No Bookmarks Exist.
Well, it's 3:00, so I'd like to call to order the September 25th, 2024 meeting of the Historic Resources Committee. | 00:00:16 | |
And. | 00:00:28 | |
We're moving to roll call. We'll acknowledge that Nayana Dranus is not present today and the other four members are present. | 00:00:29 | |
Which brings us to the second item, approval of the agenda. | 00:00:42 | |
And I have a motion to approve the agenda, please. I move, we approve the agenda. Thank you. | 00:00:48 | |
Seconded. | 00:00:56 | |
So the motion made by Greening, seconded by Steers. And can I have a show of hands to approve the agenda? All right. Looks like a | 00:00:59 | |
421 absent person. | 00:01:04 | |
All right. Moving to item number three, committee and staff announcements. Starting with committee announcements, I'd just like to | 00:01:12 | |
remind the committee and anybody that's listening that our November and December dates will be a little different just because of | 00:01:19 | |
the holidays. So the November meeting will take place on the 20th and the December. | 00:01:26 | |
Meeting will take place on the 18th. Both will be at 1:00 here in the chambers instead of at 3:00 just because the other. | 00:01:34 | |
Groups are using the the chambers too. | 00:01:43 | |
Do we have any staff announcements? | 00:01:47 | |
Seeing none. | 00:01:50 | |
We'll move to item 4. Do we have a council liaison announcement? | 00:01:52 | |
Or two. | 00:01:57 | |
Thank you for coming. | 00:01:59 | |
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you for being here. | 00:02:03 | |
Some items that recently were approved by City Council approved the fiscal year 2425 user fee increase. Pretty much it's CPI. | 00:02:09 | |
Increase across the board with an emphasis on keeping facility rentals for residents low to encourage the use of our facilities | 00:02:23 | |
such as. | 00:02:29 | |
Chautauqua. | 00:02:36 | |
Council also approved outdoor sidewalk extension that's at the intersection of itself at the corner of Victorian Corners. Rudolfo | 00:02:39 | |
and Wild Fish approved the. | 00:02:46 | |
Development of the policy for that, as well as a contract to do the work. | 00:02:56 | |
Also, council put on the ballot for this November, which you should be getting. | 00:03:03 | |
I believe they ballots get mailed out from the county around October 4th. | 00:03:11 | |
And so you'll see there 1 ballot measure for reducing council from six members to four. Also, council approved a resolution of | 00:03:18 | |
intent to vacate part of a block of Slot Ave. That is the. | 00:03:27 | |
Slowed Ave. that's adjacent to the ATC building and the parking lot. And we approved an amended budget and added more capital | 00:03:39 | |
improvement projects like. | 00:03:47 | |
Putting up a rail split rail fence in the butterfly sanctuary and if you want to know more can look at the agenda or send me an | 00:03:56 | |
e-mail. | 00:04:02 | |
Thank you. Thank you very much. I have one, one moment. | 00:04:09 | |
Sorry for that. | 00:05:00 | |
Moving to item number 5, general public comment. | 00:05:03 | |
This must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the city and the Historic Resources Committee, items that are not on | 00:05:09 | |
the regular agenda. | 00:05:13 | |
So if you have any comments, we limit to three minutes and I invite the public to come forward if you have a comment. | 00:05:18 | |
Do we have any virtual comments? | 00:05:27 | |
The next speaker will be Anthony Gianni. | 00:05:29 | |
Good afternoon. | 00:05:35 | |
And looking over the agendas that using this agenda for. | 00:05:38 | |
A reason to look at past agendas. I looked. I went back and looked at agendas from 1978. | 00:05:46 | |
ARB and then the HRC agendas and it occurred to me that. | 00:05:57 | |
The HRC has had a lot of energy and endurance and patience and trying to promote and implement. | 00:06:07 | |
A kind of historic preservation program for Pacific Grove. | 00:06:18 | |
The City Council. | 00:06:23 | |
Planning Commission of all supported having a historic context statement prepared and then the update to the HRI and. | 00:06:25 | |
I looked at something called. | 00:06:37 | |
In the 2011. | 00:06:41 | |
Historic context statement. | 00:06:45 | |
A something called the Pacific Grove Preservation Program considerations and those considerations. | 00:06:48 | |
10 of. | 00:06:58 | |
Included. | 00:07:00 | |
Creating a local preservation incentive program and historic districts. | 00:07:02 | |
And. | 00:07:10 | |
Additional resource surveys Well, the surveys have been carried out, but in those surveys or recommendations for. | 00:07:12 | |
The neighborhood character list and for. | 00:07:21 | |
A for historic preservation districts and. | 00:07:25 | |
And also a recommendation for the city to establish a certified local government program. And that's important because it links | 00:07:31 | |
you to the state, which links you to the federal government and all of the grants in aid that come from the state. | 00:07:41 | |
Through come from the federal government, through the state and then down to the local governments and it's a partnership kind of | 00:07:52 | |
like. | 00:07:57 | |
The Coastal Commissions Local Coastal Program is a partnership with the city. | 00:08:03 | |
For managing. | 00:08:10 | |
The resources in the coastal zone portion of Pacific Grove. | 00:08:12 | |
I would hope that. | 00:08:18 | |
As a proactive measure instead of reacting day-to-day that you will look forward to adopting a local coastal or excuse me, a local | 00:08:21 | |
government program and association with historic preservation. Thank you. | 00:08:30 | |
Thank you. | 00:08:40 | |
Do we have other public comment? | 00:08:45 | |
Yes, the next speaker will be Lisa Chiani. | 00:08:49 | |
Hi, thank you for all your work. And I just want to say that it was a lot of fun driving up and down those streets today for the | 00:08:55 | |
for the agenda items, but I was wondering if I missed. | 00:09:04 | |
The. | 00:09:15 | |
Oh, an announcement about Paige and Turnbull's work. It just seems like such a long time ago that they were going to be doing | 00:09:16 | |
something on the neighborhood character list. And maybe I missed it, but it's it's been a really long time and I hope we'll get an | 00:09:23 | |
update soon. Thank you so much. | 00:09:29 | |
Thank you. | 00:09:37 | |
I see no other hands raised. | 00:09:45 | |
OK. Thank you. We'll closed general public comment. | 00:09:47 | |
Umm, we did have one item written public comment that. | 00:09:52 | |
I assume everybody received. | 00:09:56 | |
All right, let's move to the consent agenda. | 00:10:00 | |
We only have one item, the minutes. | 00:10:04 | |
Would anybody like to remove them? | 00:10:07 | |
Would anybody from the public want to remove an item from the consent agenda? | 00:10:11 | |
All right. So do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? I approve the consent agenda. Thank you. Second. | 00:10:17 | |
All right, it's motion by bigot, second by Greening. | 00:10:25 | |
Then we have a show of hands vote to approve the consent agenda. All right, I see it's a four, four votes in favor, one person | 00:10:31 | |
absent. | 00:10:36 | |
All right, that brings us to the regular agenda. | 00:10:44 | |
And we'll be on item number 8 regarding public hearings. And we'll start with item 8A. But I believe that our staff member has | 00:10:48 | |
something you'd like to share first, so. | 00:10:54 | |
We'll start there. | 00:11:02 | |
All right, Good afternoon, Chair Anton and committee members. In May of 2018, the City contracted with Paige and Turnbull, a | 00:11:08 | |
professional historic preservation consulting firm, to review and update the City's historic resources inventory, which is | 00:11:16 | |
comprised of over 1200 properties. In August of 2018, Page and Turnbull embarked on a survey of these properties with the goal of | 00:11:23 | |
providing a recommendation to the City on which property should. | 00:11:30 | |
Removed from the HRI due to specific criteria. | 00:11:38 | |
Updating the historic resources inventory is consistent with the City's General Plan, Chapter 7.4, Historic Preservation Goals, | 00:11:45 | |
Policies and Programs. Goal one is to provide for the identification, protection, preservation and restoration of Pacific Rose | 00:11:54 | |
heritage of Victorian and other late 19th century and early 20th century historically and architecturally significant resources. | 00:12:03 | |
Goal one is implemented through Policy One, which states to maintain an up-to-date official list of historic and architectural | 00:12:15 | |
resources in the city, and Program A, which states to revise, update and republish the Historic Resources Inventory Inventory | 00:12:21 | |
booklet first published in 1978. | 00:12:28 | |
Furthermore, according to the Pacific Grove Preservation Program Considerations document, it is recommended to periodically update | 00:12:39 | |
the HRI to reflect current standards and or correct errors. | 00:12:45 | |
Page and Turnbull delivered an initial draft of the survey report and recommendations on February 19, 2019, which was available | 00:12:52 | |
for public review and comment through April 2019, based on public comment and input from the Historic Resources Inventory Advisory | 00:12:58 | |
Group. | 00:13:04 | |
Page and Turnbull delivered the final survey report and recommendations to the city on October 18th, 2019. | 00:13:11 | |
As a result of City Council's action on November 20th, 2019, wherein the Council accepted the final survey update report, the HRC | 00:13:19 | |
was directed to begin the formal removal of the 371 properties recommended for removal from the HRI. | 00:13:27 | |
The subject properties up for consideration today are those that Page and Turnbull has identified as having no historic | 00:13:39 | |
significance or has lost historic integrity through cumulative alterations. | 00:13:45 | |
Staff has followed the noticing procedures per 23 point 86.020. Notice of Public Hearing The public has been notified by a Notice | 00:13:52 | |
of Public Hearing published in the Monterey County Weekly on September 12th, 2024. The property owners and surrounding property | 00:13:59 | |
owners within a radius of 300 feet were notified by mailers sent out to the property address and mailing addresses on September | 00:14:06 | |
13th, 2024. | 00:14:13 | |
Additionally, a Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the site of the properties being considered on September 13th, 2024. | 00:14:21 | |
These three methods of notice distribution are to notify the affected owners and inform them about the hearing and allow them to | 00:14:30 | |
voice their support or concerns about the property's historic determination on a case by case basis. | 00:14:38 | |
Now we have our first. | 00:14:51 | |
Deletion. | 00:14:53 | |
141 Monterey Ave. | 00:14:56 | |
The item before you is 141 Monterey Ave. and to consider its removal from the Historic Resources inventory. | 00:15:00 | |
The lot is currently developed with the bungalow style single family residence with an attached carport in the R3 PGR district. | 00:15:07 | |
According to the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove, the structure was first assessed in 1915 and may have built as early as the | 00:15:16 | |
summer of 1914. The property is first depicted on the 1962 Sanborn map. | 00:15:23 | |
The property is currently listed on the HRI, but was found not to be eligible for the HRI during the Pacific Grove Historic | 00:15:34 | |
Resources Inventory survey efforts conducted in 2018 for the following reasons. | 00:15:40 | |
The windows have been replaced, the entry has been altered, the property does not appear to meet the eligible eligibility | 00:15:47 | |
requirements, and it is not a good example of an architectural style or property type from the development period. | 00:15:54 | |
Staff's recommendation is that the Historic Resources Committee remove 141 Monterey Ave. from the HRI due to loss of historic | 00:16:05 | |
integrity. Based on the page and Turnbull survey, review of property files, Sanborn maps, and Heritage Society of Pacific Grove | 00:16:13 | |
documentation. This concludes my staff presentation. I'm available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. | 00:16:20 | |
Thank you. I will open up if the applicant. | 00:16:29 | |
The owner of the property is present that would like to speak to this property. Again, we're talking about 141 Monterey Ave. | 00:16:35 | |
Is there anybody online that? | 00:16:44 | |
The property owner that is the property owner is not. All right, then I'll open the public comment. Do we have anybody present | 00:16:47 | |
that would like to speak to this? | 00:16:52 | |
Anybody online that would like to speak to this? Yes. The next speaker will be Lisa Chiani. | 00:16:59 | |
Thank you. | 00:17:06 | |
As I said earlier, it was really fun to explore the streets for for all of these agenda items and. | 00:17:08 | |
By car and on foot and. | 00:17:18 | |
Let's see, oh, Paige and Trimble note in the historic context statement how unique PG is in its extensive collection of still | 00:17:23 | |
existing historic homes. And that's a great value for Pacific Grove and a great draw for for visitors coming here. | 00:17:32 | |
And then in terms of this particular property? | 00:17:43 | |
It has alterations perhaps that that are reversible. It's not really clear. | 00:17:49 | |
What? Why it talks about? | 00:17:59 | |
Window replacements, although there is a building permit for that in 2001, but there's a special condition in the building permit | 00:18:03 | |
that says subject to use of wood windows on HRI. | 00:18:10 | |
And it stated 6/14/2001. So they were being very clear. The building department was that the windows needed to be replaced in | 00:18:18 | |
kind. And so, you know, I'm not seeing any. | 00:18:26 | |
Alterations that make make such a difference that you would want to take it off. | 00:18:36 | |
It's a neighborhood of of bungalows, including the one next doors was pointed out. It's really, really a delightful neighborhood. | 00:18:43 | |
And so reversible alterations that maybe are a reason can be a reason not to place a property on the HRI. | 00:18:54 | |
Because those can be. | 00:19:05 | |
Fixed in most cases you know reversible ones and then apply to put it on. But when a property is already on the HRI and it's | 00:19:09 | |
gotten. | 00:19:14 | |
Permits from the city for alterations. | 00:19:20 | |
Then I see there there is no reason to take it off. | 00:19:25 | |
In this particular property to me does not, does not warrant a deletion. And I think that's one of the great things is that. | 00:19:33 | |
Our historic resources committee is reviewing pageantry bowls survey because they you know, it was a quick survey, it was a drive | 00:19:44 | |
by walk by kind of survey and they pointed that out. And so it's really important that we look at it from a position of more | 00:19:52 | |
information and and P GS perspective. Thank you. | 00:20:00 | |
Thank you. | 00:20:10 | |
The next speaker will be Angela Ranson Dahmer. | 00:20:19 | |
Thank you. | 00:20:25 | |
Well, I'm going to completely agree with Lisa on this because my notes when I was looking at this, and it's interesting that your | 00:20:27 | |
first photos that you put up there between current and the end in 1977 or something, they didn't show the same angle. Those | 00:20:35 | |
windows are not significantly different. I mean, yeah, they've been replaced, but as Lisa said would. | 00:20:44 | |
It's a wonderful roof line, wonderful roof. It isn't quintessential. | 00:20:53 | |
Bungalow and as Lisa also said. | 00:21:00 | |
Certain little things could be just removed. I mean, but it was done with permits, it wasn't done within a historical context, and | 00:21:06 | |
I see absolutely no reason to take this off of our inventory. | 00:21:14 | |
Thank you very much. | 00:21:23 | |
Thank you. | 00:21:26 | |
The next speaker will be Anthony Ciani. | 00:21:32 | |
Good afternoon again. | 00:21:38 | |
I agree with the previous speakers. I think it's important to note I sent you a letter by the way, regarding all of these items. | 00:21:40 | |
Unfortunately, I. | 00:21:45 | |
I made several mistakes about the date As for today's agenda, but it's about a lot of the items on this agenda and this is one of | 00:21:52 | |
them. | 00:21:56 | |
Reversible items are. | 00:22:05 | |
One of those things that you can permit a historic property or an architecturally significant property to allow if you to, to make | 00:22:10 | |
an alteration to a historic building under the Secretary of Interior Standards under the city standards. | 00:22:19 | |
When you know it's a reversible item that could be changed. In other words, it does not significantly alter the integrity of the | 00:22:29 | |
historic building. This is one of them. | 00:22:34 | |
Moreover, the architectural form from a larger perspective as the public receives it from the street, the public right away. | 00:22:41 | |
Shows demonstrates that the historical integrity of this property that supports the period of historical significance it has been | 00:22:53 | |
retained. | 00:22:59 | |
I recommend that you not take it off the HRI. | 00:23:05 | |
If for some reason the committee finds that it should take it off, then I recommend that you place it in a pending category of a | 00:23:10 | |
contributor to a neighborhood character list. Thank you. | 00:23:18 | |
Thank you. | 00:23:27 | |
I see no other hands raised. All right, I'll close public comment, bring it back to the. | 00:23:32 | |
Committee for discussion. | 00:23:37 | |
Go ahead. I think that we should keep 141 Monterey on the historic resources inventory. The changes that were made to the window | 00:23:40 | |
were done. Windows were done in kind. When you look all the way back to 1977 picture, which is almost 50 years ago, it looked | 00:23:46 | |
identical to the way it is now except for the front porch. The entry was changed, but I think the integrity of the rest of the | 00:23:53 | |
building is intact and I think it should stay on the HRI. | 00:23:59 | |
Thank you. | 00:24:06 | |
I completely agree with the callers and with. | 00:24:07 | |
The other comment that was made, there's apparently no no particular difference between the old ones and the new ones, and no one | 00:24:12 | |
has. | 00:24:17 | |
Brought forth a description that contradicts that idea, or a permit, or anything like that. | 00:24:22 | |
Now I would like to retain it on the. | 00:24:32 | |
Inventory, I think it's one of the working class type houses that's retained its integrity. | 00:24:34 | |
So I vote to keep it on the. | 00:24:40 | |
Thank you, thank you. I agree too. I mean the porch. | 00:24:43 | |
Could be easily removed for one thing. | 00:24:48 | |
And the rest of the house and when you stand back, you look at the roof, which is completely intact probably as it exactly was. So | 00:24:51 | |
without going on and on, I think that I agree with everybody. So at that point, may we have a vote please? | 00:24:59 | |
Note that we. | 00:25:10 | |
Keep the house on the historic inventory. That's your motion. Yes, thank you for the motion. All right. Motion by Steers, seconded | 00:25:13 | |
by Beckett to retain the house on the HRI. Then we have a show of hands for vote. | 00:25:20 | |
I see it for. | 00:25:28 | |
Four and one absent vote. | 00:25:30 | |
40. | 00:25:33 | |
OK, Moving on to the neighbor house, This is at 143 Monterey Ave. May we have a staff report, please? | 00:25:35 | |
The item before you is 143 Monterey Ave. and to consider its removal from the Historic Resources inventory. The lot is currently | 00:25:45 | |
developed with A2 story single family residence with an attached garage in the R3 PGR district. City records indicate that the | 00:25:54 | |
residence was built in 1915. The property is first depicted on the 1962 Sanborn maps. | 00:26:02 | |
This property is currently listed on the HRI, but was found not to be eligible for the HRI during the Pacific Grove Resource | 00:26:18 | |
Historic Resources Inventory survey efforts conducted in 2018 for the following reasons. The second story addition is highly | 00:26:24 | |
visible and large in scale compared to the original house. The form and roofline have been altered and the doors have been | 00:26:30 | |
replaced. | 00:26:36 | |
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Committee remove 143 Monterey Ave. from the HRI due to loss of historic integrity | 00:26:47 | |
based on the patient Turnbull survey, review of property files, Sanborn maps, and Heritage Society Pacific Grove documentation. | 00:26:54 | |
This concludes my staff presentation. I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. | 00:27:01 | |
Do we have a a homeowner present that would like to speak on this one? | 00:27:10 | |
Or online. | 00:27:15 | |
I I do not see a homeowner. | 00:27:18 | |
OK. | 00:27:20 | |
All right. I'll open up then to public comment. | 00:27:22 | |
Anybody present with that would like to speak seeing none. | 00:27:30 | |
From our virtual audience, the next speaker will be Inga Lorenzen Dahmer. | 00:27:34 | |
Thank you. This is another one, uh. | 00:27:41 | |
The bungalow is still there, the roof lines still there and yes, it has an addition behind it which was permitted and approved. | 00:27:47 | |
What so much has changed from the original bungalow? Very very little. I mean, I do not understand. | 00:27:57 | |
This removal. | 00:28:08 | |
This is the neighborhood. Yes, it has an addition. It's behind. You can still see the original I. | 00:28:11 | |
Maybe not the shingle siding, but other than that, I mean, it's still there. So thank you. It should remain. It is certainly the | 00:28:21 | |
neighborhood. Thank you. | 00:28:26 | |
Thank you. | 00:28:33 | |
The next speaker will be Lisa Gianni. | 00:28:38 | |
I agree. The original bungalow is still prominent and and you know very, very much there. I don't know this business about change | 00:28:47 | |
doors, I mean. | 00:28:54 | |
Change the door back, but but it's not, it's not an issue, I don't think in terms of historic integrity. The addition certainly is | 00:29:02 | |
large, but at least it is pushed to the back and. | 00:29:10 | |
As Inga said, it's got a a. | 00:29:17 | |
Building permit from 1992 so. | 00:29:24 | |
It considering the neighborhood and and the the property directly next door, you know, by the same architect I believe it said I, | 00:29:28 | |
I would hope. | 00:29:34 | |
That this would be kept on the HRI. | 00:29:43 | |
At at the very least, you know, kept us as part of the neighborhood character list or added to the neighborhood character list. | 00:29:47 | |
But, but truly. | 00:29:53 | |
This wonderful bungalow is still there and and I hope you will keep it on the HRI. Thank you. | 00:30:00 | |
Thank you. | 00:30:09 | |
The next speaker will be Anthony Chiani. | 00:30:16 | |
Thank you I. | 00:30:22 | |
I think this building and the. | 00:30:24 | |
Other buildings. | 00:30:26 | |
A group, A collection of historic buildings that. | 00:30:28 | |
If and when the city does a historical district in this area. | 00:30:33 | |
As recommended by Paige and Turnbull, that this building. | 00:30:37 | |
May be a contributing building in terms of how it contributes to the architectural character or historical significance. | 00:30:43 | |
Last week, the California Preservation Foundation held a actually two weeks of meetings about historical districts and how to | 00:30:55 | |
evaluate project. | 00:31:02 | |
Projects such as this one was done in 1992. | 00:31:09 | |
And one of the things that I learned, because we're always listening and learning, is there is throughout the state, at least, if | 00:31:12 | |
not the nation, the notion that if you measure the height of the building using the plate lines for the walls. | 00:31:21 | |
And that in addition, such as this one is no more than 50% above the height of the existing one, that it is an acceptable addition | 00:31:30 | |
in a historical district. | 00:31:37 | |
There's no doubt that the. | 00:31:47 | |
Primary elements of the original building are the most prevalent parts of the building, and I think it doesn't I. | 00:31:49 | |
Lose its integrity because of the addition it's. This is another example of. | 00:32:00 | |
A project that was approved. I believe in this case it was by the ARB. | 00:32:07 | |
And. | 00:32:13 | |
And and and it was approved to satisfy. | 00:32:15 | |
Pacific Groves design guidelines for historical buildings So to now come back and say no it didn't is an example of what. | 00:32:22 | |
Historic preservation consultant who's renowned throughout the nation, Nori Winters said I. | 00:32:33 | |
That there is throughout the nation a dilemma of surveyors, new surveyors coming along and finding buildings like this not OK, not | 00:32:41 | |
acceptable, when before they were, say, five years earlier. | 00:32:48 | |
So my recommendation is that you retain it on the HRI, or at the least add it to the Potent pending neighborhood character list. | 00:32:58 | |
Thank you. | 00:33:03 | |
Thank you. | 00:33:11 | |
Any further? | 00:33:13 | |
Comments. I see no other hands raised. All right, I'll close the public comment, bring it back for discussion. | 00:33:15 | |
We're dealing with 143 Monterey Ave. | 00:33:22 | |
Go ahead, Jennifer. Thank you. | 00:33:27 | |
143 Monterey Ave. It's interesting. If you remove that addition, the exact house that you see in the picture from 1977 is still | 00:33:30 | |
there. The side windows are still there. The front is the same. And I think we should keep it on. It was reviewed for this edition | 00:33:37 | |
probably by the ARB back in 1990. And I think the house is still there. And so I think we should keep it on the HRI. | 00:33:45 | |
Thank you. | 00:33:53 | |
Personally I think it should be removed from the HRI. I think I agree with the page and Turnbull's assessment here that the the | 00:33:56 | |
incompatible edition they're talking about the second floor. | 00:34:05 | |
Alters the form and the roofline of the house completely and I I just think it's. | 00:34:17 | |
Way out of character with the original house. | 00:34:26 | |
I was worried about the massing. | 00:34:31 | |
And I, when you look at it, it's a small property and it just overwhelms the house. The only reason I would keep it because at the | 00:34:36 | |
moment we don't have a, a character list, you know, we don't have a working, we have a potential potential, yes. So I would | 00:34:44 | |
probably put it on that. | 00:34:51 | |
But I wouldn't like to have it have no designation at all because it does reflect the other houses that were built in the | 00:35:01 | |
neighborhood. | 00:35:05 | |
Yes. And I agree with both of you that it was a little disappointing in some ways to see the addition on there. You know, if | 00:35:11 | |
you're up close to the house, you don't notice it so much, but when you step back across the street. | 00:35:18 | |
It does overwhelm and it doesn't really fit in terribly well. | 00:35:25 | |
So my sort of sense would be to remove it, but to consider it for a neighborhood character list. Interestingly, I looking at that | 00:35:31 | |
in the house prior kind of looked like they were built by the same person or designed by the same person's. | 00:35:39 | |
Just a comment. | 00:35:48 | |
So my my vote would be to remove it, but to keep it on our potential neighborhood character list. | 00:35:50 | |
Any further discussion? | 00:36:02 | |
May we have a motion please? | 00:36:04 | |
What you just said. | 00:36:08 | |
Sounds like a most. | 00:36:13 | |
To me. | 00:36:14 | |
Do I give myself credit for that or for him? | 00:36:17 | |
Sure, I'll move that it that it be removed from the HRI, however be considered for a neighborhood character list which we will be | 00:36:21 | |
getting to. It's just we have a lot in front of us. Just speaking to the audience here. We can't do everything at once and we're, | 00:36:28 | |
you know, trying to keep it all within our time frame here as well. | 00:36:35 | |
Do we have a second to that motion? I'll second it. Thank you. So motion by myself, second by steers to remove, but keep | 00:36:43 | |
consideration for the neighborhood character list. May we have a vote, please? | 00:36:51 | |
All in favor of the motion. | 00:37:00 | |
All right. I see four hands. Thank you. | 00:37:02 | |
All right, the next house is 159 Monterey Ave. | 00:37:10 | |
May we have a staff report please? | 00:37:15 | |
The item before you is 159 Monterey Ave. and to consider its removal from the Historical Resources inventory. The lot is currently | 00:37:21 | |
developed with A1 story single family residence with an attached garage in the R3 PGR district. The original 1977 DPR indicates | 00:37:29 | |
that the year of initial construction was 1883. The property is first depicted on the 1962 Sanborn maps. | 00:37:38 | |
This property is currently listed on the HRI, but was found not to be eligible for the HRI during the Pacific Grove Historic | 00:37:50 | |
Resources Inventory survey efforts conducted in 2018 for the following reasons. | 00:37:56 | |
The Victorian era house was demolished and replaced with the new house in 1926. The entry porch and awning are not original. The | 00:38:03 | |
1926 residence is quite plain and altered and does not appear to have integrity or significance. | 00:38:11 | |
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Committee remove the Remove 159 Monterey from the Historic Resources inventory due to | 00:38:21 | |
loss of historic integrity based on the page and Turnbull survey, review of the property files, Sanborn maps, and Heritage Society | 00:38:28 | |
of Pacific Grove documentation. | 00:38:34 | |
This concludes my staff presentation. I'm available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. | 00:38:41 | |
Thank you. Do we have an owner present that would like to speak to this particular address? | 00:38:48 | |
All right, seeing none, do we have anybody on the virtual audience an owner? I do not see an owner. All right. | 00:38:54 | |
Then let me open to public comment. | 00:39:02 | |
First, anybody in the audience. | 00:39:06 | |
Seeing none, anybody virtually. | 00:39:09 | |
The next speaker will be Anthony Gianni. | 00:39:13 | |
Good afternoon again. | 00:39:19 | |
Let's see. | 00:39:22 | |
I respectfully disagree with the staff recommendation and I. | 00:39:24 | |
Respectfully disagree with Page and Turnbull's findings. | 00:39:30 | |
I have over 50 years of experience of doing surveys. | 00:39:34 | |
And large surveys such as this one. | 00:39:42 | |
And often one comes across. | 00:39:45 | |
A case where a building that was built in say the Victorian area or pre 1900 area. | 00:39:50 | |
And that those buildings were. | 00:39:59 | |
Either hauled off by a horse and buggy and on railwood Redwood rails and put somewhere else and moved, rotated. | 00:40:02 | |
Or they were mislabeled for because they were on a corner to be on one street and when they were really facing another St. and the | 00:40:13 | |
the. | 00:40:18 | |
The sewer or the electrical went in under one street address and then it was identified as another street address in this case, | 00:40:24 | |
whatever the case circumstances were. | 00:40:29 | |
That this humble little clapboard single story clapboard cottage offending brick chimney ended up where it is in 1926. | 00:40:36 | |
Does not. | 00:40:48 | |
Does not mean it lacks historical significance and does not mean that lacks integrity. | 00:40:51 | |
I just completely disagree with the findings and so I strongly recommend that you keep this building on the HRI. Thank you. | 00:41:00 | |
The next speaker will be Angela Lorenzen Dahmer. | 00:41:18 | |
Thank you. | 00:41:24 | |
I completely agree with Mr. Gianni and I'm questioning what in the world the Historic Resources Committee is for. Even this is | 00:41:26 | |
between 1893 and 1926. Excuse me, look at this. It is essentially the same. | 00:41:38 | |
Absolutely adorable little home that is quintessentially Pacific Grove. | 00:41:51 | |
I do not understand Paige and Turnbull saying oh, it wasn't ornate or this and that. Of course it has integrity. I mean, look at | 00:41:59 | |
it. | 00:42:05 | |
And this is our historic district, it is our historic heritage. And if we take something like this off, what in the world are we | 00:42:12 | |
doing? Because we're going to lose Pacific Grove completely. | 00:42:21 | |
We need to acknowledge, isn't 1926 old enough for you? I don't understand. Thank you very much. | 00:42:33 | |
Thank you. | 00:42:43 | |
The next speaker will be Lisa Chaney. | 00:42:50 | |
Thank you. First of all I could not see anything. | 00:42:55 | |
In in the agenda report and and attachments that explain the. | 00:43:01 | |
The comment that the quote the Victorian era house was demolished and replaced with a new house in 1926. I mean maybe it was, but | 00:43:09 | |
where's the evidence? | 00:43:16 | |
And there there doesn't seem to be a picture of either one from that era at least. At least the picture. I didn't see one with the | 00:43:24 | |
1977 DPR form. | 00:43:30 | |
But in any case. | 00:43:39 | |
The 1926 version, assuming that's what we're seeing, I. | 00:43:41 | |
Is it? | 00:43:48 | |
Perfectly. It seems quite intact. | 00:43:51 | |
The entry, if that's something Paige and Turnbull's altered entry, they say if that's something they have an issue with, well, | 00:43:56 | |
that's easily removable. And I think that they also say, well, they did at some point, I think say something about the windows. | 00:44:07 | |
But they seem to maybe have little. | 00:44:19 | |
Aluminum sashes I'm not really sure the the the frame of the window is wood and and you can't even tell about the sashes, or at | 00:44:24 | |
least I didn't get close enough to be able to tell for sure. So in any case, I think you have an intact. | 00:44:34 | |
House from a historic era and and I I would hope you would keep that on the HRI. | 00:44:46 | |
Again, I mean, you could put it on the neighborhood character list, but I don't see why you would need to. HRI is the appropriate | 00:44:58 | |
place for it. Thank you. | 00:45:02 | |
Thank you. | 00:45:09 | |
I see no other hands raised. All right, closing public comment. Bring it back for discussion. | 00:45:13 | |
Come on, somebody. | 00:45:24 | |
It appears to me to be original from 1926. We don't have any prior. | 00:45:26 | |
Pictures or photographs from before the initial. | 00:45:33 | |
19 What was it? 70 something report? I would because it is in character with the other small properties on that street, working | 00:45:39 | |
class sort of small homes. I would keep it on the HRI. | 00:45:46 | |
I think that's somewhat in question here. I think we're missing some information. | 00:45:56 | |
And and. | 00:46:02 | |
As one of the callers noted, Page and Turnbull says that the Victorian era house was demolished and replaced with a new house in | 00:46:05 | |
1926. I don't see any evidence of it one way or the other and there really should be some here. But I'm also seeing it's a long | 00:46:13 | |
skinny house. But I'm looking at the 1928. | 00:46:22 | |
Oh, what the heck do you call these things? | 00:46:33 | |
Standard now. | 00:46:36 | |
Anyway. | 00:46:39 | |
The diagram of the house here. | 00:46:41 | |
That's not a symbol of. | 00:46:44 | |
Dated 1928. | 00:46:47 | |
And the side of the house. | 00:46:50 | |
In this case, the left side of the house was said to be 20 feet deep, and this house is a great deal more than 20 feet deep. | 00:46:53 | |
So the house that we're looking at in the photograph is not the one that was measured and documented. | 00:47:03 | |
In this other document, I wish I could remember the name of these doggone things. | 00:47:13 | |
Simpsons is not. Something is not complete here, and I'm finding a lot of these descriptions are. | 00:47:22 | |
Vague and incomplete. | 00:47:31 | |
This month, unlike past months. | 00:47:35 | |
And we used to get some pretty good packages and this one is not that. | 00:47:41 | |
Jennifer. | 00:47:51 | |
Yeah, I read the part that it that it had been built in 1926, but I kind of agreed with what Inga said. Isn't that old enough? | 00:48:23 | |
I mean, the alteration of the front porch is clearly, you know, more recent, but again, that. | 00:48:32 | |
That can easily be removed and you have the intact house. So my sort of feeling is we don't seem to have a reason to remove it and | 00:48:40 | |
it's already on the HRI. So I would say unless we can find a reason to remove it, I would I would be for keeping it on the HRI. | 00:48:48 | |
I sure agree with that. | 00:48:58 | |
So. | 00:49:01 | |
Do we have a motion? | 00:49:02 | |
Since you agree with that. | 00:49:04 | |
Well, I'll move it there. I'd move that we keep it on the. | 00:49:08 | |
Historic inventory. Do we have a 2nd? Thank you. So Steers moved and Greening seconded. Can we have a show of hands vote? | 00:49:12 | |
So we're voting. | 00:49:25 | |
Mr. Staff Person, we're voting to keep it on the HRI. | 00:49:27 | |
One moment here. | 00:49:34 | |
We folded. | 00:49:37 | |
But I just want to want to point out that as we keep things on, we do have a criteria for things. I mean, so we have a, and this | 00:49:41 | |
is just for the record, the things that the properties that we are keeping on try to follow our historic, the criteria for these | 00:49:48 | |
historic homes. It would be good to know which one of these you do feel are appropriate for it to be on the HRI, to remain on the | 00:49:55 | |
HRI. | 00:50:02 | |
So we have so if while we're when we do find and the same when you know, because we have in this, in this case, just to remember | 00:50:10 | |
that the page and Turnpal report is pointing out in whatever way or for whatever reason that they don't feel it meets the | 00:50:18 | |
criteria. If we're going to keep them on, we should at least mention why we do feel it meets the criteria. | 00:50:26 | |
For the record. | 00:50:35 | |
Yes. Well, I agree with that. I think we did say that it's times they don't tell us that's that's true. Yeah. | 00:50:36 | |
I wanted to add one thing. | 00:50:49 | |
We're still on 159, right? | 00:50:52 | |
Yes, we're selling 159 Monterey Ave. Just for those of you in the Heritage Society, the one of the owners was Lavinia Waterhouse. | 00:50:55 | |
Does that ring any bells? | 00:51:01 | |
Sort of an inside joke. OK, moving on. | 00:51:09 | |
To the next one. | 00:51:15 | |
Can we repeat the the motion and the? | 00:51:17 | |
The vote, please. Just didn't vote. Yeah, we had our yes, we all did. We voted yeah. | 00:51:20 | |
OK, the next house is 143 11th St. | 00:51:35 | |
Do we have a staff report? | 00:51:40 | |
Yes, hi, good afternoon chair Anton and committee members. My name is Ed and I'm what I'm associate planner with the city of | 00:51:42 | |
Pacific Grove. The item before you is 140 three 11th to consider its removal from the historic resource inventory. The lot is | 00:51:49 | |
currently developed with the one sing with the two single family residents with an attached 2 car garage in the R3 PGR district. | 00:51:56 | |
According to the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove, the structure was first assessed in 1928. | 00:52:04 | |
However, the date of construction is unknown. | 00:52:11 | |
The property is first depicted and then on the 1962 Sun ***** map. | 00:52:14 | |
The original DPR form for 143 11th St. is not available in The eligibility criteria for the originally for originally adding the | 00:52:23 | |
property to the Historic Resource Inventory is unknown. The property is currently listed on the HRI but was found not to be | 00:52:32 | |
eligible for the HRI during the Pacific Grove Historic Resource Inventory survey efforts that was conducted in 2018. | 00:52:40 | |
For the following reasons, a large two-story addition was constructed post 1962 which engulfed the. | 00:52:49 | |
Historic buildings significantly impacting the original design, massing and materials. Cumulative additions and alterations have | 00:52:57 | |
resulted in the loss of historic integrity. | 00:53:02 | |
Staff recommends that the Historic Resource Committee remove 143 11th St. from the HRI due to the loss of historic integrity. | 00:53:11 | |
Based on the page in Turnbull survey, review of the property files, sample maps, heritage and the Heritage Society Pacific Grove | 00:53:18 | |
documentation. This concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you. And may I | 00:53:25 | |
ask if the homeowner is present to speak to this? | 00:53:32 | |
Or present virtually. | 00:53:39 | |
I don't see an owner virtually. All right, then, I'll open for public comment. We're regarding 143 11th St. | 00:53:43 | |
Next speaker will be Lisa Chaney. | 00:53:52 | |
Thank you. So I believe it. Well this is the one that doesn't have a 1977 DPR form, but I wrote down somewhere that it was built | 00:53:57 | |
in 1924 to 25, so I'm not quite sure. | 00:54:04 | |
I think I got that from the building records or whatever they call that because the garage. | 00:54:13 | |
Which does not seem to be there anymore. Was built in 1929 and then it says that there's a 1994 edition. | 00:54:21 | |
By Rick Steers of 11170 square feet of kitchen, dining room and garage. So I'm I'm going to It's a great house, but I'm going to | 00:54:34 | |
rely on Rick's tears to explain. | 00:54:42 | |
How, how it retains its historic integrity with with such a large addition. So as far as the reason I don't think the 1929 garage | 00:54:52 | |
is still there is because there's a double garage on Ricketts Lane. | 00:55:00 | |
That's part of the the large edition. So I look forward to your discussion of this. Thank you. | 00:55:08 | |
Thank you. | 00:55:17 | |
Next speaker will be Angela Ranson Dahmer. | 00:55:33 | |
Thank you. | 00:55:38 | |
I'm going to throw my hands up with this one too because I don't think we have enough information and the fact of things obviously | 00:55:39 | |
have changed. | 00:55:44 | |
And if Mr. Steers can shed some light? | 00:55:50 | |
Obviously it's been altered a lot from whatever it was and. | 00:55:56 | |
It's still a good addition to the neighborhood. But yeah, I look forward to hearing some more information. Thank you very much. | 00:56:04 | |
I see no other hands raised. OK, I'll close the comment and bring it back to our committee. | 00:56:22 | |
Who would like to speak first? | 00:56:31 | |
Speak. It's hard from the attachments we got to see what the original, I have no idea what the original house was in this huge | 00:56:33 | |
addition on there. It's hard to even make out what was what. And it was remodeled so many times that I think it's completely lost | 00:56:40 | |
its historic integrity. And I think it would be OK for us to remove it from the HRI. | 00:56:48 | |
Thank you, I noticed that there was an addition added in 1949 and the building was considered rustic, so I think it's lost a lot | 00:56:56 | |
of its original. | 00:57:02 | |
Framing it's it's been over built onto so I would take it off the inventory. | 00:57:10 | |
I agree and it was my project back in back in 1993. | 00:57:18 | |
But it doesn't meet today's standards for historic president preservation. | 00:57:26 | |
I agree too, there's very little of the original house left. So without further ado, may we have a motion? | 00:57:33 | |
I make a motion. We take 143 11th St. off the Historic resources inventory Second. | 00:57:41 | |
2nd so motion by make it second by greening and may have a show of hands please to remove this house from the HRI. | 00:57:48 | |
It's lost its historic value all right for. | 00:57:57 | |
Or votes. | 00:58:01 | |
All right, that brings us now to the next House, which is 311 Lobos. May we have a staff report, please? | 00:58:11 | |
Yes. | 00:58:20 | |
The item for you is 211 Logos Ave. to consider its removal from the historic resource inventory. The lot is currently developed | 00:58:21 | |
with A1 single, one story single family residence with a detached garage in the R1 District. The property is first depicted on the | 00:58:28 | |
1914 signboard maps and according to the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove, the structure was first assessed in 1928. However, the | 00:58:34 | |
actual date of construction is unknown. | 00:58:41 | |
The original DPR formed for 311 Lobos Ave. is not available, and the eligibility criteria for originally adding the property to | 00:58:48 | |
the Historic Resource Inventory is unknown. | 00:58:54 | |
Next slide. | 00:59:01 | |
The property is currently listed on the HRI, but was found not to be eligible for the HRI update during the Pacific Grove Historic | 00:59:03 | |
Resource Inventory survey efforts conducted in 2018 for the following reasons. When those were placed, the windows were replaced | 00:59:12 | |
with aluminum. The porch detailing likely is not original. The North Bay window is an addition construction post 1926 and. | 00:59:20 | |
Cumulative alterations have resulted in a loss of historic integrity. | 00:59:29 | |
Staff recommends that the Historic Resource Committee removed 311 Lobos Ave. from the HRI due to the loss of historic integrity | 00:59:37 | |
based on the page in Turbo Survey. Review the property files, cyber maps, and the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove documentation. | 00:59:43 | |
Please note that the property was added to this list of the months deletions by the request of the property owner. The property | 00:59:50 | |
was scheduled to appear at a later hearing for consideration or removal. | 00:59:56 | |
This concludes my staff presentation. I'm available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you very much. | 01:00:03 | |
Do we have an owner president that would like to speak? | 01:00:10 | |
Do we have somebody virtual that would like to speak? No. OK, so now I'll open the public comment. | 01:00:16 | |
The next speaker will be Lisa Chaney. | 01:00:30 | |
Thank you. | 01:00:36 | |
So I guess this is one that just had very little information, but when I went and saw it, it was a delightful house. Although if | 01:00:39 | |
that North Bay. | 01:00:44 | |
Is in addition. | 01:00:52 | |
Kind of. It's it's hard to distinguish. | 01:00:55 | |
Where where the original left off and the addition starts I. | 01:00:59 | |
So it yeah, it's, it's very frustrating not to have more information, but. | 01:01:08 | |
The house. The house is. | 01:01:16 | |
Is very attractive and seems to have a lot of historic. | 01:01:21 | |
Excuse me character but and and I didn't get it about the aluminum windows because they look like wood to me. Maybe again the | 01:01:27 | |
sashes, maybe aluminum, I don't know. | 01:01:33 | |
So anyway, I look forward to your discussion. | 01:01:41 | |
Thank you. | 01:01:46 | |
Yeah. | 01:01:48 | |
The next speaker will be Inga Lorenzen Dahmer. | 01:01:51 | |
Thank you. | 01:01:59 | |
Yes, this is another one of those huge toss UPS with very little information and the fact that we can pretty much guarantee it's | 01:02:00 | |
going to be demolished and some other behemoth. | 01:02:07 | |
Put in place there because. | 01:02:15 | |
Because that's the trajectory of Pacific Grove removals and development, unfortunately, but. | 01:02:18 | |
With so little information, it's going to be up to you. | 01:02:29 | |
Here we go. Thank you. | 01:02:37 | |
Next speaker will be Anthony Ciani. | 01:02:48 | |
I think this is a good project to stare at. | 01:02:56 | |
And compare the 2018 photograph with a current photograph. The 2018 photograph that was probably used by Pageant Turnbull shows, | 01:03:02 | |
for example, a very low railing at the porch, which is consistent with the pattern of development in the. | 01:03:13 | |
Early 20th century the current railings they're shown. | 01:03:26 | |
Show up in the photograph. | 01:03:31 | |
Because I'll call it Brown. | 01:03:33 | |
Clearly are not historic, but. | 01:03:37 | |
The filigree across the top of the. | 01:03:41 | |
Porch is, but that's the porch. One of the things I learned this last week is. | 01:03:44 | |
Umm, the first and foremost thing you look at is the building itself. | 01:03:52 | |
The porches. In fact, the front of the building is not wherever the porch is. | 01:03:58 | |
I still have to wrestle with that, but if you stare at this building, I think what you'll find is what I just told you about with | 01:04:07 | |
regard to the railing, but also that possibly. | 01:04:13 | |
And likely that the sash of the windows has changed. | 01:04:19 | |
It's aluminum, whatever it is. | 01:04:26 | |
But the frame, the cell of the windows have not changed. | 01:04:29 | |
The 270 Central Ave. project. | 01:04:38 | |
That was approved by the ARB. | 01:04:42 | |
Included a phase two historical report that found that replacing all of the historic windows. | 01:04:46 | |
Was acceptable. | 01:04:55 | |
And again, last week I learned that indeed, replacing historic windows with windows that. | 01:05:01 | |
For example, have double pane glass that are accommodating current conditions is acceptable under the Secretary of Interior | 01:05:10 | |
Standards. So with that in mind, I think the way to look at this is under preponderance of. | 01:05:18 | |
Everything that you're looking at. | 01:05:27 | |
I would say most of the form and characteristics using the criteria in. | 01:05:30 | |
The Municipal Code 2376025 Evaluation criteria that the building still qualifies for listing. Thank you. | 01:05:40 | |
Thank you. | 01:05:52 | |
I see no other hands raised right. Thank you. I'll close public comment, bring back for discussion. | 01:05:56 | |
I would like to begin start great. This this is this is a tough of red, red is. | 01:06:03 | |
This off, this is a really tough one because you can see that the structure of the original house seems to be there. From looking | 01:06:13 | |
at all the permit data that we received, it's very hard to tell. I have a feeling from being in these meetings before. The reason | 01:06:20 | |
the railing at the front is different now is by code. It has to be higher. It probably has to meet a code minimum, and that's why | 01:06:27 | |
it's different. They've tried to detail it so that it goes with the rest of the house, which I think is nice. | 01:06:35 | |
I think replacing the windows was, I remember many years ago living in Pacific Grove and being at these meetings, that window | 01:06:42 | |
replacement was allowed in historic houses. | 01:06:47 | |
So I'm not sure we can remove a house from the HRI based on the window replacement. The openings look like they are original to | 01:06:53 | |
the house and including the door on the side, which looks like they're replacing it with probably a sturdier door than what was | 01:06:59 | |
there before from the older pictures. | 01:07:05 | |
So it's a tough one. I think we should keep it on because I think to take it off and allow it to be moved from our inventory would | 01:07:12 | |
be a shame. | 01:07:15 | |
Thank you. | 01:07:19 | |
You're right, the. | 01:07:23 | |
Heights of guardrails by code has changed recently and you'll see a lot of. | 01:07:25 | |
New guardrails that are taller than old guardrails because as a response to the building code. And that's fair. | 01:07:32 | |
And and this one I was took a close look. The wing on the left is what's new. | 01:07:40 | |
And it has all aluminum windows all the way around. | 01:07:48 | |
And the everything to the. | 01:07:53 | |
Everything starting with the porch is the old part of the house. | 01:07:56 | |
And it doesn't have aluminum windows it seems to have. | 01:08:03 | |
From what I could tell it seems to have wind windows, but there are carpenters out there banging away and taking things off right | 01:08:08 | |
now. | 01:08:11 | |
So I don't know what they're going to do, but I'm inclined to. | 01:08:17 | |
Remove it from the inventory because that new wing on the left hand side is right up front, right with the it's right at. | 01:08:23 | |
At the most prominent part of the house and changes the front facade. | 01:08:35 | |
Pretty radically. | 01:08:42 | |
Are you? I didn't see where the left side was added on. Were you picking that up from the Sanborn maps? | 01:08:49 | |
Partly the, but I went over there and looked at it. They're building it right now. They're they're doing some construction right | 01:08:57 | |
now. | 01:09:02 | |
And the some of the openings into the crawl space and so forth were open and I peeked in there and the crawl space underneath that | 01:09:08 | |
left hand edition is. | 01:09:14 | |
Vaguely new construction. It's not what we would do today, but it's certainly not what we would do. And whatever it was 1914. | 01:09:24 | |
Glennis yes, I looked along that side and there's definitely. | 01:09:36 | |
Even developing even more with double doors along the side there and I don't know if that was part of the original house or if | 01:09:42 | |
that's part of what was added on to that left hand wing. I would say it definitely didn't come with the original house. | 01:09:50 | |
So I would probably. | 01:10:00 | |
Not keep it on the. | 01:10:02 | |
Historic Resources. | 01:10:05 | |
List other discussion. | 01:10:07 | |
Any questions? | 01:10:11 | |
I I would agree and but I would keep it on a proposed neighborhood character list. This, this is actually not a neighborhood that | 01:10:15 | |
has as many houses. So it's kind of a good example in its place of our historic houses compared to Monterey Ave. for example, that | 01:10:22 | |
has quite a few. So I think this one sort of stands out a little bit. So I, I would like to keep it at least. | 01:10:30 | |
I don't know how we make a neighborhood character list going that far, but I would like to keep it as a consideration when we get | 01:10:39 | |
to that step. | 01:10:42 | |
Other discussion. | 01:10:51 | |
We have a motion, please. | 01:10:53 | |
Move It is taken off the historic inventory and replaced on the neighborhood character list. | 01:10:56 | |
Do we have a second? | 01:11:07 | |
Sure, I'll second that. | 01:11:10 | |
So, moved by greening, second by steers, can we have a show of hands in favor of removal but keeping it considered for the a | 01:11:11 | |
neighborhood character list hands please. OK 4 four hands. | 01:11:18 | |
For the chair, I'd like to, if you don't mind, making a clarification for public commentary I had made concerning 270 Central only | 01:11:26 | |
because it did. | 01:11:32 | |
Influence some of the conversation. The statement was made that the phase two report for the windows of 270 Central said that the | 01:11:39 | |
replacement of windows was OK, that that's a really broad explanation. | 01:11:46 | |
There were specific types of windows. And remember, Bigot is is correct in saying that yes, the the the. | 01:11:54 | |
Sorry, the Secretary of Interior Standards do allow for window replacement, but they're also whether or not they are a historic | 01:12:04 | |
match. Some of the replacement they do let you now do insulated windows. I just wanted to clarify that those windows that were | 01:12:11 | |
being replaced were to be matching and the, the, the phase two did say that they were matching in wood windows as a replacement. | 01:12:17 | |
Just a clarification. | 01:12:23 | |
Thank you. | 01:12:31 | |
All right, the last one is 145 Carmel Ave. Do we have a staff report? | 01:12:33 | |
So the item before you is 145 Carmel Ave. to consider its removal from the historic resource inventory. The lot is currently | 01:12:40 | |
developed with A2 story single family residence with a detached garage in the R3 PGR district. The original 1977 DPR form was | 01:12:47 | |
listed on the HRI due to being. | 01:12:54 | |
Located in the oldest part of the retreat in the Pacific in Pacific Grove and was architecturally significant because there are | 01:13:02 | |
only a few old houses remaining in this area. For the record, the original date of construction was found in the original DPR | 01:13:10 | |
form. The original construction date is is 1888. The property is first depicted on the 1962 Sanborn map. | 01:13:18 | |
The property is currently listed on the HRI but was found not to be eligible for the HRI during the Pacific Grove Historic | 01:13:30 | |
Resource Inventory survey efforts conducted in 2018 for the following reasons. Side porch replaced with a shed roof addition. | 01:13:36 | |
Multiple roof alterations. Spindle work is not historic to the house. Cumulative alterations resulting in a loss of historical | 01:13:42 | |
integrity. | 01:13:48 | |
Staff recommends that the Historic Resource Committee removed 19145 Carmel Ave. from the HRI due to the loss of historic | 01:13:56 | |
integrity. Based on the page and Turbo survey review, property files, sample maps, and Heritage Society of Pacific Grove | 01:14:03 | |
documentation, this concludes my presentation. I'm available you have any questions? | 01:14:10 | |
And thank you. Do we have the property owner present that would like to speak? Please come forward if you'd like to speak. I'm | 01:14:18 | |
really sorry if I guess I should have asked you what your address was. I could have, I could have reordered, but we would | 01:14:22 | |
appreciate. | 01:14:27 | |
No, I can't, can't do that. My name is Les Schwartz. We've owned the property for 35 years and that, that original picture is a | 01:14:32 | |
terrible picture of the property and, and there was an addition to that top part of it. Certainly we we did that. | 01:14:41 | |
With permits and such and all. And my only comment is sometimes you need to maybe start a new history as well. You know, I know we | 01:14:50 | |
want to keep the character of Pacific Grove and that's something we've really tried to do with our house and. | 01:14:58 | |
Basically that's my only comment. Whether we keep it on the, on the registry or take it off, that's up to you. And it really | 01:15:07 | |
doesn't impact us, I don't think in a great deal. We certainly don't have any plans to tear it down and change it dramatically. | 01:15:14 | |
And we're, we're very proud of this house. And we did win the Heritage award when it was first done too as well. Thank you, thank | 01:15:20 | |
you, thank you for coming. | 01:15:27 | |
I'll open to public comment. | 01:15:36 | |
The next speaker will be Anthony Chiani. | 01:15:41 | |
History is not static, that's for sure. | 01:15:47 | |
And neither are. | 01:15:51 | |
The long term changes that occur by families making modifications to buildings in this case. | 01:15:53 | |
It appears that a lot of embellishments have occurred that. | 01:16:01 | |
Would be hard. I think we're hard pressed without historical photographs, without color photographs indicating the original. | 01:16:09 | |
Color scheme and. | 01:16:19 | |
But the overall form of the building is there, with the exception of what appears to have been. | 01:16:22 | |
A cross Gable where there's a Gable facing on the left in this in these photos, and then a Gable perpendicular to that facing to | 01:16:30 | |
the right that's obviously been changed. | 01:16:36 | |
In. In that sense, then, the building form has changed substantially, but the character hasn't. | 01:16:44 | |
The type of windows. | 01:16:55 | |
The railing or on the little deck, all of that, and especially the front entry and the way it's approached from the street, that | 01:16:59 | |
all has the integrity of the original property. | 01:17:06 | |
So this is a tough one. | 01:17:15 | |
I think I. | 01:17:17 | |
I think you should. | 01:17:22 | |
Reward the property owner for doing all the right things to bring this building forward into this century or the last century and. | 01:17:23 | |
Not take it off the HRI. If you do, it absolutely must be on a neighborhood character list. | 01:17:37 | |
Thank you. | 01:17:48 | |
The next speaker will be Inga Lorenzen Dahmer. | 01:17:55 | |
Thank you. | 01:18:00 | |
I consider this an incredibly handsome house. | 01:18:02 | |
It has care in it. It has. | 01:18:08 | |
It has a choristericity, absolutely, and it belongs here and I can see why it won an award. It is gorgeous and to take it or | 01:18:13 | |
remove it from our historical integrity list, I think would be criminal. | 01:18:22 | |
This brings something up that has been lovingly done. | 01:18:35 | |
A lot of attention to detail and yes, I think it adheres to. | 01:18:42 | |
Adheres in its own way and embellishes and does well with the additions. | 01:18:52 | |
I truly would request you keep it on. | 01:19:00 | |
And of course, it is complete neighborhood character and Pacific Grove character. Thank you very much. | 01:19:05 | |
Thank you. | 01:19:15 | |
The next speaker will be Lisa Chiani. | 01:19:20 | |
Thank you So as I wade through all of Page and Turnbull's comments. | 01:19:24 | |
It seems that the most the additions of are on the. | 01:19:32 | |
The left hand side in the picture. | 01:19:40 | |
I think that's that must be N Yeah, sure. And. | 01:19:43 | |
Except for the Gable Roof edition built over the southern Bay window. | 01:19:48 | |
So you can see why they would do that. | 01:19:56 | |
So and then they talk about the Victorian style spindle work is conjectural and not historic to the house. Well that is so easily | 01:20:02 | |
removed and and considering the care that the owners have put into the. | 01:20:12 | |
I mean, that's, that's just wonderful. | 01:20:23 | |
I would think, I mean, oh I'm sorry, there's one other silly comment. I think the extent attached garage is larger than the | 01:20:27 | |
detached outbuildings depicted on early Sanborn maps. This is not a big deal. | 01:20:35 | |
So anyway I I would think. | 01:20:44 | |
It surely should be kept on the HRI. | 01:20:50 | |
And maybe, you know, the owners can find more information and study things to understand, to understand that in historic | 01:20:55 | |
preservation, you don't add things that you're just guessing about. | 01:21:02 | |
But you know, and there might be some. | 01:21:11 | |
Preferable alternative, but in any case I think this is. | 01:21:15 | |
She I mean, it's a delightful house with so much of its historic integrity. | 01:21:22 | |
I really hope you will not remove this from the HRI. | 01:21:31 | |
Thank you. | 01:21:40 | |
Any further comments? | 01:21:42 | |
I see no other hands raised. All right, close. I will close public comments, bring it back for discussion here. | 01:21:45 | |
Well, I completely agree with the callers that it's a beautiful house. | 01:21:55 | |
Beautifully done. It has been remodeled a little bit and it's and some of the. | 01:22:00 | |
Items on there have changed, like that front Gable end, but it's all been done completely in character with the existing house. | 01:22:07 | |
And it's a spectacular building. | 01:22:17 | |
A real asset to the neighborhood. | 01:22:21 | |
And if we took it off the historic inventory, they should drag us away in chains. | 01:22:24 | |
Be very hard to explain. | 01:22:31 | |
With us, I agree it's been beautifully done and it was acceptable in 1991 when the plans were approved to put that addition on and | 01:22:33 | |
it is beautifully maintained. I would rather keep it on the inventory then let it. | 01:22:43 | |
You know, slide off and not be part of the. | 01:22:54 | |
The city and the character it's it holds in that RE area. | 01:22:58 | |
Done. | 01:23:05 | |
Well, you know, the whole purpose of these hearings is to not just make a a blanket removal because Page and Turnbull said so. And | 01:23:09 | |
clearly I think what we hold important, maybe a little bit. | 01:23:17 | |
More strict than their being, or maybe the opposite. Umm. | 01:23:27 | |
I do feel that that they, you know, they, they with good intent did the survey. But I'm glad that we've had the chance to review | 01:23:32 | |
371. I'm not sure what number we're up to yet. I'm not sure we've made it to 100, in fact. | 01:23:39 | |
But I think this this would be very hard to explain if we removed it, so I'm definitely in favor of keeping this on the HRI. | 01:23:48 | |
So may we have a motion please? | 01:23:58 | |
I move that we retain 145 Carmel Ave. on the historic inventory. | 01:24:01 | |
And I'll second it. So through the Chair, can we make reference to one of the evaluation criteria? | 01:24:08 | |
To retain it. | 01:24:17 | |
I thought it would be the other way around. If we were going to remove it we needed. | 01:24:20 | |
Actually, if you if through the chair use if we're removing it, we're using the findings from page and Turnbull that as the | 01:24:27 | |
recommendation. If we're retaining it, we need to be because we're going against pageant Turnbull. This one is simply you could | 01:24:34 | |
use I which is it retains its integrity did not lose its integrity. Just using one for the record to say like as you have through | 01:24:41 | |
your discussion said we disagree with Paige and Turnbull. We believe that this is and if if it sounds like you were. | 01:24:49 | |
Toward it maintains its integrity, yes, and so and. | 01:24:56 | |
Put that into the motion then. | 01:25:02 | |
Yes, Would you? | 01:25:05 | |
Yes, I move that the 145 Carmel Ave. is retained on the inventory due to maintaining its integrity. | 01:25:07 | |
And I'll second it again. | 01:25:19 | |
All right. | 01:25:22 | |
Show of hands. | 01:25:23 | |
Or for approval. | 01:25:26 | |
Or zero. All right. | 01:25:28 | |
It's a long and tedious process. | 01:25:32 | |
Thank you audience, for being here. | 01:25:34 | |
Thank you everybody, from our staff, people, thank you for being here and supporting us. Meeting adjourned. | 01:25:37 |
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
Well, it's 3:00, so I'd like to call to order the September 25th, 2024 meeting of the Historic Resources Committee. | 00:00:16 | |
And. | 00:00:28 | |
We're moving to roll call. We'll acknowledge that Nayana Dranus is not present today and the other four members are present. | 00:00:29 | |
Which brings us to the second item, approval of the agenda. | 00:00:42 | |
And I have a motion to approve the agenda, please. I move, we approve the agenda. Thank you. | 00:00:48 | |
Seconded. | 00:00:56 | |
So the motion made by Greening, seconded by Steers. And can I have a show of hands to approve the agenda? All right. Looks like a | 00:00:59 | |
421 absent person. | 00:01:04 | |
All right. Moving to item number three, committee and staff announcements. Starting with committee announcements, I'd just like to | 00:01:12 | |
remind the committee and anybody that's listening that our November and December dates will be a little different just because of | 00:01:19 | |
the holidays. So the November meeting will take place on the 20th and the December. | 00:01:26 | |
Meeting will take place on the 18th. Both will be at 1:00 here in the chambers instead of at 3:00 just because the other. | 00:01:34 | |
Groups are using the the chambers too. | 00:01:43 | |
Do we have any staff announcements? | 00:01:47 | |
Seeing none. | 00:01:50 | |
We'll move to item 4. Do we have a council liaison announcement? | 00:01:52 | |
Or two. | 00:01:57 | |
Thank you for coming. | 00:01:59 | |
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you for being here. | 00:02:03 | |
Some items that recently were approved by City Council approved the fiscal year 2425 user fee increase. Pretty much it's CPI. | 00:02:09 | |
Increase across the board with an emphasis on keeping facility rentals for residents low to encourage the use of our facilities | 00:02:23 | |
such as. | 00:02:29 | |
Chautauqua. | 00:02:36 | |
Council also approved outdoor sidewalk extension that's at the intersection of itself at the corner of Victorian Corners. Rudolfo | 00:02:39 | |
and Wild Fish approved the. | 00:02:46 | |
Development of the policy for that, as well as a contract to do the work. | 00:02:56 | |
Also, council put on the ballot for this November, which you should be getting. | 00:03:03 | |
I believe they ballots get mailed out from the county around October 4th. | 00:03:11 | |
And so you'll see there 1 ballot measure for reducing council from six members to four. Also, council approved a resolution of | 00:03:18 | |
intent to vacate part of a block of Slot Ave. That is the. | 00:03:27 | |
Slowed Ave. that's adjacent to the ATC building and the parking lot. And we approved an amended budget and added more capital | 00:03:39 | |
improvement projects like. | 00:03:47 | |
Putting up a rail split rail fence in the butterfly sanctuary and if you want to know more can look at the agenda or send me an | 00:03:56 | |
e-mail. | 00:04:02 | |
Thank you. Thank you very much. I have one, one moment. | 00:04:09 | |
Sorry for that. | 00:05:00 | |
Moving to item number 5, general public comment. | 00:05:03 | |
This must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the city and the Historic Resources Committee, items that are not on | 00:05:09 | |
the regular agenda. | 00:05:13 | |
So if you have any comments, we limit to three minutes and I invite the public to come forward if you have a comment. | 00:05:18 | |
Do we have any virtual comments? | 00:05:27 | |
The next speaker will be Anthony Gianni. | 00:05:29 | |
Good afternoon. | 00:05:35 | |
And looking over the agendas that using this agenda for. | 00:05:38 | |
A reason to look at past agendas. I looked. I went back and looked at agendas from 1978. | 00:05:46 | |
ARB and then the HRC agendas and it occurred to me that. | 00:05:57 | |
The HRC has had a lot of energy and endurance and patience and trying to promote and implement. | 00:06:07 | |
A kind of historic preservation program for Pacific Grove. | 00:06:18 | |
The City Council. | 00:06:23 | |
Planning Commission of all supported having a historic context statement prepared and then the update to the HRI and. | 00:06:25 | |
I looked at something called. | 00:06:37 | |
In the 2011. | 00:06:41 | |
Historic context statement. | 00:06:45 | |
A something called the Pacific Grove Preservation Program considerations and those considerations. | 00:06:48 | |
10 of. | 00:06:58 | |
Included. | 00:07:00 | |
Creating a local preservation incentive program and historic districts. | 00:07:02 | |
And. | 00:07:10 | |
Additional resource surveys Well, the surveys have been carried out, but in those surveys or recommendations for. | 00:07:12 | |
The neighborhood character list and for. | 00:07:21 | |
A for historic preservation districts and. | 00:07:25 | |
And also a recommendation for the city to establish a certified local government program. And that's important because it links | 00:07:31 | |
you to the state, which links you to the federal government and all of the grants in aid that come from the state. | 00:07:41 | |
Through come from the federal government, through the state and then down to the local governments and it's a partnership kind of | 00:07:52 | |
like. | 00:07:57 | |
The Coastal Commissions Local Coastal Program is a partnership with the city. | 00:08:03 | |
For managing. | 00:08:10 | |
The resources in the coastal zone portion of Pacific Grove. | 00:08:12 | |
I would hope that. | 00:08:18 | |
As a proactive measure instead of reacting day-to-day that you will look forward to adopting a local coastal or excuse me, a local | 00:08:21 | |
government program and association with historic preservation. Thank you. | 00:08:30 | |
Thank you. | 00:08:40 | |
Do we have other public comment? | 00:08:45 | |
Yes, the next speaker will be Lisa Chiani. | 00:08:49 | |
Hi, thank you for all your work. And I just want to say that it was a lot of fun driving up and down those streets today for the | 00:08:55 | |
for the agenda items, but I was wondering if I missed. | 00:09:04 | |
The. | 00:09:15 | |
Oh, an announcement about Paige and Turnbull's work. It just seems like such a long time ago that they were going to be doing | 00:09:16 | |
something on the neighborhood character list. And maybe I missed it, but it's it's been a really long time and I hope we'll get an | 00:09:23 | |
update soon. Thank you so much. | 00:09:29 | |
Thank you. | 00:09:37 | |
I see no other hands raised. | 00:09:45 | |
OK. Thank you. We'll closed general public comment. | 00:09:47 | |
Umm, we did have one item written public comment that. | 00:09:52 | |
I assume everybody received. | 00:09:56 | |
All right, let's move to the consent agenda. | 00:10:00 | |
We only have one item, the minutes. | 00:10:04 | |
Would anybody like to remove them? | 00:10:07 | |
Would anybody from the public want to remove an item from the consent agenda? | 00:10:11 | |
All right. So do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? I approve the consent agenda. Thank you. Second. | 00:10:17 | |
All right, it's motion by bigot, second by Greening. | 00:10:25 | |
Then we have a show of hands vote to approve the consent agenda. All right, I see it's a four, four votes in favor, one person | 00:10:31 | |
absent. | 00:10:36 | |
All right, that brings us to the regular agenda. | 00:10:44 | |
And we'll be on item number 8 regarding public hearings. And we'll start with item 8A. But I believe that our staff member has | 00:10:48 | |
something you'd like to share first, so. | 00:10:54 | |
We'll start there. | 00:11:02 | |
All right, Good afternoon, Chair Anton and committee members. In May of 2018, the City contracted with Paige and Turnbull, a | 00:11:08 | |
professional historic preservation consulting firm, to review and update the City's historic resources inventory, which is | 00:11:16 | |
comprised of over 1200 properties. In August of 2018, Page and Turnbull embarked on a survey of these properties with the goal of | 00:11:23 | |
providing a recommendation to the City on which property should. | 00:11:30 | |
Removed from the HRI due to specific criteria. | 00:11:38 | |
Updating the historic resources inventory is consistent with the City's General Plan, Chapter 7.4, Historic Preservation Goals, | 00:11:45 | |
Policies and Programs. Goal one is to provide for the identification, protection, preservation and restoration of Pacific Rose | 00:11:54 | |
heritage of Victorian and other late 19th century and early 20th century historically and architecturally significant resources. | 00:12:03 | |
Goal one is implemented through Policy One, which states to maintain an up-to-date official list of historic and architectural | 00:12:15 | |
resources in the city, and Program A, which states to revise, update and republish the Historic Resources Inventory Inventory | 00:12:21 | |
booklet first published in 1978. | 00:12:28 | |
Furthermore, according to the Pacific Grove Preservation Program Considerations document, it is recommended to periodically update | 00:12:39 | |
the HRI to reflect current standards and or correct errors. | 00:12:45 | |
Page and Turnbull delivered an initial draft of the survey report and recommendations on February 19, 2019, which was available | 00:12:52 | |
for public review and comment through April 2019, based on public comment and input from the Historic Resources Inventory Advisory | 00:12:58 | |
Group. | 00:13:04 | |
Page and Turnbull delivered the final survey report and recommendations to the city on October 18th, 2019. | 00:13:11 | |
As a result of City Council's action on November 20th, 2019, wherein the Council accepted the final survey update report, the HRC | 00:13:19 | |
was directed to begin the formal removal of the 371 properties recommended for removal from the HRI. | 00:13:27 | |
The subject properties up for consideration today are those that Page and Turnbull has identified as having no historic | 00:13:39 | |
significance or has lost historic integrity through cumulative alterations. | 00:13:45 | |
Staff has followed the noticing procedures per 23 point 86.020. Notice of Public Hearing The public has been notified by a Notice | 00:13:52 | |
of Public Hearing published in the Monterey County Weekly on September 12th, 2024. The property owners and surrounding property | 00:13:59 | |
owners within a radius of 300 feet were notified by mailers sent out to the property address and mailing addresses on September | 00:14:06 | |
13th, 2024. | 00:14:13 | |
Additionally, a Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the site of the properties being considered on September 13th, 2024. | 00:14:21 | |
These three methods of notice distribution are to notify the affected owners and inform them about the hearing and allow them to | 00:14:30 | |
voice their support or concerns about the property's historic determination on a case by case basis. | 00:14:38 | |
Now we have our first. | 00:14:51 | |
Deletion. | 00:14:53 | |
141 Monterey Ave. | 00:14:56 | |
The item before you is 141 Monterey Ave. and to consider its removal from the Historic Resources inventory. | 00:15:00 | |
The lot is currently developed with the bungalow style single family residence with an attached carport in the R3 PGR district. | 00:15:07 | |
According to the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove, the structure was first assessed in 1915 and may have built as early as the | 00:15:16 | |
summer of 1914. The property is first depicted on the 1962 Sanborn map. | 00:15:23 | |
The property is currently listed on the HRI, but was found not to be eligible for the HRI during the Pacific Grove Historic | 00:15:34 | |
Resources Inventory survey efforts conducted in 2018 for the following reasons. | 00:15:40 | |
The windows have been replaced, the entry has been altered, the property does not appear to meet the eligible eligibility | 00:15:47 | |
requirements, and it is not a good example of an architectural style or property type from the development period. | 00:15:54 | |
Staff's recommendation is that the Historic Resources Committee remove 141 Monterey Ave. from the HRI due to loss of historic | 00:16:05 | |
integrity. Based on the page and Turnbull survey, review of property files, Sanborn maps, and Heritage Society of Pacific Grove | 00:16:13 | |
documentation. This concludes my staff presentation. I'm available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. | 00:16:20 | |
Thank you. I will open up if the applicant. | 00:16:29 | |
The owner of the property is present that would like to speak to this property. Again, we're talking about 141 Monterey Ave. | 00:16:35 | |
Is there anybody online that? | 00:16:44 | |
The property owner that is the property owner is not. All right, then I'll open the public comment. Do we have anybody present | 00:16:47 | |
that would like to speak to this? | 00:16:52 | |
Anybody online that would like to speak to this? Yes. The next speaker will be Lisa Chiani. | 00:16:59 | |
Thank you. | 00:17:06 | |
As I said earlier, it was really fun to explore the streets for for all of these agenda items and. | 00:17:08 | |
By car and on foot and. | 00:17:18 | |
Let's see, oh, Paige and Trimble note in the historic context statement how unique PG is in its extensive collection of still | 00:17:23 | |
existing historic homes. And that's a great value for Pacific Grove and a great draw for for visitors coming here. | 00:17:32 | |
And then in terms of this particular property? | 00:17:43 | |
It has alterations perhaps that that are reversible. It's not really clear. | 00:17:49 | |
What? Why it talks about? | 00:17:59 | |
Window replacements, although there is a building permit for that in 2001, but there's a special condition in the building permit | 00:18:03 | |
that says subject to use of wood windows on HRI. | 00:18:10 | |
And it stated 6/14/2001. So they were being very clear. The building department was that the windows needed to be replaced in | 00:18:18 | |
kind. And so, you know, I'm not seeing any. | 00:18:26 | |
Alterations that make make such a difference that you would want to take it off. | 00:18:36 | |
It's a neighborhood of of bungalows, including the one next doors was pointed out. It's really, really a delightful neighborhood. | 00:18:43 | |
And so reversible alterations that maybe are a reason can be a reason not to place a property on the HRI. | 00:18:54 | |
Because those can be. | 00:19:05 | |
Fixed in most cases you know reversible ones and then apply to put it on. But when a property is already on the HRI and it's | 00:19:09 | |
gotten. | 00:19:14 | |
Permits from the city for alterations. | 00:19:20 | |
Then I see there there is no reason to take it off. | 00:19:25 | |
In this particular property to me does not, does not warrant a deletion. And I think that's one of the great things is that. | 00:19:33 | |
Our historic resources committee is reviewing pageantry bowls survey because they you know, it was a quick survey, it was a drive | 00:19:44 | |
by walk by kind of survey and they pointed that out. And so it's really important that we look at it from a position of more | 00:19:52 | |
information and and P GS perspective. Thank you. | 00:20:00 | |
Thank you. | 00:20:10 | |
The next speaker will be Angela Ranson Dahmer. | 00:20:19 | |
Thank you. | 00:20:25 | |
Well, I'm going to completely agree with Lisa on this because my notes when I was looking at this, and it's interesting that your | 00:20:27 | |
first photos that you put up there between current and the end in 1977 or something, they didn't show the same angle. Those | 00:20:35 | |
windows are not significantly different. I mean, yeah, they've been replaced, but as Lisa said would. | 00:20:44 | |
It's a wonderful roof line, wonderful roof. It isn't quintessential. | 00:20:53 | |
Bungalow and as Lisa also said. | 00:21:00 | |
Certain little things could be just removed. I mean, but it was done with permits, it wasn't done within a historical context, and | 00:21:06 | |
I see absolutely no reason to take this off of our inventory. | 00:21:14 | |
Thank you very much. | 00:21:23 | |
Thank you. | 00:21:26 | |
The next speaker will be Anthony Ciani. | 00:21:32 | |
Good afternoon again. | 00:21:38 | |
I agree with the previous speakers. I think it's important to note I sent you a letter by the way, regarding all of these items. | 00:21:40 | |
Unfortunately, I. | 00:21:45 | |
I made several mistakes about the date As for today's agenda, but it's about a lot of the items on this agenda and this is one of | 00:21:52 | |
them. | 00:21:56 | |
Reversible items are. | 00:22:05 | |
One of those things that you can permit a historic property or an architecturally significant property to allow if you to, to make | 00:22:10 | |
an alteration to a historic building under the Secretary of Interior Standards under the city standards. | 00:22:19 | |
When you know it's a reversible item that could be changed. In other words, it does not significantly alter the integrity of the | 00:22:29 | |
historic building. This is one of them. | 00:22:34 | |
Moreover, the architectural form from a larger perspective as the public receives it from the street, the public right away. | 00:22:41 | |
Shows demonstrates that the historical integrity of this property that supports the period of historical significance it has been | 00:22:53 | |
retained. | 00:22:59 | |
I recommend that you not take it off the HRI. | 00:23:05 | |
If for some reason the committee finds that it should take it off, then I recommend that you place it in a pending category of a | 00:23:10 | |
contributor to a neighborhood character list. Thank you. | 00:23:18 | |
Thank you. | 00:23:27 | |
I see no other hands raised. All right, I'll close public comment, bring it back to the. | 00:23:32 | |
Committee for discussion. | 00:23:37 | |
Go ahead. I think that we should keep 141 Monterey on the historic resources inventory. The changes that were made to the window | 00:23:40 | |
were done. Windows were done in kind. When you look all the way back to 1977 picture, which is almost 50 years ago, it looked | 00:23:46 | |
identical to the way it is now except for the front porch. The entry was changed, but I think the integrity of the rest of the | 00:23:53 | |
building is intact and I think it should stay on the HRI. | 00:23:59 | |
Thank you. | 00:24:06 | |
I completely agree with the callers and with. | 00:24:07 | |
The other comment that was made, there's apparently no no particular difference between the old ones and the new ones, and no one | 00:24:12 | |
has. | 00:24:17 | |
Brought forth a description that contradicts that idea, or a permit, or anything like that. | 00:24:22 | |
Now I would like to retain it on the. | 00:24:32 | |
Inventory, I think it's one of the working class type houses that's retained its integrity. | 00:24:34 | |
So I vote to keep it on the. | 00:24:40 | |
Thank you, thank you. I agree too. I mean the porch. | 00:24:43 | |
Could be easily removed for one thing. | 00:24:48 | |
And the rest of the house and when you stand back, you look at the roof, which is completely intact probably as it exactly was. So | 00:24:51 | |
without going on and on, I think that I agree with everybody. So at that point, may we have a vote please? | 00:24:59 | |
Note that we. | 00:25:10 | |
Keep the house on the historic inventory. That's your motion. Yes, thank you for the motion. All right. Motion by Steers, seconded | 00:25:13 | |
by Beckett to retain the house on the HRI. Then we have a show of hands for vote. | 00:25:20 | |
I see it for. | 00:25:28 | |
Four and one absent vote. | 00:25:30 | |
40. | 00:25:33 | |
OK, Moving on to the neighbor house, This is at 143 Monterey Ave. May we have a staff report, please? | 00:25:35 | |
The item before you is 143 Monterey Ave. and to consider its removal from the Historic Resources inventory. The lot is currently | 00:25:45 | |
developed with A2 story single family residence with an attached garage in the R3 PGR district. City records indicate that the | 00:25:54 | |
residence was built in 1915. The property is first depicted on the 1962 Sanborn maps. | 00:26:02 | |
This property is currently listed on the HRI, but was found not to be eligible for the HRI during the Pacific Grove Resource | 00:26:18 | |
Historic Resources Inventory survey efforts conducted in 2018 for the following reasons. The second story addition is highly | 00:26:24 | |
visible and large in scale compared to the original house. The form and roofline have been altered and the doors have been | 00:26:30 | |
replaced. | 00:26:36 | |
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Committee remove 143 Monterey Ave. from the HRI due to loss of historic integrity | 00:26:47 | |
based on the patient Turnbull survey, review of property files, Sanborn maps, and Heritage Society Pacific Grove documentation. | 00:26:54 | |
This concludes my staff presentation. I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. | 00:27:01 | |
Do we have a a homeowner present that would like to speak on this one? | 00:27:10 | |
Or online. | 00:27:15 | |
I I do not see a homeowner. | 00:27:18 | |
OK. | 00:27:20 | |
All right. I'll open up then to public comment. | 00:27:22 | |
Anybody present with that would like to speak seeing none. | 00:27:30 | |
From our virtual audience, the next speaker will be Inga Lorenzen Dahmer. | 00:27:34 | |
Thank you. This is another one, uh. | 00:27:41 | |
The bungalow is still there, the roof lines still there and yes, it has an addition behind it which was permitted and approved. | 00:27:47 | |
What so much has changed from the original bungalow? Very very little. I mean, I do not understand. | 00:27:57 | |
This removal. | 00:28:08 | |
This is the neighborhood. Yes, it has an addition. It's behind. You can still see the original I. | 00:28:11 | |
Maybe not the shingle siding, but other than that, I mean, it's still there. So thank you. It should remain. It is certainly the | 00:28:21 | |
neighborhood. Thank you. | 00:28:26 | |
Thank you. | 00:28:33 | |
The next speaker will be Lisa Gianni. | 00:28:38 | |
I agree. The original bungalow is still prominent and and you know very, very much there. I don't know this business about change | 00:28:47 | |
doors, I mean. | 00:28:54 | |
Change the door back, but but it's not, it's not an issue, I don't think in terms of historic integrity. The addition certainly is | 00:29:02 | |
large, but at least it is pushed to the back and. | 00:29:10 | |
As Inga said, it's got a a. | 00:29:17 | |
Building permit from 1992 so. | 00:29:24 | |
It considering the neighborhood and and the the property directly next door, you know, by the same architect I believe it said I, | 00:29:28 | |
I would hope. | 00:29:34 | |
That this would be kept on the HRI. | 00:29:43 | |
At at the very least, you know, kept us as part of the neighborhood character list or added to the neighborhood character list. | 00:29:47 | |
But, but truly. | 00:29:53 | |
This wonderful bungalow is still there and and I hope you will keep it on the HRI. Thank you. | 00:30:00 | |
Thank you. | 00:30:09 | |
The next speaker will be Anthony Chiani. | 00:30:16 | |
Thank you I. | 00:30:22 | |
I think this building and the. | 00:30:24 | |
Other buildings. | 00:30:26 | |
A group, A collection of historic buildings that. | 00:30:28 | |
If and when the city does a historical district in this area. | 00:30:33 | |
As recommended by Paige and Turnbull, that this building. | 00:30:37 | |
May be a contributing building in terms of how it contributes to the architectural character or historical significance. | 00:30:43 | |
Last week, the California Preservation Foundation held a actually two weeks of meetings about historical districts and how to | 00:30:55 | |
evaluate project. | 00:31:02 | |
Projects such as this one was done in 1992. | 00:31:09 | |
And one of the things that I learned, because we're always listening and learning, is there is throughout the state, at least, if | 00:31:12 | |
not the nation, the notion that if you measure the height of the building using the plate lines for the walls. | 00:31:21 | |
And that in addition, such as this one is no more than 50% above the height of the existing one, that it is an acceptable addition | 00:31:30 | |
in a historical district. | 00:31:37 | |
There's no doubt that the. | 00:31:47 | |
Primary elements of the original building are the most prevalent parts of the building, and I think it doesn't I. | 00:31:49 | |
Lose its integrity because of the addition it's. This is another example of. | 00:32:00 | |
A project that was approved. I believe in this case it was by the ARB. | 00:32:07 | |
And. | 00:32:13 | |
And and and it was approved to satisfy. | 00:32:15 | |
Pacific Groves design guidelines for historical buildings So to now come back and say no it didn't is an example of what. | 00:32:22 | |
Historic preservation consultant who's renowned throughout the nation, Nori Winters said I. | 00:32:33 | |
That there is throughout the nation a dilemma of surveyors, new surveyors coming along and finding buildings like this not OK, not | 00:32:41 | |
acceptable, when before they were, say, five years earlier. | 00:32:48 | |
So my recommendation is that you retain it on the HRI, or at the least add it to the Potent pending neighborhood character list. | 00:32:58 | |
Thank you. | 00:33:03 | |
Thank you. | 00:33:11 | |
Any further? | 00:33:13 | |
Comments. I see no other hands raised. All right, I'll close the public comment, bring it back for discussion. | 00:33:15 | |
We're dealing with 143 Monterey Ave. | 00:33:22 | |
Go ahead, Jennifer. Thank you. | 00:33:27 | |
143 Monterey Ave. It's interesting. If you remove that addition, the exact house that you see in the picture from 1977 is still | 00:33:30 | |
there. The side windows are still there. The front is the same. And I think we should keep it on. It was reviewed for this edition | 00:33:37 | |
probably by the ARB back in 1990. And I think the house is still there. And so I think we should keep it on the HRI. | 00:33:45 | |
Thank you. | 00:33:53 | |
Personally I think it should be removed from the HRI. I think I agree with the page and Turnbull's assessment here that the the | 00:33:56 | |
incompatible edition they're talking about the second floor. | 00:34:05 | |
Alters the form and the roofline of the house completely and I I just think it's. | 00:34:17 | |
Way out of character with the original house. | 00:34:26 | |
I was worried about the massing. | 00:34:31 | |
And I, when you look at it, it's a small property and it just overwhelms the house. The only reason I would keep it because at the | 00:34:36 | |
moment we don't have a, a character list, you know, we don't have a working, we have a potential potential, yes. So I would | 00:34:44 | |
probably put it on that. | 00:34:51 | |
But I wouldn't like to have it have no designation at all because it does reflect the other houses that were built in the | 00:35:01 | |
neighborhood. | 00:35:05 | |
Yes. And I agree with both of you that it was a little disappointing in some ways to see the addition on there. You know, if | 00:35:11 | |
you're up close to the house, you don't notice it so much, but when you step back across the street. | 00:35:18 | |
It does overwhelm and it doesn't really fit in terribly well. | 00:35:25 | |
So my sort of sense would be to remove it, but to consider it for a neighborhood character list. Interestingly, I looking at that | 00:35:31 | |
in the house prior kind of looked like they were built by the same person or designed by the same person's. | 00:35:39 | |
Just a comment. | 00:35:48 | |
So my my vote would be to remove it, but to keep it on our potential neighborhood character list. | 00:35:50 | |
Any further discussion? | 00:36:02 | |
May we have a motion please? | 00:36:04 | |
What you just said. | 00:36:08 | |
Sounds like a most. | 00:36:13 | |
To me. | 00:36:14 | |
Do I give myself credit for that or for him? | 00:36:17 | |
Sure, I'll move that it that it be removed from the HRI, however be considered for a neighborhood character list which we will be | 00:36:21 | |
getting to. It's just we have a lot in front of us. Just speaking to the audience here. We can't do everything at once and we're, | 00:36:28 | |
you know, trying to keep it all within our time frame here as well. | 00:36:35 | |
Do we have a second to that motion? I'll second it. Thank you. So motion by myself, second by steers to remove, but keep | 00:36:43 | |
consideration for the neighborhood character list. May we have a vote, please? | 00:36:51 | |
All in favor of the motion. | 00:37:00 | |
All right. I see four hands. Thank you. | 00:37:02 | |
All right, the next house is 159 Monterey Ave. | 00:37:10 | |
May we have a staff report please? | 00:37:15 | |
The item before you is 159 Monterey Ave. and to consider its removal from the Historical Resources inventory. The lot is currently | 00:37:21 | |
developed with A1 story single family residence with an attached garage in the R3 PGR district. The original 1977 DPR indicates | 00:37:29 | |
that the year of initial construction was 1883. The property is first depicted on the 1962 Sanborn maps. | 00:37:38 | |
This property is currently listed on the HRI, but was found not to be eligible for the HRI during the Pacific Grove Historic | 00:37:50 | |
Resources Inventory survey efforts conducted in 2018 for the following reasons. | 00:37:56 | |
The Victorian era house was demolished and replaced with the new house in 1926. The entry porch and awning are not original. The | 00:38:03 | |
1926 residence is quite plain and altered and does not appear to have integrity or significance. | 00:38:11 | |
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Committee remove the Remove 159 Monterey from the Historic Resources inventory due to | 00:38:21 | |
loss of historic integrity based on the page and Turnbull survey, review of the property files, Sanborn maps, and Heritage Society | 00:38:28 | |
of Pacific Grove documentation. | 00:38:34 | |
This concludes my staff presentation. I'm available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. | 00:38:41 | |
Thank you. Do we have an owner present that would like to speak to this particular address? | 00:38:48 | |
All right, seeing none, do we have anybody on the virtual audience an owner? I do not see an owner. All right. | 00:38:54 | |
Then let me open to public comment. | 00:39:02 | |
First, anybody in the audience. | 00:39:06 | |
Seeing none, anybody virtually. | 00:39:09 | |
The next speaker will be Anthony Gianni. | 00:39:13 | |
Good afternoon again. | 00:39:19 | |
Let's see. | 00:39:22 | |
I respectfully disagree with the staff recommendation and I. | 00:39:24 | |
Respectfully disagree with Page and Turnbull's findings. | 00:39:30 | |
I have over 50 years of experience of doing surveys. | 00:39:34 | |
And large surveys such as this one. | 00:39:42 | |
And often one comes across. | 00:39:45 | |
A case where a building that was built in say the Victorian area or pre 1900 area. | 00:39:50 | |
And that those buildings were. | 00:39:59 | |
Either hauled off by a horse and buggy and on railwood Redwood rails and put somewhere else and moved, rotated. | 00:40:02 | |
Or they were mislabeled for because they were on a corner to be on one street and when they were really facing another St. and the | 00:40:13 | |
the. | 00:40:18 | |
The sewer or the electrical went in under one street address and then it was identified as another street address in this case, | 00:40:24 | |
whatever the case circumstances were. | 00:40:29 | |
That this humble little clapboard single story clapboard cottage offending brick chimney ended up where it is in 1926. | 00:40:36 | |
Does not. | 00:40:48 | |
Does not mean it lacks historical significance and does not mean that lacks integrity. | 00:40:51 | |
I just completely disagree with the findings and so I strongly recommend that you keep this building on the HRI. Thank you. | 00:41:00 | |
The next speaker will be Angela Lorenzen Dahmer. | 00:41:18 | |
Thank you. | 00:41:24 | |
I completely agree with Mr. Gianni and I'm questioning what in the world the Historic Resources Committee is for. Even this is | 00:41:26 | |
between 1893 and 1926. Excuse me, look at this. It is essentially the same. | 00:41:38 | |
Absolutely adorable little home that is quintessentially Pacific Grove. | 00:41:51 | |
I do not understand Paige and Turnbull saying oh, it wasn't ornate or this and that. Of course it has integrity. I mean, look at | 00:41:59 | |
it. | 00:42:05 | |
And this is our historic district, it is our historic heritage. And if we take something like this off, what in the world are we | 00:42:12 | |
doing? Because we're going to lose Pacific Grove completely. | 00:42:21 | |
We need to acknowledge, isn't 1926 old enough for you? I don't understand. Thank you very much. | 00:42:33 | |
Thank you. | 00:42:43 | |
The next speaker will be Lisa Chaney. | 00:42:50 | |
Thank you. First of all I could not see anything. | 00:42:55 | |
In in the agenda report and and attachments that explain the. | 00:43:01 | |
The comment that the quote the Victorian era house was demolished and replaced with a new house in 1926. I mean maybe it was, but | 00:43:09 | |
where's the evidence? | 00:43:16 | |
And there there doesn't seem to be a picture of either one from that era at least. At least the picture. I didn't see one with the | 00:43:24 | |
1977 DPR form. | 00:43:30 | |
But in any case. | 00:43:39 | |
The 1926 version, assuming that's what we're seeing, I. | 00:43:41 | |
Is it? | 00:43:48 | |
Perfectly. It seems quite intact. | 00:43:51 | |
The entry, if that's something Paige and Turnbull's altered entry, they say if that's something they have an issue with, well, | 00:43:56 | |
that's easily removable. And I think that they also say, well, they did at some point, I think say something about the windows. | 00:44:07 | |
But they seem to maybe have little. | 00:44:19 | |
Aluminum sashes I'm not really sure the the the frame of the window is wood and and you can't even tell about the sashes, or at | 00:44:24 | |
least I didn't get close enough to be able to tell for sure. So in any case, I think you have an intact. | 00:44:34 | |
House from a historic era and and I I would hope you would keep that on the HRI. | 00:44:46 | |
Again, I mean, you could put it on the neighborhood character list, but I don't see why you would need to. HRI is the appropriate | 00:44:58 | |
place for it. Thank you. | 00:45:02 | |
Thank you. | 00:45:09 | |
I see no other hands raised. All right, closing public comment. Bring it back for discussion. | 00:45:13 | |
Come on, somebody. | 00:45:24 | |
It appears to me to be original from 1926. We don't have any prior. | 00:45:26 | |
Pictures or photographs from before the initial. | 00:45:33 | |
19 What was it? 70 something report? I would because it is in character with the other small properties on that street, working | 00:45:39 | |
class sort of small homes. I would keep it on the HRI. | 00:45:46 | |
I think that's somewhat in question here. I think we're missing some information. | 00:45:56 | |
And and. | 00:46:02 | |
As one of the callers noted, Page and Turnbull says that the Victorian era house was demolished and replaced with a new house in | 00:46:05 | |
1926. I don't see any evidence of it one way or the other and there really should be some here. But I'm also seeing it's a long | 00:46:13 | |
skinny house. But I'm looking at the 1928. | 00:46:22 | |
Oh, what the heck do you call these things? | 00:46:33 | |
Standard now. | 00:46:36 | |
Anyway. | 00:46:39 | |
The diagram of the house here. | 00:46:41 | |
That's not a symbol of. | 00:46:44 | |
Dated 1928. | 00:46:47 | |
And the side of the house. | 00:46:50 | |
In this case, the left side of the house was said to be 20 feet deep, and this house is a great deal more than 20 feet deep. | 00:46:53 | |
So the house that we're looking at in the photograph is not the one that was measured and documented. | 00:47:03 | |
In this other document, I wish I could remember the name of these doggone things. | 00:47:13 | |
Simpsons is not. Something is not complete here, and I'm finding a lot of these descriptions are. | 00:47:22 | |
Vague and incomplete. | 00:47:31 | |
This month, unlike past months. | 00:47:35 | |
And we used to get some pretty good packages and this one is not that. | 00:47:41 | |
Jennifer. | 00:47:51 | |
Yeah, I read the part that it that it had been built in 1926, but I kind of agreed with what Inga said. Isn't that old enough? | 00:48:23 | |
I mean, the alteration of the front porch is clearly, you know, more recent, but again, that. | 00:48:32 | |
That can easily be removed and you have the intact house. So my sort of feeling is we don't seem to have a reason to remove it and | 00:48:40 | |
it's already on the HRI. So I would say unless we can find a reason to remove it, I would I would be for keeping it on the HRI. | 00:48:48 | |
I sure agree with that. | 00:48:58 | |
So. | 00:49:01 | |
Do we have a motion? | 00:49:02 | |
Since you agree with that. | 00:49:04 | |
Well, I'll move it there. I'd move that we keep it on the. | 00:49:08 | |
Historic inventory. Do we have a 2nd? Thank you. So Steers moved and Greening seconded. Can we have a show of hands vote? | 00:49:12 | |
So we're voting. | 00:49:25 | |
Mr. Staff Person, we're voting to keep it on the HRI. | 00:49:27 | |
One moment here. | 00:49:34 | |
We folded. | 00:49:37 | |
But I just want to want to point out that as we keep things on, we do have a criteria for things. I mean, so we have a, and this | 00:49:41 | |
is just for the record, the things that the properties that we are keeping on try to follow our historic, the criteria for these | 00:49:48 | |
historic homes. It would be good to know which one of these you do feel are appropriate for it to be on the HRI, to remain on the | 00:49:55 | |
HRI. | 00:50:02 | |
So we have so if while we're when we do find and the same when you know, because we have in this, in this case, just to remember | 00:50:10 | |
that the page and Turnpal report is pointing out in whatever way or for whatever reason that they don't feel it meets the | 00:50:18 | |
criteria. If we're going to keep them on, we should at least mention why we do feel it meets the criteria. | 00:50:26 | |
For the record. | 00:50:35 | |
Yes. Well, I agree with that. I think we did say that it's times they don't tell us that's that's true. Yeah. | 00:50:36 | |
I wanted to add one thing. | 00:50:49 | |
We're still on 159, right? | 00:50:52 | |
Yes, we're selling 159 Monterey Ave. Just for those of you in the Heritage Society, the one of the owners was Lavinia Waterhouse. | 00:50:55 | |
Does that ring any bells? | 00:51:01 | |
Sort of an inside joke. OK, moving on. | 00:51:09 | |
To the next one. | 00:51:15 | |
Can we repeat the the motion and the? | 00:51:17 | |
The vote, please. Just didn't vote. Yeah, we had our yes, we all did. We voted yeah. | 00:51:20 | |
OK, the next house is 143 11th St. | 00:51:35 | |
Do we have a staff report? | 00:51:40 | |
Yes, hi, good afternoon chair Anton and committee members. My name is Ed and I'm what I'm associate planner with the city of | 00:51:42 | |
Pacific Grove. The item before you is 140 three 11th to consider its removal from the historic resource inventory. The lot is | 00:51:49 | |
currently developed with the one sing with the two single family residents with an attached 2 car garage in the R3 PGR district. | 00:51:56 | |
According to the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove, the structure was first assessed in 1928. | 00:52:04 | |
However, the date of construction is unknown. | 00:52:11 | |
The property is first depicted and then on the 1962 Sun ***** map. | 00:52:14 | |
The original DPR form for 143 11th St. is not available in The eligibility criteria for the originally for originally adding the | 00:52:23 | |
property to the Historic Resource Inventory is unknown. The property is currently listed on the HRI but was found not to be | 00:52:32 | |
eligible for the HRI during the Pacific Grove Historic Resource Inventory survey efforts that was conducted in 2018. | 00:52:40 | |
For the following reasons, a large two-story addition was constructed post 1962 which engulfed the. | 00:52:49 | |
Historic buildings significantly impacting the original design, massing and materials. Cumulative additions and alterations have | 00:52:57 | |
resulted in the loss of historic integrity. | 00:53:02 | |
Staff recommends that the Historic Resource Committee remove 143 11th St. from the HRI due to the loss of historic integrity. | 00:53:11 | |
Based on the page in Turnbull survey, review of the property files, sample maps, heritage and the Heritage Society Pacific Grove | 00:53:18 | |
documentation. This concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you. And may I | 00:53:25 | |
ask if the homeowner is present to speak to this? | 00:53:32 | |
Or present virtually. | 00:53:39 | |
I don't see an owner virtually. All right, then, I'll open for public comment. We're regarding 143 11th St. | 00:53:43 | |
Next speaker will be Lisa Chaney. | 00:53:52 | |
Thank you. So I believe it. Well this is the one that doesn't have a 1977 DPR form, but I wrote down somewhere that it was built | 00:53:57 | |
in 1924 to 25, so I'm not quite sure. | 00:54:04 | |
I think I got that from the building records or whatever they call that because the garage. | 00:54:13 | |
Which does not seem to be there anymore. Was built in 1929 and then it says that there's a 1994 edition. | 00:54:21 | |
By Rick Steers of 11170 square feet of kitchen, dining room and garage. So I'm I'm going to It's a great house, but I'm going to | 00:54:34 | |
rely on Rick's tears to explain. | 00:54:42 | |
How, how it retains its historic integrity with with such a large addition. So as far as the reason I don't think the 1929 garage | 00:54:52 | |
is still there is because there's a double garage on Ricketts Lane. | 00:55:00 | |
That's part of the the large edition. So I look forward to your discussion of this. Thank you. | 00:55:08 | |
Thank you. | 00:55:17 | |
Next speaker will be Angela Ranson Dahmer. | 00:55:33 | |
Thank you. | 00:55:38 | |
I'm going to throw my hands up with this one too because I don't think we have enough information and the fact of things obviously | 00:55:39 | |
have changed. | 00:55:44 | |
And if Mr. Steers can shed some light? | 00:55:50 | |
Obviously it's been altered a lot from whatever it was and. | 00:55:56 | |
It's still a good addition to the neighborhood. But yeah, I look forward to hearing some more information. Thank you very much. | 00:56:04 | |
I see no other hands raised. OK, I'll close the comment and bring it back to our committee. | 00:56:22 | |
Who would like to speak first? | 00:56:31 | |
Speak. It's hard from the attachments we got to see what the original, I have no idea what the original house was in this huge | 00:56:33 | |
addition on there. It's hard to even make out what was what. And it was remodeled so many times that I think it's completely lost | 00:56:40 | |
its historic integrity. And I think it would be OK for us to remove it from the HRI. | 00:56:48 | |
Thank you, I noticed that there was an addition added in 1949 and the building was considered rustic, so I think it's lost a lot | 00:56:56 | |
of its original. | 00:57:02 | |
Framing it's it's been over built onto so I would take it off the inventory. | 00:57:10 | |
I agree and it was my project back in back in 1993. | 00:57:18 | |
But it doesn't meet today's standards for historic president preservation. | 00:57:26 | |
I agree too, there's very little of the original house left. So without further ado, may we have a motion? | 00:57:33 | |
I make a motion. We take 143 11th St. off the Historic resources inventory Second. | 00:57:41 | |
2nd so motion by make it second by greening and may have a show of hands please to remove this house from the HRI. | 00:57:48 | |
It's lost its historic value all right for. | 00:57:57 | |
Or votes. | 00:58:01 | |
All right, that brings us now to the next House, which is 311 Lobos. May we have a staff report, please? | 00:58:11 | |
Yes. | 00:58:20 | |
The item for you is 211 Logos Ave. to consider its removal from the historic resource inventory. The lot is currently developed | 00:58:21 | |
with A1 single, one story single family residence with a detached garage in the R1 District. The property is first depicted on the | 00:58:28 | |
1914 signboard maps and according to the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove, the structure was first assessed in 1928. However, the | 00:58:34 | |
actual date of construction is unknown. | 00:58:41 | |
The original DPR formed for 311 Lobos Ave. is not available, and the eligibility criteria for originally adding the property to | 00:58:48 | |
the Historic Resource Inventory is unknown. | 00:58:54 | |
Next slide. | 00:59:01 | |
The property is currently listed on the HRI, but was found not to be eligible for the HRI update during the Pacific Grove Historic | 00:59:03 | |
Resource Inventory survey efforts conducted in 2018 for the following reasons. When those were placed, the windows were replaced | 00:59:12 | |
with aluminum. The porch detailing likely is not original. The North Bay window is an addition construction post 1926 and. | 00:59:20 | |
Cumulative alterations have resulted in a loss of historic integrity. | 00:59:29 | |
Staff recommends that the Historic Resource Committee removed 311 Lobos Ave. from the HRI due to the loss of historic integrity | 00:59:37 | |
based on the page in Turbo Survey. Review the property files, cyber maps, and the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove documentation. | 00:59:43 | |
Please note that the property was added to this list of the months deletions by the request of the property owner. The property | 00:59:50 | |
was scheduled to appear at a later hearing for consideration or removal. | 00:59:56 | |
This concludes my staff presentation. I'm available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you very much. | 01:00:03 | |
Do we have an owner president that would like to speak? | 01:00:10 | |
Do we have somebody virtual that would like to speak? No. OK, so now I'll open the public comment. | 01:00:16 | |
The next speaker will be Lisa Chaney. | 01:00:30 | |
Thank you. | 01:00:36 | |
So I guess this is one that just had very little information, but when I went and saw it, it was a delightful house. Although if | 01:00:39 | |
that North Bay. | 01:00:44 | |
Is in addition. | 01:00:52 | |
Kind of. It's it's hard to distinguish. | 01:00:55 | |
Where where the original left off and the addition starts I. | 01:00:59 | |
So it yeah, it's, it's very frustrating not to have more information, but. | 01:01:08 | |
The house. The house is. | 01:01:16 | |
Is very attractive and seems to have a lot of historic. | 01:01:21 | |
Excuse me character but and and I didn't get it about the aluminum windows because they look like wood to me. Maybe again the | 01:01:27 | |
sashes, maybe aluminum, I don't know. | 01:01:33 | |
So anyway, I look forward to your discussion. | 01:01:41 | |
Thank you. | 01:01:46 | |
Yeah. | 01:01:48 | |
The next speaker will be Inga Lorenzen Dahmer. | 01:01:51 | |
Thank you. | 01:01:59 | |
Yes, this is another one of those huge toss UPS with very little information and the fact that we can pretty much guarantee it's | 01:02:00 | |
going to be demolished and some other behemoth. | 01:02:07 | |
Put in place there because. | 01:02:15 | |
Because that's the trajectory of Pacific Grove removals and development, unfortunately, but. | 01:02:18 | |
With so little information, it's going to be up to you. | 01:02:29 | |
Here we go. Thank you. | 01:02:37 | |
Next speaker will be Anthony Ciani. | 01:02:48 | |
I think this is a good project to stare at. | 01:02:56 | |
And compare the 2018 photograph with a current photograph. The 2018 photograph that was probably used by Pageant Turnbull shows, | 01:03:02 | |
for example, a very low railing at the porch, which is consistent with the pattern of development in the. | 01:03:13 | |
Early 20th century the current railings they're shown. | 01:03:26 | |
Show up in the photograph. | 01:03:31 | |
Because I'll call it Brown. | 01:03:33 | |
Clearly are not historic, but. | 01:03:37 | |
The filigree across the top of the. | 01:03:41 | |
Porch is, but that's the porch. One of the things I learned this last week is. | 01:03:44 | |
Umm, the first and foremost thing you look at is the building itself. | 01:03:52 | |
The porches. In fact, the front of the building is not wherever the porch is. | 01:03:58 | |
I still have to wrestle with that, but if you stare at this building, I think what you'll find is what I just told you about with | 01:04:07 | |
regard to the railing, but also that possibly. | 01:04:13 | |
And likely that the sash of the windows has changed. | 01:04:19 | |
It's aluminum, whatever it is. | 01:04:26 | |
But the frame, the cell of the windows have not changed. | 01:04:29 | |
The 270 Central Ave. project. | 01:04:38 | |
That was approved by the ARB. | 01:04:42 | |
Included a phase two historical report that found that replacing all of the historic windows. | 01:04:46 | |
Was acceptable. | 01:04:55 | |
And again, last week I learned that indeed, replacing historic windows with windows that. | 01:05:01 | |
For example, have double pane glass that are accommodating current conditions is acceptable under the Secretary of Interior | 01:05:10 | |
Standards. So with that in mind, I think the way to look at this is under preponderance of. | 01:05:18 | |
Everything that you're looking at. | 01:05:27 | |
I would say most of the form and characteristics using the criteria in. | 01:05:30 | |
The Municipal Code 2376025 Evaluation criteria that the building still qualifies for listing. Thank you. | 01:05:40 | |
Thank you. | 01:05:52 | |
I see no other hands raised right. Thank you. I'll close public comment, bring back for discussion. | 01:05:56 | |
I would like to begin start great. This this is this is a tough of red, red is. | 01:06:03 | |
This off, this is a really tough one because you can see that the structure of the original house seems to be there. From looking | 01:06:13 | |
at all the permit data that we received, it's very hard to tell. I have a feeling from being in these meetings before. The reason | 01:06:20 | |
the railing at the front is different now is by code. It has to be higher. It probably has to meet a code minimum, and that's why | 01:06:27 | |
it's different. They've tried to detail it so that it goes with the rest of the house, which I think is nice. | 01:06:35 | |
I think replacing the windows was, I remember many years ago living in Pacific Grove and being at these meetings, that window | 01:06:42 | |
replacement was allowed in historic houses. | 01:06:47 | |
So I'm not sure we can remove a house from the HRI based on the window replacement. The openings look like they are original to | 01:06:53 | |
the house and including the door on the side, which looks like they're replacing it with probably a sturdier door than what was | 01:06:59 | |
there before from the older pictures. | 01:07:05 | |
So it's a tough one. I think we should keep it on because I think to take it off and allow it to be moved from our inventory would | 01:07:12 | |
be a shame. | 01:07:15 | |
Thank you. | 01:07:19 | |
You're right, the. | 01:07:23 | |
Heights of guardrails by code has changed recently and you'll see a lot of. | 01:07:25 | |
New guardrails that are taller than old guardrails because as a response to the building code. And that's fair. | 01:07:32 | |
And and this one I was took a close look. The wing on the left is what's new. | 01:07:40 | |
And it has all aluminum windows all the way around. | 01:07:48 | |
And the everything to the. | 01:07:53 | |
Everything starting with the porch is the old part of the house. | 01:07:56 | |
And it doesn't have aluminum windows it seems to have. | 01:08:03 | |
From what I could tell it seems to have wind windows, but there are carpenters out there banging away and taking things off right | 01:08:08 | |
now. | 01:08:11 | |
So I don't know what they're going to do, but I'm inclined to. | 01:08:17 | |
Remove it from the inventory because that new wing on the left hand side is right up front, right with the it's right at. | 01:08:23 | |
At the most prominent part of the house and changes the front facade. | 01:08:35 | |
Pretty radically. | 01:08:42 | |
Are you? I didn't see where the left side was added on. Were you picking that up from the Sanborn maps? | 01:08:49 | |
Partly the, but I went over there and looked at it. They're building it right now. They're they're doing some construction right | 01:08:57 | |
now. | 01:09:02 | |
And the some of the openings into the crawl space and so forth were open and I peeked in there and the crawl space underneath that | 01:09:08 | |
left hand edition is. | 01:09:14 | |
Vaguely new construction. It's not what we would do today, but it's certainly not what we would do. And whatever it was 1914. | 01:09:24 | |
Glennis yes, I looked along that side and there's definitely. | 01:09:36 | |
Even developing even more with double doors along the side there and I don't know if that was part of the original house or if | 01:09:42 | |
that's part of what was added on to that left hand wing. I would say it definitely didn't come with the original house. | 01:09:50 | |
So I would probably. | 01:10:00 | |
Not keep it on the. | 01:10:02 | |
Historic Resources. | 01:10:05 | |
List other discussion. | 01:10:07 | |
Any questions? | 01:10:11 | |
I I would agree and but I would keep it on a proposed neighborhood character list. This, this is actually not a neighborhood that | 01:10:15 | |
has as many houses. So it's kind of a good example in its place of our historic houses compared to Monterey Ave. for example, that | 01:10:22 | |
has quite a few. So I think this one sort of stands out a little bit. So I, I would like to keep it at least. | 01:10:30 | |
I don't know how we make a neighborhood character list going that far, but I would like to keep it as a consideration when we get | 01:10:39 | |
to that step. | 01:10:42 | |
Other discussion. | 01:10:51 | |
We have a motion, please. | 01:10:53 | |
Move It is taken off the historic inventory and replaced on the neighborhood character list. | 01:10:56 | |
Do we have a second? | 01:11:07 | |
Sure, I'll second that. | 01:11:10 | |
So, moved by greening, second by steers, can we have a show of hands in favor of removal but keeping it considered for the a | 01:11:11 | |
neighborhood character list hands please. OK 4 four hands. | 01:11:18 | |
For the chair, I'd like to, if you don't mind, making a clarification for public commentary I had made concerning 270 Central only | 01:11:26 | |
because it did. | 01:11:32 | |
Influence some of the conversation. The statement was made that the phase two report for the windows of 270 Central said that the | 01:11:39 | |
replacement of windows was OK, that that's a really broad explanation. | 01:11:46 | |
There were specific types of windows. And remember, Bigot is is correct in saying that yes, the the the. | 01:11:54 | |
Sorry, the Secretary of Interior Standards do allow for window replacement, but they're also whether or not they are a historic | 01:12:04 | |
match. Some of the replacement they do let you now do insulated windows. I just wanted to clarify that those windows that were | 01:12:11 | |
being replaced were to be matching and the, the, the phase two did say that they were matching in wood windows as a replacement. | 01:12:17 | |
Just a clarification. | 01:12:23 | |
Thank you. | 01:12:31 | |
All right, the last one is 145 Carmel Ave. Do we have a staff report? | 01:12:33 | |
So the item before you is 145 Carmel Ave. to consider its removal from the historic resource inventory. The lot is currently | 01:12:40 | |
developed with A2 story single family residence with a detached garage in the R3 PGR district. The original 1977 DPR form was | 01:12:47 | |
listed on the HRI due to being. | 01:12:54 | |
Located in the oldest part of the retreat in the Pacific in Pacific Grove and was architecturally significant because there are | 01:13:02 | |
only a few old houses remaining in this area. For the record, the original date of construction was found in the original DPR | 01:13:10 | |
form. The original construction date is is 1888. The property is first depicted on the 1962 Sanborn map. | 01:13:18 | |
The property is currently listed on the HRI but was found not to be eligible for the HRI during the Pacific Grove Historic | 01:13:30 | |
Resource Inventory survey efforts conducted in 2018 for the following reasons. Side porch replaced with a shed roof addition. | 01:13:36 | |
Multiple roof alterations. Spindle work is not historic to the house. Cumulative alterations resulting in a loss of historical | 01:13:42 | |
integrity. | 01:13:48 | |
Staff recommends that the Historic Resource Committee removed 19145 Carmel Ave. from the HRI due to the loss of historic | 01:13:56 | |
integrity. Based on the page and Turbo survey review, property files, sample maps, and Heritage Society of Pacific Grove | 01:14:03 | |
documentation, this concludes my presentation. I'm available you have any questions? | 01:14:10 | |
And thank you. Do we have the property owner present that would like to speak? Please come forward if you'd like to speak. I'm | 01:14:18 | |
really sorry if I guess I should have asked you what your address was. I could have, I could have reordered, but we would | 01:14:22 | |
appreciate. | 01:14:27 | |
No, I can't, can't do that. My name is Les Schwartz. We've owned the property for 35 years and that, that original picture is a | 01:14:32 | |
terrible picture of the property and, and there was an addition to that top part of it. Certainly we we did that. | 01:14:41 | |
With permits and such and all. And my only comment is sometimes you need to maybe start a new history as well. You know, I know we | 01:14:50 | |
want to keep the character of Pacific Grove and that's something we've really tried to do with our house and. | 01:14:58 | |
Basically that's my only comment. Whether we keep it on the, on the registry or take it off, that's up to you. And it really | 01:15:07 | |
doesn't impact us, I don't think in a great deal. We certainly don't have any plans to tear it down and change it dramatically. | 01:15:14 | |
And we're, we're very proud of this house. And we did win the Heritage award when it was first done too as well. Thank you, thank | 01:15:20 | |
you, thank you for coming. | 01:15:27 | |
I'll open to public comment. | 01:15:36 | |
The next speaker will be Anthony Chiani. | 01:15:41 | |
History is not static, that's for sure. | 01:15:47 | |
And neither are. | 01:15:51 | |
The long term changes that occur by families making modifications to buildings in this case. | 01:15:53 | |
It appears that a lot of embellishments have occurred that. | 01:16:01 | |
Would be hard. I think we're hard pressed without historical photographs, without color photographs indicating the original. | 01:16:09 | |
Color scheme and. | 01:16:19 | |
But the overall form of the building is there, with the exception of what appears to have been. | 01:16:22 | |
A cross Gable where there's a Gable facing on the left in this in these photos, and then a Gable perpendicular to that facing to | 01:16:30 | |
the right that's obviously been changed. | 01:16:36 | |
In. In that sense, then, the building form has changed substantially, but the character hasn't. | 01:16:44 | |
The type of windows. | 01:16:55 | |
The railing or on the little deck, all of that, and especially the front entry and the way it's approached from the street, that | 01:16:59 | |
all has the integrity of the original property. | 01:17:06 | |
So this is a tough one. | 01:17:15 | |
I think I. | 01:17:17 | |
I think you should. | 01:17:22 | |
Reward the property owner for doing all the right things to bring this building forward into this century or the last century and. | 01:17:23 | |
Not take it off the HRI. If you do, it absolutely must be on a neighborhood character list. | 01:17:37 | |
Thank you. | 01:17:48 | |
The next speaker will be Inga Lorenzen Dahmer. | 01:17:55 | |
Thank you. | 01:18:00 | |
I consider this an incredibly handsome house. | 01:18:02 | |
It has care in it. It has. | 01:18:08 | |
It has a choristericity, absolutely, and it belongs here and I can see why it won an award. It is gorgeous and to take it or | 01:18:13 | |
remove it from our historical integrity list, I think would be criminal. | 01:18:22 | |
This brings something up that has been lovingly done. | 01:18:35 | |
A lot of attention to detail and yes, I think it adheres to. | 01:18:42 | |
Adheres in its own way and embellishes and does well with the additions. | 01:18:52 | |
I truly would request you keep it on. | 01:19:00 | |
And of course, it is complete neighborhood character and Pacific Grove character. Thank you very much. | 01:19:05 | |
Thank you. | 01:19:15 | |
The next speaker will be Lisa Chiani. | 01:19:20 | |
Thank you So as I wade through all of Page and Turnbull's comments. | 01:19:24 | |
It seems that the most the additions of are on the. | 01:19:32 | |
The left hand side in the picture. | 01:19:40 | |
I think that's that must be N Yeah, sure. And. | 01:19:43 | |
Except for the Gable Roof edition built over the southern Bay window. | 01:19:48 | |
So you can see why they would do that. | 01:19:56 | |
So and then they talk about the Victorian style spindle work is conjectural and not historic to the house. Well that is so easily | 01:20:02 | |
removed and and considering the care that the owners have put into the. | 01:20:12 | |
I mean, that's, that's just wonderful. | 01:20:23 | |
I would think, I mean, oh I'm sorry, there's one other silly comment. I think the extent attached garage is larger than the | 01:20:27 | |
detached outbuildings depicted on early Sanborn maps. This is not a big deal. | 01:20:35 | |
So anyway I I would think. | 01:20:44 | |
It surely should be kept on the HRI. | 01:20:50 | |
And maybe, you know, the owners can find more information and study things to understand, to understand that in historic | 01:20:55 | |
preservation, you don't add things that you're just guessing about. | 01:21:02 | |
But you know, and there might be some. | 01:21:11 | |
Preferable alternative, but in any case I think this is. | 01:21:15 | |
She I mean, it's a delightful house with so much of its historic integrity. | 01:21:22 | |
I really hope you will not remove this from the HRI. | 01:21:31 | |
Thank you. | 01:21:40 | |
Any further comments? | 01:21:42 | |
I see no other hands raised. All right, close. I will close public comments, bring it back for discussion here. | 01:21:45 | |
Well, I completely agree with the callers that it's a beautiful house. | 01:21:55 | |
Beautifully done. It has been remodeled a little bit and it's and some of the. | 01:22:00 | |
Items on there have changed, like that front Gable end, but it's all been done completely in character with the existing house. | 01:22:07 | |
And it's a spectacular building. | 01:22:17 | |
A real asset to the neighborhood. | 01:22:21 | |
And if we took it off the historic inventory, they should drag us away in chains. | 01:22:24 | |
Be very hard to explain. | 01:22:31 | |
With us, I agree it's been beautifully done and it was acceptable in 1991 when the plans were approved to put that addition on and | 01:22:33 | |
it is beautifully maintained. I would rather keep it on the inventory then let it. | 01:22:43 | |
You know, slide off and not be part of the. | 01:22:54 | |
The city and the character it's it holds in that RE area. | 01:22:58 | |
Done. | 01:23:05 | |
Well, you know, the whole purpose of these hearings is to not just make a a blanket removal because Page and Turnbull said so. And | 01:23:09 | |
clearly I think what we hold important, maybe a little bit. | 01:23:17 | |
More strict than their being, or maybe the opposite. Umm. | 01:23:27 | |
I do feel that that they, you know, they, they with good intent did the survey. But I'm glad that we've had the chance to review | 01:23:32 | |
371. I'm not sure what number we're up to yet. I'm not sure we've made it to 100, in fact. | 01:23:39 | |
But I think this this would be very hard to explain if we removed it, so I'm definitely in favor of keeping this on the HRI. | 01:23:48 | |
So may we have a motion please? | 01:23:58 | |
I move that we retain 145 Carmel Ave. on the historic inventory. | 01:24:01 | |
And I'll second it. So through the Chair, can we make reference to one of the evaluation criteria? | 01:24:08 | |
To retain it. | 01:24:17 | |
I thought it would be the other way around. If we were going to remove it we needed. | 01:24:20 | |
Actually, if you if through the chair use if we're removing it, we're using the findings from page and Turnbull that as the | 01:24:27 | |
recommendation. If we're retaining it, we need to be because we're going against pageant Turnbull. This one is simply you could | 01:24:34 | |
use I which is it retains its integrity did not lose its integrity. Just using one for the record to say like as you have through | 01:24:41 | |
your discussion said we disagree with Paige and Turnbull. We believe that this is and if if it sounds like you were. | 01:24:49 | |
Toward it maintains its integrity, yes, and so and. | 01:24:56 | |
Put that into the motion then. | 01:25:02 | |
Yes, Would you? | 01:25:05 | |
Yes, I move that the 145 Carmel Ave. is retained on the inventory due to maintaining its integrity. | 01:25:07 | |
And I'll second it again. | 01:25:19 | |
All right. | 01:25:22 | |
Show of hands. | 01:25:23 | |
Or for approval. | 01:25:26 | |
Or zero. All right. | 01:25:28 | |
It's a long and tedious process. | 01:25:32 | |
Thank you audience, for being here. | 01:25:34 | |
Thank you everybody, from our staff, people, thank you for being here and supporting us. Meeting adjourned. | 01:25:37 |