 We're not going to start the meeting right now. Just wanted to let everybody know we're waiting a few more minutes for hopefully the arrival of another board member. That will be necessary for us to do the business that we're here to do. So as I get more information, I will let you guys know about that. So thanks for your patience. Okay. I'm going to call to order a meeting of the cultural heritage board of the city of Santa Rosa and ask for a roll call, please. Let the record reflect that all board members are present except for board member Dishazo, board member Fennell. Okay. Thank you. We'll move to approval of the minutes of the October 17, 2018 meeting. I was not a participant in that meeting. Do we have participants in the meeting who constituted quorum at this time? Yes. It seems like we do. Board members, any comments or corrections to those minutes? And those will stand as printed. We have next the minutes of the March 20, 2019 meeting. And board members, any comments or corrections to this? Board member DeBacker, please. Yes. We very much appreciate the comments of the meeting. Thank you. We appreciate the comments of the adding the comments to the October minutes. And we know that we get rather far-ranging when we do concept reviews as we did on the 20th. But I'm not going to have a problem with the minutes, but it would be very helpful to staff if at least the key comments summarized by the chair at the end of the meeting were included in the meeting. Thank you. We will now move to the next meeting. Board members, any comments or corrections to those minutes? And those will stand as printed. And board business, there is nothing on the agenda, so we're going to move to public comment. This is a time for a member of the public who has anything to say to the board about anything that is not noticed as a public hearing, any other comments? So I'm going to go to public comment card. But if you have, we would ask that you drop those off in the box in the front of the room. So with that, I will open public comment. And I'm not seeing anybody go to the podium, so I'm going to close public comment. I'm going to reorder the agenda in anticipation of an abstention. So we will move to item 7, board member reports. Anything to report today? Okay. Chair? Yes. Just a request. It was a voice last time. It was asked to be in the minutes or on the agenda for this time around. If we could perhaps at next meeting have a discussion further about possible adaptive reuse awards that was raised at the last meeting. I would like to try to see if there's some way we can move a recognition forward for a new project in this area. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Staff, department reports, please. Sorry, no reports this afternoon. Thank you. Okay. Then we're going to move back to item 5, statements of abstention. Board members, any abstentions today? Board member Tabakker, please. Yes, Chair. I am confident that I can deliver an unbiased review of this project. However, to eliminate any appearance of bias due to some previous issues with the applicant, I'd like to recuse myself on this project. Board members, any other abstentions? Okay. Past practices that this is also when we announce whether we've made site visits to the site that we're going to be reviewing. So would you like us to do that or wait till later? Well, I would ask that we do that as an exparte disclosure after we start the item. Fine. Okay. And I'll allow time for Board Member Tabakker to exit the chamber. And this would be a good time to ask the city attorney. Ex parte disclosures, I assume that those are required for any projects. Yeah. Okay. Great. Okay. We're going to move to item 6.1, a public hearing on the landmark alteration for Ennis Cotted at 131 West 7th Street. Board members, any exparte disclosures? No, not on my part. I did visit the site this morning. I did not speak with anyone at the site. And I have nothing to disclose. And with that, staff presentation will be by Mr. Drupal. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair Edmontson and members of the Cultural Heritage Board. The project before us today is a request for a major alteration permit for the Ennis Cottage project. This project is construction of a new single family residence, approximately 700 square feet of habitable space with approximately 395 square foot porch and site improvements including a new driveway and walkway. The project is located in the northwest quadrant of the city of Santa Rosa. And it is within the west end neighborhood which is a preservation district. And it's located just inside the block of 7th, West 7th Street between Jefferson and Madison Street. All other development along that block is residential. Here's the general planning zoning. The general plan designation is low density residential and the zoning district is R16, R166, single family zoning district with the addition of the historic combining district. And there we see its location within the west end preservation district. And this project, the project site was a contributor to the establishment of the west end preservation district. We can see also along West 7th Street those other project sites or sites that are also contributors to the establishment of the west end preservation district. On October 12, the applicant submitted a major landmark alteration permit. At the initial review of that permit application, the applicant indicated that the existing structure, the existing dwelling unit was in very poor condition and wondered about demolition of the structure. The zoning code landmark alteration permit section does have exceptions to the permit requirement for demolition of a structure if it's determined to be a dangerous condition by the chief building official. And my next slide will go into more detail on that. On January 4, pursuant to an investigation by the chief building official, the chief building official did issue a notice in order to demolish. On January 23, the application was deemed complete. This would be the major landmark alteration permit application. On January 25, we distributed a notice of application and on March 22, the notice of public hearing was distributed. So the section to which I previously referred to is section 20-58.070 subsection A, exceptions to the major landmark alteration permit requirement. And this section of dangerous condition states that the provisions of the building official do not prevent construction removal or demolition determined by the building official to be immediately necessary to correct an unsafe and dangerous condition as identified and declared in writing by the building official of any structure or building which has been designated as a landmark or which is located within a preservation district. Additionally, the processing review procedures with regard to the building official to be immediately necessary to correct an unsafe and dangerous condition, a building permit is required. We do recognize that the processing review procedures are guidelines that have been adopted by city council and so in this particular case, the zoning code would be the regulatory authority for the demolition issue. And so with that background, we're going to move on to the next slide. We're going to move on to the next slide. We're going to move on to the next slide. So prior to the demolition, the site was improved with the single family dwelling unit as well as a accessory garage structure located to the rear of the parcel. The existing primary structure was the site plan and the aerial data of the existing structure or previously existing structure. Here we have the front elevation, east elevation of the previously existing structure, rear, and then the west elevation of that structure. So moving forward to the proposed project that's before you today we're going to move on to the next slide. We're going to move on to the next slide. The proposed structure is a single family residential dwelling unit comprised of approximately 700 square feet of habitable space and 395 square feet of front and side porch. It's approximately 17.5 feet in height. Site developments perspective is the existing detached garage. The front setback of the proposed dwelling unit is approximately 19 feet. That would be contrasted with the approximately 34 foot setback of the previously existing dwelling unit. And then the side setbacks range from 6 to 13 feet. And then as I indicated earlier additional side improvements would include a new driveway and walkway. So we can see here the proposed site plan proposes the new dwelling unit to be centrally located on the lot. In terms of the setback, a minimum 15 foot setback is required in the zoning district. That could vary in a historic district with review authority approval at the proposed distance of 19 feet. This does bring the dwelling unit closer to the streets than it was previously. And then it also locates it kind of equidistant between existing dwelling units on either side of the proposed residents. And here we have the dimensions and project data as provided to you in the project plan set that was included as an attachment. Here we have an artist rendering of the proposed project shown from the front and east of the expanded porch on the front elevation as well as continuing down the eastern elevation. It also reflects the building height and its general location on the parcel. And then the west elevation showing the arrangement of proposed fenestration. And then the same on the east elevation. And then the rear elevation and the front elevation again. And then here we have a major landmark alteration permit for new construction. The code requires that the review authority cultural heritage board find that the proposed construction reflects character defining elements of the west end preservation district. And I highlighted in the staff report and on this slide some of those character defining elements. And then here we have a building structure. And it does reflect a similar footprint to the previously existing structure. Character defining element in terms of the exterior building treatment with the historic horizontal wood siding and vertical window orientation. Orientation to the street with a usable entry porch. On-site covered parking in a detached garage set behind the building structure. And then a front setback that exceeds the required minimum 15-foot setback. This one does do that. And it does continue the irregular setback pattern. The applicant is not proposing landscaping with this project but would just use minimal plantings. And then a front setback that exceeds the required minimum 15-foot setback. And then just use minimal plantings along the walkway and in front of the structure. Finally, the existing public sidewalk was replaced in 2016 and it reflects the traditional two-foot sidewalk scores within the public right-of-way. Consistency, the review authority is also directed to find consistency with design guidelines for new construction with regard to height. The proposed 17.5-foot height is compatible with existing single-story residential structures as well as two-story dwelling units. It reflects the proportion of the previously existing contributor although it is approximately 10% larger than the previous contributor. In terms of a rhythm along the street, it does have a street-oriented entrance and main facade fenestration does reflect similar designs of residential dwelling units as well as the preservation district. The setbacks we've already addressed and we do see that it is a varied setback in comparison to other development along the street. Materials and structure are slightly differentiated in that the applicant is proposing use of a horizontal hardy board fiber cement siding and Marvin-clad next-generation windows, those are wood windows with an exterior cladding. The roof shape is simple gabled roof that drops down near the back and then front porch roofs that are plain shed style. Finally, in terms of architectural details and decorative features, the turned wood posts that support the porch roof are the only decorative feature. With regard to the interior standards for rehabilitation guidelines for new construction, staff does want to report on the property's historic use to single-family residential. The proposed project would not result in a change to the site's historic use. With regard to standard number two, the lot coverage of the previously existing dwelling unit with porch was about 12.8 percent and the lot coverage of the new proposed structure would increase that about 10 percent. Modifications to improvements to the property are not proposed with the exception of the new ribbon driveway and the new walkway. Finally, with regard to standard nine where the guidance is that the construction would not seek to mimic other historic the previously existing historic structure or other historic structures. We do have notable differences including reduction in the setback area, expanded porch areas, the use of a fiber cement siding as opposed to a wood siding, clad wood windows. The proposed design does standardize window fenestrations and window sizes and does offer uniform application of architectural details. Staff provided environmental review and determined that the proposed new construction does qualify for a class three categorical exemption under section 15303 of the CEQA guidelines and that the project is construction of one new single-family residence which is the maximum allowable on this legal parcel. So for both the notice of application and the notice of public hearing, we did prior to today receive a total of four public comments and then we did receive an additional public comment today that was distributed to you all of the comments have expressed for support for the proposed project and generally noted compatibility of the proposed design with surrounding structures in the neighborhood. So it is recommended by planning an economic development department that the cultural heritage board approve a major landmark alteration permit for construction of a new 700-square foot to attach single-family dwelling on a previously developed parcel in the West End Preservation District proposed for 131 West 7th Street. Assessor parcel number 010-161-005. And staff is available for any questions as well as the applicant is here today as well. Thank you. Okay, thanks very much. The applicant is here wishing to make a presentation or fantastic. I would invite you to speak and make a presentation if you would like to. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I don't think that there's really much that I need to say. I think it was handled pretty eloquently by Andrew and if you've read the project proposal I pretty much said everything I needed to say there. If you have any questions I'm more than willing to answer them. Thanks very much. I'm glad you're here. Thank you. I have a question about the processes. Could you tell me what they are? The wind damage actually occurred the night of the fire storm. And the building rather than being a rectangle became a parallelogram and it also moved over a couple of inches. It is very precarious inside the house had no framing. It was horizontal board, vertical board, wallpaper, and then three-sixteenths of an inch plywood as the interior wall application. Is that the whole box or is that just the side walls? It has no frame. The front facade has framing that looks like it was added in the 20s. From the inside? From the inside and the rest of the structure, the rest of the original structure had no framing. It's interesting. And this is a question I guess for both the applicant and staff. I noticed that the applicant made a gesture of providing some mitigation. I have not been on the board when this type of demolition of a contributing structure has come forward. Is that a requirement or is that out of the goodness of your heart? What is required to move forward in terms of recording the property of anything? Sure. So just in response to your first comment, we do, or first question, we do have the chief building official here today. If you would like to have him additionally comment on what they found during the inspection. With regard to your second question, the zoning code does not require documentation of the structure prior to demolition. However, the processing review procedures do recommend, for other issues related to new construction or removal of an existing contributing structure, that documentation and salvage of the materials be considered as mitigation measures. And so in this particular case, the applicant was very willing to both document the structure prior to demolition as well as had already previously indicated that materials could be salvaged. And so we accepted that indication from her that she would provide that. I'm sorry, in terms of clarification, is that a requirement or is that a policy? It's not a requirement of the zoning code that would allow for demolition. But we did present the applicant with that opportunity and she responded that she would be willing to do that. Fantastic. And is there a stated methodology? I mean, what she's presented seems perfect. But is there stated methodology when it comes to documenting a bill to be for demolition that goes through this process? Not within city regulations or city guidelines that are provided. Okay. Thank you. And I would be interested to hear a little more clarification about the wind damage. Thank you. Chief Building Official. I'm sorry, I didn't see the green light. It was not on. Jesse Oswald, Chief Building Official. So upon notification of the stress with the structure, we executed an inspection. Our senior building inspector did inspect the building inside out and underneath and everything that the applicant has portrayed is very true. My inspector brought back pictures showing me, myself, the damage and the distress. The primary trigger for this was the shifting on the foundation or off of the foundation. It was evidence that the original construction, none of it was secured in any manner, meaning the building to the foundation. Correct. So it did allow the building to shift and the elements that essentially held up the floor, so to speak, were all listed fairly significantly. And the building itself, as described again by the applicant, was what we'd call racked and sidewalls were bowed. And then the description of the lack of framing is very accurate in that it really wasn't a framed structure. It was essentially a pieced together structure. And the deterioration over the years of the foundation members and things like that led me to be able to very easily deem it as a dangerous structure. Had any other event occurred, seismic wind, even the off chance that a vehicle could contact the building would have significantly increased the chance of collapse of the building. So that's where we landed with that. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if someone were to purchase this house and they purchased it after the event and they wanted to bring it up to code, how would the city respond? If we went and did an inspection and found these same measures, I would still make the same determination that the building would need to come down. So there was really no path forward? I wouldn't sign a notice in order to demolish without there being options for rehabilitation. Okay. And lastly, did you, after that event in October, were there other houses that had suffered this type of wind damage that you had to process? We're unaware of any others. Okay. Interesting. Thank you. Thank you. For members any other questions at this time? Vice-chair. Hi. Thank you. And actually, I'm not quite sure who this is for, so stay put, please. So the little structure that we have is, as I'm sure you know, a classic shotgun. It's quite common that shotguns are built with what's called single-wall construction, which is what you just described. They're the exterior skin and a 2x4, and that's it. And then there's, you know, the interior, what did you say? Wallpaper, right? It's also likely that it originally sat on stone pilings for a foundation and would never have been at here. So that if there was any perimeter foundation in there, it might have gone in with the 1920s renaut, but it wouldn't have been there originally. My question is, I do vernacular architecture for a living. I don't know of any other shotgun in the city of Santa Rosa. Now, I realize our inventory is 35 years out of date, so we may not have a document of one, but my question is, does anyone in the city office know of any other existing shotgun house in this city? Have you seen one in your experience? This is and was the first one of these that I've seen. Okay. That makes this a unique structure, which is an interesting thing, which means that the gestures that you're making towards documenting the structure have just become significantly more important. And so we thank you for that. Does anyone know if there was any prior documentation of this structure, either during the creation of the West End Historic District or any other project that's been done? To what extent has this building been documented? If it's unique in the city, that's kind of interesting. The only other documentation would be the historic properties and inventories from the 1977 Bloomfield Survey or Peterson. I get those confused. The 1977 and 1989 surveys. All right. I'd like to make a recommendation if I can. This has just put a premium on that documentation. It doesn't mean that this structure shouldn't come down. It's in bad shape, bless its heart. But this is a unique structure, and we don't know who built it, why it's there, where it came from. I would strongly recommend that that be ameliorated in some way. The other thing I would keep an eye on, do you know of any... Has anybody done any documentation on the lot to know whether there were privies on the lot? There were other outbuildings on the lot. Has anybody looked at a sand-borne map? Because that may mean that you may not have standing structures, but you might have archaeological features. Just a thought. I've done all of that. Okay. And the privy that was there was where the garage is now. It's now. I was kind of looking at it. I kind of figured. Okay. Yeah. All right. Okay. And I am very concerned about doing documentation. I've been doing it all along. And I'd actually like to show you the wallpaper that was in the house was in very bad shape. There's no barrier between the exterior, really, and that wallpaper. And when I started taking down the plywood, I was very disappointed in the shape of that wallpaper. I already knew it was there because I could see it extending up into the attic. The ceiling had been dropped probably in the 20s, is my guess. So I knew it was there. And when I pulled that first exterior wall plywood down, I was very disappointed. But there was one interior wall where the wallpaper was in. There was enough wallpaper in good shape that I have salvaged it and framed it. And it's beautiful. I once recorded one of these where the interior wallpaper was stretched print gingham and no barrier to the outside. This actually has flower sacks and old fabric kind of tacked to the one by Redwood. There you go. And then the wallpaper glued to that fabric. Yeah. It's a real common pattern. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? When the building is demolished and you rebuild it, you rebuild it according to established codes for 2019? Yes. Okay. It will be the 2016 codes. 2019 codes don't go into effect for several years. But to current building codes, yes. Okay. That's what I meant. Okay. If there aren't any more questions at this time, this is a public hearing. It's a time for any member of the public who wants to comment on the project to approach one of the podiums and state your name for the record. And you'll have three minutes to make your comments. We've also reviewed all the public comments that we received in writing in the record. I don't have any cards on this item, but you don't need to have filled out a card to speak. We have the cards. Okay. So if you'll state your name for the record. Sure. And begin, please. My name's Deborah Crippen. I'm from Syracuse. I'm currently working at 619 Polk Street, which is about a block and a half from this proposed project. And as you have seen with, with, you know, the documentation that you have, this is, you know, Sharra's gone above and beyond to produce a fantastic little house in our neighborhood. You know, she revived her house that she lives in next door, at the time too and so we all in the neighborhood appreciate the help and the advancements for the neighborhood without changing the feel for our neighborhood. Thank you very much. My name is Ron King and I live at 615 Polk Street again about a block and a half from Sheriff's location and I would just like to echo what Debra said. I think I represent most everyone I know in the community and we are all very much appreciative of the work that Cher has done and the improvement that it's brought to the neighborhood. Both of those structures have been eyesores for years and particularly the little shotgun that's being replaced was in very bad shape. It's a very nice lot and I have carefully looked at her design. I believe it's in keeping with the original structure. It has the same spirit. It has much of the same look. The addition of the porches down the side gives a feel more space and for a very very tiny house anyone who lived in it would greatly appreciate that change. I think it's going to be a really nice addition to the neighborhood and I urge it's approval. Thank you very much Mr. King. Good afternoon. My name is Charlie Trebulci. I'm a civil engineer here in Santa Rosa. We fixed up a house for my mother-in-law around the corner from Cher's project of 617 Madison and my mother-in-law is quite elderly so she asked me to speak on her behalf. I always do what she asked me but in this case I support what she asked me to say which is that it's a fantastic project. It's a fantastic house. The only problem I have is that Cher keeps raising the bar for the neighborhood and it's going to be tough for all of us to keep up with her so thank you for doing a great job. It's always wise to agree with your mother I've found. Hello do I have to push anything? No. My name is Bob Ankers. I live directly across the street from this project and I must say I'm looking forward to sitting on my porch and viewing something that I can look at without having to look down the street or up the street for a piece of enjoyment. Cher has gone overboard into simplifying or keeping something very simple and historical and I'm very appreciative of her work and what she's done to our community or the neighborhood. She's a plus to us and I hope you guys approve this whole thing and I'm looking forward to viewing something pleasant for a change. Thank you. Thank you. If anybody else is wishing to speak this would be the last opportunity. Okay I don't see anybody else so I'm going to close the public hearing and would anybody like to move the resolution before we ask for comments? Okay. I'd like to move resolution of the cultural heritage boards of the city of Santa Rosa approving a landmark alteration altercation permit for construction of a new 700 square foot detached single family dwelling unit on a previously developed parcel in the West End Preservation District located at 131 West 7th Street in the West End Preservation District, assessor's parcel number 010-161-005 file number LMA-18-025 and wave for the reading of the text. Do I have a second? Okay I second and for comments Vice-Chair would you like to start? Yeah mine are pretty simple I think this proposal is clean and given the circumstances of required demolition there's not a lot of wiggle room. The one thing I would like to reinforce as you go forward is the Department of the Interior's guidelines standards and guidelines around making sure that we're not trying that thin edge between or thin line between keeping it clean and simple and in keeping with what was there and not trying to replicate the historic structure. I think your Hardy board does that frankly the porch does that that's come it's you know like a cowboy hat on a space alien in terms of putting it on a shotgun but but that's good because this isn't the original shotgun so just to keep that in mind and achieve that balance. Thank you Board Member McHugh. No no comment. Okay thank you and Board Member Murphy any comments. I think this is a very sympathetic design has a lot of elements that blend what was there historically with which I you want to achieve with the new use of space. One thing I would ask if you could consider simplifying the porch supports maybe something that's a little more restrained only because they're so similar to the ones that were there historically. Well I appreciate that comment I respectfully would decline that because that's one of the things that is a defining feature in any of the buildings in the in the neighborhood that have porches including mine which is right next door so I would push back on that. Any response or further comment? Well I mean I would I respect your opinion but the profile those is not historic but let's let that go. I would request if you could give a copy of your research to the history and genealogical library of this number county the annex. I would be happy to do that and also include I ran the entire history of the property and then I also did extensive research on the the owners and so I've got a lot of information. Just in terms of clarification I don't think this is truly a shotgun house because it doesn't have that floor plan but I think it's a it's an important probably workers cottage of its period. And actually in answer to your earlier question there were three of these structures in the west end. But this is in fact the last one. Okay thanks very much really I would like to compliment the obvious effort tremendous effort that went into this plan the obvious concern not in any way attempting to give short shrifts to any of these requirements and obvious concern for not only the property but the neighborhood. I appreciate the design elements that engage with the neighborhood more of a kind of public semi public space. It always I found brings a neighborhood to life more so to life the staff effort as well as always the staff is really helpful and impressive and able to respond to anything that we ask. Also I found with every project that I've ever reviewed that engagement with the neighborhood and goes without saying that that is the hallmark of every successful project both at the at the application stage the hearing stage and in seeing it through to its conclusion. So absolutely the best practices and I wish you the best with the remainder of the project I'm completely in support of it. One final thing that I'd like to add is that I am so encouraged whenever I see a an affordable by design project and the size of this unit is not only appropriate but it's going to move you know ever so much closer to a city where we have some diversity of housing options and can make sure that we have a community of you know great variety which is terrific and it supports all the the goals of the council and the zoning goals that the city has. So congratulations on such a great job. Okay. I'd like to one more final comment. I would say the applicants package is one of the best I've ever read in that you directly responded to the criteria and the policy and the zoning and it made it very easy for us to understand where you are coming from. Thank you. I'm an overachiever. Yes you are. Well I want to thank you for your overachievement. It is fascinating to me that every time I go through one of these things I learn something more about the city and the structures in it and want to thank you for your research and your documentation. It does make it easier for us to make a decision and I'm frankly supportive of what you're attempting to do and I'm going to support it and vote yes. Okay. Thanks very much. The resolution was moved by board member McHugh seconded by the chair. Board members your votes please. So this board does roll call vote. The technology is not set up yet for... Oh I missed the buttons. Okay. Roll call vote. Board member Murphy your vote please. In favor yes. Vice chair your vote please. I. Board member McHugh your vote please. Great. I. And I also vote I and the resolution passes with four I's. The remaining all remaining board members being absent and that's the final item on our agenda and we will adjourn to staff. Do we have the next meeting date to share with the public or you know I just encourage the public to check the legislative website cultural heritage board website for the city to see any upcoming meetings and with that we adjourn.