to each property along with updating the list to include new Mills Act properties that need to be added to the list. Commissioner O’Neil asked about the Historic plaques for the designated properties and who creates and writes those. Community Development Director Cole clarified that the historian writes the plaques for approval by staff. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole, AICP Chair Community Development Director Historic Preservation Commission