Resource Name: Daniel T. Fisk House
Location: Casanova 3 N.E. 8th Av.
The following appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources is the sixth and latest appeal to the City Council. It represents the City Council’s sixth approval of an appeal; hence, removal of another resource from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
4:30 p.m., Open Session
VIII. Public Hearings
B. Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the east side of Casanova Street between 7th and 8th Avenues from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant is William G. Doolittle and the property owner is the William G. Doolittle Trust.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to grant the appeal to remove property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, seconded by Council Member ROSE and carried by the following roll call:
AYES: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC, ROSE & McCLOUD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Selected relevant city document excerpts, as follows:
Meeting Date: 8 August 2006
Prepared by: Nathan Schmidt, Assistant Planner
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located in the Single Family Residential (R-1 District from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant is William G. Doolittle and property owner is the William Doolittle Trust (E/s Casanova bet. 7th & 8th, Blk B, Lot 14, APN: 010-195-010).
Description: The appellant seeks removal of the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. Approval of the appeal would overturn a decision of the Historic Resources Board and result in the removal of the property from the inventory.
Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal.
Important Considerations: The subject property is included on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources that was adopted as part of the Local Coastal Program in 2004. The structure was constructed in approximately 1939.
CMC 17.32.070 states that a property identified as an historic resource on the Carmel Inventory shall be presumed historically significant and shall not be removed from the Inventory unless substantial evidence demonstrates that it is not an historic resource.
The appellant retained a qualified professional consultant to evaluate the property. The consultant presented substantial evidence to the Board. The Board considered this evidence but found it insufficient to remove the property from the Inventory. The reasons advanced by the consultant for removal from the inventory include a lack of architectural significance and a poor relationship to the City’s Historic Context Statement.
Decision Record: The Historic Resources Board denied the applicant’s request to remove the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources on 19 June 2006. The applicant filed an appeal with the City Clerk on 28 June 2006.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: NATHAN SCHMIDT, ASSISTANT PLANNER
DATE: 8 AUGUST 2006
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD’S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO REMOVE A PROPERTY FROM THE CITY’S INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Grant the appeal.
BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject structure is a single story residence constructed in approximately 1939. A building permit was issued that same year for an addition to the residence connecting the detached garage with the house.
The structure was identified as an historic resource as part of the City’s on-going survey of historic structures. A DPR 523 form was filed with the City on 18 July 2002 and was accepted by the California Coastal Commission as part of the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources in October 2004. The DPR indicates that the structure qualifies as an historic structure under California Criterion #3 (Architecture) as a good unaltered example of a type of minimal traditional residential design found in Carmel. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) denied this appeal on 19 June 2006.
EVALUATION
In this section staff provides an evaluation of why the property may, or may not, qualify as an historic resource. Within this analysis the appellant’s arguments and evidence will also be discussed. Staff recognizes four possible reasons for removing a property from the Carmel Inventory: 1) There are gross, non-correctable errors in the historic documentation, 2) The property bears a poor or minimal relationship to the adopted Historic Context Statement, 3) There are a sufficient number of other, better preserved or more important resources of the same type elsewhere within the City, and 4) The resource has lost its historic integrity through past alterations.
Process: CMC 17.32.070 states that when a qualified professional identifies an historic resource it is added to the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources and it shall be presumed historically significant and shall not be removed from the City’s Inventory unless substantial evidence demonstrates that it is not an historic resource. The ordinance also states that any decision to remove a resource from the inventory shall be based on a recommendation by a qualified professional. However, the City Administrator and City Attorney have determined that if an owner does not want to hire a qualified professional they can present their own argument for the Board’s consideration. The owner in this case has chosen to hire a qualified professional.
Basis for Appeal: The appellant is requesting that the subject structure be removed from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources for the following reasons:
1. The home does not have architectural significance and does not meet the requirements for listing on the Carmel Inventory because it is not distinctive or unique.
2. The building does not meet any of the criteria for listing in the California Register, and as such, it does not qualify for designation as “historic” on the Carmel Inventory.
Architectural Style / Criterion #3: The original DPR form states that the home is significant under California Register criterion 3, in the area of architecture, as a good unaltered example of a type of residential design found in Carmel in the immediate pre- WWII period referred to as Minimal Traditional style. The majority of the HRB agreed with this evaluation stating that the home’s Minimal Traditional design is unique and should be preserved. The HRB determined that the structure’s elegant design was typical of its era and worthy of preservation.
The owner’s consultant argues that the home is not a Minimal Traditional Style home as stated in the DPR but a “split-level” design. The consultant states that, “the elevation difference between the house and the garage was not part of the house as designed because the residence and garage were constructed as separate structures. That the house has a traditional look that is stylistically unremarkable.” Staff concurs with the appellant’s assessment, that the home portrays an ordinary appearance of an ambiguous design.
Relationship to Context Statement: The DPR indicated that the home is related to the Architectural Development Theme of the Context statement. The HRB determined that the even though the Minimal Traditional style is not mentioned in the Context Statement the modest nature of construction was typical of it’s era. The Board concluded that the residence should be preserved in order to maintain diversity in architecture throughout the City.
Staff does not concur with the HRB’s assessment. The Minimal Traditional style is not identified as a significant architectural style in the Context Statement. Since the residence was constructed within the years covered in the Context Statement, the Council should not treat this property as it would properties that were developed after 1940. The lack of coverage for this style in the Context Statement indicates that this is either not a significant part of the City’s Development or is not worth preserving.
Integrity: The structure is relatively unaltered. There was a small addition in 1939 connecting the main house to the garage. However, this addition does not affect the historic integrity of the home as it was added shortly after the original construction date. Both staff and the HRB agree that the loss of integrity is not sufficient reason for removing the residence from the inventory.
Historic Resources Board’s Review: In summary, the HRB’s decision to deny the appeal was based on the following point:
• The structure is an unaltered example of a significant architectural style in the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant the appeal.
Historic Resources Board’s Minutes for 6/19/06
William Doolittle
E/s Casanova bet 7th and 8th
Consideration of an appeal of the City's determination to place an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources.
Nathan Schmidt, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairperson Wendt declared the public hearing open at 6:12 p.m.
Ms. Bunse, appeared before the Board.
Chairperson Wendt declared the public hearing closed at 6:17 p.m., and entered into record a report from Kent Seavey regarding ineligibility for the adjacent property.
Board member Lagerholm moved to grant the appeal and remove it from the City’s Historic Inventory, motion died due to lack of a second.
Dyar moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Holz and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: LAGERHOLM
ABSENT: COSS
No comments:
Post a Comment