Historical Review Board considers policy and procedure changes

In a meeting lasting until after 10 pm, the Mendocino Historical Review Board (MHRB) discussed a number of potential policy and procedure changes and received a report from the County Code enforcement officer in addition to its regular consideration of building projects.

In a report covering all of 2022, the code enforcement officer disclosed 34 complaints of code violations in the town of Mendocino last year and one additional this year so far. Of the 34 complaints last year, 22 have been closed and 12 are still pending. Of the 34 complaints, six regarded a driveway and grading issue at the same property on Little Lake Road that was resolved through an MHRB permit after the fact; five regarded signs that have since been removed; four regarded windows that are still under investigation; three regarded vegetation removal of which one is under investigation and the other two were determined to be unfounded; three regarded unpermitted vacation rentals of which two were duplicates and one is under investigation; two regarded roadway obstructions that were referred to the county department of transportation; two regarded the height or alteration of fences that are under investigation; one regarded displays that is under investigation; two regarded unshielded electric meters that are under investigation; one regarded vehicle parking that is under investigation; and one regarded nighttime light pollution that was determined to be coming from inside the structure and therefore not in violation. The only code violation complaint this year has been regarding a vacation rental that was the same as last year.

The Board removed one item from the Consent Calendar dealing with the replacement of 22 windows, some that are vinyl clad and improperly installed, at the Mendo Realty office. Local architect Kelly Grimes pointed out a discrepancy between the written description of the true divided wooden windows in the application and the actual windows to be used. Due to this inconsistency, the Board decided to continue this item until the May 1 meeting.

The MHRB heard a presentation for a new residential project of a home previously approved in 2020 on Ukiah Street. Among the new aspects of the project include reduced setback variances, ancillary sheds, and an ancillary view deck with a spiral staircase. A representative for one of the neighbors raised concerns about the project, including its mass and height. Discussion between the applicant and the Board resulted in a revised plan that would effectively lower the building height by about a foot to bring it into compliance with the 28’ height limit. The applicant pointed out that this project would be less bulky than the project previously approved, and that trees would be planted that will eventually mitigate the visual impact. The Board discussed the solar panels that are included in the project and encouraged the composite roof to be as dark as possible as a way to reduce their visibility. The auxiliary viewing deck and spiral staircase drew some eyebrows from Board members who questioned its compatibility with the rest of the town and whether its purpose could not be realized in a manner that would be more harmonious with the rest of the town’s architecture. The applicant requested a continuance to the May 1 meeting for the Board to consider a revised application.

The Board unanimously approved a 50-foot long retaining wall on Kasten that will be 2-3 feet high with a 3-foot redwood fence on top of it. And the applicant for an after-the-fact project for a driveway and patio improvement requested a continuance until a later date.

The Board began deliberating a number of policy and procedure changes, beginning with a case study for a modification to the minor alteration policy. Currently, design and building alterations that become necessary during the course of construction due to supply chain issues, unanticipated design requirements, and other unforeseen circumstances can result in the need for an amended application to the Board for review. A fee is typically associated with such a submission. An afterthe-fact permit application at the Jerome House on Calpella presented a case study example of this issue when the owner reused the original board and batten siding instead of the previously approved shingle siding, among other changes. These types of changes are typically returned to the Board for approval. Staff requested guidance in changes to the current policy that would allow staff to determine that some changes are still in keeping with the original approvals and do not warrant an amended application. Instead, these changes would be included in the Board’s Consent Calendar and only require an amended application if the Board disagrees with the staff determination. While there was general agreement that such a procedure change is a good idea, the Board wanted greater clarity of the mechanics of the proposed change, such as whether the owner would notify the staff during or after completion of the project, and what materials to staff would be required. The Board unanimously approved the after-the-fact modifications to the Jerome House, and staff will provide a refined modification to the minor alteration policy for consideration at the May 1 meeting.

Pursuant to a request from board members Madrigal and Aum, the Board considered changes to the sign ordinance in the case of approved signs that are moved to a different location and new signs at locations where a sign has already been approved. At least one board member expressed a desire for signs to be deemed approved so long as they are in compliance with the maximum size limitation. After discussing issues of color, text, and font, the Board directed staff to prepare a draft policy for consideration at the May 1 meeting.

Along the same lines of expediting permits, board member Aum requested that the Board consider expanding the current policy that allows exterior paint projects to proceed without MHRB approval so long as the main color is a white and the trim is from the Benjamin Moore Historical Collection. The proposed expansion of this policy would allow for the same expedited permit so long as both body and trim are from the Historical Collection. Staff reminded the Board that when this idea was previously considered, the earlier board raised concerns about the potential color combinations that could result. In any event, staff will draft a policy for the Board’s consideration at the May 1 meeting.

Board member Aum also asked for the Board to consider changes to the window policy that would allow for aluminum-clad windows. Currently, the policy is that such windows are typically not allowed, but that applicants can seek approval on a case-by-case basis.

Finally, Board member Aum questioned why exterior landscaping is within the MHRB purview. Staff clarified that most exterior landscaping is, in fact, not within the MHRB jurisdiction except for driveways, walkways, and items such as fences that are taller than six feet.