Fft~IU~\1~ REPORT TO THE HISTORIC ~YV PRESERVATION COMMISSION

AGENDA ITEM NO. C

HPC MEETING: 02/2212016

II DRC) APPROVED BY

DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR

February 22, 2016 (Joint Meeting with Fulton-Lo~ _ ~

FROM: DAN ZACK, AICP, Assistant Direct~ Development and Resource Management Department

BY: KARANA HATIERSLEY-DRAYTON, M.A. V lf1/ Secretary V' Historic Preservation Project Manager

SUBJECT: REVIEW AND PROVIDE COMMENTS ON A PROPOSED 16-UNIT HOUSING IN-FILL PROJECT LOCATED AT 1743 AND 1745 L STREET, S-15-108 ADJACENT TO THE HELM HOME (1901), HP#112 AND THE LONG (BLACK) HOME (1907) HP#113 PURSUANT TO FMC 12-1606(a)(2) and 1606(b)(6).

RECOMMENDATION

Staff requests that the Historic Preservation Commission review and provide comments on the revised elevation drawings for the infill multifamily housing project proposed for 17 43 and 17 45 L Street. The Commission may wish to adopt a motion in support of the proposed minor revisions as forwarded to the applicant on February 12, 2016 by planning staff.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Granville Homes proposes to construct two 2-story 8-plex residential units on two adjacent parcels, the site of the former Newman Home (HP#117, c1905) and the parcel to the north. The historic Newman home burned in 2009 and was subsequently demolished. A charrette for a proposed project at this location was held with the Historic Preservation Commission on May 18, 2015. At this meeting the applicant presented plans for four separate 4-unit buildings, with two facing L Street and two at the rear of the parcel. Commission comments included concern over the lack of on-site parking, a question about the actual front yard setback (and whether it lined up with the front porches of adjacent historic properties), concern about the articulation of the dormer windows on the facades and a request for porches of at least 8-feet in depth. Public testimony included a query about the actual side yard setbacks. In response to these comments the applicant modified the initial conceptual plans and submitted plans for two 8-plex units which were presented to the Commission and public at the November 16th meeting.

Comments from staff, the Commission and the public at the November meeting included a concern that the massing of the buildings was too large, that there was a lack of a clear architectural vision and thus the materials were not appropriate to the "style," and that vinyl sash windows on this historic block were not acceptable. The lack of articulation on the patio was an additional concern. Staff from Granville proposed omitting siding altogether in favor of stucco for an early California or Spanish Revival look.

On December 21, 2015 a third set of drawings was presented to a joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and the Fulton Lowell Design Review Committee. It was the general consensus that this third elevation moved further away from a design that is historically compatible with the four designated resources on this side of L Street. Staff presented a Power

HPC Staff Report lnfill1743 L Street 2.16.16

Point with examples of Spanish Revival single family residences that included an overview of the character defining features of both Mission Revival and Spanish Revival architecture.

On January 19th Granville Homes staff submitted the attached elevation and floor plans to Preservation staff. They were ultimately submitted to the Planner assigned to the project on January 27th. The site plan was forthcoming on February 5th which completed the application packet. On January 29th Planning and Preservation staff met to review the new elevation drawings. Additional comments were provided by Assistant Director Dan Zack and these comments were sent to Granville Homes on February 12th (Exhibit C).

The design recommendations provided by staff include: • Wood windows only on the principle elevations. • Decorative molding on the columns (technically piers) on the fa~ade. • Change to the location of one of the ground floor entrances.

Pursuant to FMC 12-1606(a)(2) and 12-1606(b)(6) the Commission should evaluate whether the design and plan of the proposed residential buildings will adversely affect ''the significance of Historic Resources," specifically the four designated historic buildings on this side of L Street.

BACKGROUND

The duties and powers of the Historic Preservation Commission are detailed in the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, Fresno Municipal Code 12-1606. A primary responsibility of the Commission is ''the regulation of exterior alterations visible from a public right-of-way including demolition, relocation and new construction, and interior alterations which would affect the significance of Historic Resources or Historic Districts." Section 1606(b)(6) addresses the conduct of land use, housing, redevelopment, municipal improvement and other types of planning and programs undertaken by any agency or department of the city, county or state as they relate to designated Historic Resources.

The four designated historic homes on the west side of the street include the Mission Revival Helm Home (1901-2), the Colonial Revival Long/Black Home (1907), the restored Neoclassical Towne Apartments (1908) and the 2-story Colonial Revival Bean Home (1904). All four designated historic properties include a partial width one story porch, wood sash windows, a deep setback from the property line and some kind of dormer treatment on the fa~ade. Exterior cladding includes wood, brick and stucco, with the treatment carried out on all four elevations.

The subject parcels are currently vacant, thus the Historic Preservation Commission's comments are advisory only. No permit will be submitted to this body for approval or rejection. The exception is that the HPC is also responsible for sub-surface resources, pursuant to FMC12-1600 et seq. The Cultural Resources survey prepared by Applied Earthworks concluded that the archaeological potential for sub-surfaces resources was low for these two parcels.

Attachments: Exhibit A - Revised Site Plan and Elevation Drawings for Proposed 16 Unit lnfill Project Located at 1743-1745 L Street, Granville Homes.

Exhibit B - Minutes from December 21, 2015 Joint Meeting. Exhibit C - Letter to Claudia Cazares from Lauren Filice 12 February 2016.

!liJ1!1W!J-; ~~' lit ~U€6 V~ 'ONS3~:1

133~1S HvL~

It 1VIlN301S3~ X3ld9 ua. D ~~(;

f ,i;Jj

! ' 5> ' ~ I! ' 5> ,, j, i~ l. ii ~ ~ ~

w Iii

5 0-- - -;J_ u on on

z 0 z

~ 0 F

w ~ -' w -' ; w w 0-- w I 0

\ I ii5 0 N (j)N

0- ~ - 1- oO .. J: ~ ~;::~

I! \2 § w§ o:: .. -'"' r ..... ,. 1'- !

! ! ~

S 3 W 0 H~:::d-~~~~~-=~:: W.ii~H u~ IlJfliMID lfji,.~. 41 , .. m,~ IJ : .d

"j•"J

! ~

' ,;· i a-: ~ ~I ;,

~= ~~!

z

~ 0:: 0 0

~

~ w §

....J N Ll. .. o g ~ iii

~ZL£6 V'J 'ONS3~:1 133~1S1£l>H

1VI1N3CIS3~ X31d9

City of

!!!CDE~~~~ n=--Gi;;r~

DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

Executive Minutes: Public Hearing

A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY OF FRESNO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

AND THE FULTON-LOWELL DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

Monday, December 21, 2015 5:00pm

Conference Room "A" 2"d floor Fresno City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street

Agenda

A. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introduction of Commission and Committee Members, Patrick Boyd, Chair HPC

The meeting was called to order at 5:02 pm by Patrick Boyd, Chair of the HPC.

Commissioners Present: Patrick Boyd, Jason Hatwig, Kristina Roper, Don Simmons Ph. D.

Fulton-Lowell Committee Members Present: Chair Becky Foore-Hayden, Steve Skibbie, Rosalyn Clark and James Quinn.

Staff Present: Karana Hattersley-Drayton, Daniel Zack, Casey Lauderdale, Will Tackett and Director Jennifer Clark.

Absent Commission and Committee Members: Robin Goldbeck and Paul Halajian (HPC), Stacy Ruble (Fulton-Lowell).

Karana Hattersley-Drayton (Historic Preservation Project Manager) noted that this is the first time since 2006 that the two review groups have met in a joint session. She mentioned the fact that there are different rules governing each body. The By-laws for the Historic Preservation Commission require that staff prepare a report and provide a recommendation whereas staff for the Fulton Lowell Design Review Committee is advisory only and does not prepare a report prior to the meeting.

Executive Minutes, Joint Meeting HPC and Fulton-Lowell December 21, 2015

B. Approval of Agenda

C. Review and Provide Comments on a Proposed 16-Unit Housing In-fill Project Located at 1743 and 1745 L Street, S-15-108, Adjacent to the Helm Home {1901 ), HP#112 and the Long {Black) Home {1907) HP#113 Pursuant to FMC 12-1606{a){2), 1606{b){6) and to the Administrative Provisions of Section 1 0.0 of the Fulton Lowell Specific Plan {Fulton Lowell Design Guidelines).

Karana Hattersley-Drayton gave a Power Point presentation of the proposed project. She reviewed the HPC duties and powers as well as those of the Fulton-Lowell Design guidelines. She noted comments made by the HPC at the May 18th charrette as well as comments on the revised design presented to the HPC (and also to the Fulton-Lowell) on November ufh. The PP included history and stylistic information about adjacent and nearby designated historic properties on L Street and she outlined the character-defining features particularly of Mission Revival and Spanish Revival architecture. She noted that it is the staff opinion that the elevation drawings submitted tonight are not appropriate for this historic block.

Becky Foore-Hayden: The committee just received their packets today. The design is different than what they commented on previously. She agrees with City staff that this design is going backwards, not forward.

Darius Assemi and Claudia Cazares (Granville Homes): Claudia reviewed the timeline of the project and revisions which they made based on feedback. The site plan has not changed; it is still two 8-plexes on 2 parcels. The proposed buildings have a 20-foot setback. They have added windows that can be viewed from the alley as well as trim around all windows. They understood from the last HPC review that the design should have a style and matching fa9ade. They spoke with the consultants from the Lede Project [infill on the Met Museum block] and created a similar design which leans more towards Spanish Revival. She notes that Paul Halajian designed the Lede in a Spanish Revival style. Granville added the tile roof and parapets to match.

Darius Assemi: Feedback from the first charrette was to have larger massing, so they combined the buildings [from the first design, thus 4, 4-plexes to 2 8-plexes]. Comments from the last meeting were that the buildings needed to have a style so we consulted with our Lede architect to create a design for this project. He shows a drawing and notes that it does not include proposed landscaping. Thus the features do not "pop" in this picture but it is in the style of the Lede Project.

Karana Hattersley-Drayton: For the record, in May there was no discussion about the massing not being right. The only concern was the setbacks so that combined massing [at the November meeting] was a surprise. I understand from the comments in the November minutes that Granville wanted larger interior spaces and thus why buildings were combined.

Assemi: The comment was made at the DRC meeting. We believe the massing looks better; 2 I Page

Executive Minutes, Joint Meeting HPC and Fulton-Lowell December 21, 2015

having it bigger and wider makes it more attractive. We looked at the possibility of having arched openings on the ground floor but the architect thought this looked cleaner. You see something of this caliber on Calaveras and Fulton.

Jason Hatwig: I don't know if this embraces what we were thinking when we were comparing the design to the style next door [Helm Home which is Mission Revival with stucco exterior]. The only similarities I see are the stucco and roof, but everything else is modern and doesn't fit. Karana showed great examples [in the PowerPoint] from around town that are great to draw from. These drawings as presented are very symmetrical, rather than asymmetrical as with Spanish Revival. These drawings are missing all the components that are found in Spanish (or Mission) architecture. If you can draw from some of these examples that are less modern, you will be headed in the right direction.

Foore-Hayden: We asked for a couple of things before. She is concerned that the rear elevations, which will be seen from Van Ness, have more architectural detail. When /look at this design I do not see Spanish Revival except for the tile roof. From the street view it sticks out like a sore thumb. It looks like a 1960s apartment building. Sometimes with regards to cost you have to give more for the area: this area [historic neighborhood] is completely different. A higher cost may be the cost of doing business on this street, or at least on this side of the street.

Assemi: This project costs about 15-20% more than what is across the street [at Crichton Place], due to the balcony and parapets. Having a balcony face an alley is not desirable.

Foore-Hayden: Recommends making the back more attractive. We don't know what will be constructed on Van Ness for years and folks until then will look at a flat wall.

Assemi: Counters that it won't be a flat wall, there will be windows but we can work on the articulation. If we change the massing on the front it could have a comp roof.

Foore-Hayden: Are you asking to NOT have a tile roof?

Assemi: It could be comp [composition shingles] or tile.

Steve Skibbie: I see the use of materials that are in nearby buildings but I don't see any of the accents. It's definitely not Spanish style. If you have Moorish crosses then you are leaning in the right direction. I appreciate the trim around the windows in the back but these buildings do NOT have a style, as presented.

Assemi: The challenge is that these are individual units and there will be many doors.

James Quinn: You don't have to have the doors facing the street; you can design to have them inside.

Skibbie: Single door entry to the front or into a courtyard.

Assemi: [He looks for examples on line].

3 I P age

Executive Minutes, Joint Meeting HPC and Fulton-Lowell December 21, 2015

Don Simmons: Notes that the railings on the proposed drawings are not decorative, they are protective.

Assemi: Feels it would be difficult to have a central door.

Daniel Zack: Mentions that 801 E. Home is an example of how to access units.

Skibbie: Is it just a concern for density for not having the door on the inside?

Assemi: It also affects the design.

Foore-Hayden: Look at the detail on it, the sum of the pieces.

Hattersley-Drayton: Observes that there is no way in today's market that we can reproduce the quality of materials in these older buildings. But the point is that this is an important street and the context must be upheld.

Assemi: He goggles another home in the Tower on N. Wishon and comments that the front of their design is similar in that it has a porch and a balcony all the way across the fa9ade.

Hattersley-Drayton: This home [pictured below} is an example of Monterey Revival and is quite different in plan and style from what you have presented:

1361-3 N. Wishon

Patrick Boyd: What makes this house interesting is the combination of the elements. In what you have given us there are maybe three of these features, but there are still eight missing.

Foore-Hayden: Comments that she wishes they had the elevations for the plans that were previously presented to the Committee. We could then see if we could come up with a change in the roofline and dormers on that. This new design looks like the Red Roof Inn. She would rather deal with the former design.

4 I Page

Executive Minutes, Joint Meeting HPC and Fulton-Lowell December 21, 2015

Quinn: The issues are coming up because of the plan [which as submitted is linear]. It's flat, regimented. Maybe there is something that can be done with the way the units are arranged to add more interest to them.

Foore-Hayden: How do the heights compare between the two designs?

Assemi: The former is two or three feet taller. It's three feet higher.

Foore-Hayden: The height of the former [November design] is much better than this ... it has more detail.

Skibbie: I agree with James Quinn: the regimentation is what gives it a motel feel.

Assemi: The challenge is to provide a balcony in front for all units.

Boyd: Wonders if all units have to have a balcony? We have a street dominant fa9ade and the challenge of getting four sides of interest will be tough to do with the Jot layout you currently have.

Assemi: Asks how quickly they can return with a revised set of drawings.

Hattersley-Drayton: The Commission's next meeting is January 2Sh.

Foore-Hayden: Are you more opposed to working with the new or the former design?

Hattersley-Drayton: Or the first design [which incidentally was more or Jess in the Craftsman tradition].

Foore-Hayden: Which we did not see. Which would we like Granville staff to work on?

Hatwig: Comments that he is flexible.

Boyd: What is the apprehension of having an interior hallway?

Assemi: They have these in the Iron Bird lofts but the tenants do not like them as they can pose a security problem.

Simmons: Comments on Cutting Flats [4-p/exes located at the 2-16 N. San Pablo]. These buildings have front and rear entryways which are also ADA accessible.

Cazares: Those buildings are on the property line but we must include setbacks.

Assemi: Does the setback have to line up with the other [adjacent] buildings?

Various commissioners/committee members: Yes!

Assemi: Then we cannot achieve that look.

5 I Page

Executive Minutes, Joint Meeting HPC and Fulton-Lowell December 21, 2015

Rosalyn Clark: We had a couple of other items that we [Fulton-Lowell] asked for; six off-street parking spaces are inadequate.

Foore-Hayden: If you are going to have siding, it needs to wrap all four sides.

Hattersley-Drayton: Asks whether the two groups would like to meet again. She suggests the possibility of having a fieldtrip, perhaps with Granville staff, to view multi-family complexes in the Tower District whre numerous courtyard [and other] units were built immediately following World War II. Keep in mind, however that it is not your role to design this project.

Foore-Hayden: She finds that it is useful to hear the comments from the HPC on historic issues such as this.

Hatwig: Agrees, the two groups should meet more often.

Commission Chair Patrick Boyd opened the issue up to public comment. There were no members of the public wishing to speak and the agenda item was closed.

D. Adjournment of Joint Meeting

Chair Boyd adjourned the joint meeting at 6:05PM.

Design #3 as submitted for 1743 L Street (Granville Homes)

....

6 I Page

Development and Resource Management Department

2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor, Room 3065 Fresno, California 93721-3604 (559) 621-8003, FAX (559) 498-1012

February 12, 2016

Claudia Cazares Granville Homes ccazares@qvhomes.com

Jennifer K. Clark, AICP - Director

Please Replv to: Lauren Filice, Planner Ill (559) 621-8070 Lauren. Fillce@fresno.gov

SUBJECT: Site Plan Review Application No. S-15-108 for Property Located at 1743-45 L Street, APN's 466-132-02 and 03

The recently submitted elevation sheets for this project (attached) were reviewed by staff. The following comments and/or recommendations have been prepared based on that review:

Historic Resource Compatibility-

The elevation sheet submitted on January 27, 2016, and Site Plan submitted on February 5, 2016, were reviewed by Development Department staff and the following recommendations were made:

• Only wood windows (not vinyl) should be used on primary elevations. • Add decorative projecting capital molding to columns that are complimentary to

the column moldings on the Helm Home. • The adjacent historic resources were originally built as single family homes and

still maintain that appearance. In order to more closely match that character, some entrances should be less visibly prominent. In particular, the ground floor entrance which is the second from the right should be relocated in a manner that is similar to the corresponding unit on the second floor, so that it is perpendicular to the street and less visible. This would allow the street-facing wall for that unit to be pushed out to align with wall above. A third window should replace the door to match the window arrangement of the unit above.

Staff verified the setbacks on adjacent buildings as follows: (measured on i-view) 1755 L St- 20 feet to wall, 18 feet to stoop 1727 L. St. - 33 feet to wall, 27 feet to porch, 20 feet to stoop Using the site plan submitted on February 5, 2016 it appears that front setbacks are at 20 feet, measured from back of curb to the foremost front wall. This distance is at the minimum setback at adjacent historic buildings and acceptable for the proposed project.

Alley Parking and Trash Enclosures -

Planning Comments dated December 11, 2015, included parking requirements for the C-4 zone district and identify that 1 square foot of parking for each 4 square feet of gross floor area is required. Parking for the project site was calculated at 10,400 square feet of floor area and included stairwell areas (10,400 sf/4 = 2,600/370 = 8) thus at 370 square feet per parking stall 8 on-site parking spaces were required for the proposed project. However, staff finds that some flexibility exists in determining area and if calculated without stairwell areas (9,800 sf/4 = 2,400/370 = 6.62 or 7), the 7 parking spaces shown on the site plan dated February 5, 2016 are sufficient to meet FMC requirements.

Thank You, . .--:/ 9=7: / ~ C ---~UA.L-~-7 ~:c..~.c_e.

Lauren Filice, Planner Ill Development & Resource Management Department Development Services Division

Attachments: Site Plan dated 2/5/16, Elevations and Floor Plan dated 2/27/16 Planning Comments dated 12/11/16