Agenda Item Na.._-5uLL. P.0. Box 52124 Pacific Grove, Calif. 93950 February 17, 1995 The City Council Pacific Grove. Calif. 93950 RE: Removal of 135 16th Street fran the Historical Inventory To the Mayor and Members of the City council: I am a little confused and more than a little concerned by Mr. Zito's request for review of thi Planning Director's action on my house at 135 16th Street. The reason for having 135 removed from the Inventory is very simple. The house standing there is not the one which was standing there in 1927. A cursory look at the Sanborn maps shows conclusively that the front, back and sides have undergone complete changes. When a 'builder moves the front of a building forward, as 135's has been, he does not move the existing front forward and then fill in the gap like making a stretch limousine. He demolishes the old and builds anew. The same is true for all the other sides. Thus, the existing house is not the original house inflated like a wooden balloon, but rather a different house, rebuilt many times since the original tent was thrown over 2x3 poles. Mr. Zito neglects to ask the most irreortant question: should the house at 135 be listed on thi Historical Inventory? If the answer is "Yes," then the rest of the Historical Ordinance applies. But if the answer is "No," then nothing applies. If the house deserves listing on the Inventory, and if I apply for a demolition, then all the items in Section 23.76.090 should be considered before granting demolition. However, this is no application for demolitian, but rather an attempt to correct an error in the City's records. All other considerations are secondary to the basic one that the house dates fram after 1927. Whether a new house is cute and fits the neighborhood shows that the designer has done a good job. Inclusion on the Inventory is not even a consideration because the Inventory is a listing of historical resources, not an architictural :tarre of approval. If a citizen is concerned about what may or may not be built at 135 16th Street, assuming the existing house is ever demolished. th, appropriate time for that is before the ARB and Planning Calmission. not the City Comicil. By definition 135 should not be on the Inventory since the requirements for inclusion on the list are fairly strict. In a note dated 4/21/93, Mr. Weiland states that these are two: 1. that the house was built before 1927, and 2. that the existing house retains the style of the original . On both counts, the existing house fails. First, it waa built long after 1927. and everyone--including thi Heritage Society--agrees on this. The Society'$ spokesman, Mr. Weiland states as much in his letter of January 5, 1995. when he writes: "Although the house still retains the character of a cottage on 16th Streit and fits in very well with the existing structures, it is not the 'same' house." I would like to thank Mr. Weiland for the campliment, and to assure Mr. Zito that the existing house was designed and built by my wife and m, and finished in 1981. Second. the original house was a tint, which the existing house is obviously not. Why then, the reviow? Mr. Zito seems to feel that despite the house's £0'd TOO'ON SO:ZI 56'I JPW £986-§22-801' ON 131 1 I PH 61-3 3A039 JIHIJWd , OCR Text: Agenda Item Na.._-5uLL. P.0. Box 52124 Pacific Grove, Calif. 93950 February 17, 1995 The City Council Pacific Grove. Calif. 93950 RE: Removal of 135 16th Street fran the Historical Inventory To the Mayor and Members of the City council: I am a little confused and more than a little concerned by Mr. Zito's request for review of thi Planning Director's action on my house at 135 16th Street. The reason for having 135 removed from the Inventory is very simple. The house standing there is not the one which was standing there in 1927. A cursory look at the Sanborn maps shows conclusively that the front, back and sides have undergone complete changes. When a 'builder moves the front of a building forward, as 135's has been, he does not move the existing front forward and then fill in the gap like making a stretch limousine. He demolishes the old and builds anew. The same is true for all the other sides. Thus, the existing house is not the original house inflated like a wooden balloon, but rather a different house, rebuilt many times since the original tent was thrown over 2x3 poles. Mr. Zito neglects to ask the most irreortant question: should the house at 135 be listed on thi Historical Inventory? If the answer is "Yes," then the rest of the Historical Ordinance applies. But if the answer is "No," then nothing applies. If the house deserves listing on the Inventory, and if I apply for a demolition, then all the items in Section 23.76.090 should be considered before granting demolition. However, this is no application for demolitian, but rather an attempt to correct an error in the City's records. All other considerations are secondary to the basic one that the house dates fram after 1927. Whether a new house is cute and fits the neighborhood shows that the designer has done a good job. Inclusion on the Inventory is not even a consideration because the Inventory is a listing of historical resources, not an architictural :tarre of approval. If a citizen is concerned about what may or may not be built at 135 16th Street, assuming the existing house is ever demolished. th, appropriate time for that is before the ARB and Planning Calmission. not the City Comicil. By definition 135 should not be on the Inventory since the requirements for inclusion on the list are fairly strict. In a note dated 4/21/93, Mr. Weiland states that these are two: 1. that the house was built before 1927, and 2. that the existing house retains the style of the original . On both counts, the existing house fails. First, it waa built long after 1927. and everyone--including thi Heritage Society--agrees on this. The Society'$ spokesman, Mr. Weiland states as much in his letter of January 5, 1995. when he writes: "Although the house still retains the character of a cottage on 16th Streit and fits in very well with the existing structures, it is not the 'same' house." I would like to thank Mr. Weiland for the campliment, and to assure Mr. Zito that the existing house was designed and built by my wife and m, and finished in 1981. Second. the original house was a tint, which the existing house is obviously not. Why then, the reviow? Mr. Zito seems to feel that despite the house's £0'd TOO'ON SO:ZI 56'I JPW £986-§22-801' ON 131 1 I PH 61-3 3A039 JIHIJWd , Heritage Society of Pacific Grove,Historical Collections,Historic Properties of Pacific Grove,16th st,135 16th,130 - 170 16TH ST_010.pdf,130 - 170 16TH ST_010.pdf 1 Page 1, Tags: 130 - 170 16TH ST_010.PDF, 130 - 170 16TH ST_010.pdf 1 Page 1