 Hello, good afternoon, everyone. I am Margaret Percer, I'm the vice chair of the Cultural Heritage Board. We are expecting Ms. Dishazo, the chair of the board, but she may be running a little bit late. So I'm gonna go ahead and get us started. So I think I will look at the agenda. And have we got a roll call set? Let the record reflect all board members are present, except chair Dishazo. Going to first, it looks like, ask the board members to take a look at our minutes from August, way back in August. Do I see any moves to change anything? Or can we accept those minutes? I move that we accept the amendments of the August meeting. Do I hear a second of that movement? All right, any objections? Seeing none, I declare those minutes approved. All right, the next item of business is the board business itself. And so I'm gonna read you the charge of the Cultural Heritage Board before we go any further. So we're clear on what this body does. 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 changed is compatible with any adjacent or nearby landmark structures or preservation district structures. Whether the colors, textures, materials, fenestration, decorative features, and details proposed are consistent with the period and or are compatible with adjacent structures. Whether the proposed change destroys or adversely affects an important architectural feature or features. We are also charged to consider the secretary of the interior's standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings. And any such other matters, criteria, and standards as may be adopted by resolution of the Cultural Heritage Board. So that's what we do. Item four on the agenda is to call for public comment. And this is a time when anyone who's here who would like to address a matter under the Board's purview that is not actually listed on the agenda, this is your time to come forward and speak. Do we have anyone here to speak today? Yes, sir. Can you let us know who you are? And I, you can go up top or do we mind if he's, it would be better if you wouldn't mind going up to the mic up there. My name is Jack Rogers. I live at 818 Monroe Street in the McDonnell District and just moved there a few months ago. So I'm very excited to be here and start the process. The property board is a 1900 Folk Victorian and I've studied and learned all I can about it. My plan is pretty simple. I wanna make it look just like 207 Olive, which appears to be a 1905 virtually untouched Folk Victorian in very good condition. And so my goal here is just to let you know that I am gonna be coming to see you. And I would love to have any kind of informal opinion about how we should get started. I have been to the city planning and I'm a developer department, the building division, but would love to hear, know what the first step is, the very first step I take to work with you to coordinate that. And I want to mention one thing that my wife and I were out walking about and we saw the property that's on the agenda today and we like what we saw about the plans for it. So we hope you find that also favorable. And I guess the last thing to do is to ask if anybody can tell me what is the very first thing I should do to somehow get in contact with the board and see what to do. And maybe I, Karen, I met Karen earlier. Briefly, maybe it's to talk with Karen and she could give me guidance on the first thing to do. I think I'm gonna bounce this one over to the planning staff because they'll be able to give you a better and more specific answer than I will. Your first step is to put your plans on paper and bring them for concept review. And there's an application. I can give you my business card after the meeting and you can contact me if you like in the planning department. Are you wondering who's talking to? It's me, the voice from the sky. I'm sorry, I have to talk into the microphone so that other people can hear me as well. So concept review is your first step and you can put your plans we wanna see or the board will wanna see what you're proposing and you can go forward. And for residential, I think it's free. It's just a matter of getting those plans and that application submitted and getting you on the schedule. It takes a little bit of time because we have to draft a memo. So I should see planning, go to the planning department in building. Correct, room three. Room three. At the bottom of the stairs. All right, thank you. You bet. Thanks for coming. Do I have any other public comment? Seeing none, we'll move on to the item on the record. So at this point, I'm gonna turn to my board members and check if I have any statements of abstention or if I have anybody who's made site visits recently. I'll go. I visited the site again and I was also contacted by one of the neighbors, but we were not able to communicate. Okay, John. I initially visited the site when it came before us before. Haven't been back since. Okay, how about you, Ann? I also visited the site just recently. Okay, thanks. This end of the board, anybody visit? I visited the site. A second time or the original time? Today. Okay, awesome. Ann, you too? You did as well today. Okay, and I did not revisit the site I had been there for the first appearance before the board. All right, so this is the public hearing on the landmark alteration for 120, sorry, 1120 McDonald Avenue file number LMA 18-013. And I think at this point, I wanna turn it over to staff and see where we are. Thank you very much, Vice Chair Perser. The project before you is the beings proposed dormer and porch landmark alteration. The project involves the addition of a faux dormer, the expansion of the front porch to match the ceiling of the front porch ceiling, material changes for the front steps and installation of a picket fence. The project requires a major landmark alteration because the changes are on the front of the house. The project came before the board back in March as a concept item. Both sets of plans were attached to the staff report so you could refresh your memory on what you saw then and what is being proposed now. The dormer at the time, generally speaking, the board seemed okay with the addition of the dormer as it could be removed at a later date in the home restored to its original historic. Home structure. For the porch and the steps, the board suggested that they reduce the size of the porch and make some minor design modifications, which they did do for the board's guidance. And then finally with the picket fence, the suggestion was that it be appropriate and fit into the McDonald Preservation District. So the applicant revised their plans and submitted them in June. And as far as noticing, all required noticing was done in compliance with zoning code chapter 2066. It involved a public hearing sign, a publication in the press Democrat and a notice of public hearing going to property owners within 400 feet of the site. The property is located just south of Spencer Avenue on the east side of McDonald Avenue and is shown here highlighted in blue. And here's an aerial view of the site. The project is within an error, the project site is within an area designated on the general planned land use diagram as low density residential, which allows two to eight units per acre. And we'll usually see single family detached housing in those areas. It's a little difficult to see the color separations on these diagrams on these screens, but up in the right or left-hand corner and upper left and lower left, you'll see kind of a pumpkin color shading there. And that identifies medium density residential. And then in the lower right-hand corner, the pink is designated as office on the general planned land use. So as you can see where the star is is the property, the subject property. And it's surrounded by low density residential for several blocks. Property is also within a planned development district, zoning district, and is also within the historic combining district. Of course, McDonald preservation district, which is why we're here today. That district was established back in 1988. And the period of significance of the structures in that, or in that district are 1878 through 1940. The zoning code is silent in terms of character defining elements for that area. However, the board, the CHP adopted a resolution after the zoning code went into effect, which properly does identify those character defining elements. This is a single story home, which is consistent with that resolution. At the architectural style, there's some debate on what that is. And I'm gonna leave it to you, the history file and the architectural historian to talk about that. But as far as my records indicate, it says period revival. So, and also another one identifies it as home. So I think that was its original use and it is continuing its original use. The lot size is of the typical lot size, approximately 50 by 150 feet. It's got wood siding and it is single family detached residential. So the proposed changes again, here's a draft of the plan and the faux dormer, the front porch and front steps, and the picket fence are the proposals. Historic evaluation, let's see, I think just to summarize it's pretty consistent through all of our guiding documents. We wanna make sure that any changes really preserve the historic fabric, the materials, the colors, the type of addition, the design of addition and what have you. Be consistent or compatible with the existing historic structure or surrounding structures within the district. Fences to keep them at a maximum of three feet tall. And again, be compatible and make sure that the finish side, if there is only one that it be facing the street. Porches, oh, another theme is when possible, retain the material. Don't replace it if it's not necessary and if you do need to replace it, replace it in kind. And that is not just with porches, I should point out I'm in this document that I was reading it was, but it's throughout. Let's see. So here is a historic photograph of the home from a long time ago. I apologize that this wasn't attached to the staff report, I just received it recently. And this is existing conditions as of today. As you'll notice, there is a white picket fence. I will point out there was just a little breakdown in communication. I recommended that they leave the fence there and let you look at it before making any changes. Here's a picture of the steps. And this is on the left is the picture of the steps as they just started to pull them apart to show us the damage. And it's tough to see this, I think, up on the board or up on the screen. But the other photograph is taken actually underneath the steps in the deck. So you can see there's no foundation down there. It's wood on dirt, except where it's been kind of jacked up by bricks over the years. So I'm not gonna go through and read this very wordy slide, but it's there for anybody who would like to see at the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. And this is something that needs to be met in order. It's one of the findings for landmark alteration. And in terms of the details on this, I will defer to the architectural consultant on this if you have any questions about that portion of the report. In terms of California Environmental Quality Act, the project has been found in compliance. It qualifies for a categorical exemption, as it involves only the minor modifications to an existing structure. And it conforms to the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. Staff has not received any comments from any of the neighbors. And there are no unresolved issues. So the zoning code provides six review criteria for landmark alterations. These findings are, they're not findings, but they have been met. We've discussed the review criteria. To summarize, I guess the staff's opinion, that the changes proposed are consistent with the neighborhood, with the home's architecture. And of course, based on the comments from the board, we had a pretty good basis for that. So it is recommended by the planning and economic development staff that the Cultural Heritage Board approve a landmark alteration permit to allow changes to the front facade for the residents located at 1120 MacDonald Avenue. And I believe that the applicant slash applicant team would like to say a few words as well if you have any questions for me. You can ask me now or after. Board members, would you like to allow the team to speak first and then ask questions or would you like to question staff prior to checking in here? We let folks speak and then we'll ask. Okay, so, whoop, is that good? All right, so who might be speaking from the team? There we go. Can we get you down to a microphone? There you go, you're on it. So welcome and welcome back. Thank you, I'm Jeff Bean. This is my wife, Shelly Bean. We're the applicants and we've retained Mark Perry, historical architect as our consultant. And we also have with us Terry Storm, our designer. And I'd like to defer to them for any questions you may have. Hi, I'm Mark. There we go. I'm Mark Perry, I'm a federally qualified historic architect and architectural historian and licensed architect in the state of California. I live at 629 Benton Street in the Ridgeway Preservation District. Good to see you again. I was retained to consult as requested by the Beans, Dr. and Shelly Bean are very enthusiastic about houses and they love their house and they wanted to do the right thing right up front and they retained me to consult with them, although they are also engaged and really like to move. And so they've had a very proactive process. I would like to mention the fence. The communication issue with the fence was, Shelly went down to the building department and said, we want to do a fence. And they said, well, you can do it at three feet. And she said, oh, great. I guess they presented it at some point and there was some suggestions, but I don't think Shelly was clear on the fact that the fence might require design review by the CHB. So I think that was a miscommunication. And sidebar perhaps, there were for many years the opportunity for staff to make decisions and make findings for very minor work. And so I wasn't aware that that hadn't happened, that she had not been told that it could happen, that it was okay to do. So I guess I should apologize that there's a fence built, but you can see what they want to do now. It is three feet and it is consistent with the neighborhood. I don't think it's the wrong thing to do, but I think there were some process communication errors. We did discuss prior to their first submittal to you more extensive changes to the house and roof. They really had initially wanted a covered porch and we determined that we really wanted the path of lease resistance. We wanted to have the simplest way to address their major concerns and to protect what is a cultural resource. And so there are no changes to the facade or elevation whatsoever. The porch, which is both rotting, does not meet current code because it has no foundation, needs to be rebuilt, will be rebuilt in substantially the same materials. It is gonna take the shape of the soffit above it, so it is directly reflecting the original design of the house. The dormer is in addition. It is reversible according to the Secretary of the Interior Standards of Care for the treatment of historic properties, which is one of the issues you can kinda do it if you can take it away and it's easily removed. But I don't think it's inappropriate it certainly is one of the character defining elements throughout most of the preservation districts in Santa Rosa. I did not, by the way, design this neighbor assisted them in the design. I've just been consulting as an architectural historian and provided the report, which is before you. So I think that's other than the brick is there are plenty of brick steps and porches in the McDonald district. So there really are no elements in this design that are not in keeping with character defining elements throughout this district or the other ones in my personal opinion. And the transitional style of the building is also my opinion. And we all know that styles vary by opinion quite frequently, but we're not changing it. So I think it's all okay. And that's my presentation. Okay, so board members, questions for staff or for the owners and the architectural historian? All right, Mark. All right, I've gotta start with the staff if I could. Is it on now? Yeah, maybe pull it a little closer. There we go, that better? All right, I'm starting with questions for staff, a couple of them. One of them of some concern off the bat is on the staff report on page eight. Something that's fairly important to us on the concept review is a record of what our comments were for the previous review. It seems like, if you read this, it sounds like you were starting to set up the list of comments and then it ends in mid-sentence. So I'm getting the feeling that most of our comments aren't recorded here for us to review against today. I see there, and I have to tell you that there was, I saw this once before and corrected it. And apparently the wrong, I didn't save it or something. The comments, during the concept, the comments are, it's staffs. If there's nothing official, it's basically my notes. And I happen to have that file. Yay. Let's see, my meeting notes are summarized here. Identify the building style. Are railings handrails required on the front porch and steps? Fall Stormer can easily be removed and the home restored to its original appearance. Will a rain gutter be required along the roof over the front porch? Architectural historian or qualified professional should try to determine the year the unit was built. There's conflict on that year as well. I think you can see that in the story in this report who does not agree with our building permits. Oh, I don't know that I would agree with our building permits going back that far. City records have two dates, 1915 and 1922. And I think that the report was 1909, I'm pretty sure. And any old photos would be helpful. And so you got your old photo, it's up there today, but I didn't receive it that long ago, so new information. Does that help? Thank you, it does help. I know we usually comment about downspouts and lights as well, I'm surprised that isn't on the list I mentioned here. I don't recall any comments about the lights, but this is back in March. And so I don't recall very many meeting, yeah, details like that were from meetings that long ago. Thank you for the list, that's very helpful. You bet. Any other questions, any on this side? Mark, I was not at the earlier hearing, so I apologize if this was covered before. In terms of the faux dormer, how is it going to attach to the roof and is it actually penetrating to provide light or is it just a fixed ornament? Well, it has to be flashed, so it has to go on the top. It has to attach to at least the roof membrane. This is where you guys be shut up. Yeah, don't you want to show what's going on? I'm not the designer of that. I'm just going to dealt with the architectural. Good afternoon, members. My name is Terry Storm. I'm helping them with their design. And I have a copy of the framing plan for the view of a section showing how it sits on the front of the roof and it will be bolted on to the framework. It may have to add framework under the roof sheathing, but it should be bolted on. So if you are interested. Is it going to penetrate through the roof and have the skylight change the house? Right, it'll penetrate through the roof. The skylight is optional, but if you're interested, we could also. Passing it around is enough for you want them to put it on the overhead projector. Oh, we don't have it. Never mind. Let's don't put it on the overhead. We'll pass it around. Vice-chair Burser, if I may. So allow me to ask a question then. If it was put forward to us at the concept review and in this document to be a faux dormer, and that tells me that it does not penetrate the roof and you can't get to it on the inside. Is this in fact a real dormer? That you can actually open to the roof space inside? It'll be open to the attic. So this is not a faux dormer. This is an actual dormer. Right, okay. And if it was to be removed then the sheathing would be put back along with the shingles in the future. Right, but the existing structure and sheathing and whatever's left of the roofing below would have to be removed in order to do this, is that correct? It's reversible. Yeah, it is reversible, yes. I'm gonna give people a second to take a look at this new material, okay? Hang on just a minute. No, it penetrates the restructural, right? It doesn't. Restructural, yeah. Please, chair, if I may, one more question. I'm not lumping up my questions, but I'm coming to me as I see them. Please. The things that are time-related, if they're not up there, then if you could say, and we'll just do it. Because we'd like to just move forward and get this done. We appreciate that and we hope through these conditions we can give you some specific direction in terms of the material to move forward. Awesome. So I was going to suggest before the photograph came up that perhaps a design is proposed, that their architectural historian who is qualified to identify something from that era sign off on with his credential and staff can approve that for that railing there. It will also be in a position to be sure that the building department approves of it. Right, obviously. All right, so the maker of the motion is accepting that as a third condition, okay? Okay, so now I have three conditions that are proposed as friendly amendments and I'm going to attempt to read them back through my chicken scratch. The first one is dormer shall not penetrate the house. It will be, it shall not, there shall be no evidence. Let's see what I say, nothing else. No evidence outside of 12 inch footprint of the dormer. No evidence of the, I don't know. Disturbance. No disturbance. Of the fabric, the building fabric. All right, so dormer shall not penetrate the house. There shall be no evidence of disturbance outside. I'm not gonna miss my 12 inches again. I can't read my own writing. All right, let's try that one more time, sorry. Sure. Okay, well I got the first part down. Dormer shall not penetrate the house. There shall be no evidence of disturbance of the building fabric outside. 12 inches of the footprint. So I, what the intention there is that if you're putting the warmer on the mask, it might make any more disturbance outside of that 12 inch. 12 inch. I know I just, I wanna make sure I capture your language, not mine. I'm trying. Okay, okay, the second one shingles on dormer shall be changed to reflect the existing patterns of the siting on the original structure with minor changes in coursing or different coursing. Coursing's one of those vocabulary words. I just learned it. Yeah, the shingles on the dormer would have harmonized with the shingles on the house, but they would be at a different, perhaps, coursing pattern or different depth. If there was no right away, the dormer would have started this morning. So harmonizing is a word that's gonna be open to opinion. It's a little bit more subjective, and if you're comfortable with my opinion, I'm happy. I'll try to make it easy. Okay. The shingles should be similar to, but differentiated from the existing shingles. Okay, similar to, but differentiating from. Thank you. That could be a more differentiation. We're in discussion for developing the motion. Coursing is one of the tools they could use to differentiate. They could use, oh, a different size shingle. I would not recommend using a different shape shingle, but there's minor variations they could do within the different to differentiate. Let us get to the end of the list of conditions, both, okay, so first. Yeah, and then the railing, oh, actually, the railing. I didn't get to that. I didn't write that. That's my old one, so I'm gonna just fly here. The proposed railing shall be reviewed and approved by the architectural historian and stamped on a stamped plan. As appropriate to the era of the two architectural styles represented in the house. Appropriate to the era of two architectural styles. Okay, okay. You're not gonna make me read those back, are you? Thank you. Yes. I'd like to make a proposed suggestion that the horizontal coursing of the craftsman style shingles remain the same, but the vertical spacing be a full face, one eighth face, full face, one eighth face, full face, one eighth face. That's an excellent example of what we just described. I think we'll leave it to you for the execution. Is that acceptable? Should this motion pass? It's your motion to accept these as a friendly amendment. I accept a friendly amendment as articulated by the staff. Thank you. All right, board members, are we ready to vote? Sure. What happens if we don't agree with the friendly amendments? Then you vote, well, as I understand the note, well, do you want to speak to what a friendly amendment is, please, Chris and I? Sure. You could suggest an alternative amendment, which would introduce a different motion on the table, and then we'd vote on each motion. So. I guess my friendly amendment would be to leave the dormer without all of the additional things that were added to the dormer with regard to the 12 inch spacing. And I think that I liked the plan the way it was. And I didn't think that the house was, that there was much change to the inside of the house if we were to remove it. So I didn't like John's addition of the 12 inch. So just so we're clear, that was to stipulate that it would be reversible. Yeah, but I felt that it was reversible. Okay, so I'm back to the other plan. Now I'm back to procedural. So you are proposing an alternative amendment, which is in opposition to the friendly amendment that the maker of this motion has already approved. Yes, that would be difficult. So this would mean you would need to introduce a new motion. Can we have two motions on the floor at the same time? Yes, there could be multiple motions on the floor, and then motions are taken in the established order of precedence. Vice-chair, if I could, is there a question to staff? After discussion, then the originator of the motion would have the ability to choose which friendly amendment to incorporate into his item going forward. That's correct. He could have chosen one, two, or three of the different conditions that were introduced as friendly amendments, or he could have said no. I support the friendly amendment articulated by staff and reject the proposed second amendment. Is that my perspective? So it's a second motion. So it would be a second motion with an alternative conditions. So I guess what we would need to know is if board member Fennell would like to introduce an alternative motion, and if he would include all the other conditions that were proposed minus the dormer being reversible. Reversible, yeah. As it was presented to us, the dormer was still reversible even with the original plans and making. I think as it was presented, it wasn't clear whether it was reversible or not, and that that condition was more or less added to ensure that it is reversible. So I don't think the condition, as it's written, is changing the look of the dormer at all, except it's just the way it's mounted, so it won't penetrate the ceiling. It won't act as a skylight. And then the other dormer related condition is just changing that, the fish scaling. I'm fine with the fish scaling, it's just. The way it's mounted, it pretty much ensures that the only disturbance to the home or the structure is just where that dormer is just literally the frame of it where it's placed onto the ceiling. All right, then I will back off. No. It's very technical, and thank you everyone for your patience. It's technical architecturally, and it's technical procedurally, and sometimes those two combine to make things take a long time. So just to clarify, Board Member Fennell withdraws the motion. Okay. Okay. So we are back to our original motion as friendlyly amended. Acting Chair, can I call a question? Call a question. Can I call the question? Can I say we are now going to vote? Yes, so you would take, you're acting as chair, so you would take the vote. I would take the vote, all right. Ready to vote, people? Ready to record votes? Okay. Great. Board Member Fennell. Aye. Board Member Murphy. Aye, but I need to preface that we're, it would have been better to have all this illustrated on accurate drawings, and that we had a full understanding of the design and its impact to the roof, but saying that hopefully these conditions will meet that out, so yes, aye. Board Member DeBacher. I won't, no. Say again? No. No, thank you. Board Member McHugh. Aye. Board Member Gallantyne, and Board Member Percer will vote aye as well. So we now have a vote. The resolution's been approved with conditions. Yes, yes, yes, yes. A modified resolution will be ready for your signature within a couple of days. I encourage you to look at the language of those conditions and make sure that I nailed it. Okay. And just to clarify the motion passes of five to one. Thank you. Thank you guys, thank you so much. I'm really grateful. I'm not sure if this is a comment for staff or if it's not for the board. It's extremely uncomfortable to go through this process and it takes a long time to sort out the details when we don't have a fixed set of drawings that are what's really gonna happen. It's really not, it feels unethical to make decisions based on not knowing which version of what's gonna happen is really what we're voting on. So I would like to second Board Member Murphy's comments that I don't wanna be in this position again. And I would probably abstain from voting if I was placed in that position again. Thank you. Let's move on with our agenda. We are next up looking for Board Member Reports. Do we have any reports? How many, buddy? Mark, you've got a report? Yes, I've been approached several times by my district, or the district I'm representing, St. Rose, with concerns about the Caritas Village Project, which I'd like to go on record as I very much expect this board to have an opportunity to review. We haven't been invited to some of their presentations. And I'm not gonna get into the details because I don't, it's not noticed, but there are some concerning elements in our previous statements related to it. Thank you. Any other Board Member Reports at this time? All right, how about Department Reports? Or am I going a little bit fast? Do we need to wait until she can come back? Who's making staff reports today? Department Reports. As staff doesn't have a Department Report, this afternoon. Excellent, I shouldn't say that. But thank you. Given that we have no additional reports at this time, the next item on the agenda is adjournment. So I declare us adjourned. Thank you everyone for coming. Thank you. I want to vote, I want to vote on that. You want to vote on that?