Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-16 City Council (35)TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 7 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: September 16, 1996 CMR:397:96 Recommendation of the Historic Resources Board to Extend the Moratorium on Issuance of a Demolition Permit for 453 Melville Avenue. 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, which is not listed individually on the Historic Inventory, but is in Professorville and is treated as a Category I structure in terms of demolition. RECOMMENDATIONS The HRB and staff recommend that the City Council extend the moratorium on issuance Of a Demolition Permit for 453 Melville Avenue for a period of six months from the date of application, such that a demolition permit would not be issued until January 16, 1997. 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 residence in the historic residential neighborhood of Professorville in Palo Alto will allow the CMR:397:96 Page 1 of 5 applicant, property owner and HRB the time needed to explore alternatives to demolition, which would assist in maintaining the existing historic 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 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 to be reviewed by the HRB, because the current residence is located within the historic residential district of Professorville. However, compliance with the HRB decision is voluntary, under the current code. A final 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 the Council so provided. 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. CMR:397:96 Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION Although the existing residence is not listed individually on the Historic Inventory, it is part of the historic residential district of Professorville. Professorville is currently the only historic residential district in Palo Alto and is defined by Section 16.49.020 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance as a "collection of buildings in a geographically definable area possessing a significant concentration or continuity of buildings unified by past events, or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district should have integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship and association. The collective value of a historic district taken together may be greater than the value of each individual building. All structures/sites within a historic district are categorized as significant on the historic inventory." Since the house is not listed individually on the Inventory there is no Inventory Information Sheet on its history. In the absence of such a sheet, the Board compiled background information on the house (see Attachment 1 - Information Compiled by Historic Resources Board Regarding 453 Melville Avenue). The house was built in 1897 by J.W. Wells, a local builder, for Irene Hardy, who was a member of the Stanford English faculty from 1894 to 1901. The house has undergone modifications and additions over the years, including a second story, but appears to have retained the original cottage on the first floor. 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. A significant structure is defined as buildings or groups of buildings that are either a Category I or II or in an historic district. The HRB or any interested person may recommend that the Council extend the moratorium for a period up to one year from the date the demolition application was made. 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 453 Melville Avenue 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 July 16, 1996, Eric Hahn; property owner, submitted an application to demolish the residence. As required by Section 16.49.070 of the PAMC, ~ informational staff report was forwarded to the Council on August 1, 1996, which outlined the moratorium process (see Attachment 2 - CMR:356:96 dated August 1, 1996). On August 7, 1996, the HRB began its review of the application and decided to continue the discussion to August 14, 1996, so that a site visit could be conducted with the owner of the house (see Attachment 3 - HRB minutes, dated August 7, 1996). On August 14, 1996, the HRB voted 5-0-1-0 (Kohler absent) to recommend that the City Council extend the moratorium for a total of six months from the date the demolition application was made. The HRB determined that the loss of the residence would contribute CMR:397:96 Page 3 of 5 to the loss of the integrity of the historic Professorville District. The Board stated that although the house may not be one of the most outstanding examples of an architectural style, it represents an essential image of Professorville with the Pine tree in the front yard and the weathered wood of the house. Rather than demolishing the house, the Board stated that the owner and his architect, along with the Board, should explore ways of rehabilitating the exterior of the structure and modifying the interior of the house so that it could be rented. The owner presented his desire to remove the house so that he could make the parcel into an extension of his garden, which is located next door to the site. The Board stated that if the house were rented, the backyard area could be fenced differently than it currently is so that the owner’s garden could be functionally extended while still maintaining a small portion for the rehabilitated house. If the current owner were to sell either or both properties, the fences could be returned to the property lines. This compromise would preserve the integrity of Professorville and would give the current property owner a bigger backyard for the house he inhabits. The applicant and Board discussed the possible options for saving the house and reconfiguring the backyard area 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. It should be noted that the applicant has already hired an architect and is studying possible alternatives for preserving the house. He will return within six months to discuss the options with the Board. The property owner further proposed to merge the two parcels should the house at 453 Melville not be saved. The merger would ensure that the site would always stay garden area and that a replacement structure would not be built. This application is similar to the 275 Lowell Street application in that the property owner in that case also expressed willingness to coordinate with the HRB and consider restoring the historic house. This application is unlike the 1106 Bryant Street application in that the property owner in that case consistently maintained that demolition was the only possible course of action. The full twelve month period was required to attempt to develop historically sensitive plans without the cooperation of the applicant. Staff concludes that in this case, based on steps already taken by the applicant, the full twelve-month moratorium is not warranted and that six months is enough time for the HRB, property owner and community to explore options to demolition. ALTERNATIVES Alternative actions which can be taken by Council are: 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. CMR:397:96 Page 4 of 5 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 the exploration of other solutions. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact related to this item. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This review is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3). ATTACHMENTS 3. 4. 5. Information compiled by the Historic Resources Board Regarding 453 Melville Avenue Demolition Application and Report to City Council, dated August 1, 1996 August 7, 1996 Historic Resources Board minutes August 14, 1996 Historic Resources Board minutes City Council Minutes, dated July 10, 1995 PREPARED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: . IFLEMING City Manager Historic Resources Board members Eric Hahn CMR:397:96 Page 5 of 5 Attachment 1 453 MELVILLE ¯ House built 1897 by J.W. Wells, builder, for Irene Hardy .(Live Oak 2/3/97 attached) .Footprint of house on Sanborn Insurance maps the same in 1901, 1904, 1908, 1924 and 1945. (1901 and 1945 maps attached) Footprint of house on maps and current house seem to be at same location on lot. House is shown as being one story with a frame partition across the front on all the Sanborn maps At the time of Irene Hardy’s death in 1922 Ellen Coit Elliot-t, wife of Stanford’s first secretary and re~strar, wrote a poem about Irene Hardy which mentions "The porchglassed in". (poem attached) There is a glassed in porch on the current house. ¯ irene Hardy, the original owner of the house, was a member of the Stanford English faculty from 1894 until 1901 when she retired. She also wrote poetry including one called "Palo Alto Hills". (obituary attached) The present house has obviously been remodelled as it now has a second story and also an extra one story piece at the back, but it does seem that the core, or perhaps the first floor of the house?, is the original cottage. Live Oak, February 3, 1897 J.W. Wells has contracted to erect a cottage, at a cost of $1000, for Miss Irene Hardy, instructor in English at Stanford. The building will be located on Melville avenue, between Waverly and Cowper. WAVE RLY’ AN IVORY MASK An ivory mask. Gone the suffusing tint of hidden ~ulses, The lips’ blue-carmine gone. The clouded eyes Gaze no more, sightless, toward the warm sun, But smoothly closed lie under curving lids. The noble aspect of the chiseled face~ Crowned softly still with silver hinting gold~ The lift of brow and chin, S~eak trankly of the austere day now done: Only a eonqneror earrie~ such a pride. And she has left it here, this ivory mask, For us to wreathe with roses till they die, And then, farewell. E~,en this exquisite shape We may not have, but all forego To know hcr~spirit. How she smiles, regarding us Tenderly front behind the transparent veil; How she sees ~vitb wide, bright eyes, the oaks, The grass, tbc border |lowers, the kuockcr on the door; The porch glassed in, her books, her couch, Her table there; the inner room And the great, cushioned chair where she has sat Enthroned, now heaped with blue larkspur, in memo~’. Oh, she is not a memory--ever a presence! She will leave us soon, not linger here, But eagerly quest forward on the trail She followed loug blindfolded. We, as we sought her here must seek her there In her own shrine, and follow, if we follow, At a pace. Yet in the timeless realm We know her for a presence, as before. An ivory mask, the best that earth can carve, And greatly done. Cold, pare in deathless beauty, Not ease uor comfortable chance Cut every contour, true and left no trace Of one unworthy line: but she and life Wrought hard together down the hindering years. For snd~ a gift we thank thee, Scnlpto’r Life. MISSil3ENEHABPv Dies A£te I]lne Of Few Days F U N E R A L TO2 RRON Noneer’Membe) o[ Stan[ord ’ nglish Faculty V rse ¯ ,~ss Irene Nardy,’-for~er. mere- . bet "~ the Stanford NngHa~ ,~aeulty, ~ one of’ the pioneer’teachera of E~g- lish "In California, and known more ,,widely .a~ a. writer of verse, died at her home at 453 Melville Aven~e last ’night after an illness of:.~ur d~’~, meumonia berg the cause of de~tS. :The ~funeral will be held at her .late bqme at 3 o’clock tomorrow aft- ernoon, to which friends are Invited. Miss .Hardy was a native o£ YeN low Springs, Ohio, and wa~ 81 y~ars’ ’,.of age. ,Although she held a-pla9e of activity for many years.ln educa-~ tional circles, she bad lived In re-Itirement for the lhst. fifteen years, having suffered the haadi9ap-of tO- tat blindness, but. her mentality was~ :unimpaired, ~ One’of Pale Alto’s No.bids Miss Hardy was.one of Pale Alto’el notables. A pioneer ~acher of Eag-~ lish In California, she has influenced[the teaching of compositibn especi- ally tbroughou~ th~ State. She came to California in 1871 for her health, and like many .another, remained here. ’For ~welve years she tadgbt~ in Oakland High .Sohool, f~llowing~ Professor Sills’ work and continuing l his metbods. Many a ’man . now prominent as a leader :of others re-, ’ ceived his in~piratiom from her ~ Lteaching, Miss Hardy had many let-$ I t~a :expressing the ’ appreciation--her’ ,former etuden[s..felt .for" her smvice: ,to them in ~peaing their eyes to the~ ;world of re’diag. From. Oakland l ~Mlss Hardy came to Stanford in 1894, where she gavB courses in ~American 1Rera~ure, composition and. , short story writing,- holding her pro- ~,.gessorship until 1901. Noted a~ Poet Miss Hard)" was known widely as a poet. A lhfle book of verse was published in 1902 in San Francisco,’ and is now rarely seen, for lml£ the edition was des{royed in a book store fire and lhe remaining volumes an "Ode for Forefathers’ Day," .’.’Oak- land," "1S87," "Sonnets," "A , Beast. Drama," ."T.he Fall of the .Leaf,’"Ariel and Caliban" and many mlsce, laneous poems, including "Pale Alto~ Hills," and a delightful poem of early*~ California, "A We..dding, Day Gallop."This ’volume represents only" ’ blis’s Hardy began her teaching’icareer ~ar earlier than is possible i nowadays, -conducting a country. school at the age of 16, Later, .she. taught in Antioch Preparatory School.~Iowa and "thus ’earfied -money’ for"her tuition. .:. , " "- , . Antioch College was the poet’salma mater, the first college, bliss Hardy ’once said, to’offer ’more than a ladylike toured to women. Oberlin ~hough an older co:educational lnsti- {tution,.did not allow women to grad- .unto "on-.the sam~ platform, with the men." Antioch’s first president:was i Horace Manp, the first of liberal ed- ucatorm ’ In College In Civii ,War Days . At .the time bliss Hardy?attended"Antioch College’, lt~ 1861, the Civil War had begun, and this create’d the unusual ratio’of-more women than ’,men. Every day, Miss Hardy" re- "membered, men students dropped out to enlist, until, in 1503, the col- lege was forced to close for w year. The student body, during these war y~ars, was reduced to about 250 in numb@r, and this gave opportunity for contact with the splendid~ faculty the first’ president - had attracted from New Enefiand educational’ cen- ters. Tiffs’, Miss Hardy considered. the most valuable part of her college training, a part often entirely missed in the crowded upiversities of thepresent day. Other valuable training came with the preparatiou of papers and ~he mutual criticism in a literary society, and in wide reading. To read widely was early taught the poet by her lathe.r, who was a teac.b- er. ~..Pale Altans feel an especial debt to blis~J Hard)’, for in her poetry Bl~e expressed her lo.ve’of the, b.eauty in local .surroundings. Here is a sample of her verse, which is one of thepoems published in her book. Its title is "Pa-lo Alto Hills,". The verse follows : When, some fair eve, in lands.afar, I walk where fancy wills, And one shall say, "So beams that star " On Pale Alto Hills,".It needs must be the star will pale, - And seem less kindly ’near, Than if, through tears, the voice should fail To name a name so dear, For tranquil are the days to me And charmed from ohl-time ills, By windows faoing fiehl and tree, A~d Pale Alto Hills; There cloud and shine such dream- land show Of purple ’~nd of mist. I sometimes thiuk I almost know The look of amethyst, And chrysolite and el,rysoprase I .O~,.Hgaven.’s [ounda.tion-.sills; .,~ of Miss Hardy’s work which began when she was in college. Many of her poems appeared in California’s famous Over- land Monthly and more re.cently in the Sunset Maga- zine. A group of "’friends of the late .Irene Hardy of" Pale Alto, whowas all assistant professor of the~ - Stanford English deT.’.rtme.nt in " the early days of the university,~ have made a gift of something more tha= $500 for the purpose ,mamtaini:~ a prize, to.be knownus the ~rene Hardy Prlz~ for- ~ngilsh Verse, to be awarded un- der the direction of £Z~ English faculty. T~e deci3ion as to whether the lprize shaE be $50 awarded ever)" other year. or ~25 anmmily, a~ wel! as oti:er conditions are left,to the determination ~,~ the Eng- lish t~ult7 The Engi~h faculty, itseif has established ~n anmml:prize o£ 12~ for undergr:duate cell~nce i5 Drose and i: verse. Miss H~rdv w~ an exception-’ ally innpir~ teacher" c£ English writing at Stanford, azd herself the author of considerz~le verse, some of wZicb appears5 in book form. After her retirer:el~t from: the ~acul~v :n 190!. she ::male h~r home in l’zia Alto alldbet ~g y~:ars bul’ore lmr :eatlt was blilld, n~:l:aillillg, ]~OWeV(:l’, an active inter<-st in Htcra:.- protluc. tion and ia Stanford City Manager’s Attachment 2 City of Palo Alto Summary Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment DATE:August 1, 1996 CMR:356:96 SUBJECT:Request for a Demolition Permit for a Residence Located at 453 Melville Avenue REQUEST This is an informational report and no Council action is required. RECOMMENDATIONS This is an informational item required by Section 16.49.070 of the 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 453 Mellville Avenue is not on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, but is located in the Professorville Historic District. On July 16, 1996, the City received a demolition permit application for this residence. The PAMC requires that the demolition application be referred to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) for review and possible recommendation to the Council. There is an automatic sixty day moratorium on issuance of the demolition permit. Upon recommendation of the HRB or any interested person, the Council may extend the moratorium for up to one year. The application will be reviewed by the HRB on August 7, 1996. CMK:356:96 Page i of 2 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact related to this report. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The application for demolition is not a project as def’med by the California Environmental Quality Act. ATTACHMENTS Photographs Demolition Application PREPARED BY: Fred Herman, Chief Building Official KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: BERNARD M. STROJNY Assistant City Manager Historic Resources Board Mr. and Mrs. Eric Hahn, 465 Melville Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 CMR:356:96 Page 2 of 2 0 ~ ~~_mo Zo zl 0 EXCERPT Attachment 3 Historic Resources Board Minutes Ao Wednesday, August 07, 1996 8:00 a.m. - i~0:00 a.m. Council Conference Room Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California Roll Call Board Members present:Anderson, Kohler, Murden, Backlund, Willis, Bernstein Board Members absent: Mario Staff Members present: Grote City Council Liaison: None ~... Approval of Minutes: ’~ June 19, 1996 C ¯Or~a~ Communications : Pre~Hotel Painting. Karen Hogan., 725 Homer Avenue: Ms. Holman reviewing p~t colors on historic buildings. D. Agenda Items : 625-631 Emers~eet presented a process for 96-HBH-22 Project Descript ion~ Recommendation to ARB~ application to replace an existing greenhouse with new windows~d skylights. Project Representatives: Candice Peterson, representative~rom Thoits Brothers Property Management. Public Testimony: None ~ Summary of HRB Discussion: The Board had a general discussion about the us~of the space within the greenhouse. The Board generally tho~u~, that the changes would help im~ady awkward situa~n. The greenhouse will be hard to see from any public right-of-wa~ VOTE : Approved as presented. All ayes. ~ Bernstein thinks that the modifications should be more in ke~ng with the old house. Newer features are o.k. in back of struc ~_es. BM Backlun~\thinks that it is admirable to save house. He discussed the~0~osed glass. The applicant wants to use clear glass where possi~ to open up the site. nBM Anderson is supporti~of the idea of clear distinction betwee old and new. Disagrees w~colleagues. He is disturbed with the floor being dropped becaus~it won’t be reversible. He is concerned about new doors go~,g out to the garden. He is concerned that entry to house wi~ now be a service entry and won’t be the main entrance. Onl~he facade here is being preserved. He encourages the use of the~M~storic Building Code so such major modifications won’t have to b~-~ade. The proposed changes to the historic house are too severe.,..\, The rest of the proposal (and the use) are fine. \-,, BM Kohler suggested using wrought-iron gates. H~_ is also concerned about total destruction of interior of house.~ore of building should remain. May be difficult to achieve everythi~g, BM Anderson commented on, but some would be good. ~ Melville Avenue 96-HRB-24 Project Description: Review of a demolition application. Project Representatives: Eric Hahn, Owner Public Testimony: Karen Holman, 725 Homer, commented that destroying the house will detract from Professorville. Suggested that maybe the existing house would be incorporated into the overall plans for the applicant’s house next door.She encouraged preservation of the house Summary Of HRB Discussion: BM Willis commented that demolishing the house to add to the garden o~f the adjacent house is inappropriate. Professorville should be preserved. Demolishing houses in the district for any reason will result in the ultimate loss of the district. BM Anderson asked about the possibility of a tour of the house. BM Backlund commented on the district as a whole and the contribution this house makes to the district. Although this house is run down, it has the Professorville atmosphere about it. BM Murden commented on the contribution of the house to the district. She would prefer to see the house remain. If she accepted demolition, she would want only garden to remain. Owner would be willing to combine parcels. Set-up special meeting for August 14th to meet at house and then return to City Hall to deliberate and make final recommendation to council. City Council Liaison Report~" Discussion : I. ~i Alma Street: Discussion of Tower Well site. BM Anderson st_~_ped down on this item due to conflict of interest. Chair Kohle~summarized where Board is on the issue and the RFP that the Real E~ate ,Division distributed recently. Item put on Agenda for August 21"% 1996. 2.2560 Embarcadero Road: Sea Scout Building. Dennis is researching the issue. Ha,may be ready for regular meeting to present a proposal the Boa~. Carol agreed. Put on next agenda (August 21, 1996). 3.Discussion of letter "~rom Pamela Anderson-Brule. The Board acknowledged receipt of h,e letter and thanked the AIA for their interest. 4.Invitation to Downtown. impro~ments project Sept. 7 meeting. Virginia Warheit invited the Bo&~d to attend the Sept. 7, 1996 meet ing. Items on Future Agendas: i. Painting the President Hotel. a. Process for painting historic buil 2.201 Alma Street 3.2560 Embarcadero 4.275 Lowell Street 5.Varsity Theater:light fixtures Adjournment; 10:10 a.m. Attachment 4 Ao Historic Resources Board Minutes SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, August 14, 1996 8:00 a.m. - i0:00 a.m. Council Conference Room Palo Alto City Hal! 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California Department of P~anning an~o Cornmuni~ Environrne~. : Agenda Items: 453 Melville 7,000 sq.ft parcel R-I (929) I0,000 sq. ft. min. lot size 96-HRB-24 Project Representatives: Eric Hahn, Owner Summary of HRB Discussion: BM Anderson asked applicant if he would be willing to merge parcels so that the site would always stay green. Mr. Hahn said yes he would, if that would achieve the goals of the Board as well as his own. BM Backlund asked about the cost of fixing the foundation, wiring, etc. Mr. Hahn replied that it would cost about 1 million with the cost of the land and all the required work. BM Willis said that there does not seem to be a hurry to demolish the house. The house anchors the street and should be saved. She understands the cost, but feels that every little piece of Professorville that is lost is a loss for the whole city. She would like to work with the Owner. BM Murden also feels that it would be a shame to lose the house. The house is a buffer between the two larger homes. She agreed with BM Willis. It is a difficult decision. She would not support the demolition without the assurance that lots would be merged. BM Bernstein said that he is torn on this issue too. This is a 19th Century house. The house needs to be there. Restoring the outside paint colors and maintenance work would help considerably. Removing the "stone from the arch" would be a real loss for the neighborhood. BM Backlund stated that he has been weighing the applicant’s costs with-the benefit of saving the house. He used the ordinance to help him sort out the issues and the mission of the Board. When he sees the image of the pine tree with the weathered wood structure he sees as an essential Professorville image that .he is charged with protecting. BM Anderson asked the applicant if he would be willing to explore the options for saving the house and making it rentable. He said that from the outside, the house certainly contributes to the streetscape and the overall neighborhood, but from the inside, there are no redeeming qualities. MOT ION : The Board discussed the time period with the Applicant. BM Willis moved for a 6 month moratorium for demolition. BM Anderson added that should the house be demolished, the property owner has agreed to merge the two parcels. BM Bernstein 2nd. VOTE: All Ayes (Kohler absent) Adjournment: i0:00 a.mo Attachment 12A.(Old Item 14) Historic Resources Board Recommendation to the City Council to Extend the Moratorium on Issuance of a Demolition Permit for II06 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 if 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 Wheel~r 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. 07/10/95 76-308 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 10 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 07/10/95 76-309 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 madeup 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 result in a much smaller house. She askedthe 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 home. It would take the City 90 years to reach 80 percent, and in fact her new house would 07/10/95 76-310 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, Ii16 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 additional moratorium 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 prominen~ 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. 07/10/95 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 Wheeler 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 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 jourisdiction 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 moratorium by three months was a fair resolution. His motion attempted to provide, the maximum protection for the neighborhood, save thehouse 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. 07/10/95 76-314 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 cleanup 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 with respect 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 mechanis~s 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 potentia! 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 T~E 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- der, Sim~____i.~!~A~ Rosenbaum.o’iyes,,,__Knisg_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.