August 15, 2001
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB)
FINAL ACTION MINUTES
OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
CITY HALL
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 400
AUGUST 15, 2001
12:45 P.M. ROLL CALL
FOR FULL BOARD CONSIDERATION
MEMBERS PRESENT: FINWALL, HO-BELLI, KELLEY, KOTAS, REIDY and SKRONDAL
MEMBERS ABSENT: DEARMAN, MAGRANE and SHATARA
PUBLIC COMMENT
Charles Chase re: Historic Homeownership Assistance Act
President Kelley asked Staff to agendize for the next meeting, a resolution that supports the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act.
REPORTS
1. DEPARTMENT REPORT
Elizabeth Gordon
Preservation Coordinator:
i Thanked Allison Borden, Planner, for her hard, dedicated work with the Planning Department/Preservation Technical Staff, who is leaving the Department.
2 STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
See Department Report above.
Tape No(s).: 1a
3. PRESIDENT’S REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
President Kelley:
i Ethics Commission – After talking with the City Attorney's Office and the District Attorney's Office, all concurred in a finding that because the Landmarks Board is an advisory body, members are free to contract with the City for services.
i He responded to a news article in the Chronicle regarding action taken by the Landmarks Board regarding the New Mission Theater.
4. MATTERS OF THE BOARD
Board Member
Reidy:
i Acknowledged and appreciated the President's leadership on responding to the Chronicle article.
Tape No(s).: 1a
REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS
n Request for Determination
5. (KOMETANI: 558-6478)
606 FOLSOM STREET, The Planters Hotel, northwest corner at Second Street. Assessor's Block 3735, Lot 8. A four-story wood building built in 1906-07. The subject property is in the Yerba Buena Redevelopment Area, is zoned C-3-S (Downtown Support) District and in a 320-I Height and Bulk District. Request, pursuant to the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Plan, for a determination that the completed rehabilitation work conforms with the standards of Planning Code Section 1111.6.
Preliminary Recommendation: Determine that the completed work conforms with Planning Code 1111.6
Speaker(s): Charles Chase
Connie Wolf
Ron Kaufman
Board Comments
and Actions:
i Member Reidy moved (seconded by Ho-Belli) for approval in the recommendation in the Staff Report, based on the three draft findings (recommended that when the resolution is written, it should be made clear that references to the criteria are to that section of the Planning Code). The vote was unanimous (Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Kotas, Reidy and Skrondal; absent: Dearman, Magrane and Shatara).
Tape No(s).: 1a
n Certificates of Appropriateness
6. 2001.0767A (KOMETANI: 558-6478)
1020-1024 KEARNY STREET, east side between Broadway and Pacific Avenue. Assessor's Block 163, Lot 13. A two-story commercial building built in 1907. The subject property is a Potentially Compatible building in the Jackson Square Historic District, is zoned C-2 (Community Business) District and is in a 65-A Height and Bulk District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for façade repairs, new windows and new entrances.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Item was continued.
7. 2001.0732A (BORDEN: 558-6321)
MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR DRIVE, Murphy Windmill and Millwright's Cottage, Landmark No. 210, west end of Golden Gate Park, north side between John F. Kennedy Drive and the Great Highway, a portion of Assessor's Block 1700, Lot 001. The subject property is zoned P (Public) District and is in an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness to disassemble and then restore the Murphy Windmill to working condition for creation of an interpretive center and to modify the landing at the main entry to the Millwright's Cottage to provide an accessible entrance. The interior of the Millwright's Cottage will be converted into an educational museum of wind power.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker(s): Sheila Kolens
Cindy Stervy
Charles Chase
Action: Member Finwall moved (seconded by Skrondal) to approve subject to making sure the materials at the ramp be compatible with the materials at the stair today, including the cap detail at the rail for the Millwright's Cottage. Regarding the Windmill, that the redesign of the stairs be limited to, or at least the consideration be given to the State Historic Building Codes in terms of what the rebuilding of the stairs would be, and that the detail of that be brought back before. Also, document the replacement parts as they go in.
Ayes: Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Kotas, Reidy and Skrondal
Noes: None
Absent: Dearman, Magrane and Shatara
Tape No(s).: 1a
n Informational Presentation
8. (TAM: 558-6325)
3224 MARKET STREET, The Miller-Joost House, Landmark No. 79, north side between Clayton Street and Corbett Avenue. Assessor's Block 2704, Lot 40. A one-story, freestanding, wood frame structure built approximately in 1867. Informational presentation for comments on a proposal to demolish the existing one-story guest cottage and construct a new two- and five-story apartment building for up to six dwelling units on the property.
Speaker(s): Charles Chase
David Cincotta
Jay Turnbull
Carolyn Kolston
Board
Comments:
i Commented that the proposed plan is a tantalizing concept that is thoughtfully worked out with real promise. He asked if they plan to reuse the existing garage as the entrance to the new parking? Asked if the garage structure was historic in any way?
i Commented that the forms of the original house, that takes the two main parts of the house and then seem to setback in the center of it, the major window and the pitch roof is almost contemporary in its field – it appears that the project sponsor is thinking that this might be a form they might play with in the façade of the new building.
i Asked if they would incorporate the 19th Street right-of-way, would they be considering that that would be an expansion of the four-story element out toward that side? Have they considered the possibility of even a smaller rear yard, possibly moving the whole structure further back into the hill and/or taking the various floors of the four-story building and maybe stepping them back, or maybe stepping part of it back, or maybe just the top floor back? Perhaps pushing it back onto the hill would better serve the historic building and would not particularly impact what's around it.
i Suggested that if there was any way that street right-of-way might be acquired, since it's not really serving as a street at all – that if this would let the proposed building move sideways rather than back, it would get further away from the main public right-of-way.
i Asked if the property bound up to Clayton Street? Asked if the property extended to the next street?
i Commented that there is a problem with a landmark property that has available open space being used as a development site. There seems to be an effort to use the land to intensify development to generate income, which is a door a member of the Board would rather not embrace. Depending on the topography, an expansion of the existing property in the rear would be more acceptable, but would have to be secondary in size, scale and scope to the main building.
i Because the landmark building is not very big, the idea of a four-story apartment building fronting on Market would be overwhelming, and would change the whole perception of the property
i It was suggested that site B should be preserved as open space.
i It's suggested that the project sponsors come up with a design that moves the development area completely away from the landmark building.
i Questioned the need for six apartments, when it looks as if four apartment would work – two stories as opposed to four stories.
Tape No(s).: 1a & b
9. 2000.0383X (LIGHT: 558-6254)
72 ELLIS STREET, north side between Powell and Stockton Streets. Assessor's Block 327, Lot 11. Informational presentation for comments on a proposal to construct a 12-story hotel on an existing surface parking lot located in the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District.
Speaker(s): Michael Gabellini
Board
Comments:
i Thanked the project sponsor for a wonderful presentation.
i Asked if the glazing is a mixture of transparent and translucent?
i Asked where the balconies appear on the plans?
i Is the infill material recessed from both building? Asked if the primary entrance is on the east end of the hotel? Will it have a separate canopy?
i There was a dislike for the open top story at the street. Would like to see the open spaces step back from the street; see a more solid wall.
i Commented that the new building will be a possible addition to the district; it's not overwhelming or under whelming anything. Think that the hotel use is a good mix for the area.
i Commented that the proposal is compatible with the district. Commented that there is value to rooftop open space.
i Expressed that the project seems cold; would like to see a warmer look, more friendly.
Tape No(s).: 1b & 2a
ADJOURNMENT: 3:35 P.M.
Adopted: October 3, 2001
N:\LPAB\MINUTES\\AUG15FIN.MIN
