 board members are present except board members gallantine and fennel and vice chair percer so we have no minutes to approve it this time so so number two board business complete number three board business cultural heritage board this is our this this is what our role is what we do so I'm gonna read this because we asked for those of you who may not know we asked that we we asked ourselves to actually make this available so we can read it so the public knows what we're doing so the cultural heritage board shall consider the following matters standards guidelines and criteria to the extent applicable in determining whether to grant or deny a permit whether the proposed change is consistent or incompatible with the architectural period of the building whether the proposed change is compatible with the adjacent or nearby landmark structures or preservation district structures whether the colors textures and materials, venestrations, decorative features and details proposed are consistent with the period of significance or way out of that and or are compatible with adjacent structures whether the proposed change destroys or adversely affects an important architectural feature or features the Secretary of Interior's standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings such other matters criterion standards as may be adopted by the resolution of the cultural heritage board and ordinance that follows so that's what the board here does so next we're gonna ask for public comments any public comments that have nothing to do with what's on the board agenda does anyone have any public comments just for fun you can say anything you want nothing okay hearing no one having public comments we're gonna close the public comment section and and now we're going to ask for any statements of head sentience and so hopefully no one has to abstain or will be in trouble so and also of site visits so because I've been to the site before I only did a very abbreviated site visit this time and I was there back in February I think and looked at it so February and yesterday's good deal I went by last February but I did not get a chance to go by again and no abstentions thank goodness okay now no until our scheduled I so we're ready for staff presentation thank you madam chair to Shazam members of the cultural heritage board I'm Kristen a to me and senior planner with planning and economic development and the item before you should look very familiar since it's an addendum to a previously approved project back in February it is a single-family resident existing single family residents at 629 Monroe Street shown in the figure in outlined in yellow so it's not the quarter of Monroe and 12th the project parcel is located within PD 0226 which is a zoning district with a historic preservation overlay it's also known as a junior college plan development district and it's divided into various zoning sub districts this subject site is identified as R1 PD single-family residential and the parcel has been developed in a manner that's consistent with the R1 PD sub district of that plan development the original dwelling was constructed in 1924 and is a contributor to the McDonald preservation district that district was established by City Council in 1998 and recognizes the period of significance ranging from 1878 to 1940 the general characteristics are pretty extensive in the McDonald district it includes large medium small houses on medium to large lots with less than 40% lot coverage entry doors generally face the street and many lots have alley access as does this project most buildings are one and two-story and are clad in wood siding or stucco and the dominant architectural styles include bungalows colonial revival craftsmen English cottage Greek revival hip roof cottage Italian at Mediterranean revival prairie school provincial Queen Anne shingle stick Eastlake Tudor revival 1930s track type so a wide very wide range this is the dwelling as per the DPR it shows when it was built in 1924 and shows it as a contributor the project is immediately surrounded by single-family homes as you can see you can see the alley access to the rear this was the original elevation prior to any modifications to the residents this is the view from 12th Street and that is the garage in question this afternoon on February 21st 2018 the cultural heritage board approved a major landmark alteration permit found number LMA 17-025 to allow the construction of a 436 square foot addition and to interior remodel to the rear the main residence the demolition of the existing 563 square foot detached garage and the replacement of the demolished garage with a new 462 square foot detached garage with a 462 square foot accessory dwelling unit above so this is a rendering of what was originally approved back in February but some minor additions for lighting and other design details garage I think the garage door and on October 26th the applicant submitted an amendment to that major landmark alteration to modify the previously approved scope of work they decided not to include the accessory dwelling unit above the garage and the the applicant proposes to replace that existing 563 square foot garage with a new 416 square foot garage so slightly smaller with no accessory dwelling unit above no other changes are proposed from the original originally approved plans because the originally approved plans included some alterations to the primary dwelling here is a site plan you can see the very light purple shaded rectangle represents the garage that is the proposed change here is a first floor plan just shows the garage that would be 12th Street on the top of your screen here is an elevation of what is proposed so you can see to the right of that screen is where the proposed garage will be located here is a comparison of what was previously approved and the proposed revision the historic architecture report dated November 26 identifies the proposed changes as a mix of preservation and historic rehabilitation efforts as described by the secretary of interior standards of care according to that report most most of the 1924 craftsman is intact while the detached garage with the tar and gravel roof was likely added after 1950 the historic conditions will be matched as practical including doors windows trims and finishes the applicant is proposing board and baton siding up to the water table and then shingles above that to match the existing primary residence there's also a plan to superficially attach the garage to the main structure with a breezeway the applicant provided some proposed lighting fixtures there's one craftsman style lighting fixture proposed centered above the garage door and you should have those in your packets based on the information provided the planning and economic development department recommends that the cultural heritage board by resolution approve the addendum John and Andrea Hibbert addendum garage without a du for the property located at 69 Monroe Street staff is the staff and the applicant representative are here if you have any questions thank you good job so refresh our memories remember what we did the last time but anyone have any questions for staff maybe we just start with mark and work our way down I'll echo the comment made earlier thank you excellent presentation you answered a number of the questions that I had in your address I noticed that there was a cloud around the floor plan which indicates a change on the floor the garage area it was that changes limited to the removal of any stairways and making it a little bit smaller or are there any other changes associated with the footprint of the garage the applicant representative Mr. Perry could add a little bit more detail but my understanding is the the revision includes a slightly smaller garage so the original approval was for a 462 square foot garage so slightly larger footprint and now they're proposing at 416 square foot so they lost almost 50 square feet did you have anything to add to work okay second question I don't see any clouds around it but just want to just make sure the trellis area that connects the buildings are there any changes in that okay my understanding is there's no changes still be connected with the breezeway okay and let's see last couple it appears from the comparison drawing you head of the elevations that the roof line on the tower I'll call the tower section has been lowered I think that's the case I believe so the drawing you see at the bottom is part of the building permit package yes all right for the benefit of the other board members thank you since it's no longer ad you we're a little bit more free to comment on the garage that said I think it's fits better with the neighborhood in its current configuration that I did before that's a comment I'm supposed to be asking questions I know one last question is were any alternative locations considered for the light fixture on the garage I'll defer to the applicants architect okay put it over the garage door centered okay there is I'm not sure how we got the elevation incorrect the shingle comes down to the water table it looks as if this elevation has two materials above the water table and it the plan is not to do that it's but it is to have shingles directly from the water table up to the underside of the eaves the I have a set of the actual approves construction documents that's been reviewed by the building department and that's what we're gonna do so I'm not quite sure how we I think that's an older drawing or something or maybe I did that when I made the application and saw it as a drafting here and corrected it but above the water table which is just above light fixture is shingles not two bands so you have board and bat up to the water table and then shingles above the water table all right thank you for the clarification that's like do you mind passing around those construction drawings thank you all I was gonna say is I have no questions at this time just wait take a look at those two it's better to speak into the microphone so that we can record your conversation yeah this guy like I see there's school there are square ones rather the long okay and then we also just took a look at the the siding on the on the new yeah we looked at the horizontal siding I mean the board bat below the water table and then the single shingles above the water table that's right and we know the curb cut and the reason the door is off-center on the new garage is because of the curb cut right and the other original the original taking a look at the original garage that's my sorry John yeah I would that's funny mark marks playing musical chairs so did you was there an option I mean I'm sure you know this is just a question it's not a requirement or anything that I'm really looking at it but obviously we're all aesthetically looking at the way that that door it's no with the gable and the off-center in the light is was there any way to adjust the curb on the on the street well we dropped the ad you to say three hundred thousand dollars in the curb cuts would be another 10 so not really we just trying to maintain the sidewalks and curb cuts as they are and actually I value original curb cuts in historic districts and sidewalks and try to honor them when possible and the use that's original though because if that garage was put in the 50s it would be outside the period of significance so sure but there's a half to honor it but I completely agree with you but I think in this case you wouldn't wouldn't need to honor that curb cut I do find that new concrete is a much different coloration than aged concrete that's true so green green new concrete is more aesthetically disharmonious in my mind so I try to maintain any site work I can I hate to lose the ad you obviously I mean that's great I do like the the new drawing I like the lower I think it looks great I would concur with with board member debaker I I think it fits in really well and I like that you drop the roof line for the hip roof on the center portion lower than the the ridge line of the of the house I think it looks great was there was it just feasibility as far as financially that the ADU couldn't be part they started realizing they they didn't know that they wanted to be up there they up that high they were sure they're gonna be using it and it is $350,000 worth of construction that nobody was gonna offer them yeah they didn't they decided they didn't want to do it they wanted to have because we've had to re if you've been by the site you'll see that because we do have a building permit we have started construction and we have demolished everything that's going away and we did find which is the other reason we wanted to cut some construction costs we had to redo foundation work throughout the back of the house and make some some other changes yeah so they wanted to have some buffer in the budget and they were not that invested in the ADU but they loved everything else so it's all going just the way we planned thank you for your approvals oh I think you brought up the skylight did we I don't remember in our minutes from the last meeting if we how that was addressed or I don't know if there's anything we can pull up I don't believe it was addressed I was just simply confirming the reconfiguration of the skylights as a change to a longer unit to a square unit in the other direction yeah I don't like them either if I can get them to do flat ones I will yes right that a placeholder pure medical skylights I use on houses those I don't know that we do that there they may or may not even do the skylights they may just make it flat but if that's okay we'll do the lowest profile flat skylights we can find mark come on there we go couldn't see the light if I can one more question the garage door type that's in there yeah we we have an image of it at the end of the package it is it's a custom door but I like it and that's what we'll do I think it's very appropriate my question was is the intention to paint it or to do a natural metal I don't know I don't know I would prefer natural finish if I had my way most of the context there is painted in this case yeah I like it myself but I'm not sure that's the the norm for that neighborhood yeah okay thank you I do have a question if we're asking go ahead John yeah go ahead mark can you just talk quickly about the casing facing the north of that large window ensemble what is it made out of and how far does it project from the wall it's 11 inches off of the face it does not project beyond the eave line it's three and it's about three inches behind the eave line and it is a solid it's framed out of parallel lambs which are about three and a half inches thick all the way around it's basically a box window and here attached to the face of the building with finished wood all the way around painted the color of the trim so it's going to be a flush finish is it so at at the bottom I can't tell from that shadow it's a it's a bay it's basically a bay window that projects off the face of the building up to the eave line it's square at all edges there's no nothing correct okay thank you correct you might note that I actually managed to squeeze in square foundation dents those are kind of a fashion forward and unusual but I like them a lot thank you yeah I like those two do you have any other comments John questions all right I don't think we have any other questions of staff or does anyone have any any more questions the final final comment on the garage is the right side is also workshop so it makes the doors offset because a the curb cut that's the closest we could get to it and be the use of the space is for a shop to the right of the garage door so but then did we did we take a look at the light is the lighting fixture it's included right and yeah it is it's a it's a craftsman style it's kind of a contemporary craftsman style it is a led light so if you haven't seen them it looks rather cool because what you're looking at is a grid of bronze and then the light is up above it and just illuminates the grid of bronze and the and the ground below it so you don't see the light you just see the grid of bronze it's recessed in the top of the fixture and then it goes along the face of the building so it illuminates the building you don't see the light directly because it is a down light it doesn't you're not looking at it doesn't hold the bulb the bulb is above the fixture so it's just illuminating the craftsman grid and then the ground below it and a soft wash of light on the wall that's interesting yeah actually rather interesting yeah I like that too my favorite part of the square foundation that's fixture the rest of it's just it's the little things right well the rest of it's just appropriate architecture you know yeah that's right well I don't have any you know any other questions or comments um I you know let me just go back through the board and see if everybody's on the same page Mark you're I do have one comment for for discussion though there is precedent for having a roof line that much high higher on that garage rather than keeping down low close to the the garage door now there is precedent for that so I'm assuming that it's that high not necessarily because you need the space in the garage but so that the breezeway works both mainly the breezeway to receive cleanly the car the trellis area but also it's nice to have a space in the garage it's going to be a shop so do you think they might consider lowering the roof and the breezeway well the breezeway wouldn't we can't lower the breezeway roof because it the building the fact if you go back the grid the ground floor of the houses is higher so that breezeway is just at the head height as you come out the door to the residence so it won't work if we lower it okay thank you for clarifying that and it was already approved so I didn't want to change it do you know what architectural page number you're referring to so I apologize I don't have a slide for this page but it's a cross section of the elevation it's a longitudinal section of the entire residence and garage as proposed I think that shows well that how you would come out that door right in the height that is this is a head height that we want right so the room it is a cat too so it has to slope to drain so the lower this is a lower end of the back side you can see that right when you were looking come on uh yes I can see it I understand that I think for the disproportion wise the garage itself would be better if the roof was lower that said uh as I said before there is precedent for having the taller garage bases um and it's not a dew killer it just would improve the the proportions to be more like the house to have the roof line of the garage closer to the door height just sidebar we have lowered the roof nine feet from the last project that you approved that's right yeah it's funny how you notice different things the next time around right six feet it's six feet low it's sort of good to talk about so then when you're doing other projects later then you remember that that's something that sort of popped up right even though like Mark said it's he's not considering a deal breaker but it's those are uh good comments for sure just a friendly reminder to open the public comment if there is any I shall do that right now is there any public comment about this project come on no public comment all right someday we'll have a public comment right thank you closing for public comments about this project John you want to give us your overall sort of feeling of where you're at on on I like this project I like the October 18 2018 revisions I like that better than the uh what we originally approved on in February I think it it looks better it's more aesthetically pleasing to me and uh I appreciate that even though you're doing that because of budget considerations which you've done that very well and and I appreciate that so that's where I am I'm going to support it excellent John number two I would echo John number one's assessment I think the design has improved by unfortunately moving the removing the adu I think the proportion and scale and it's just fine and it kind of reminds me of the typical Thomas hubka big house little house something barn so there's a succession of roof lines descending in one direction I have no other comment or or concern I would move that we would approve this at the opportune point thank you well that sounds like a good suggestion so we need a motion do I have to read the whole thing you can wave the wave effects I would make the motion that we accept the revised drawing set that was developed in October 2018 and that we reviewed today I'll second that I'd like to offer a friendly amendment I agree I think so just one stipulation on it would be that that I'd like to see the garage door painted rather than natural finish on that just to be consistent staff also request clarification on the cladding of the garage what should be above the water table should it be as shown on the plans or should it be shingles sorry I don't understand the question so the plans that I have show horizontal siding above the water table followed by shingles and the architect is requesting a change to just shingles above the water table is that acceptable to the board and if so can we include that as a condition and this is related to the front elevation of the garage yes that's correct I make a friendly amendment that we accept that change so I think the painting is a suggestion but I think the wood is a condition if that should be correct because I don't think we can require the painting correct so so the person who made the motion can either accept or reject the friendly motion yeah just to clarify the statement we don't have authority to declare color we do have authority to direct finish and I do would like the painting to be conditioned I guess I would have to ask something of the applicant is these are custom doors right or have you purchased them yet okay we would still main you know we don't need to do solid wood doors right we would do the same design it's still have the diagonal and the lights okay if it's not diagonal it'd be a bead board style you know vertical board instead of the diagonal board amendment which are now conditioned and just to clarify the cut sheet on the door provided us indicates the doors available either in stain or paint finish okay I think we're ready to take a vote you accepted those friendly yes I did all right let's do it all right thank you congratulations great job thank you thank you Martin I'm going to pick up my plans and head out for happy holidays all right so we have a little board business um board member reports we really don't have any some of our board members aren't here I think that if we have any anything to offer any information in regards to areas that you're used to covering or um anything you think is important that we can we can go ahead and go through that report yes okay all I have this time I don't have any news from St. Rose I do have I did receive two complaints one from the mcdonald district on our last one and one from a previous project approved at Ridgeway where the public has complained that with about our approval of projects that they we should have been more stringent could you amplify on those complaints a little bit for my I'm sorry I can't could you amplify on those complaints for my edification thank you the complaints that you got the complaints yeah one was a former chp chair uh not chair but my member actually both were former chp board members one is a builder and one is just one of the founders of the cultural heritage board so the nature was we were too lenient or what was the correction okay we think they didn't think we were stringent enough okay so john number one any comments or anything you know that's going on that you would like to share in regard to heritage or preservation or in sections that you're mcdonald district or anything like that I have nothing to report I have no comment thank you so um I don't have much but I um did want to let you all know that we as part of my um uh class that I was teaching for grad students at Sonoma State for the National Register we did review part of what I tasked them to do for this semester was to review and rewrite the deter ground bar national register nomination so currently the national register nomination for the deter ground bar and only includes architectural which is unfortunate because the real history and the interest in that building is actually the events that surround it which are the trotter horses and deter himself so um it's sort of the growth and and what that happened so so um I have some fantastic history and and some other details and the students at Sonoma State in the grad course are asking me to continue the efforts to amend the national register nomination to be more accurate and fuller and and have more interest um and understanding with the city of what the impact of deterq was and and the horses and and nationally what that meant and locally what that meant and and all the history behind that and how significant that area is um so uh the information that I have is going to be repackaged and what I'm going to try to do is have once I get it sort of gathered up because the classes ended and there's just finals next week so what I'm going to do is um uh it's going to be resubmitted um as amendment to the national register nomination which will go the office of historic preservation but I believe is my understanding that the students or at least some of them also want to present either refor city council or refor this board with what they're doing and what this is um now this would be after the class is over so um but it is um similar to the uh the korea adobe where you know um it may you know be already listed somewhere which this one's already listed on the national register and is already locally listed but it is not listed it's not fully been vetted and understood so this is an opportunity to understand a better history of that area and a turk um there's information about um uh this sort of event that was a nationwide event that happened in the 1800s and why he had these horses and these horses he had and how the fairgrounds was involved and how the mayor and the people and things that happened in the city that surrounded this um there were a really important event to this city that is just sort of lost history right now so um so anyway we have that but I promised them that I may not be able to do it within six months it could be a year so you may not hear about this again I might get him an update um in the spring but it's a lot of work and um so we'll just see how that goes but thank you that's wonderful I do have a concern you know that uh I think the the history of the events and persons needs to be played up and improved absolutely but I don't think that the importance of the structure should be decreased and I thought I heard you would the structural stay the same we're adding to it so what what we're doing is a lot of times national register and denominations are done very easily with just the built environment so someone will do it they won't bother to do the event or the person or the data the the research so they'll just go straight to that because it's easy and get it on the register but you lose sort of that context so this is just um adding to it because without the building you don't have the context for the um for the event so it'll be it'll be fabulous and you'll love it yeah I was really impressed the students worked really hard um and they worked on it all semester so I think it was an effort worthwhile so I'm really super proud of them so as a city-owned property I know we're not a CLG should that come before us before it goes to the the state uh it can't they can present it but they you know it it the city has to agree to the amendment um because it's a city-owned property so but it still can go up for uh nomination it just can't be amended officially and re-listed differently unless the city approves right I guess that's what I'm saying if we're going to go through the process why can't we act as the board to review okay that's what that would be my recommendation I mean I don't know how that plays out but christenay maybe you could um you don't have to do it this next month or two months or so maybe down the road we'll bring it up again you can figure out where how how we do that but I think that's a great idea because then we are really participating in the things that we're supposed to be doing that are part of our um yeah mandate uh we're you know adding things to the register adding things localist and and and I think that thinking is for the ssu students so they were really fantastic so we'll do more hopefully so that's all I have um shall we move on to department reports thank thank you um there is you should have received a request from staff confirming your availability for january 17th um for a drb chp joint meeting it will be a combination of a meeting and a walking tour and the plan for the walking tour is to begin at 230 and it'll be a walking tour of the downtown station area specific plan area which will begin and end at city hall the tour which will highlight specific points of interest within the plan area and will take about an hour and a half and then the joint meeting would follow the tour um at around 430 with the drb and the cultural heritage board a study session that'll be held um during the drb meeting and what we're hoping is a study session will be a kickoff and scoping discussion of the downtown station area specific plan update project um so far we have confirmed um board member murphy and mckew but uh we need at least two more board members from the cultural heritage board to confirm so i i'd already said that i'll be i'll be in washington dc so i can't attend so i wish i could but may i ask who has the contract who's doing the the initial worker the hot tea or the adi and i forget the name of the environmental consultant um i saw them at their kickoff meeting last week and at the joint meeting will we be uh making decisions on anything or is it just a review of what they've discovered today it would be a study session and a scoping discussion so what they should pay attention to during their review okay uh chair i just wanted to express um at the current time i'm not able to stay on my feet for two and a half hours oh yeah um i'm scheduled to have a double knee replacement uh sep could be in january at this point oh yeah uh so i will be um i'll know more this friday okay um but my mobility may be limited during that time definitely so that's something i'd like to be rough but i'm sorry about that keep that in mind did you um so are we the only board christine that is not uh does not have the quorum for the 17th right now yeah what makes it difficult is it's a regular dr b meeting not a chp meeting yeah and right now we just have only we only have two uh confirmed cultural heritage board members we need two additional um to have a quorum i should have a better idea uh after this friday maybe what might be helpful is if they put what i would suggest is maybe they instead of just i don't know how you're gonna how you're gonna plan or how you would do it but it might be a good idea for them to actually during their prior to the meeting um on the 17th if that takes place in january that there's um some sort of questions or ideas or what they're looking for from the cultural heritage board so that that we can be prepared so even if it's just the friday before what have you that it's sort of you know these are the things that we're looking at these are the things we're needing to know what you know that can help us move forward my understanding is the focus will be on how to increase height and density in the downtown and from the culture heritage board perspective how that would interface in an existing existing fabric of a neighbourhood um also to answer um board member murphy the consultant name is diet and batia spelled d y e t t and b h a t i a urban and regional planners so i think one of the things you're going to run into is probably that um because there hasn't been an inventory down downtown so that's a problem so you can't really discuss height and density if you don't know what what resources that you have so um i mean i don't know how they could move forward with even that conversation without not knowing you know it's just going to be piecemeal so um and very little has been evaluated downtown so very little has had historic resource evaluation so i'm not even sure that folks on this board could address what you could do with height and uh density bonus in regards to placement downtown when there's no inventory i think our mandate would be limited to the areas of the stationary plan within historic districts for those overlap but i think you were specifically talking about downtown so be the downtown station area specific plan area and i think there's only a bit of um uh one of our maybe two of our local districts sort of bleed into maybe the top which is a very small portion but that whole area within the downtown um specific plan area that i think extends now to the east has not been evaluated nothing's been inventoried at all well i think we at least based on existing conditions we could talk about the historic urban form and how it's evolved without and i believe the downtown station area plan is the downtown station area plan and it includes most of railroad square and other areas we'll need to see them out i don't think it does i am confident that it does yeah quarter square it's meant to be dealing with mass transit and how the downtown responds to it and includes railroad just to be clear there are going to be areas within that that we don't know anything about right so i think that that needs to be understood like there are sections like you're saying that look so it does cover say railroad square and all that that's areas we could speak to but i think it would be um it wouldn't be within our purview to speak to things that are outside of those preservation districts beyond making sure that there's a requirement for professional survey correct that's right yeah so we want to make sure that we understand that there's an understanding of what our limits might be well the meeting won't occur if we don't have four of you so all right well i'm sorry i can't be here it's an important meeting to have very important and um you all are gonna you you both got the email and take a look at your calendars and respond if you can this week would be great oh um board member murphy and mckay you are confirmed so i'll check you're the two that are confirmed yes i will check with um the absent board members okay so we hit on we have a maybe we'll check i cannot and then you got three three others you're gonna check on okay great all right okay any more department reports no no thank you okay perfect okay well um uh i believe we can adjourn is there something else i need to read or do or is there anything i'm missing it's crazy month all right well let's let's call this meeting to an end then one more question it can go beyond ending the meeting is there a probability of a meeting on the 19th or do you not know yeah i don't think so i think the next meeting is january but i can confirm and then do we have just just a quick question do we have anything on our agenda for the beginning of january so far do you think something's coming around yeah potentially um okay yes one of my projects actually do you do you and i'll talk to you after because there's a project i'll have to recuse myself from so i want to double check when that might be coming up okay okay great all right i think we can adjourn