Loading...
HPB Mins 04/24/2019 Historic Preservation Board REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, April 24, 2019 City Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 N First St., Campbell CALL TO ORDER The Historic Preservation Board meeting of April 24, 2019, was called to order at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Foulkes, and the following proceedings were had to wit. ROLL CALL HPB Members Present: Michael Foulkes, Chair Yvonne Kendall, Vice Chair Susan Blake Laura Taylor Moore Todd Walter HPB Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Naz Pouya, Assistant Planner Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of HPB Minutes of March 27, 2019 Motion: Upon motion of Board Member Walter, seconded by Board Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board minutes of the meeting of March 27, 2019, were approved as submitted. (3-0-0-2; Board Members Kendall and Moore abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (ITEMS NOT AGENDIZED) None BOARD/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS, UPDATES AND REQUESTS Planner Daniel Fama: • Provided an update on 360 E. Campbell Avenue. He advised that Director Kermoyan has suggested that Mr. Pino Spanu apply for a Historic Resource Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 2 of 10 Alteration Permit for further consideration of his desire to have an awning at this location. This application will be considered by the Historic Preservation Board and then the Planning Commission. • Added that the brick for this building will be arriving in about a month. • Advised that he has asked to receive advance notice of delivery so he can be present. Board Member Blake: • Reported that she recently attended a historic grant writing program put on by Santa Clara County. She saw Mike Kotowski and Barbara Johnson at this training. Mike is working to secure grant funds for the Trolley Cars in San Jose. • Advised that the program has $5 million to allocate in grants to projects within the five districts of the county. We are in District 4. • Added that these grants are “reimbursement” grants. Cities must match any funds provided by grant. • Said that she had inquired if preparation of HRI surveys was a qualified activity for which to receive grant funding. She said that the County advised that the concentration and/or priority areas are those with currently untold stories and/or disadvantaged areas. She said that minority populations are not well represented. Board Member Kendall asked what about the history of packing plants in Campbell. Board Member Blake asked staff when the HPB might get the Update on the Mills Act Contracts. Planner Daniel Fama said he was not sure given his current work flow. Board Member Blake: • Said she hoped Mills Act could be discussed in the next few months. • Reported that the information Planner Daniel Fama provide from Richmond, California, was very interesting and she recommends that the Board consider adding such information to our own General Plan. • Suggested that subject be discussed at a future meeting. Planner Daniel Fama: • Suggested that members of HPB could approach the GPAC (General Plan Advisory Committee) as individuals within the community to make that suggestion and/or they could elect to agendize the issue on a future HPB agenda and subsequently transmit a letter on to the City Council to speak as one-voice of the HPB. PUBLIC HEARINGS None Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 3 of 10 NEW BUSINESS 2. 167 Alice Avenue – Review of Field Changes: Referral from the Community Development Director requesting that the Historic Preservation Board review field changes from an approved building permit on property located at 167 Alice Avenue. Board Member Kendall advised that she must recuse from participating in this item due to living within noticing distance proximity to this property. She left the dais and chamber for the duration of this item. Ms. Naz Pouya, Assistant Planner, provided the staff report as follows: • Advised that staff is looking for direction from the HPB in dealing with work done under a Building Permit. • Reported that the scope of work performed under this Building Permit exceeded what was approved for that permit on this historic property at 167 Alice Avenue. • Said that the approved scope of work included new and replacement windows and doors. The approval was based upon the provisions in place under the previous Historic Preservation Ordinance. This property was granted a Mills Act Contract last year (2018). • Advised that there were changes from the approved plans. The first was the foundation treatment, a protecting metal flashing, that was installed and then painted to help obscure it. The second deviation was the replacement of an existing garden window with a bay window. Third the roof replacement was not in the scope of work. Another window on the side of the house was three separate windows and is now one large window. • Said the question for HPB is do they find these modifications to be consistent. Does HPB have any suggestions? Does the HPB think that a Conditional Use Permit should be required? Sjur-Olah Bendiksen, Property Owner, 167 Alice Avenue: • Confirmed that his property was granted a Mills Act Contract last year. • Added that all proposed changes were on the plan submitted for the Mills Act. • Pointed out that foundation flashing was a part of the original house. He painted it but there is no landscaping in place yet so it’s still visible. • Said that as to the bay/garden window, the only missing component is a glass roof. • Said that he has an affidavit from his contractor. His contractor is here. • Said that he obtained a roof permit in March 2018 that included 10 squares or 1,000 square feet. • Stated that it was “sad we’re being picked on.” Planner Daniel Fama: • Responded that staff is not picking on these owners but rather has worked to accommodate them in such a way as to avoid their having to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 4 of 10 • Cautioned that accurate plans do matter. Construction must be done strictly to plan. If there are to be changes to approved plans they should be approved prior to the work actually being done. Board Member Blake: • Stated that it is important to be consistent with the architectural style and character of a historic home. • Said that she agrees with staff. • Said that what has been done is an improvement over what was there. The architect did a nice job duplicating the roof lines. • Advised that she is okay with what took place on this home. • Added that typically the HPB doesn’t get into roof color. Planner Daniel Fama said that the roof permit was for the garage. The re-roof of the house itself was not part of that permit. Board Member Walter agreed that the 10 squares of roofing were for the original permit for the garage. Board Member Moore concurred with Board Member Blake. Board Member Blake said this is a work in progress. The landscaping is not done yet. Board Member Walter: • Stated that he is fine with the modifications but it is important to property clean up the documenting paperwork. • Said that this home looks great. The bay window offers more charm and blends in with the home. • Added that he is glad they painted the flashing. Chair Foulkes: • Stated that the flashing looks terrible and is not historic. It should be pulled out. • Said that having a Mills Act holds a property owner up to a higher standard. There are just a few Mills Act Contracts in Campbell. • Admitted that it appears his colleagues don’t object to what’s been done. • Asked staff if a motion is required. Planner Daniel Fama replied staff just needed general guidance from the Board. 3. ADU Standards for Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) Properties: Request for the Historic Preservation Board to discuss potentially establishing special standards for Accessory Dwelling Units on HRI properties Daniel Fama provided the staff report as follows: Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 5 of 10 • Advised that a comprehensive update to the City’s ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) Ordinance has been in process for the last eighteen months or so. • Added that in the past the City has been very resistant to ADUs. • Reported that due to the existing housing crisis the winds have changed. • Stated that State laws are loosening the local jurisdictions’ rights to regulate ADUs. • Said that at the present time there are no provisions for historic properties and staff thinks that should be incorporated into the ADU Ordinance in some manner. It would be helpful for HPB to discuss this and offer feedback to be incorporated into the draft ADU Ordinance. • Advised that the Planning Commission recently conducted two study sessions to offer feedback to staff in order to accommodate the next revisions. • Said that some cities prohibit ADU’s outright on historic properties but the Board may want to consider types of standards. Using a portion of a house, mostly interior work, is the easiest option. • Added that not much design review is allowed. • Said that placement of ADU can be anywhere on a property subject to setbacks. Board Member Blake said that evaluating an historic house is focused on the streetscape and façade and how it is integrated into its neighborhood. Board Member Kendall: • Advised that her home is a Landmark home. • Added that no changes are allowed to the exterior of her house. • Stated that she doesn’t have sufficient room to have an ADU on her property. Planner Daniel Fama admitted that he is not exactly sure whether use of Mills Act dollars are appropriate being used for an addition. Board Member Blake agreed with the points made in the report. Planner Daniel Fama’s suggestions are good. Page 3 references a zoning exception. Board Member Moore said the purpose is to relax regulations. Planner Daniel Fama: • Reiterated that State law takes out public review. • Added that we must have standards that are objective and not subjective. • Suggested crafting firmer but objective standards for historic structures. Board Member Kendall referenced page 2 of 3 and pointed out that the first six listed points demonstrates that zoning exceptions go to the Planning Commission rather than to the Historic Preservation Board. Board Member Walter asked if zoning exceptions are included in the new Historic Preservation Ordinance. How does the HP Ordinance apply to ADU’s? Board Member Moore asked how many properties are eligible for ADU’s. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 6 of 10 Planner Daniel Fama said it is estimated that there are 2,000 properties eligible for an ADU. Board Member Moore pointed out that there are just 127 properties designated as historic. Planner Daniel Fama: • Stated that changes to State law are acting like a hammer on local oversight of ADU’s. • Adding that laws supporting ADU’s will trump the Historic Preservation Ordinance. • Suggested that if the Board wants a zoning exception process to allow them some flexibility they should modify this HP Ordinance to address ADU’s. Board Member Blake asked about design review. Planner Daniel Fama said there is no design review and no public hearing. The State is taking it away. Board Member Blake asked why even discuss this issue if that is the case. Planner Daniel Fama said that we can still create objective standards applicable across the board. Chair Foulkes said that attached versus detached ADU’s on an historic property is a critical issue. He asked staff if a barn is qualified for conversion into an ADU. Planner Daniel Fama said existing space within a dwelling and existing detached structures are eligible. Chair Foulkes: • Said that historic properties are often on a small lot. • Stated his preference for a detached ADU building rather adding onto an historic residence. • Added that he would support encroaching on a lot line setback to protect a historic structure. • Suggested pushing hard to not allow an attached ADU be added onto an historic structure but provide a clearer path for detached ADU’s. Board Member Kendall: • Pointed out that a barn has no structure on the inside. There are no interior walls, electrical or plumbing. • Concluded that as a result they are not as likely to be allowed to be converted. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said it doesn’t deal with what it needs in order to convert. The intent is to convert a structure and not to rebuild it altogether. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 7 of 10 • Cautioned that some structures are not reusable. • Added that it needs to be clear what it actually takes to convert a building since a totally new detached ADU must meet current development standards. • Added that an existing building located within setbacks could be converted but not rebuilt. Board Member Walter: • Said he is on the fence between attached and detached ADU’s. • Pointed out that some lots are so small that we won’t even see ADU’s located at the back. • Stated that he is in favor of ADU’s in the rear of a lot but not at the front. • Stressed the need for consistency. • Questioned whether an attached ADU and/or a detached ADU lends itself better. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that is a challenging question and there is not just one answer. • Added that no matter what is adopted someone will still not be able to do what they want in regards to an ADU. Chair Foulkes said that he finds detached ADU’s to be better. Planner Daniel Fama said that a homeowner can start out with an addition and later do a conversion of that space into an attached ADU. ADU’s are specifically supported under State law even if it’s not really fair. Board Member Walters: • Asked if ADU size is based on lot size. • Suggested perhaps requiring a detached ADU on a large lot but allowing for an attached ADU on a smaller lot. Board Member Blake: • Pointed out that a lot of historic houses are located at the front of a large and deep lot. • Said that those lots are more likely to determine a better option there. Board Member Moore reminded that the front façade is the critical part of a historic home. Planner Daniel Fama reminded that ADU’s sidestep normal review process. He added that attached versus detached is a size issue as an attached ADU can by right be half of the house size. Attached ADU’s can be up to 1,200 square feet. Board Member Moore said that a larger ADU is better than tearing down a building and putting in an apartment building. Board Member Kendall asked if a garage can be attached to ADU’s. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 8 of 10 Planner Daniel Fama said that the Planning Commission felt that size restrictions were unnecessary and instead felt that using the FAR standards to determine size would suffice. Board Member Blake asked staff if the Board has provided enough feedback. Planner Daniel Fama sought clarification that the HPB supports allowing attached ADU’s on historic structures. Board Member Kendall replied yes but at the back. Not upstairs on a one-story house. Planner Daniel Fama reiterated the support for attached ADU’s that are located at the back and not second story. Chair Foulkes said he was not in favor of attached ADU’s on historic structures. Board Member Blake asked at what PC meeting the ADU Ordinance would next be considered. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that will depend on when the Ordinance is drafted. • Reported that on May 7th Council will consider whether the scope of the ADU Ordinance to allow changes in one area should be allowed. • Advised that he must first complete the draft of the ADU Ordinance, allow time for the City Attorney to review the draft and then bring it back to the Planning Commission for public hearing. 4. National Historic Preservation Month Commemoration: Discussion on Historic Preservation Board activities for commemoration of National Historic Preservation Month. Planner Daniel Fama asked the Board if they have any ideas for Historic Preservation Month. Board Member Kendall: • Asked whether a “Did you know” trivia game might be developed on historical topics ranging from buildings, people and things within the community. • Suggested that the different trivia questions be posted onto NextDoor and incorporate supporting pictures. Board Member Blake referenced History Mystery. Planner Daniel Fama advised that the City has a Social Media Coordinator operating out of the Police Department who could be a useful resource in media outreach. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 9 of 10 Board Member Blake suggested spreading out the various trivia items. Board Member Walter suggested adding this trivia game to the walking tour app. Planner Daniel Fama said he would check in with PD. If okay, we can feed the Social Media Coordinator Letysia Garcia the HPB content she can post as appropriate. Board Member Kendall referenced famous unsolved murders. Board Member Blake: • Suggested as one project for HPB to commemorate Historic Preservation Month could be preparing a Letter of Commendation for the owners of 300 Orchard City Drive for their recent major renovation of that historic site. • Added that another good thing to highlight would be the 11 Historic Landmarks located in Campbell. • Reported that there is a Facebook page called Campbell Water Tower that covers issues of interest to the people who love Campbell. • Agreed that NextDoor is another outreach tool. • Suggested that the HPB coordinate a celebration of the re-opening of Pino’s restaurant at 360 E. Campbell Avenue when the historic building’s renovations are completed. Board Member Walter: • Suggested that the HPB conduct one of its meetings at Pino’s restaurant. • Said that letters of recognition could be written during the month of May. Perhaps thanking property owners for their work to retain their historic houses. • Commending On-Site, public kudos, displays, website and newspaper articles. OLD BUSINESS 5. Kennedy Tract Surveys: Discuss surveyed Kennedy Tract properties. Planner Daniel Fama gave the following staff report: • Advised that the current potentials spreadsheet list was translated into a Word document. • Added that he removed those properties that the HPB decided to remove from consideration at the last meeting. • Stated that Board Member Kendall has also reviewed the El Caminito properties. At this point, Planner Daniel Fama provided a visual tour of the homes under consideration on El Caminito Avenue, California Street and Cherry Lane as possible potential additions to the HRI. As a group, the members evaluated the streetscape frontage photographs using Google Earth. The options were: No, Maybe or No Change. The results are as follows: Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 10 of 10 El Caminito Consider for HRI California Street Consider for HR 61 No 418 No Change (Maybe) 77 No 322 No Change (Maybe) 121 No 294 No Change (Maybe) 133 No 151 No Cherry Lane Consider for HRI 156 No 79 No Change (Maybe) 207 Maybe 126 No Change (Maybe) 229 No 198 No Change (Maybe) Catalpa Lane At this point, the Board decided to review and consider the homes on Catalpa Lane at its next meeting on May 22nd. Planner Daniel Fama said he would try to have the permits for those properties available for the next meeting ADJOURNMENT The Historic Preservation Board meeting adjourned at 6:36 p.m. to the next Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting of May 22, 2019. PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ______________________________________ Michael Foulkes, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________________ Daniel Fama, HPB Staff Liaison