Commissioners request reviews of more city documents in the future
Benicia Historic Preservation Review Commission appeared determined Thursday to clarify the city’s documents that deal with with buildings in its historic districts.
For the past two meetings, including Thursday’s, the panel has picked apart the Downtown Historic Conservation Plan in hopes of making it easier for the average citizen to understand, particularly those who own historic buildings, or those who may be considering purchasing one.
At the June 26 meeting, Commissioners said the plan was “wishy-washy,” and should be clear on what is and is not expected. On the other hand, it should be flexible enough to accommodate architects working on projects in the area.
It shouldn’t conflict with the city’s own Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan or the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation.
But the existing differences make it difficult for someone to get information from the conservation plan or understand what he or she is allowed to do, the panel told city staff last month. Readers shouldn’t have to flip back and forth to cover all the aspects of a particular topic, and once they’re done, they should have a clear understanding of what is allowed, and what is not.
It should make some reference to the city’s Mills Act program which contracts with owners of buildings with historical significance to trade a portion of property taxes for agreements to rehabilitate and maintain the properties in appropriate condition. The difference in what is a landmark and what is a contributing building should be made clearer, the panel said, and other terms should be explained in a glossary.
Commissioner Steve McKee was absent from Thursday’s meeting, but wrote city staff that as a professional architect, he uses such documents, not only in Benicia, but from other cities. He wrote that he had examined samples from other cities that city employees had provided the Commission.
He wrote that they all seem “far too heavy with text to be a planning document useful to the public. Up till now, I have always been a ‘user’ of these documents and have always dreaded such verbose tomes as these.”
McKee said the city’s historic conservation plan for its downtown district should state key points about the requirements — zoning rules, design review triggers and fee levels among them.
The information could be presented in charts that would refer readers to sections that have more detailed information.
The plan should explain what goes into good design, he wrote. “Word this statement in such a way that it will allow us to override bad DMUMP rules,” he wrote, referring to the Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan.
He recommended such verbiage as “Additions that are confined to the rear of the house (and do not protrude further sideways than the existing walls of the house) are often found to be more acceptable to HPRC design reviewers than designs that are visible from the front of the house,” explaining, “This is exactly the sort of advice I would give a client who asked.”
Other Commissioners liked portions of some of the other plans, particularly those that relied on illustrations to make certain points clear.
“I do think there are quite a few good guides out there,” Commissioner Maggie Trumbly said. She particularly recommended another look at Sausalito’s plan.
Commissioner Toni Haughey said the plan should encourage replacing non-historic materials. “What we want are original materials,” she said. Vinyl or aluminum framed windows should be replaced with wood, although the city’s rules actually encourage replacement with materials similar to the ones used previously, she said.
Associate Planner Suzanne Thorsen said the panel’s comments will be used to document why the city deserves a grant to underwrite a revision of the plan. Currently there’s no money in Benicia’s budget for such work, she explained previously.
For the same reason, Thorsen also compiled the Commissioners’ comments from the previous meeting on how the conservation plan should relate to the city’s Historic Context document. “Suzanne nailed it,” Trumbly said, and the rest of the panel concurred.
But the Commission didn’t stop there. At future meetings, it decided, the panel will consider whether to recommend having a few of their number available to meet with applicants to answer questions and provide suggestions, just as a panel of three advise applicants in Vallejo.
Commissioner Jon Van Landschoot described how the neighboring city helps applicants answer the simple question, “What can I do?”
Haughey supported Van Landschoot, saying that while Vallejo doesn’t have a conservation plan, it handles such matters effectively.
Chairperson Luis Delgado asked for a discussion of what additional matters could be decided at staff level rather than presented to the Commission.
He referred to one of the the items the Commission approved by single vote on its consent agenda.
The Commission approved a request by Loralee Campbell to build an 8 foot by 20 foot carport at 180 East G St., which isn’t a contributor to the downtown historic district.
It also approved the modification of an existing detached garage at 117 West I St., which has a contributing home, although the garage was built in 1991.
Peggy Houseman asked to change the three-car garage to turn one of its bays into a work room with a residential door and a window.
Because neither the advisory group nor the expansion of items that could be approved on the staff level were on the Commission’s agenda, those matters will be studied by staff and presented to the panel for formal consideration.
Commissioner Trumbly was chosen the panels representative to the Benicia Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan Stakeholder Group, authorized July 1 by the City Council.
“It’s right up my alley,” Trumbly said.
Leave a Reply