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
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed

* you need to log in to manage your favorites

My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
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
scroll up