Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-01; City Council; 11373; Approving Relocation of Historic Landmark. . CITYOF CARLSBAD - AGENDPBILL APPROVING RELOCATION OF HISTORIC CONDITIONS FOR MS 850 RECOMMENDED ACTION: If Council concurs, your action is to adopt Resolution No. 9/ -Jag approving relocation of the Historic Landmark, Ramsay House to lot four as part of Minor Subdivision 850 and approving conditions to be included as part of the MS. ITEM EXPLANATION On September 6, 1988, the City Council approved Resolution No. 88-314 designating the Ramsay House as a Historic Landmark. Ramsay House, now vacant, was at one time the private residence of the late Betty Ramsay. The House was designed and constructed in approximately 1904 under the direction of Ms. Ramsay’s grandmother, Edith Mary Shaw. The House is currently owned by John Childers and Thomas Painter. Chapter 22.08 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code states that any modification to historic landmarks, except those associated with ordinary maintenance and repair which does not materially alter or change the site, must be approved by the Clty Council and issued the appropriate permit(s) prior to performing such work. The property owners presented plans for the relocation of the Ramsay House to the Historic Preservation Commission at their meeting on September 9, 1991. Seven different plans were presented to the Commission showing alternatives ranging from leaving the House as it currently is to relocating the House in order to develop a four lot subdivision. Based on evidence presented, the Commission recommends that City Council approve the property owners request to relocate the Ramsay House to lot 4 (corner of Chuparosa Way and Las Flores Drive) as part of MS 850. In addition, the Commission recommended that the following conditions be placed on MS 850: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Developer will keep grading to a minimum, if materials are found dating to the early 1900’s they will be curated. Developer will preserve all trees on lot four (one 30 inch palm tree will relocated). Garage access to the property will be from the cul-de-sac on Chuparosa Way. The proposed garage design will be compatible with the style of the Ramsay House. Landscaping around the House will be replaced in similar style to the original gardens. Page Two of Agenda Bill No. // 3 ? 3 6. Lot four (as created by MS850) will be increased in order that the House and garage meet all setbacks (approximately 8-10 percent). Staff supports the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission. The developers are in agreement with the Commission’s recommendation. FISCAL IMPACT This is a private development project (residential) with no direct fiscal impact to the City, other than staff time. EXHIBITS 1. Resolution No. 91 -3 x@ 2. Location Map/Proposed Minor Subdivision Plan 3. Staff Report to Historic Preservation Commission dated September 9, 1991 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 91-328 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING RELOCATION OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK, RAMSAY HOUSE AND APPROVING CONDITIONS TO BE PLACED ON MINOR SUBDIVISION 850. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, did on September 6, 1988, designate Ramsay House a Historic Landmark, subject to the provisions of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the current owners/developers are proposing subdivision of the 1.46 acre property to form four contiguous parcels, and WHEREAS, the owners have requested that as part of the subdivision, they be permitted to relocate the Ramsay House from its present location to lot four as created by MS 850; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission did at their meeting on September 9, 1991 review this request and recommends that the Council approve relocation of the House and that conditions be placed on MS 850; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad. as follows: 1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City Council hereby approves relocating the Historic Landmark, Ramsay House to lot four as part of MS 850. 3. That the City Council hereby approves placing conditions on MS 850 as follows: a. * Developer will keep grading to a minimum, if materials are found dating to the early 1900’s, they will be curated. b. Developer will preserve all trees on lot four (one 30 inch palm will be relocated). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. d. e. f. Garage access to the property will be from the cul-de-sac on Chuparosa Way. The proposed garage design will be compatible with the style of the Ramsay House. Developer will work with staff to assure that the House will be compatible with the neighborhood after relocation by installing fencing, landscaping or other screening materials. Lot four (as created by MS 850) will be increased in order that the House and garage meet all setbacks (approximately 8-10 percent). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a duly noticed, public hearing of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st October day of ,1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis and Stanton NOES: Council Member Nygaard ABSENT: Council Member Kulchin ABSTAIN: Council Member Larson ATTEST: (SEAL) 2. STUDY #5 ---------%I I ‘ROJECT NAME RAMSAY HOUSE PROJECT EXHIBIT NUMBER MS 850 2 W aY: SCOTT EVANS, CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPT. B/l /Ql September 9, 1991 _- EXHIBIT 3 TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FROM; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RAMSAY HOUSE/MS850/CHILDERS At your meeting of July 18, 1991, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended to City Council that the historic landmark, Ramsay House, not be relocated as part of Minor Subdivision (MS) 850. The applicant had not addressed the Commission's request for information that would show justification of the necessity to relocate the House in order to develop the property. This recommendation was being processed for Council consideration, however, the applicant's representative has requested that the Commission consider various proposals for development of a minor subdivision of the Ramsay House property. The applicant, through their agent, Brian Smith Engineering, has submitted seven different plans (Study 1 through 7) for developing the property. The applicant is not planning to construct additional homes as part of this request so no architectural plans have been submitted for consideration. Section 22.08.030 of the Municipal Code states that "in the case of construction of a new improvement, building or structure upon an historical site, that the exterior of such improvements will not adversely affect and will be compatible with the external appearance of existing designated improvements, buildings and structures in said site". Staff's recommendation would be for the Commission to recommend that any lots created as part of MS 850 have notices recorded that require review by the Planning Department and Historic Preservation Commission for any houses, accessory structures or future accessory structures for architectural compatibility with the Ramsay House prior to issuance of building permits. The proposed garage for the Ramsay House could also be subject to this condition. While the prefered choice from a preservation stance would be to leave the House on its present site without development (Study 6), the Commission must consider if the applicant has presented clear and convincing evidence of facts demonstrating that disapproval of relocation is an immediate and substantial hardship because of conditions peculiar to the applicant or to the particular improvement, building, structure or other feature involved. The applicant states financial hardship but has not submitted any information to substantiate this. However, staff and the Commission are aware of the original cost of the property through probate of $600,000 and local economic conditions. The Commission needs to weigh this knowledge with the need to work with the applicant to develop an amicable solution that will preserve the historic landmark as close to original as possible while providing the applicant incentative to maintain the property. Section 22.08.040 of the Code charges property owners with keeping historic landmarks in good repair. Section 22.10.030 provides that the Commission shall review any action of damage or destruction to the landmark and recommend restitution commensurate with damage inflicted, specifically assessing the cultural, as well as economic value of the resource destroyed. At a previous meeting with the property owner, the Commission requested and the owner agreed to restore the gardens around the House. No plans or information has been submitted for review showing restoration of the gardens. The applicant may present specific information at the Commission meeting. Study 7 proposes a three lot subdivision leaving the House on its original location. This would require access for lot 2, the Ramsay House, and lot 3 from Las Flores Drive. Staff does not support access from Las Flores Drive. The applicant has stated that it would be a financial hardship to develop only a three lot subdivision. The applicant has presented two proposals showing that the property can be developed with a four lot subdivision keeping the House in its original location. As presented, Study 1 does not meet the City of Carlsbad Subdivision requirements of minimum 33 feet of street frontage at the right of way line. The panhandle for lot 2 cannot be used as access for lot 1. Moving the panhandle access 13 feet to the south (towards Las Flores), could provide the needed access. The plan shows the Ramsay House taking access from Las Flores Drive. Staff prefers that access to a minor subdivision in this area be from a cul-de-sac rather than from Las Flores. By increasing the panhandle to 30 feet, access to the House could be taken from the front as is currently done. Study 2 also creates a four lot subdivision with the House remaining at its original location. This plan shows creation of only one panhandle lot with access to Las Flores. Lots 3 and 4 do not meet the required 33 feet of street frontage. Lot 3 access could be from Las Flores, giving lot 1 the required 33 feet; however, staff would prefer no access from Las Flores. Study 3 proposes creating four lots. Staff does not support this design because of access being proposed from Las Flores Drive and a minimum 33 feet street access is required for lot 1. Study 4 proposes relocating the House to lot 2, the rear of the minor subdivision. This proposal makes the House less visable and accessible to public view. If the Commission recommends relocation of the House, staff could support Study 5. Staff believes that Study 5 is the best plan which gives access from the cul-de-sac rather than Las Flores. By angling the House to the corner of Las Flores Drive and Chuparosa way I moving the garage to the north east portion of the lot and moving the lot line to the east, no variances would be required. All lots would meet City codes for a minor subdivision and the Ramsay House would meet all set back requirements. The House is situated in a more visable location for public view. If the Commission recommends relocating the House, you may wish to condition the Planning Condition Determination (House Move Request) that the the Historic Preservation Commission 'review and approve the contract for the move in order to assure a that a reputable, bonded house mover experienced in moving historic structures is retained. The Commission may also consider recommending that an old fashioned flower garden be restored around the House similar to the original. Staff could support the minor subdivision without restoration of the gardens since the original landmark designation did not specifically state that the gardens were to be considered as part of the landmark. The old fashioned garden was mentioned as covering most of the property as were the large Torrey Pine, the palm trees and the eucalyptus which were planted by Ms. Ramsay's parents and grandparents. The Commission may condition the project that the applicant investigate relocating the existing trees to the Ramsay House lot or at a minimum keeping the trees were they are, especially the three 30 inch plus diameter palm trees. Section 22.08.050 of the Code requires that repairs, alterations, reconstructions, restorations or changes in use be made under the Historic Building Code. Once relocated, the House losses some of its historic significance and may not qualify for the Historic Building Code. This could require that alterations such as plumbing, electrical work and roofing would have to meet current building code standards. The Commission needs to discuss the applicants proposals for the Minor Subdivision and request to relocate the Ramsay House. The Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to City Council. PAC: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RELOCATION OF HISTORIC LANDMARK RAMSAY HOUSE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm Avenue), Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, October 1, 1991, to consider the relocation of the Historic Landmark, Ramsay House to lot four of a proposed Minor Subdivision No. 850, on property located at the corner of Chuparosa Way and Las Flores Drive. APPLICANT: John Childers CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL LOCATION MAP STUDY #5 LAS FLORES DRIVE ‘ROJECT NAME RAMSAY HOUSE PROJECT EXHIBIT NUMBER MS 850 2 . . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notices to: CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Administrative Offices J h. 801 Pine Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 BRIAN SMITH ENGINEERS, INC. Skip Hammann 2656 State Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 STEVE GROW, ESQ. 81 Center Street Provo, UT 84606 JOHN CHILDERS 1028 Diamond Street L' Southlake, TX 76092 THOMAS PAINTER 12690 Aida Street .I San Diego, CA 92130 TO: (Form A) CITY CLERK’S OFFICE FROM: 75l!L2Lb us . RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice for a public hearing before the City Council. Please notice the item for the council meeting of . Thank you. g-/3&9/ Date . . . . . .