Historic Resource Commission Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting March 18, 2009 The regular meeting of the Coronado Historic Resource Commission was called to order at 3 p.m., Wednesday, March 18, 2009, at the Coronado City Hall Council Chambers, 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, by Chairperson O’Brien. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Crenshaw, Jones, O’Brien, Ryan, and St. Denis MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Ann McCaull, Associate Planner Martha L Alvarez, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Barbara Denny requested that the Commission amend the minutes to reflect her comment made under public testimony at the March 4, 2009, meeting. Ms. Denny said she disagreed with the summary of her statement contained in the minutes and read into the record the statement she recalled making. The minutes of March 4, 2009, were approved as amended. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Ms. McCaull reported that a project located at 1515 10th Street will proceed with an entire demolition of the home. The Commission had previously found the property was not historically significant and allowed for partial demolition at the rear of the property. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS Jerry Mitchell, 43 The Point, said he attends these meetings to listen and learn about historic resource issues and is not here to campaign. He thanked the Commission for their work and commitment in historic preservation. PUBLIC HEARINGS HAP 1-09 1906 LODGE AT CORONADO BEACH – Request for Historic Resource Alteration Permit to construct a decorative trellis to screen an electrical switch box including a request for an exception to the side yard setback requirement for the site addressed as 1060 Adella Avenue and located in the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) Zone. Director McCaull introduced the staff report as outlined in the agenda. On January 16, 2009, the Community Development Department became aware of a large pull box that had been positioned in the front-side yard area of the site. The pull box is a San Diego Gas & Electric unit that is required to disseminate power received from the transformer to the utilities on the property. A pull box was previously authorized for this location; however, it was much smaller in size (48″ x 20″ 48″) and would have effectively be screened by a wall. The approved set of plans called for the meters to be located in the basement and this location was approved by SDG&E. According to the owner and architect, SDG&E. discovered this plan had been approved and determined they would no longer feed the meter underground. With this change combined with SDG&E. citing and space requirements, and physical constraints of the property with the subterranean garage, the owners determined the only alternative would be to increase the size of the pull box to also house the meter. The owners and City staff are concerned with the aesthetic implications of this equipment near the front of the property. The owners are proposing to construct a decorative wood trellis that would help screen the pull box. The trellis would be approximately 10′ wide and 8′ deep and approximately 8-10′ tall. The decorative timbers on the trellis would match the trellis detailing on the historic and new buildings and would be painted the same green color as the other wood trim on the building. An alternative option would be to paint the box and the trellis structure the same color as the new buildings. The placement of the structure on the historic site requires Historic Resource Commission approval. Due to the location of the pull box, the trellis would be located in the front and side yard setback. An entry arbor or trellis is allowed in the front yard setback; however, not in the side yard setback. The applicant is requesting an exception to the side yard setback requirement for the trellis. An exception to the side yard setback was also given to the new buildings on the site. If the application is approved today, it will be forwarded to City Council for final approval. Commissioner St. Denis asked if SDG&E has setback requirements. Ms. McCaull responded that SDG&E has many restrictions; however, they do not have a requirement that the pull box be located outside of a side yard setback. PUBLIC COMMENT Susan Gillingham, 1060 Adella Avenue, gave an overview of the request and answered questions. Commissioner St. Denis asked about the height of the box. Ms. Gillingham said the pull box is about seven feet in height, which is about one foot shorter than the trellis. Neil Higgins, Architect, Bushman Dreyfus Architect, Charlottesville, Virginia, provided a brief overview of the request. Vice Chair Crenshaw asked if the meter will service only one building. Mr. Higgins said the meter will service two buildings. Chairperson O’Brien asked Mr. Higgins which option he prefers. Mr. Higgins said that he is okay with either adding the trellis or painting the box. He added that the trellis would allow plantings to grow on top of it which would soften it; however, painting the box green to match the rest of the trim is a negative because it would attract attention to the box. He would prefer to paint the box to match the stucco. Commissioner Jones asked about access to the box in order to allow reading of the meters. Mr. Higgins said access would be between the two buildings and through the patio. The doors for the unit will open towards the building. Commissioner Jones commented that if planting material is allowed on the trellis, it would have to be limited to the top and sides in order not to block the doors. Mr. Higgins agreed. He said the trellis has vertical slat work on the three sides facing the street. The other side must remain open for access by SDG&E. Commissioner Jones said the persons occupying the unit behind the pull box would have an unsightly view. Mr. Higgins agreed, but said that SDG&E will allow them to place a potted plant in front of the doors as long as it is moved when access to the box is needed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Vice Chair Crenshaw said it appeared the applicant does not have many choices. She asked the applicant if she is agreeable to both options being approved and having the applicant make the choice. Ms. Gillingham said it would be great to have both options. She said she would like to first paint the box. If it is still unsightly, she would then construct the trellis. However, she is concerned that having the decorative trellis may attract attention to it. Commissioner Ryan said the trellis and plantings would be a good option. Commissioner St. Denis said the trellis will call attention and detract from the historic and new architecture. She understands that the opening of the box is towards the house and is not viewable to the public. She commented that in 1909, Irving Gill was experimenting with simplifying forms and un-decorating things. Ms. St. Denis said her first choice would be to color the box the same color as the building. Her second choice would be to place a stucco wall around the box similar to an Irving Gill form. Chairperson O’Brien said he would prefer to leave the choice to the professionals most involved with this project as he feels they have done a terrific job to date. If the applicant chooses to return to the Commission with a request for a wall as an alternative, the Commission would be more than happy to entertain the request. Commissioner Ryan clarified his earlier comment and said that he would like to approve both options. COMMISSION ACTION COMMISSIONER CRENSHAW MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE REQUEST AS SUBMITTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. OWNER HAS THE OPTION OF PAINTING THE ELECTRICAL BOX INSTEAD OF CONSTRUCTING THE TRELLIS IF IT IS FOUND TO BE THE PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE TO MINIMIZE VISIBILITY OF THE ELECTRICAL BOX. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS WERE MADE: A. THAT THE PROPOSED ALTERATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT AND THE GENERAL PLAN. B. THE PROPOSED ALTERATION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL OR AESTHETIC VALUE OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCE. C. THE PROPOSED ALTERATION WILL RETAIN THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS THAT MAKE THE HISTORIC RESOURCE SIGNIFICANT. D. THE PROPOSED ALTERATION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HISTORIC RESOURCE’S RELATIONSHIP TO ITS SURROUNDINGS AND NEIGHBORING HISTORIC RESOURCES. E. THE PROPOSED ALTERATION WILL COMPLY WITH THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR’S STANDARDS AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966. COMMISSIONER JONES SECONDED THE MOTION. AYES: Commissioners Crenshaw, Jones, MacCartee, and O’Brien. NAYS: Commissioner St. Denis. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion passed with a vote of 4-1. There is a 10-day appeal period. MISCELLANEOUS Discussion regarding California Preservation Foundation workshop on identifying historical integrity and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. Ms. McCaull introduced the staff report as outlined in the agenda. She said the City was contacted by Chris Ackerman and Commissioner Doug St. Denis who expressed an interest in having the California Preservation Foundation hold a workshop in Coronado regarding the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the treatment of historic properties and identifying historical integrity. Ms. McCaull said she has had conversations with Susan Enowitz, Executive Director of the Coronado Historical Association (CHA) as well as Rita Sarich of Coronado Main Street. The City would prefer that CHA and MainStreet take the lead on this workshop, with the City assisting in obtaining facilities. Chris Ackerman, 765 C Avenue, suggested June would be a good time to schedule the workshop. Discussion regarding the Mission of the Historic Preservation Program. Ms. McCaull introduced the staff report as outlined in the agenda. She provided the Commission with information on the Historic Preservation Element. Ms. McCaull suggested that the Commission may want to make a decision on whether the Program should be reviewed and updated. Chairperson O’Brien said that it would be appropriate for the Commission to develop a mission statement. He suggested that the Commission review the information provided by staff and provide comments at the next meeting. Commissioner Ryan suggested forming a subcommittee to provide comments. Chairperson O’Brien recommended that each subgroup provide a mission statement for Commission consideration. HRPA 8-08 City of Coronado: Discussion regarding changes to the Mills Act Program and future Mills Act Workshops. Ms. McCaull introduced the staff report as outlined in the agenda. At the February 18, 2009, Historic Resource Commission meeting, the Commission began preliminary discussions regarding the upcoming Mills Act workshops. Subcommittees of the Commission were formed to develop preliminary recommendations regarding the items to be discussed at the workshops. The areas the Commission would like to focus on include 1) eligibility requirements, e.g. what properties are eligible to apply; 2) process e.g., how are properties treated/evaluated on the waiting list; 3) funding levels, e.g. how should the fiscal cap be handled annually; and 4) alterations, e.g. extent of alterations allowed for Mills Act properties. Ms. McCaull stated that the purpose of today’s meeting is for the Commission to further discuss possible changes to the Mills Act Program that would be presented to the public at the Mills Act workshops to be held in the spring. Commissioner Ryan reviewed the changes made to his presentation on March 4, 2009, regarding Funding Levels. There were no members of the public wishing to speak on this category. Commissioner St. Denis made a presentation on Eligibility Requirements for her subcommittee (St. Denis/Jones). The presentation covered the following proposed eligibility requirements: 1. Only historic designated structures may apply. 2. No home whose appraised market value is greater than 4 million dollars is eligible to apply. (Pasadena and Los Angeles has similar restrictions.) The wealthy purchases of historic mansions often to be used as vacation homes are not the homeowners the Mills Act was created for. 3. Except in very unique circumstances, Mills Act exceptions allowing a property to move ahead of other properties to be funded should be avoided at all costs. 4. Only a maximum of five or six applications should be accepted each calendar year. Accepting more than this amount creates a long waiting list. 5. Of the five categories, one home in each category should be funded before a second home can be funded in another category in order that the small cottages have the opportunity to be considered for funding. 6. Only the historic structure itself shall receive tax relief; no tax deduction for non historic additions or non historic accessory buildings. 7. An historic designated property that has inappropriate or illegal additions or changes, in particular to the front façade, may not be eligible for Mills Act benefits. 8. Changes to the front façade, even if previously approved by the Historic Resource Commission, i.e. replacing windows with French doors or adding a large visible second story to a one story house may make the house ineligible for the Mills Act. Owners should be made aware of this at the time the proposed addition is reviewed by the Commission. 9. The alterations allowable for historically designated structures can be more lenient and flexible within the Secretary of Interior’s Standards that those allowable to Mills Act property owners. The owner has two choices a. Preserve the historic house that may not be as large or convenient as they would like and enjoy Mills Act tax benefits; b. Use the historic designation to enlarge a house, taking advantage of zoning exceptions and other benefits but forego the possibility of Mills Act tax benefits. 10. Work already completed by a previous owner shall not be considered when preparing a list of improvements deserving of Mills Act benefits. Work previously completed by the current owner/applicant may be considered. 11. Rehabilitation: returning an historic structure to its original condition on elevations visible from the public rights-of-way shall be eligible for Mills Act benefits only if the application is accompanied by historic photographs and/or other reliable documentation of the original structure. Commissioner Ryan commented that Coronado is 50 percent non owner occupied. He would not support eligibility requirement #2 because he wants to preserve the 150 or so beautiful homes even if they happen to be second homes. Chairperson O’Brien agreed that this should not be an eligibility requirement. With reference to requirement #10, he stated that the party responsible for the work should not be the issue; the issue is whether the house is historic. Commissioner St. Denis said she felt it is not fair that the current applicant receive a tax break for work funded by another party and asked for further discussion. Chairperson O’Brien said that requirement #11 is fine because it is better that more history is provided. Commissioner Jones said this requirement is necessary. Chris Ackerman, 765 C Avenue, said he was very impressed by the work that the Commission has presented. He asked that information be provided in hard copy to the audience at future meetings so that they may follow along with the Commission. He agreed that improvements and maintenance to properties are important as this was one of the original intents of the Mills Act Program. However, he expressed some concern about the Commission interpreting the Secretary of Interior Standards differently for different properties, i.e. one standard for the Mills Act homes and another standard for the historic homes. He said there has been voluminous information provided documenting what the Standards’ intent is; however, he understands there is flexibility in the interpretation of the Standards. He feels the City is being lenient on what is allowed for historically designated homes and describes this issue as a “slippery slope.” Commissioner St. Denis said the intent of the Standards is murky because it is left up to interpretation. Commissioner Jones said there are many historic homes that would not quality for the Mills Act because of changes made to them about 40 or so years ago. Mr. Ackerman said there are homes where the changes become part of the historic fabric of the house. He considers these changes as an “intuitive difference” and feels that these homes would still qualify under Mills Act. Commissioner St. Denis said that when a home is a Mills Act home, the City is agreeing to preserve the home and helping the property owner to pay for it. Chairperson O’Brien asked the Commission to consider whether their mission statement should suggest that all Mills Act and historic homes be treated equally. Vice Chair Crenshaw said that a determination should also be made by the Commission on whether the property or the home itself is being designated historic. Chair O’Brien requested Commissioners St. Denis and Jones to refine their recommendations based upon comments at today’s meeting and bring back their recommendations at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Rachel A. Hurst Director of Community Development, Redevelopment & Housing Services