Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-24 City Council (22)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: June 24, 1996 CMR:320:96 SUBJECT:Recommendation of the Historic Resources Board to Extend the Moratorium on Issuance of A Demolition Permit for 275 Lowell Street REQUEST Council is requested to review the Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommendation to extend the moratorium on issuance of a Demolition Permit for a single-family residence, designated Category II on the Historic Inventory, located at 275 Lowell Street. RECOMMENDATIONS The HRB and staff recommend that the City Council extend the moratorium on issuance of a Demolition Permit for 275 Lowell Street for a period of six months from the date of application, such that a demolition permit would not be issued until October 29, 1996. This will allow time. for the applicant and community to explore alternatives to the proposed demolition. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Preserving the value of historic structures throughout Palo Alto is a key policy issue. Demolition and replacement of historic homes may result in the degradation of the overall visual quality of many neighborhoods within Palo Alto. The following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs apply to this review: Urban Design, Program 1: "Restore and maintain residential character in older sections of Palo Alto." Extending the moratorium on the demolition of this Category II historic residence in the "Scale Addition" neighborhood of Palo Alto will allow the applicant, property owner and Historic Resources Board the time needed to explore CMR:320:96 Page 1 of 5 o o alternatives to demolition, which would assist in maintaining the existing residential character of the neighborhood. Urban Design, Policy 2: "Encourage private preservation of buildings which have historic or architectural merit or both." The moratorium extension and the availability of HRB members to discuss and review options for preserving the existing residence will encourage the applicant and property owner to explore preservation of the existing building rather than demolition. Urban Design, Program 6: "Develop incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of houses with architectural or historic merit in all zones." Extending the moratorium, combined with the willingness of the HRB to discuss and review options for preserving the existing building, will be an incentive to this property owner and other owners of historic buildings to explore options for retaining and rehabilitating historic structures. On July 10, 1995, during City Council’s review of 1106 Bryant Street, a 12-month demolition moratorium, the Council raised some additional policy issues related to the Historic Resource Ordinance (minutes attached). Questions raised included whether the current ordinance allows the City to apply conditions on applications for the replacement residence that would be built in place of the demolished historic residence. The current ordinance does not allow for conditions to be placed on the replacement building permit, although a legislative amendment could be enacted to allow for conditions to be applied. Another issue discussed was whether or not the HRB decisions regarding the design of the replacement residence should be voluntary or mandatory. The current ordinance requires the replacement residence, located in an historic district, to be reviewed by the HRB. However, compliance with the HRB decision is voluntary, under the current code. Another issue discussed was whether or not the 12-month moratorium could be shortened and reduced through mutual consent of both the City and the applicant. The City Attorney responded that it would be possible, . under the current ordinance, to end the moratorium before it expired if both parties agreed to do. All of these policy questions will be raised again in 1996-97 when the City initiates the Historic Resource Ordinance Update, included in the 1996-97 Budget and Planning Division Work Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The existing residence is designated a Category II historic structure, which is defined by Section 16.49.020 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance as a Major Building, meaning "any building or group of buildings of major regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an~ outstanding example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained." CMR:320:96 Page 2 of 5 As stated on the historic inventory sheet, the residence at 275 Lowell Avenue is a milestone design in the career of an important Bay Area designer, John Hudson Thomas. Although it was originally connected to the house at 1680 Bryant Street and has undergone modification through the building of an addition, the character of the original structure remains intact (see attachment 1 - Historic Resources Inventory Sheet). ~Section 16.49.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires a 60-day moratorium and automatic review by the HRB of an application to demolish a "significant" structure located outside of the Downtown area. The HRB or any other interested person may recommend that the Council extend the moratorium for a period up to one year. In addition, it may be .required that appropriate and reasonable public notice of the availability of the structure be provided by the applicant. The demolition application for 275 Lowell Street is being forwarded to the Council, because the HRB has recommended that the moratorium be extended for six months from the date that the demolition application was made. On April 29, 1996, Leslie Murphy-Khutorian, property owner, submitted an application to demolish the residence. As required by Section 16.49.070 of the PAMC, an informational staff report was forwarded to the Council on May 9, 1996, which outlined the moratorium process (see attachment 2 - CMR:258:96 dated May 9, 1996). On May 15, 1996, the HRB began its review of the application and decided to continue the discussion to May 22, 1996, so that a site visit could be conducted with the owner of the house and the project architect (see attachment 3 - HRB minutes, dated May 15, 1996). On May 22, 1996, the HRB voted 4-0-2-0 (Kittas and Kohler absent, one vacant seat) to recommend that the City Council extend the moratorium for a total of six months from the date the demolition application was made. The I-IRB determined that the loss of the residence would result in the loss of a distinctive historical resource. Rather than demolishing the building, the Board stated that the owner and architect, along with the Board, should explore ways of rehabilitating the structure to restore its original beauty and importance to the streetscape (see attachment 4 - HRB minutes dated May 22, 1996). The applicant, architect and Board discussed the possible options for saving a portion, or all, of the house and determined together that a six-month time frame, from the date the original demolition application was made, would be enough time to explore viable alternatives to demolition. Staff concludes that the HRB recommendation for a 6-month, versus 12-month, moratorium for 275 Lowell Street resulted because the application plans are ready for immediate revision. The altemative agreed to verbally by the applicant is to consider restoring the historic residence. This action contrasts with the HRB recommendation for 1106 Bryant, where the plans to demolish the existing structure remained unchanged throughout the HRB review, and the HRB concluded that longer time would be needed to work with the applicant to prepare historically sensitive plans. CMR:320:96 Page 3 of 5 ALTERNATIVES Alternative actions which can be taken by Council are: 1.Extend the moratorium for a longer period of time, up to 12 months; Extend the moratorium for a shorter period of time, less than 6 months; Allow the demolition to proceed, per the original request of the applicant. This action would be contrary to the recommendation of staff and the HRB, and would not allow for the plan revision which the applicant has stated they are willing to pursue. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact related to this item. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This review is exempt from the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061 (b)(3). ATTACHMENTS 2. 3. 4. 5. Historic Resources Inventory Sheet Demolition Application and Report to City Council, dated May 9, 1996 Historic Resources Board minutes, dated May 16, 1996 Historic Resources Board minutes, dated May 22, 1996 City Council Minutes, dated July 10, 1995 PREPARED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPRO BEl~AR~ M~TROJNY Assistant city Manager CMR:320:96 Page 4 of 5 Historic Resources Board Members Leslie Murphy-Khutorian, Applicant Joseph Biddel, Architect CMR:320:96 Page 5 of 5 State of California - TI~ Re~ou~ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECRE ~N HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY Attachment 1 Lat Lon Era Sig ~ =NTIFICATION Ca~,o ~ 1. Common name: 2. Historic name, if known:l-laehl Residence 3. Street or rural address 275 I~ve11/1680 Bryant ;51;reef, City: Palo Al~o ZIP: ~ ~unty: ~80-LasFl~i~-P~~Ou 4, Pre~nt owner, if known:9- ""~Aadress:Same City:ZIP:Ownership is: Santa Clara Public [~ Private [] 5. Present ~Jse:Residence Original Use:Residence Other past uses: DESCRIPTION 6.Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: The two-story stucco building at 275 Lowell was originally joined to the prin-, cipal building at 1680 Bryant to form a single family residence. A one-story connecting wing ~as bulldozed in the mid-20th century creating two separate houses. It is a superb example, even in i~s mutilated state, of Thomas’ ability to fuse Prairie Style, Secessionist, Craftsman and Pueblo Revival architectUral expressions. 7.Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks): ~NORTH ~ (Rev. 7/75) 8. Approximate property size: Lot size (in feet) Frontage_ 150 , Depth 150 ,; or approx, acreage 9. Condition: (check one) a. Excellent [~b. Good [~c. Fair ~, d..Deteri°rated=e. No longer in existence 10.- Is the feature a. Altered? [~ b. Unaltered? 11.Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) a. Open land [~] b. Scattered buildings [~] c. Densely built-up [-’] d. Residential [] e. Commercial [~]’ f. Industrial . g. Other [--] 12.Threats to site: a." None known ~] b. Private development c. Zoning D d. Public Worksproject e. V an~dalism [~ f. Other 13. Da~ ~ ~=o~1 p~(d:1978 TE ; The following (Items 14-19) are for st( fres only. l Primary exterior building material: a. Stone ["-] b. Brick [--’] f. Other ["-’] . is the structure: a, On its original site? [~ b. Moved? [--] Year of initial construction 1914 Thisdate is: a, Factual [~] Architect (if known): John ~udson Thomas c. Stucco [~ d.~ .obe [-’-] e. Wood [~] (Central portion of struc. c. Unknown? [~ ture remeved creating 2 b. Estimated []separate houses.) Builder (if known): Original builder not known; studio addition 19~6, Aro a/%d (YKerman h. Other ~-’~i. None Related features: a. Barn D b. Carriage house [] f. Windmill J---] g, Watertower/tankhouse [--] ~FICANCE lJ B r iefly state historical and/or arch itectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): This is a milestone design in the career of an important Bay Area designer, John Hudson Thomas. The original owners were Harry Lewis Haehl and wife Mary (Burrel). Haehl (1877- 1949) was a mining and civil engineer who, after taking his engineer degree from Stanford in 1901, lived in Palo Alto until his death. He served on the board of the city’s high school district until unification of the school system. In 1936, the property was purchased by Frank J. and Eugenla (Jean) M. Frost, who divided it and added a studio. Frost was a distin&~Lished amateur musician and patron of m~sie. He was trained as a mining en~Lueer who became treasurer of Standard Oil of New York and vice-president of Guaranty T~ust COo Upon re~dx~ment to OJai, he e~tabliehed OJai Valley School and the OJal Mmeic Festival in the early 192Os. Moving to Wash- ington, D.C., he founded the National Symphoz%v Orchestra and Washington String Quartet. ~he F~osts came to Palo Alto in 1935, and their home and studio became a community music center. ~s. Frost was president of the International Women’s League for a number of years and, after her husbknd’s death in 1939, ~eta~d the house unti~he early ’5Os. 21. Main theme of the historic resource: (Check only one): a. Architecture ~L_~ b. Arts & Leisure c. Economic/Industrial [~ d. Exploration/Settlement D e, Government [’-] f, Military [-~ g. Religion [~ h. Social/Education 22. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: Bay Area Gulde to Architecture Palo Alto Historical Association files .mee ].211s!3% 9119/68 1 8 i 1985 "sto "23. Date form prepared:~_~._~.~,~¥ (name):._~~C HesoIJ~’Ces ~tJo~ " P A t Address:250 Hamilton Ave _~City .Palo ~__~_~to Ca 9&301 ZIP: Phone:Organization: (State UseOnly) *~Slnce then it has bee: Ballet, and his wife was first occupied separ Charles J o (Jerry) Simps. expert; his San Francisc. ented more than 200 B~y first judge in ~dera Co’ Burbank plan the landsca~ leader in the Los Angelel Simpsons from 1968 t~ an attorney in the law f~ the h~e of the. internationally-known pianist, Adoloh .h. ~he portion o£ the property at 1680 Bryant Stree~ ~tely in 19&6 by W.S. Allen Jr., followed (1955-66) by ,n and his wife Venice. Simpson was a labor relations firm, the Na$ional Labor Bureau, at one time repass= ~rea labor unions. His pioneer ancestors included the mty, a pioneer landscape architect who helped Luther ¯ ug for early Los Angeles, and (hie father) an early lumber and sash-and=door industry. Following the the ’70s were Clayton 0. and Tannlsee Rost; Rost was rm of Elliott Robertson and Rost. Attachment 2 TO: city Manager’s City of Palo Alto Summary Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment DATE:MAY 9, 1996 CMR:258:96 Request for a Demolition Permit for a Residence Located at 275 Lowell Avenue This is an informational report and no Council action is required. RECOMMENDATIONS This is an informational item required by Section 16.49.070 ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and no recommendations are included. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The receipt of a demolition application does not represent any change to existing policies. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The residence located at 275 Lowell Avenue is a Category 2 building on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. On April 20, 1996, the City received a demolition permit application for this residence. The PAMC requires the demolition application be referred to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) for review and poss~le recommendation to the Council. There is an automatic sixty day moratorium on issuance ofthe demolition permit. Upon recommendation of the I-HLB or any interested person, the Council may extend the moratorium for up to one year. The application will be reviewed by the HRB on May 15, 1996. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact related to this report. CMR:258:96 Page 1 of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ,The appfication for demolition is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act. ATTACHMENTS Photographs Demolition Application Historic Inventory Listing PREPARED BY: Fred Herman, Chief Building Official KENNETH R. SCHREIBER CITY MANAGER REVIEW: cc:Historic Resources Board Leslie Murphy-Chutoriarg 151 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Joe Bedell, 226 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 .Dkector of Planning and ~nunity Environm; CMR:258:96 Page 2 of 2 II U Attachment 3 Historic Resources Board Minutes Wednesday, May 15, 1996 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Council Conference Room Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California Roll Call Board Members present: Anderson, Scott, Kohler, Willis, Mario Board Members absent: Kittas City Council Liaison present: Kniss Staff Members present: Grote II. Approval of Minutes: Oral Communications: January 17, 1996 (approved as amended) . February 7, 1996 (approved as amended) February 21, 1996 (approved as amended) April 3, 1996 (approved as amended) III. None Report from City Council Liaison: Councilmember Kniss said she wanted to take this opportunity to publically thank Boardmembers Scott and Kittas for their long and valued participation on the Board. This would be the last regular meeting for both of them. She stated that Boardmember Scott has been on the Board since approximately 1989 and that she has helped keep our collective conscious clear and really contributed to historic preservation in Palo Alto. The entire City Council thanks Ms. Scott for all her hard work and contribution to the City overall. Ms. Kniss said that unfortunately Boardmember Kittas could not be in attendance today, but that she had been on the Board since its creation and has really served the community well. Boardmember Scott thanked Councilmember Kniss and all the Boardmembers. She said that she had really enjoyed being on the Board and that she would be available at any time for the Board to contact her and that she would be glad to help with the upcoming revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. IV.755 University Avenue 96-HRB- 16 Review of six foot high fence and entryway in the front yard of a Category 2 historic residence. Boardmember Kohler stepped down from this item since he is the project architect. Project Representatives:Roger Kohler, Architect Maria Qwok, Property Owner Mr. Kohler and Ms. Qwok presented the fence design and pointed out the differences between it and the previous fence design that the Board had reviewed as part of a Variance application. Public Testimony: None Summary of HRB Discussion: Boardmember Anderson asked the applicant if the intent of the fence was for privacy rather than decoration. Ms. Qwok confirmed that the fence was for privacy. Boardmember Willis asked the applicant if she had considered plant material rather than a fence. Ms. Qwok replied that she had, but did not think plant material would grow c~uickly enough to provide the screening her family wants. Boardmember Scott asked Ms. Qwok if she had considered wrought iron rather than wood. Ms. Qwok said she had, but that it was much more expensive. Boardmember Willis said she did not agree with the concept of isolating the property and closing if off from University Avenue. Boardmember Anderson said that the fence will obscure the presence of the house on the street and that he could not support that happening. Chair Mario agreed with the Boardmembets comments and added that shrubs really do grow very quickly and can be used for screening very effectively. Ms. Mario stated that this fence, in her opinion, is very "unfriendly". Boardmember Scott said that this is an historic property and has special value. The Board ¯ doesn’t have the ability to change the fence requirements. A four foot high fence will createthe sense of separation the applicant desires while maintaining the presence of the house on the street. She said that studies have been done which show that solid six foot (or similar height) fences create opportunities for theft, while four foot fences create a separation without safety hazards or a walled-off appearance. The Board moved to approve either a six foot high wrought iron fence or a four foot high wood picket fence, but not the proposed six foot high solid fence. VOTE:5-0-1-0 (Kittas absent, one vacancy) V.275 Lowell Avenue/1680 Bryant Street 96-HRB-17 Review of a demolition application for a Category 2 historic residence at 275 Lowell Avenue ~R-2 zone district). Project Representatives:Leslie Murphy-Khutorian, Property Owner Joseph Biddel, Architect/Builder Mr. Biddel said that 275 Lowell is not worth saving. If any portion of the original house is worth saving it is 1680 Bryant Street. It would be unfair to ask the owners to wait additional time before demolishing the house. Ms. Khutodan added that they had looked at possible ways to save the house. They cannot get fire insurance because of the age and size of the house so if they can’t demolish it right away, the house will sit idle while the moratorium is underway, Public Testimony:Mrs. Nancy Huber, 451 Lincoln Avenue, Palo Alto, CA. Mrs. Huber stated her support for saving the historic portion of the house and keeping the character of the overall site in-tact. Summary of Board Discussion: Boardmember Scott asked the applicant about the location of the lot line between the two houses. The owner and project architect pointed out on the block map where the property line is located. Ms. Scott stated that this site is very difficult. Severing the two houses had been a real shame, but now trying to save the Lowell Avenue house could be difficult. She would like to see plans for the replacement house. She would be less concerned if the new house would be sympathetic to the remaining house. That would be the best solution. Boardmember Willis asked the owner if she had considered plans for saving the historic portion of the building. Ms. Khutorian said that she had, but that it would be very expensive and not worth the effort. Boardmember Anderson.asked about the possibility of walking the site. He felt that the Board needed to be at the site with the owner and project architect to really be able to understand the application and the possible alternatives. The Board and the owner and architect agreed with Boardmember Anderson. The Board moved to continue .the item to a Special meeting on May 22, 1996, to be agendized and posted, at which time the Board would meet with the owner and architect at the site (275 Lowell Avenue) for a tour and then return to City Hall to deliberate and vote on the item. VOTE:4-0-1-0 (Kittas absent, one vacancy) VI. 1531 College Avenue No HRB Number Discussion of property owner’s options to abate violations related to a single-family residence that the Building Division has determined to be substandard and unsafe in its present condition. Category I historic structure, Zone District R-1. The Board moved to track the item and to be kept informed about any new information regarding the house. VOTE:5-0-1-0 (Kittas absent, one vacancy) VII.Discussion of Outreach to the Board of Realtors Continued VIII.General Discussion: Boardmembers Kohler and Willis stated that they would both try to attend the upcoming California Preservation Foundation (CPF) conference. Chair Mario said she could not attend the June 24,1996 City Council meeting regarding the AME Zion Church building at 819 Romona Street. It was determined that Boardmember Willis would attend instead of Chair Mario. IX.Items to be Placed on Future Agendas: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 275 Lowell Avenue - May 22, 1996 (Special Meeting) 1531 College Avenue - to be tracked Discussion of Outreach to Board of Realtors - June 5, 1996 Letter to Mildred Mario from Daniele Hui regarding the Sea Scout building - June 5, 1996 Discussion of the Mills Act Contract Process - June 5, 1996 Discussion of the Survey of Palo Alto Advisory Bodies - June 5, 1996 X. Adjournment: 10:10 a.m. to Special Meeting of May 22, 1996 to be held at 275 Lowell Avenue at 8:00 a.m. and to return to City Hall at 9:00 a.m. to consider demolition permit application and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the possible extension of the two-month moratorium. Roll Call Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Historic Resources Board Minutes Wednesday, May 22, 1996 Special Meeting 8:00 - 9:00 - 275 Lowell Avenue 9:00 - 10:00 - Council Conference Room Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California Mario, Anderson, Willis, Scott Kohler, Kittas Grote Attachment 4 Agenda Items I.Address: 275 Lowell Avenue/1680 Bryant Street 96-HRB- 17 Project Description: Application for demolition of a Category 2 historic home. Project Representatives: Leslie Murphy-Khutorian, Owner Joseph Biddel, Architect The first hour of the Special Meeting was conducted at the 275 Lowell Street site. The Board toured the interior of the house and surrounding grounds. The meeting was then reconvened at City Hall where the Board deliberated on the item. The project architect and property owner summarized the project by saying that they would like to preserve the special features of the existing structure, especially the interior features of the house, but that overall they felt the house is poorly located on the site and that they would like to replace it with a beautifully designed house that is placed in a manner more sensitive to the surrounding properties. Summary of HRB Discussion: Board member Scott asked the owner about her intentions for demolishing everything on the site. Ms. Scott believed that the smaller house could be income producing and questioned why the owner would want to demolish it right away. Ms. Khutorian, the property owner, replied that eventually she and her husband would like to demolish all the structures on the site, but that it the interim the small house could be income- producing. In the long-run, though, they were fairly certain they did not want to keep the small house. Boardmember Anderson asked the architect whether he had considered saving portions of the house, if not the entire structure. Mr. Biddel, project architect, responded that he didn’t think that any portion of the original structure could be saved. Chair Mario asked the applicant what her intentions had been regarding demolition when she first purchased the house, had she intended to demolish it then? Ms. Khutorian responded that no, she had not intended to demolish it when first purchased. Upon further investigation, however, she concluded that demolition would be the best solution. Boardmember Willis asked the applicant why she felt that more space between the buildings was so important. She pointed to the many examples in Palo Alto where houses are five to six feet apart and that with the use of lush landscaping and site orientation the space was sufficient. Ms. Khutorian responded that the distance between the buildings was not the only factor. She said that to refurbish the existing house would be very expensive. Mr. Biddel added that the applicant’s have decided to tear down the house and that the design of the new house will begin within thirty days. He felt that it is just a matter of when the building permit can be obtained. Boardmember Willis stated that she would like to see the existing house saved. She stated that even though there are problems with the existing structure, they are not insurmountable. The house is truly beautiful. The orientation to the neighbor isn’t necessarily a detriment. She said she is optimistic about possibilities for saving the house and believes that an addition could be designed that would be as nice as a new house, but more appropriate for the original house. Boardmember Anderson stated that he had been prepared for the worst when he visited the site. But, he saw a lot of distinctive architectural features that he had not expected. The massing on Lowell street is as important as the massing on Bryant Street (which had originally been connected to the Lowell Street house) and could be brought out much more. The style of the house tends toward Prairie style. The details are terrific, from the stairway to the keystones at entryway. He saw no obvious signs of structural failure and stated that leaking could be fixed. The entryhall, stairway and living room could be remodeled to accommodate contemporary needs. He felt no affinity ~’or the 1945 addition and could support taking it down, along with the carport. He stated that saving the doors and windows only wouldn’t be worth the effort. It would be impossible to replicate the original structure. Boardmember Scott stated that the Board has seen several other instances of demolition requests and that all have resulted in unhappy consequences. This situation is unique and different from the other applications. She is concerned about a replacement structure and its potential relation to 1680 Bryant Street. She stated that the facade on Lowell Street was originally the most important. It would be a shame to lose this back piece of the original house. It’s sometimes hard to understand what makes one house more important than another. This house is important because it is one of a kind. It wasn’t one of several of the same kind. She stated that she is concerned that a decision to demolish the existing house has been made by the owner without real thought about replacement plans. She felt that it is premature to decide that the existing house could not be saved. She was troubled by the fact that the little house behind the main house may be saved when it is of no historical interest while the important part of the structure would be lost. She stated that it might be more economical in the long-run to save the existing house rather than build a new one. The physical proximity to the neighboring house is not so bad that it could not be worked with. There could be opportunities to open-up other parts of the site. The existing building could become the anchor to what grows around it. This house could be turned into a real treasure. Design work needs to be done to see if it could be saved. Chair Mario said she is saddened by the application to demolish the entire house. She felt that the addition at the back could be removed and that the interior of the basic house could be reworked for contemporary needs. She recommended tearing down the addition and reworking the upstairs of the main house. She felt that cleaning-up the front yard and opening it up to the street a little more would really take advantage of the beautiful front facade. She said that this kind of application is one reason why the City needs a stronger Historic Preservation ordinance. She does not support the demolitions application and stated that replication is very expensive so it would be more economical to save the original house. Mr. Biddel stated that the Board made many good points and has really stimulated his thinking. He and the owner together requested a six moth moratorium to restudy the situation. The Board discussed the six month extension with the Mr. Biddel and Ms. Khutorian. Board member Willis moved for a six month extension of the moratorium, from the date the application was made, to work with the architect and owner on an acceptable solution. Board member Anderson seconded the motion. VOTE: 4-0-2-0 (Kittas, Kohler absent, one vacant seat) Attachment 5 12A.(Oid Item 14) Historic Resources Board Recommendation to the City Council to Extend the Moratorium on Issuance of a Demolition Permit for 1106 Bryant Street, Located Within the Professorville Historic District Mayor Simihian said the item was a quasi-judicia! matter and the procedural rules would apply. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommended a 12-month extension of the moratorium on the demolition of the house within the Professorville Historic District and a demolition permit would not be issued until May 18, 1996, as outlined in the staff report (CMR:337:95). City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council had the authority to either extend the moratorium for a period of up to one year. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Although the ordinance did not specifically state that it was to facilitate someone acquiring the house and moving it, it was implied in the provisions which related to public notice. Mayor Simitian asked if the 12-month moratorium were granted was there any flexibility if three months from now the HRB. was entirely satisfied that the building was totally beyond salvage and reached the conclusion that demolition was appropriate. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance read up to one year. The question about how far the conditions could go was delicate because the ordinance did not have much in the way of authority for broader kinds of conditions that the Council might wish to attach. Mayor Simitian asked specifically if the moratorium were adopted, could there in fact be a provision to waive the moratorium if it were deemed appropriate with the approval of the HRB. Mr. Calonne said yes. Mayor Simitian asked if the applicant offered to present a specific proposal whether it would be acceptable if the Council wanted to impose a moratorium, to refer the issue to the HRB and allow the HRB to waive the moratorium ff the HRB were satisfied with the applicant’s presentation that the structure was not worthy of being saved. Mr. Calonne said the language in the ordinance in effect stated that the Council, upon recommendation of the HRB, could require appropriate and reasonable notice. The language appeared to contemplate a referral to the HRB after the Council action. Ms. Grote said the current Historic Preservation Ordinance required the HRB to review replacement structures on historic houses, so whatever was proposed to replace the house if demolished would require HRB review. Vice Mayor Wheeler recalled an instance when there was a previous demolition of an historic building and the HRB reviewed the replacement structure. Ms. Grote noted that although the review of the replacement structure was mandatory, compliance with the HRB recommendations was voluntary. Council Member McCown clarified that there was an automatic 60-day moratorium which started as of the date of the application to demolish was filed and that the proposed recommendation would essentially add i0 months to the moratorium rather than 12 months. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member McCown asked, even if there were a willingness on the part of the applicant to agree to the approval of the design of a replacement structure through an HRB process, whether the City was able to enforce it, e.g., if the HRB approved the replacement structure and the property fell into someone else’s ownership, what would prevent a different structure from being built. Mr. Calonne advised if the Council had legislative proposals to change the voluntary nature of the review process, Council could do that; but it would involve approval of the moratorium and during the pendency of the moratorium to enact legislation that authorized .the Council’s desired requirement. The City could legally justify urgency or other interim action necessary to get the City where it wanted to go from a legislative standpoint. Council Member McCown said the process was an unusual situation and she was surprised that the applicant was an HRB member. The situation with the property had existed when the applicant was interviewed for the HRB. She was unaware of her involvement with the property at that time. She was concerned that if the Council went forward with the moratorium and the applicant was asked to negotiate a process with her colleagues on the HRB and at the same time be expected to participate as an HRB member, that would represent a conflict that needed to be addressed. Mr. Calonne said from a legal’ standpoint he would presume that the official duty would be regularly performed and the board members were capable of being fair and dispassionate and would not allow any personal interest in the matter to affect their decision making. The question for the members individually would be whether the situation created bias. The bias test was when the decision maker had become so personally embroiled in the matter that he/she was not subjectively capable of rendering a fair dispassionate decision then there was a legal problem. Elizabeth Kittas, Historic Resources Board member, said the HRB felt that demolitions of historic buildings should not be encour- aged but rather preservation should be encouraged. There should be ample opportunity for avenues to be explored in preference to demolition. Throughout the City there were shining examples of what seemed impossible but which became possible structures to preserve, e.g., the Byxbee House. The HRB was concerned about attrition of the historic fabric within the Professorville Historic District (District) where bungalows were equally important to what made up the District. There was a precedent within the last two years when an historic property was brought before the HRB and the HRB had not recommended extending the moratorium. The applicant made a strong case for his/her plight and in retrospect the HRB immediately regretted its decision as well as having received a great deal of public feedback about it. The HRB members who voted on the moratorium went to the site, viewed the house and property, and their opinion was that the house was quite salvageable. There were successful precedence in the area of rehabilitations of similar bungalows and additions thereto. The HRB approved the extension of the moratorium for the 12-month period to allow for suitable alternatives to be considered. Ann Hagey Barbee, 1106 Bryant Street, said there had only been two demolitions in the District within the last five years. She requested approval for the issuance of a demolition permit. She asked that the HRB recommendation be modified with respect to the 12-month moratorium. She entered into a seal auction for 1106 Bryant Street which was offered by the City of San Francisco. Her initial walk through of the house led her to believe that it was a tear down because she had not seen any redeeming value within the structure. The house was Ii00 square feet and was built in the early 1900s by a family who lived in San Francisco and occupied the home during the summers. She distributed a report from a construction engineer which said the house and the foundation was not cost-effective for remodel to a larger two-story building. Over the past six months, she had explored all of the resources and possibilities for the house. The house was salvageable, but it would be at great expense to her and would resultin a much smaller house. She asked the HRB for suggestions for the house and the only suggestion was to use the crawl space as a potential small room, but she would have to use a ladder to access it which was not an acceptable solution for her needs. When she interviewed for membership on the HRB, some of the Council Members knew that she owned property at 1006 Bryant Street. She had no idea at the time she bought the house that there would be a problem tearing it down. She referred to the proposed plans for the replacement structure. The most difficult argument that she dealt with was the question of what happened to the District if in fact it lost 20 percent of its historic housing stock by tearing down her homer It would take the City 90 years to reach 80 percent, and in fact her new house would be older and more historic at the time. She urged the Council to approve the issuance of the demolition permit. Jess Wilson, 318 Lincoln, was in the real estate business and had competed against Ms. Barbee for the house at 1106 Bryant Street~ He agreed that the structure was beyond demolition. The foundation was bad and the floor plan was less than desirable for almost any type of family use. It was unfair economically to delay the demolition in order to see if someone might come up with a better plan. Lydia Morse, 308 Lincoln Avenue, said for the last 33 years she had viewed the house from her window. Although she had worked diligently to preserve the houses in the District, she felt the house at 1106 Bryant was ready for demolition° She urged the Council to permit Ms. Barbee to proceed with her demolition permit. Carol Malcolm, 281 Addison Street, said as an environmental planner she was interested in the house and had looked into it when it was on the market. She strongly urged the Council, ARB, and HRB to make sure there was some kind of disclosure on real estate in the District so that when property went on the market, there was information about the kind of problems and challenges associated with a buying a home in the District. She supported Ms. Barbee’s application. Joan Jack, 1005 Bryant Street, a member of Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PAST), said guidelines for people wishing to buy property in the District were needed as was education of the public and realtors who advised potential buyers. She said that everyone had a right to know what constraints, if any, they might face before they purchased property in the District. She supported Ms. Barbee’s.application and suggested that if the City Council felt a moratorium were necessary that a 6-mOnth period be imposed and not a punishing 12-month period. The policies and guidelines should be developed to help people and not make them jump through hoops after they had already purchased property. Nancy Sederquist, 801 Garland Drive, was surprised and appalled that a member of the HRB had proposed a demolition in an historic neighborhood. Professorville was a very important neighborhood in Palo Alto and the residents were very proud of it. The HRB was suppose to protect the historic buildings. Ms. Barbee had not brought a bare piece of land but rather a house in an historic district. She encouraged the Council to enforce the 12-month moratorium and she hoped that during that period Ms. Barbee would reconsider her plans. Gwenn Bowen, 1116 Bryant Street, looked forward to Ms. Barbee’s construction of a new home as planned. She felt it would be an asset and a joy to the neighborhood. David Kennedy, 252 Kingsley Avenue,said over the years Professorville had changed quite a bit.He urged the Council to allow Ms. Barbee to proceed without imposing an additionalmoratorium so that the. neighborhood would be upgraded and allowed to maintain its character° Rob Steinberg, 1130 Bryant Street, had met with the owner, toured the existing home, and had reviewed the plans for redesign of the house. The existing house was seriously rundown. He recognized the Council’s role was to balance the needs and the sensitivity to the District as well as what was reasonable and realistic for the residents. The new design was quite marvelous. He said Ms. Barbee had taken a very sensitive approach to the design and the recon- struction of the house which merited the Council’s careful consideration. Caroline Willis, 1120 Palo Alto Avenue, a member of the HRB and PAST, said the house at 1106 Bryant was at a very prominent spot within the Professorville District° She felt that it was important to keep the integrity of the District. Ms. Barbee felt the issue the Council faced was difficult° She did not believe that any moratorium on her demolition application was fair since she had already explored the opportunities for other solutions. She suggested that Council direct staff to make the writing of a new demolition ordinance a high and urgent priority . which would give the HRB a strong direction to do so as well as a request to draft replacement design guidelines. If the Council felt the moratorium should be upheld, she suggested the term be for six-months only. Further, it would allow any future buyer of historic property to explore alternatives and for the preservation community to provide helpful and timely input. Mayor Simitian asked Ms. Barbee when she had taken title to the property. Ms. Barbee said in November 1994. 76-312 Mayor Simitian asked why she had not applied for a demolition permit at the time. Ms. Barbee said she believed she had a moral responsibility to look at all of the~possibilities for the house° Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether Ms. Barbee had presented the ~construction plans to the HRB and, if so, what had been the general reaction to the plans. Ms. Barbee said she had but there had been no real discussion of the plans. The HRB discussion focused on the moratorium. Ms. Kittas said the HRB had been presented with a request to demolish the existing house and the plans for the replacement structure. The HRB had not reviewed the replacement, plans but rather focused on maintaining the i~tegrity of the District and strongly encouraged the applicant to work with the Board on exploring alternatives to demolition. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Historic Resources Board recommendation to extend the moratori- um on issuance of a demolition permit for 1106 Bryant Street for a period of 12 months from the date of application, such that a demolition permit would not be issued until May 18, 1996. Council Member Huber said with respect to preserving the District, the current ordinance was powerless with the exception of imposing a moratorium. If the District was going to be treated with some degree of integrity, then it was necessary to do what the Council could to preserve what it currently had. He supported the HRB’s recommendation. Vice Mayor Wheeier said part of the frustration Was that the ordinance as it stood was very weak with respect to the provisions to protect the district. The existing house was squarely in the heart of the District; and although it was not one of the grander houses, it certainly represented a Professorville structure. There were some other houses in the District which did not represent Professorville as clearly as that house did° The owner should be given every opportunity to find alternative ways of dealing with the structure. HRB members had offered to help the applicant as well. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved to approve the Historic Resources Board recommendation to extend the moratorium on 07/10/9s issuance of a demolition permit for 1106 Bryant Street for a period of six months from the date of application. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council Member McCown had a lot of ambivalence about the situation that faced the Council. Whether the Council extended the moratori- um or not, the HRB had the review authority for the replacement structure, but there still was no guarantee that it would be built. She was reminded of the scenario that the Council had seen during the R-I housing era when people asked for variances because they had a large family and wanted a bigger house, variances were granted, and then the family relocated out of state° It became very slippery when the Council responded to the individual nature of the circumstances rather than trying to apply more even-handedly the tools that the City had° She supported Council Member Huber’s motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, that the City Council approve an extension of the moratorium on the issuance of a demolition permit for 1106 Bryant Street for a period of nine months from the date of the application; and that the moratorium be subject to a waiver by the Historic Resources Board. Further, that the City Attorney be directed to return with an analysis for potential legislative remedy for the specific application and that the City Council retain j0urisdiction over the issue. Mayor Simitian said although there was a replacement structure design the fact of the matter was that the model might or might not be built when the original structure was demolished. He chose the nine-month period because the .applicant had already taken six months to look at alternatives; and he .believed reducing the twelve-month m0ratorium by three months was a fair resolution. His motion attempted to provide the maximum protection for the neighborhood, save the house if it were at all salvageable, be fair to the applicant, and give the HRB the leverage it needed to do the job. He looked forward to the City Attorney’s legislative fix for the problem. M~. Calonne said the policy issue was that staff would need to get some background to explain the sentence in the HRB ordinance which read "Compliance of the property owner with the recommendations ’shall be voluntary not mandatory." He suggested that the staff be directed to return to the Council with an analysis for some legislative remedy to the ordinance. Ms. Grote said the City Attorney’s suggestion for legislative remedy went to the heart of the HRB ordinance. The HRB had been having discussions for the past year about whether compliance with the ordinance should be voluntary or mandatory. She said that was not a minor legislative cl.eanup of the ordinance but rather the heart of the ordinance. Mayor Simitian said if the applicant and HRB agreed on the demolition and the design of the replacement structure and the applicant was willing to post a bond or provide some other assurance, he could not believe that the City would not accept that. Director of Planning and~Community Environment Ken Schreiber agreed with Ms. Grote that when the HRB ordinance was adopted, the fundamental policy discussion by the Council was whether or not the process should have a mandatory component. The decision was made that it should not. If the shift was to a mandatory component, then the process, amounts of staff time, and the ramifications would be very different. Mayor Simitian said the intent of the motion was based on the fact that there was an application, a specific case before the Council ~°that evening, and the Council was trying to come up with an answer to that specific application.He asked whether the motion accomplished that goal. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Schneider said~there was no easy solution to the issue. She was a supporter of the HRB and in particular of the Professorville Historic District. She supported Mayor Simitian’s motion for a nine-month moratorium because there was an opportunity to use the application as an example for future designs and for the .development of the guidelines. Council Member Andersen concurred with Mayor Simitian"s motion and said it provided the HRB with some leverage and also provided the applicant with an opportunity to be persuasive in some of the issues she was dealing with. He said the larger issue needed to be addressed but it should not be done in the context of a particular application. Council Member Fazzino supported the concept of strengthening the historic issue but believed it was a separate issue. It was important not to allow that to get in the way of the rules that were before the Council that evening withrespect to the specific property. He was supportive of the second part of the motion regarding a much more active HRB role with respect to the applica- tion and asked that the motion be divided for voting purposes. He was troubled by using a different moratorium time period for that property as opposed to others° Mayor Simitian asked whether it was appropriate to give direction to the City Attorney to report back to the Council on a mechanism or mechanisms which would allow the HRB to ensure compliance by an applicant with any offer the applicant made. Mr. Calonne said staff would prepare a document that would provide for the construction of what was actually reviewed by the HRB, recognizing that enforceability was questionable since the agreement would be voluntary. He requested the motion include that the Council would retain jurisdiction over the moratorium in order to bring the matter back to Council to provide additional direction to the HRB with respect to standards to waive or terminate the moratorium; and to provide a mechanism for the Council to effect his advice. SUBSTITUTE MOTION RESTATED: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, that the City Council approve an extension of the moratorium on the issuance of a demolition permit for 1106 Bryant Street for a period of nine months from the date of the appliCa- tion; and that the moratorium be subject to a waiver by the Historic Resources Board. Further, that the City Attorney be directed to return with an analysis for potential legislative remedy for the specific application and that the City Council retain jurisdiction of the issue. SUBSTITUTE MOTION DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION to approve the award of authority to the Historic Resources Board and the direction to the City Attorney, including the retention of jurisdiction. FIRST PART OF SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. SECOND PART OF SUBSTITUTE MOTION to approve the moratorium to be a 9-month period~rather than a 12-month period. SECOND PART OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 4-4 Andersen, Schnei- de~, Simitian, Rgsenbaum "yes," Kniss absent, MAIN MOTION to approve the 12-month period rather than the 9-month provision. MAIN MOTION PASSED 6-2, Schneider, Simitian "no," Kniss absent. Vice Mayor Wheeler said she would work with the staff and some of her colleagues to address the larger issues which were mentioned that evening.