CITY OF POMONA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA POMONA, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

Transcription

1 CITY OF POMONA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA POMONA, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 505 South Garey Avenue, Pomona, CA REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2014 at 6:30 PM A. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson, Mitch Elias B. FLAG SALUTE: Chairperson, Mitch Elias C. ROLL CALL: Planning Manager Johnson Chair Mitch Elias, Vice-Chair Rubio Gonzalez, Commissioner Jorge Grajeda, Commissioner Kathleen Jones, Commissioner Manuel Castillejos, Commissioner Linda Garner, and Commissioner Antonia Brookshire. D. PUBLIC/CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Three (3) minute Limit on Non-Agenda Items Only): 1. At this time, the general public is invited to address the Historic Preservation Commission concerning any items that are not listed on this agenda, which are not public hearings, or other items under the jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation Commission. Discussion of any non-agenda items will be limited to three (3) minutes in accordance with City policy. 2. Anyone wishing to speak on any item that is listed on tonight s agenda (e.g., public hearings and/or work study items) is requested to adhere to the following protocol procedures/guidelines: a) Prior to the meeting or during the meeting prior to a matter being reached, persons wishing to address the Commission may fill out a speaker card and submit it to the Planning Manager. Speaker cards are available in the foyer of the City Council Chambers and from the Minutes Clerk. b) When called upon, the person should come to the podium, state his/her name and address for the record and, if speaking for an organization or other group, identify the organization or group represented. Whenever any group of persons wishes to address the Commission on the same subject matter, the Chair may request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group. c) All remarks should be addressed to the Commission as a whole, not to individual Commissioners. Questions, if any, should be directed to the presiding Chair who will determine whether, or in what manner, an answer will be provided. d) Every person addressing the Historic Preservation Commission will be limited to three (3) minutes or such reasonable time as is granted by the majority of the Commission. Historic Preservation Commission Agenda August 6, 2014 Page 1

2 E. CONSENT CALENDAR: Note: All items listed on the Consent Calendar may be enacted by a single motion without separate discussion. If a discussion or a separate vote on any item is desired by a Historic Preservation Commissioner, that item may be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately. All remaining items not removed from the Consent Calendar by a Historic Preservation Commissioner shall be voted on prior to discussion of the item(s) requested to be pulled. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 2, 2014 F. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. MAJOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (COA )(Continued from July 2, 2014) PROJECT ADDRESS: 395 E. Columbia Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: Steven Brenner PROJECT PLANNER: Assistant Planner, Leonard Bechet PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ) to allow the installation of wood fencing along the street side and rear property lines. Pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is categorically exempt per Section Recommended Action: The Planning Division recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt the HPC Resolution denying Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ). 2. MAJOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (COA ) PROJECT ADDRESS: 585 E. McKinley Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: Ken Everson PROJECT PLANNER: Senior Planner, David Sanchez PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ) to legalize the replacement of 17 windows with vinyl windows and the replacement of the front door of a contributing single-family residence in the Lincoln Park Historic District. Pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is categorically exempt per Section Recommended Action: The Planning Division recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt the HPC Resolution approving Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ). G. NEW BUSINESS: H. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS: I. PLANNING MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Minor Certificates of Appropriateness approved June and July Historic Preservation Commission Agenda August 6, 2014 Page 2

3 2. Tentative Projects for the September 3, 2014 Historic Preservation Commission meeting (all item (s) listed below are tentatively scheduled.) J. ADJOURNMENT: None. The City of Pomona Historic Preservation Commission is hereby adjourned to the next regular meeting of September 3, 2014, at 6:30 p. m. in the City Council Chambers. *** CERTIFICATION OF POSTING AGENDA *** I, Brad Johnson, Planning Manager for the City of Pomona, hereby certify that the agenda for the August 6, 2o14, Historic Preservation Commission meeting was posted on July 31, Brad Johnson Planning Manager Historic Preservation Commission Agenda August 6, 2014 Page 3

4 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES POMONA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 2, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE: ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: The Historic Preservation Commission meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Vice Chair Gonzalez Commissioner Grajeda led the Commission in the flag salute Roll was taken by Planning Manager Johnson Vice Chair Gonzalez; Commissioners Brookshire, Garner, Grajeda, and Jones Chair Elias and Commissioner Castillejos (excused) Community Development Director Lazzaretto, Planning Manager Johnson, Assistant Planner Bechet, and Minutes Clerk Casey-Aggers ITEM D: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: Mr. Dan McIntire, President of Pomona Heritage, provided a couple of 2014 events being held by Pomona Heritage such as the 16 th annual Preservation Workshop being held on August 9, 2014, and the 30 th annual Old House Tour being held on December 7, Ms. Dawn Van Allen mentioned a home at 844 N. Park Avenue in the Wilton Heights district which was for sale and had unpermitted windows. Ms. Mickey Gallivan stated a concern regarding the amount of trees which had been removed on South Garey Avenue. She stated the City had a contract with Western Arborist which claimed they have been backlogged and therefore could not remove trees throughout the City which have been dead and are infested with rats, but they were not too backlogged to remove healthy trees on Garey Avenue. Community Development Director Lazzaretto stated the tree removal on Garey Avenue was not completed by Western Arborist, it was done by another project which was allowed by the City after much consideration as the trees were not planted correctly and replacing the sidewalks would not resolve the issue as it would have returned within ten years. He stated a community meeting would be held on July 28, 2014, to discuss the trees in Pomona, but the meeting will not cover the tree removal which had taken place on Garey Avenue. Commissioner Garner requested staff to research tree grants which have been granted to Pomona.

5 Unofficial Minutes Historic Preservation Commission July 2, 2014 Page 2 of 4 ITEM E: CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVAL OF MINUTES: -May 7, 2014 Motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Garner, carried by a unanimous vote of the members present ( ) Chair Elias and Commissioner Castillejos excused, adopting the May 7, 2014, Historic Preservation Commission meeting minutes. Commissioner Grajeda mentioned a discussion which took place at the May 7, 2014 meeting regarding the Commissioners viewing one of the structures before making their decision on the demolition request. Community Development Director Lazzaretto stated staff had contacted the tenant regarding viewing the structure, but the tenant was hesitant. He stated in addition to contacting the tenant, staff is in the process of researching the possibility of relocating the structure to another location in Pomona for rehabilitation. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM F-1 PUBLIC HEARING MAJOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (COA ) TO DEMOLISH THREE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS BUILT BETWEEN 1895 AND THE 1920 S LOCATED AT W. HOLT AVENUE. (Continued from March 5, April 2, and May 7, 2014) Assistant Planner Bechet presented a staff report regarding a request to demolish three residential buildings. Commissioner Jones inquired whether the Victorian structure was required to be relocated before the other structures were demolished and whether the Historic Preservation Commission had a say as to where the Victorian structure would be relocated. Community Development Director Lazzaretto stated a condition had been placed requiring the Victorian Structure to be relocated before the other structures were demolished and the decision regarding the site for the relocation would go before the Planning Commission. In addition, he stated there had not been a final agreement made, but a property owned by the Housing Authority on Newman Street was being discussed. Vice Chair Gonzalez opened the public hearing. Mr. Saki Middleton, representative of Related California, agreed with the staff report and asked the Commission to approve. Vice Chair Gonzalez invited the public for comments. Mr. Dan McIntire stated he hoped the Commission would approve staff s recommendation as he was thrilled to hear of the relocation. Vice Chair Gonzalez closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Grajeda, carried by unanimous vote of the members present ( ) Chair Elias and Commissioner Castillejos excused, adopting the Resolution No , approving Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ). 2

6 Unofficial Minutes Historic Preservation Commission July 2, 2014 Page 3 of 4 ITEM F-2 PUBLIC HEARING MAJOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (COA ) TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF WOOD FENCING ALONG THE STREET SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES LOCATED AT 395 E. COLUMBIA AVENUE. Planning Manager Johnson stated the applicant requested the item be continued to the August 6, 2014 Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Vice Chair Gonzalez opened the public hearing. Ms. Mickey Gallivan stated the City s fence ordinance stated homes could not have fenced in front yards, but more and more fences were being installed in the Lincoln Park district. She stated she did not feel the fences were aesthetically pleasing, she felt the fences obstructed views, and she felt the fences made the community seem like it was closed in. She encouraged the Commission to deny the COA for the street side of the property. Planning Manager Johnson stated Ms. Gallivan s comments would be held until the full hearing and he encouraged the community to report fences in the district so permit research could be done. The Commission discussed and agreed to open the public hearing and continue the item to the August 6, 2014, Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Brookshire, carried by a unanimous vote of the members present ( ) Chair Elias and Commissioner Castillejos excused, continuing Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ) to the August 6, 2014, Historic Preservation Commission meeting. ITEM G: NEW BUSINESS: ITEM H: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS: Commissioner Garner mentioned the amount of fences being installed in the Lincoln Park District and a home located on the corner of Columbia and Eleanor with a deteriorating lawn and two deteriorating trees. In addition, she stated an issue with homes being appraised low due to homes in their area deteriorating due to neglect. Commissioner Brookshire mentioned past discussions regarding a strict penalty being set for code violations like illegal change outs. In addition, she suggested some type of award for those individuals who are following code. Community Development Director Lazzaretto stated an Ad- Hoc Committee had been formed to discuss penalties for illegal changes and in addition the City has begun to work with the State to garnish tax returns when penalties for code violations were not paid. Commissioner Grajeda stated a concern with the 60-freeway off-ramps in need of weed abatement by Cal Trans. 3

7 Unofficial Minutes Historic Preservation Commission July 2, 2014 Page 4 of 4 ITEM I: PLANNING MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS:. 1. Minor Certificates of Appropriateness approved in April, May, and June Tentative Projects for the August 6, 2014 Historic Preservation Commission meeting (all items listed below are tentatively scheduled). None ITEM J: ADJOURNMENT: Vice Chair Gonzalez adjourned the meeting at 7:43 pm to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on August 6, 2014, in the City Council Chambers. Brad Johnson Planning Manager 4

8 CITY OF POMONA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REPORT DATE: AUGUST 6, 2014 (CONTINUED FROM JULY 2, 2014) TO: FROM: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION PLANNING DIVISION SUBJECT: MAJOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (COA ) TO LEGALIZE THE RETENTION OF A 6-FOOT HIGH SOLID WOOD FENCE ALONG THE EAST SIDE (STREET FACING) PROPERTY LINE BY APPROVING AN EXCEPTION TO DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FENCE AND WALLS ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES ON A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 395 E. COLUMBIA STREET IN THE LINCOLN PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT. SUMMARY Issue - Should the Historic Preservation Commission approve a Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ) to legalize a 6-foot high solid wood fence along the east side (street facing) property line of a single-family residential property located at 395 E. Columbia Avenue in the Lincoln Park Historic District? Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) denying Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ) to legalize the retention of a 6-foot high solid wood fence along the east side (street facing) property line. Applicable Codes and Guidelines Zoning Ordinance Section (Historic Preservation), Section.503-I (Fences, Hedges, and Walls) and the Pomona Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. City Initiated Corrective Action None Environmental Determination Pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project meets the criteria for a Class 31, Section Categorical Exemption in that the project involves preservation and rehabilitation of a historic resource in a manner that meets the Secretary of Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

9 COA E. Columbia St. Page 2 of 6 BACKGROUND Property Description The existing two-story single-family residence located at 395 E. Columbia Avenue was built in 1908 and was built in the Craftsman architectural style (Attachment B). The dwelling unit sits on a 7,600 square-foot lot in the R-1-6,000 (Single-Family Residential) zone within the Lincoln Park Historic District. The Lincoln Park Historic Resource survey identifies the residence as a contributing structure. The Craftsman style architecture of this house incorporates a single-storied full front porch with a front facing gable roof, tapered river rock columns, and a river rock railing. The second story is covered with a side gable roof with a front facing gable dormer. The wall cladding is narrow clapboard siding and windows are wood sash with divided lights that form diamond patterns. The roof is low pitched and features decorative rafter beams, brackets, and exposed rafter tails. The street facing side elevation features a river rock chimney and an uncovered extension of the front porch. Project Background On June 27, 2012, the Code Compliance Division (Code) received a complaint regarding a wooden fence being constructed on the property without permits. Code responded to the complaint and issued a courtesy notice of violation for the property owners to obtain approval of a permit to construct the fence. On June 29, 2012 and July 2, 2012, Code received additional complaints regarding the continued installation of a six foot high fence. The applicant proceeded to complete the fence construction after being requested to stop work. On July 3, 2012, the applicant submitted a minor certificate of appropriateness application showing the installation of fencing as it is currently built today. Planning staff reviewed the application and conducted a site visit on July 17, 2012, wherein the applicant was advised that he would need to apply for and receive approval of a major certificate of appropriateness to allow the un-permitted fence or make alterations to the fence in order to meet the requirements for approval of the minor certificate of appropriateness. A letter was sent out to the applicant listing the options discussed during the site visit on July 19, 2012 to which the Planning Division received no response. By February 2013, the remainder of the fence was constructed and the applicant had still not responded to either Planning or Code Compliance staff. On February 13, 2013 the City prosecutor sent the applicant a letter stating that unless full compliance is reached regarding the fencing issues, a misdemeanor complaint would be filed with the Superior Court. Again, the applicant did not respond to the letter so the City prosecutor moved forward with the initiation of court proceedings. Between July 2013 and January 2014 the applicant and City went to court on the issue several times wherein the applicant agreed to either make alterations to the installed fencing to be approved under a minor certificate of appropriateness or submit an application for a major certificate of appropriateness for the Historic Preservation Commission s consideration of

10 COA E. Columbia St. Page 3 of 6 the installed fencing. The City Prosecutor and applicant last appeared in Court on July 21, 2014 where the judge ordered Mr. Brenner to attend the August 6, 2014 Historical Preservation Commission Meeting and to comply with all decisions and/or orders as set forth in the terms and conditions of this deferred sentencing agreement. A new court date of September 5, 2014 has been scheduled by the courts. Proposed Project On April 17, 2014, the applicant, Steven Brenner, submitted an application for a Major Certificate of Appropriateness (Attachment C) to the Planning Division to allow the retention of a six foot high wood fence located along street facing (east) side property line and the installation of six foot high wood fence gate located at the northeast corner of the property to enclose an existing driveway, by approving an exception to design standards for the installation of fences and walls in historic districts. Section.503-I(11) of the Pomona Zoning Ordinance (PZO) which contains design standards for the installation of fences and walls in Historic Districts requires fences and/or walls that are installed in front and side yards, outside of the rear yard area, to be open style that is appropriate with the architectural style of the house. Any exceptions to the design standards may be allowed by the Historic Preservation Commission with the approval of a major certificate of appropriateness. Arbors Partially Built In addition to the installed fence, the applicant also has two arbors that have been partially built located along the front and side property lines. Section.503-I(12) of the PZO allows the installation arbors in front yard and street facing side and rear yard setbacks subject to approval of a Minor Certificate of Appropriateness and meeting the following standards: Maximum width of 5-feet as measured from the inside edge of the posts; Maximum roof area of 25 square feet as measure from the outside edge of the arbor roof or outside edge of posts, whichever is greater; Maximum height to top of structure of 9-feet; Sides and roof substantially open (no solid roof or walls). If the applicant wishes to complete construction on the two arbors, the above listed requirements will have to be met, otherwise the partially constructed arbors shall be removed. ANALYSIS Consistency with Fence and Wall Development Standards Section.503-I(11)(h) of the PZO contains design standards pertaining to the installation of fences and walls on properties designated as historic landmarks or located within designated historic districts and requires the following:

11 COA E. Columbia St. Page 4 of 6 Fencing in front yards and side yards, outside of the rear yard area, adjacent to a public right-of-way shall be open style such as wrought iron, louvered, lattice, stake and other similar materials with the exception of chain-link fencing, which is prohibited. Furthermore, the Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Fence/Wall Alterations and Installations states the following: The acceptability of a new fence or wall installation will depend on the existence of fences and walls in the immediate neighborhood. Whenever possible, avoid installing a new front yard fence or wall in neighborhoods with open front yards. Similarly, avoid installing a new fence or wall in street facing side yards in neighborhoods with open side yards unless needed for screening or safety purposes, in which case the yard should be kept as open as possible. The rear yard area refers to the section of property between the dwelling unit and rear property line. In the case of a corner property, the design standards found in the zoning ordinance require that the side yard area, outside of the rear yard area, have open style fencing, while the historic preservation guidelines ask that the installation of fencing in street facing side yards be avoided. Staff surveyed other corner properties in the district and found that many homes historically had no fencing in the street facing side yards with solid fencing installed within rear yard are of the lot. While there are corner properties that have solid fencing installed along the entire side yard street frontage, those were built and/or approved prior to the adoption of the 2009 fence and wall ordinance which contains the above mentioned design standard. Given the pattern of either no fencing or open fencing installed within the street facing side-yard areas in the district that the Commission should uphold the design standard. Furthermore, the reduced setback between the dwelling and property line, existence of a side entrance and porch extension, and the location of chain-link fencing, removed to allow the installation of the subject fence and located to the outside of the side yard area, suggest that the intention was to have that side yard area between the house property open, with no type of fencing installed. Furthermore, the applicant installed the six foot high solid fence adjacent to the northeast corner of the lot which is bounded by Palomares Street to east and a public alley to the north. Section.503-I(2)(b), which pertains to the installation of fence adjacent to the intersection of a street and alley, requires the following: There shall be a corner cut-off on all lots which abut an alley where the alley intersects a street. This corner cut-off shall be determined by points located on and measured ten feet from the intersection of the property line along the street and the property line along the alley. No obstruction of any nature shall be permitted in this corner cut-off area which limits the visibility of persons. The required corner cut-off is mandatory to address traffic and/or pedestrian visibility issues where fencing is installed adjacent to street and alley intersections. Planning Division staff has

12 COA E. Columbia St. Page 5 of 6 received complaints that due to the installation of the subject fence pedestrians have had near accidents with cars exiting the alley. There is no exception to this requirement and the applicant will have to make alterations to the fencing to meet this requirement. OPTIONS The Historic Preservation Commission may also wish to consider an alternative option, including but not limited to the following: 1. Deny the application to retain the 6-foot high solid wood fence along the street side property line; 2. Approve the application, as requested by the applicant, to retain the 6-foot high solid wood fence along the street side property line, with conditions that the applicant make alterations to the fence to meet the required corner cut-off at the sidewalk/alley intersection and that the partially built arbors be completed to meet the requirements for arbors in the Pomona Zoning Ordinance or be removed; CONCLUSION The applicant s request to retain the installation of a six foot high solid wood fence along the street facing side property line is not consistent with the design standards pertaining to the installation of fences and walls in historic districts, and work with Planning staff to revise fence plans to provide an acceptable fence design. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt the attached resolution denying Major Certificate of Appropriateness (MISC ) to legalize the retention of a sixfoot high solid wood fence along the east street side property line by approving an exception to a design standard which requires open fencing be installed. Respectfully submitted, Prepared by, Brad Johnson Planning Manager Leonard Bechet Assistant Planner

13 COA E. Columbia St. Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENTS: A. HPC Draft Resolution B. Lincoln Park Historic Resource Survey Sheet C. Application for Major COA D. Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph E. Site Photographs, taken by Staff I:\Economic Development\Planning\Master Planning\Historical Preservation Commission\Staff Reports\C of A Major\1509 Hacienda Place (MISC ).doc

14 ATTACHMENT A HPC DRAFT RESOLUTION

15 HPC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF POMONA, CALIFORNIA DENYING MAJOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (COA ) TO LEGALIZE THE RETENTION OF A 6-FOOT HIGH SOLID WOOD FENCE ALONG THE EAST SIDE (STREET FACING) PROPERTY LINE BY APPROVING AN EXCEPTION TO A DESIGN STANDARD FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FENCE AND WALLS ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES THAT REQUIRES THE INSTALLATION OF OPEN FENCING IN STREET FACING SIDE YARD AREAS ON A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 395 E. COLUMBIA STREET IN THE LINCOLN PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF POMONA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the subject property is a contributing structure, located within the Lincoln Park Historic District, which was designated as a historic district by the Pomona City Council on May 4, 1998; WHEREAS, the applicant/owner, Steven Brenner, has submitted a Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ) to legalize the retention of six-foot high solid wood fence by allowing a exception to a design standard which requires that open fencing be installed in the street side yard at a property located at 395 E. Columbia Avenue; WHEREAS, exceptions to fence and wall design standards within a designated historic district require the Historic Preservation Commission to approve a Major Certificate of Appropriateness prior to the installation of fences and walls; WHEREAS, the residential structure at the site was built in the Craftsman style of architecture; WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission must make findings as described in Section F.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to approve a Major Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a room addition on a property located in a historic district; WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Pomona, has, after giving notice thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on August 6, 2014 concerning the requested Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ); and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered in the case presented at the public hearing. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pomona, California, as follows:

16 HPC Resolution No. COA E. Columbia Ave. Page 2 of 4 SECTION 1. Pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project meets the criteria for a Class 31, Section Categorical Exemption in that the project involves preservation and rehabilitation of a historic resource in a manner that meets the Secretary of Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. SECTION 2. Section F.6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the Historic Preservation Commission to make findings to approve a Major Certificate of Appropriateness. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby makes the following findings: a. The proposed change will not adversely affect any significant historical, cultural, architectural, or aesthetic features of the concerned property or the historic district in which it is located. The subject residence is an example of the Craftsman style of architecture, of which several examples are present in the Lincoln Park Historic District. This type of architecture, as evidenced by existing structures in the neighborhood which typically kept street facing side yards free of solid fencing. Furthermore, the street facing elevations of homes were designed with features such as porches and secondary entrances to orient to the street side area. Therefore the proposed retention of a solid six-foot high wood fence by allowing an exception to a design standard which requires open fencing be installed in a street side yard is not compatible with the style of architecture and would adversely affect the streetscape of the historic district listed on local, state, and national registers as a historic resource. b. The proposed change is compatible in architectural style with the existing adjacent contributing structures in an historic district. The majority of homes in the immediate neighborhood were built during the same period as the subject property and are identified as contributing structures. The street side yard of corner properties contains either open style fencing or no fencing. The proposed retention of the solid fencing would adversely impact the integrity of the streetscape within a historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. c. The proposed change is consistent with the architectural style of the building as specified in Section F 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed solid fencing is compatible with the Craftsman architectural of the subject structure; however, solid fencing installed in street side yards is not consistent with other Craftsman style dwellings in the historic district that have been designed to have street facing elevations not obstructed by solid fencing.

17 HPC Resolution No. COA E. Columbia Ave. Page 3 of 4 d. The scale, massing, proportions, materials, textures, fenestration, decorative features, and details proposed are consistent with the period and/or compatible with adjacent structures. The proposed solid fencing is compatible with the Craftsman architectural of the subject structure; however, solid fencing installed in street side yards is not consistent with other Craftsman style dwellings in the historic district that have been designed to have street facing elevations not obstructed by solid fencing. SECTION 3. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby denies Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ) to legalize the retention of six-foot high solid wood fence by allowing a exception to a design standard which requires that open fencing be installed in the street side yard at a property located at 395 E. Columbia Avenue; SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and forward the original to the City Clerk. APPROVED AND PASSED THIS 6 th DAY OF AUGUST, DEMECIO ELIAS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: BRAD JOHNSON HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SECRETARY STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) CITY OF POMONA) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

18 HPC Resolution No. COA E. Columbia Ave. Page 4 of 4 Pursuant to Resolution No of the City of Pomona, the time in which judicial review of this action must be sought is governed by Sec C.C.P. I:\Economic Development\Planning\Master Planning\Historical Preservation Commission\RESOLUTIONS\2014\395 E. Columbia Ave. (COA ) Fencing.doc

19 ATTACHMENT B LINCOLN PARK HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY SHEET

20

21 ATTACHMENT C APPLICATION FOR MAJOR COA

22

23 ATTACHMENT D VICINITY MAP AND AERIAL PHOTOGRPAH

24 Location Map & Aerial Photograph 395 E. Columbia Avenue

25 ATTACHMENT E SITE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY STAFF

26 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Taken by staff on May 28, 2014 View of the south elevation (front) View of the east elevation, with fencing (street side)

27 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued) Taken by staff on May 28, 2014 View of the side (Palomares) elevation of the fence View of the front (Columbia) elevation of the fence

28 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued) Taken by staff on May 28, 2014 View of the rear (alley) elevation of the fence

29 CITY OF POMONA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REPORT DATE: AUGUST 6, 2014 TO: FROM: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION PLANNING DIVISION SUBJECT: MAJOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (COA ) TO RETAIN 15 VINYL WINDOWS AND A FRONT ENTRY DOOR ON AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 585 EAST MCKINLEY AVE IN THE LINCOLN PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT SUMMARY Issue Should the Historic Preservation Commission approve Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ) to retain 15 vinyl windows and a front entry door on an existing single family residential building located at 585 East McKinley Avenue in the Lincoln Park Historic District? Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) approving Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ) as conditioned to utilize steel casement windows consistent with the original windows. Applicable Codes and Guidelines 1) Historic Preservation Design Guidelines dated July 19, ) Zoning Ordinance Section (Historic Preservation) adopted June 15, ) Secretary of Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Public Noticing Requirements At a minimum of ten days prior to the public hearing, notice was sent to the applicant, posted at the subject site, and mailed to all owners of property located directly adjacent to and directly across the street from the subject site. City Initiated Corrective Action None. Environmental Determination Pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project meets the criteria for a Class 31, Section Categorical Exemption in that the project involves preservation and rehabilitation of a historic resource in a manner that meets the Secretary of Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

30 COA E. McKinley Ave. Page 2 of 5 BACKGROUND Property Description and Background City records indicate that the subject residence was built in 1930 in the California Ranch architectural style. The house is a very early example of the California Ranch architectural style and has some characteristics of other styles of the period, including the Colonial Revival style. Character defining features of the residence include a rambling L-shaped design, side facing front entry, horizontal lap siding, and a cross-gabled roof. The residence is considered a contributing structure to the Lincoln Park Historic District. Although listed as a contributing structure to the Lincoln Park Historic District, the house does have some modifications from its original state. In 1956, a permit was issued to enclose a 325 square foot patio at the rear of the house. The flat-roofed enclosure has since been clad with lap siding to match the existing. The enclosure also has three window openings with horizontal sliding vinyl windows installed. Additionally, the residence has a tile roof. A California Ranch house constructed in the 1930 s would most likely have been constructed with a wood shake shingle roof. In 1986, City records indicate a building permit was issued for a reroof of the pitched roof with composition shingle. In 1991 another permit was issued to reroof the residence with the concrete tile roof that currently exists on the residence. The existing tile roof is visible in the Lincoln Park Historic District survey and was installed prior to district formation. All 15 operable windows on the existing residence are currently vinyl horizontal sliding windows. The applicant states that the windows were changed prior to his purchase of the property. The applicant has submitted photographs of the residence prior to painting and landscape improvements where the installed horizontal sliding vinyl windows are visible. Three original windows, which appear to be metal casement windows with divided lights, are visible in the Lincoln Park Historic Survey sheet (Attachment 4) and in a September 2007 photograph from a Code Enforcement case (Attachment 3). Applicant s Proposal Existing Windows The applicant is proposing to retain the vinyl windows as they exist today (Attachment 3). According to the applicant, the windows were installed by a previous property owner. The windows were also installed without the benefit of a building permit or a Certificate of Appropriateness.

31 COA E. McKinley Ave. Page 3 of 5 Existing Door The front door of a California Ranch house would typically be a relatively simple wood door. It may include paneling or simple glass panes. The installed door is wood-framed, and has an ornate stained and multi-textured leaded glass design. The door also faces the side property line, is recessed approximately 12 inches and is minimally visible from the street. ANALYSIS Section of the Pomona Zoning Ordinance requires that proposed projects involving historic properties be consistent with the standards contained in that section and the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation. The project is also analyzed for consistency with the City s Design Guidelines for historic preservation. Section requires the Commission to consider the following standard when reviewing the installed vinyl windows and front door: Architectural Details. Architectural details, including materials and textures shall be treated so as to make any new construction compatible with the architectural style and character of the historic district. The SOI Standards for rehabilitation of historic properties contains the following standard that is related to replacement of distinctive features (i.e. windows and doors). SOI-6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence. The City s Design Guidelines for historic preservation considers the following guidelines as the ideal approach to window and door alteration or replacement: Replacing windows that cannot be repaired with windows of a similar type, for example, replacing original wooden sash windows with new wooden sash windows. Replacing doors and doorways that cannot be repaired with elements of a similar type, for example replacing a door with another one having similar panels or molding. Maintaining historic doorway openings. Additionally, the Design Guidelines do not require a COA for replacement of a door within an existing doorway opening that is not visible from the street. Windows The currently installed horizontal sliding vinyl windows are not compatible with the early California Ranch architectural style. The three original window openings found in the photographic record are divided light paired steel casement windows. The individual casements include a 2x4 or 2x3 grid pattern. One of the three, a larger south facing window included two

32 COA E. McKinley Ave. Page 4 of 5 casement windows framed by fixed pane divided light windows on both sides and above the two casements. The vinyl windows installed on the front portions of the residence include the 2x4 and 2x3 grid patterns with simulated divided light grids installed between the glass panes. The windows on the side and rear elevations that are not visible from the street do not contain any simulated divided light grid patterns. The window alterations are not consistent with the standards contained in Section of the Zoning Ordinance. SOI Standard SOI-6 requires that replacement windows match the old in design, color, texture and where possible, materials. Additionally, missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. The two photographs that establish the previous style of window depict divided light steel casement windows. The proposed windows do not match the old in design and other visual qualities. Therefore, the proposed alterations are not consistent with the SOI Standards for rehabilitation of historic properties. The ideal preservation approach in the Design Guidelines recommends replacing windows with windows of a similar type as the original. As discussed above, the proposed windows do not match the original divided light steel casement windows in design and material. The proposed window replacements are not consistent with the ideal preservation approach described in the Design Guidelines. Front Door Front doors are typically character-defining features for historic residences. The subject residence is oriented to the west side property line. The door is also recessed approximately 12 inches from the wall plane, further de-emphasizing the entry door. No photographic record establishes the original style of door, however the California Ranch style typically would have featured a simple wood paneled or glass paned door. The existing door is ornate; with leaded and colored glass patterned into a wood frame (Attachment 3). The front entry is a characterdefining feature; however the orientation and opening of the entry is the distinctive feature and the design of the door itself is de-emphasized. CONCLUSION The installation of the vinyl windows does not meet the requirements of the Design Guidelines, the standards contained in Section of the Zoning Ordinance or the SOI standards for rehabilitation. The installed windows do not match the original in design and materials and are historically inappropriate for the residence. Steel casement windows consistent with the original style of the residence are the appropriate replacement. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the window replacement with the condition of approval requiring steel casement windows consistent with the original windows. The existing door is not in keeping with the California Ranch architectural style; however it is minimally visible from the street and is not a characterdefining feature of the residence. Therefore staff is recommending that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the existing door replacement.

33 COA E. McKinley Ave. Page 5 of 5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt the attached resolution approving Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ). Respectfully submitted, Prepared by, Brad Johnson Planning Manager David Sanchez Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft HPC Resolution 2. Vicinity Map / Aerial Photo 3. Site Photographs and Keyed Window Exhibit 4. Lincoln Park Historic District Survey Sheet, Letter and Photographs from the applicant, dated March 3, 2014 I:\Economic Development\Planning\Master Planning\Historical Preservation Commission\Staff Reports\C of A Major\585 McKinley Ave (COA ) - Windows.doc

34 ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT HPC RESOLUTION

35 HPC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF POMONA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MAJOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (COA ) TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF 15 WINDOWS AND A FRONT DOOR ON AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 585 E. McKINLEY AVENUE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF POMONA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the subject property is a contributing structure to the Lincoln Park Historic District, which was designated as a historic district by the Pomona City Council on May 4, 1998; WHEREAS, the applicant, Ken Everson, has submitted a Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ) to allow the retention of 15 horizontal sliding vinyl windows and a front door on a single family residence located at 585 E. McKinley Avenue; WHEREAS, replacement of original windows and doors with windows and doors that noticeably change the design of the windows and doors within a designated historic district requires the Historic Preservation Commission to approve a Major Certificate of Appropriateness prior to the issuance of building permits; WHEREAS, the residential structure at the site was constructed in the California Ranch style of architecture; WHEREAS, the proposed modifications, as conditioned, will maintain architectural features consistent with the California Ranch architectural style of the existing home; WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission must make findings as described in Section F.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to approve a Major Certificate of Appropriateness for replacement of windows and doors on a property located in a historic district; WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Pomona, has, after giving notice thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on August 6, 2014 concerning the requested Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ); and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered in the case presented at the public hearing. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pomona, California, as follows:

36 HPC Resolution No. COA E. McKinley Ave. Page 2 of 4 SECTION 1. Pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project meets the criteria for a Class 31, Section Categorical Exemption in that the project involves preservation and rehabilitation of a historic resource in a manner that meets the Secretary of Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. SECTION 2. Section F.6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the Historic Preservation Commission to make findings to approve a Major Certificate of Appropriateness. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby makes the following findings: a. The proposed change will not adversely affect any significant historical, cultural, architectural, or aesthetic features of the concerned property or the historic district in which it is located. The replacement of 15 windows and the front door, as conditioned, will not adversely affect any significant historical, cultural, architectural, or aesthetic features of the concerned property or the historic district in which it is located in that the replacement windows are conditioned to be consistent with the original steel casement windows and the front door replacement of the front door will maintain the distinctive side-facing opening and will be minimally visible from the street. b. The proposed change is compatible in architectural style with the existing adjacent contributing structures in an historic district. The proposed window and door replacements, as conditioned, are compatible in architectural style with the existing adjacent contributing structures in the Lincoln Park Historic District in that the neighboring contributing structures were built in architectural styles common to the early 20 th century and have maintain the distinctive historic architectural features of the original California Ranch architectural style and the period of construction. c. The proposed change is consistent with the architectural style of the building as specified in Section F 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed window replacements, as conditioned to utilize steel casement windows, are consistent with the architectural style of the residence as specified in Section F.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed door replacement maintains the distinctive features of the doorway, including its original doorway opening and orientation to the side yard. d. The scale, massing, proportions, materials, textures, fenestration, decorative features, and details proposed are consistent with the period and/or compatible with adjacent structures.

37 HPC Resolution No. COA E. McKinley Ave. Page 3 of 4 The proposed window replacement, as conditioned, will be consistent with the original residence and will match the historic architectural style. Steel casement windows are appropriate for the period and for the California Ranch architectural style. The door will also remain consistent with the distinctive side-facing orientation and remain consistent with the original opening. SECTION 3. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby approves the Major Certificate of Appropriateness (COA ) to replace 15 windows and the front door of a residence with the following conditions: 1. The subject property shall be developed and/or used in the manner requested and shall be in substantial conformity with the plans approved by the Historic Preservation Commission on August 6, 2014, in accordance with the revisions and/or additional conditions specifically required in this resolution of approval. 2. This approval shall lapse and become void if the privileged authorized is not utilized or where some form of construction pursuant to issuance of a building permit has not commenced within one year from the date of approval (August 6, 2015). 3. The 15 vinyl windows shall be replaced with true divided light steel casement windows consistent with the original window pane configurations. 4. Prior to obtaining permits and installing the replacement steel casement windows, the applicant shall submit the replacement window design to the Planning Manager for review and approval. 5. In the event that conditions imposed by the Historic Preservation Commission are inconsistent with provisions of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (also known as the California Building Standards Code) or any uniform construction code applicable within this jurisdiction, such conditions of the Historic Preservation Commission shall be waived in favor of such code. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and forward the original to the City Clerk. APPROVED AND PASSED THIS 6 TH DAY OF AUGUST, DEMECIO ELIAS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON

38 HPC Resolution No. COA E. McKinley Ave. Page 4 of 4 ATTEST: BRAD JOHNSON HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SECRETARY STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) CITY OF POMONA) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Pursuant to Resolution No of the City of Pomona, the time in which judicial review of this action must be sought is governed by Sec C.C.P. I:\Economic Development\Planning\Master Planning\Historical Preservation Commission\RESOLUTIONS\2014\585 E. McKinley Ave (COA ) Door, windows.doc

39 ATTACHMENT 2 VICINITY MAP AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

40 585 E. McKinley Ave. Vicinity Map

41 585 E. McKinley Ave. Aerial Photo

42 ATTACHMENT 3 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS AND KEYED WINDOW EXHIBIT

43 South (Front) Elevation , 6 3 July 2014

44 Front Elevation northeast facing views July 2014

45 West (Side) Elevation facing south 8 July 2014

46 North (Rear) Elevation 1956 Addition 9 8 July 2014

47 East (Side) Elevation facing south July 2014

48 East (Side) Elevation facing north July 2014

49 Front Door July 2014

50 Front Elevation 2007 depicting original windows September 2007

51 585 East McKinley Ave Window Exhibit Addition Front door East McKinley Avenue

52 ATTACHMENT 4 LINCOLN PARK HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY SHEET

53 585 E. McKinley Ave. Parcel No Contributing CALIFORNIA RANCH 1930 This rambling home is a fine example of the early Ranch style. that was taking over designs in the early 1930's. Showing a " rambling siyle that coverea more ground than the bungalows of the East, it used more of the lot. L-sbaped design was typical of the California ranch style. First recorded owner was Elwyn H. Welch. He was a physician.

54 ATTACHMENT 5 LETTER AND PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE APPLICANT, DATED MARCH 3, 2014

55 March 3, 2014 Capt. Ken Everson, Jr Office Mobile TO: Pomona Historic Commission RE: 585 E. McKinley Avenue, Pomona, CA Dear Commissioners: I purchased the above property last June and have attached photos of its former condition for your review. As you will see, it was a disaster-. a real eyesore for this beautiful old neighborhood. The siding and shutters were in a sorry state of disrepair, and the landscaping was non-existent- just dirt and weeds and an overgrown banana plant on the front of the house. The city parkway was also a mound of dirt and weeds, complete with a discarded couch! It was a real mess... We spent weeks just restoring the siding by sanding, applying filler, re-sanding, priming, and painting. We installed irrigation, including in the parkway after removing a truckload of dirt, planted new grass, shrubs, and flowers, replaced the light fixtures at the front walk-way and porches, fixed and re-painted the broken down picket fence, removed tons of trash and debris from the yard and house, repaired and painted shutters, repaired gates and fences on the left side of the house, etc., etc., etc. We spent a small fortune restoring the house to its former grandeur- far more than we had planned or expected to spend. The only decent things about the house when we bought it were the 'newer' windows installed several years ago. (By the way, the former owner told us that the window contractor had contacted the city before installing them.) We knew nothing about the historic commission, nor did the title report provide any reference to a commission having jurisdiction over this house. As a result, the citation from the city, apparently from an anonymous source, was a total shock to us--especially given the extent of our work to restore the property. (We were also surprised to be singled out while there are much more blatant 'eyesores' in the area, such as the house right next door that has a blue plastic tarp on the fence that has been there for years and a mountain of trash in the yard! Furthermore, there are also many, many beautiful old homes, including a bungalow style 2 doors from this home, that have vinyl windows. We trust the attached "before and after" photos will demonstrate the scope of our contribution to this historic area. We hope this information will allow the Commission to see the 'big picture' with our restoration and waive any requirements to change out windows or the existing leaded glass front door that is certainly 'historic-looking'. As an aside, before flying airplanes for Delta Air Lines, I received a BS in Urban Design- and I truly appreciate what you are trying to promote in this area. In fact, part of my attraction to this stately old house was that it deserved to have a face-lift and be restored. In fact, we spent far too much on it, and simply don't have any money left to replace one window, much less several of them. We are selling the house without a penny of profit after putting our heart and soul into making it beautiful- but at least with the satisfaction that comes with creating something beautiful and lasting. Sincerely, /dztj C: k~fon -=-- f

56

57 "BEFORE" RESTORATION PHOTOS 585E

58 "AFTER" RESTORATION PHOTOS 585E