Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/11/10 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION i N AGENDA WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 10, 1993 7: 00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ACTIO14 7:oo p•m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Chitiea X Commissioner Tolstoy X Commissioner McNiel X Commissioner Vallette X* Commissioner Melcher X * (arrived at 8:09 p.m. ) III. Announcements Iv. Approval of Minutes A OVED 4-0-1 October 13 , 1993 v. Public Hearings Recessed from 7:05 p.m. The following items are public hearings in which to 8:4:8 p.m. concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. CONTINUED_ to 12/8/93 LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 93-02 - ROBERT FLOCKER - 5—o A request to demolish the Norton-Fisher House, a designated local Landmark, located at 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga - APN: 227-131-23 . (Continued from September 8, 1993) VI. Public Comments NONE This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VII. Commission Business 8:51 p.M. VIII. Adjournment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 10 1993 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Anthea M. Hartig, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 93-02 - ROBERT FLOCKER - A request to demolish the Norton-Fisher House, a designated local Landmark, located at 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga - APN: 227-131-23. (Continued from September 8, 1993. ) BACKGROUND: At the Commission's meeting on September 8, 1993, this item was continued in order to allow staff time to explore possible alternatives to demolition with Mr. Flocker. There remain a number of viable alternatives to demolition and staff met with Mr. Flocker to discuss these options on October 19, 1993 (see Exhibit "HPC-1" for Preservation Alternatives) . Mr. Flocker provided limited verbal response to the alternatives suggested by staff and has since provided us with further written comments (please reference Exhibit "HPC-2 for a copy of October 27, letter) . At the meeting on October 13, 1993, Mr. Flocker reiterated his opposition to rehabilitate the historic house, although he did not preclude the option of rehabilitation with monies other than his. As well, staff 's suggestion that if the home were to be relocated, the demolition funds would be donated to the house's relocation, was met with agreement by Mr. Flocker which he reiterated in his October 1993 correspondence. Staff also reminded Mr. Flocker that the house's location and importance was a deciding factor in determining its flexible land use, Low- Medium Residential with a Community Services Retail Overlay, during the creation of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. To this point Mr. Flocker responded that it was his opinion that the land use specified in the ESP reduced the value of his family's property. Furthermore, Mr. Flocker's condition for agreeing to let another interested party, the Etiwanda Historical Society for instance, rehabilitate the structure was that the City "immediately restore (his) property to its original and irrevocable zoning of C-2 or the equivalent," according to the October 27, 1993, letter to Brad Buller. ANALYSIS: To allow for demolition per City Ordinance, the Commission must determine that Mr. Flocker has demonstrated that such action "is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition" or that the "denial of the application will result in immediate or substantial hardship" (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24. 120) . The Commission must review fir. Flocker's request for demolition to determine if it is possible to mitigate the environmental impacts of such an action. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LAP 93-02 - FLOCKER November 10, 1993 Page 2 Precedent has been set by the Commission and City Council for the mitigation of any proposed demolitions of historic buildings. Mitigations that the Council has approved previously centered around the premise that as thorough an effort as possible to record and preserve the building or site be required. To this end, the requiring of oral histories; high-level architectural documentation; relocation; donations to local, non-profit historical societies; the installation of commemorative plaques; and public interpretative art programs has occurred. To date, some of the most significant of these mitigations have been for the impacts caused by the Foothill Marketplace and the Masi Commerce Center projects. Staff finds that Mr. Flocker has yet to "demonstrate" that the demolition of the Norton-Fisher House is warranted per the Landmark Alteration Permit process as specified in the Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: In staff's analysis, the project's (demolition's) impact could possibly be mitigated; therefore an environmental impact report would not be required. Such mitigations would include: * The sponsoring of three related oral histories; * The completion of HABS Level 1 documentation of the structure; * The requirement for the owner to cover all costs of relocating the building to a suitable lot with preference given to those within the Etiwanda Community; OR RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that unless Mr. Flocker wishes to request a continuance of this request in order to continue to explore alternatives to demolition, that the Commission deny LAP 93-02. Moreover, staff recommends that along with the denial, the aforementioned mitigations be forwarded to the City Council as Conditions of Approval for the demolition if an appeal to the City Council is filed. ;Brad espect ly submit d, ller 100 City Planner BB:AMH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "HPC-1" - Demolition Alternatives Exhibit "HPC-2" - Letter from Mr. Flocker to Brad Buller, October 27, 1993 Exhibit "HPC-3" - HPC Staff Report dated September S, 1993 Resolution of Denial J Norton-Fisher House: Alternatives To Demolition PRESERVATION ON SITE P-1 Continue to encourage Mr. Flocker to utilize the incentives offered by landmark designation and restore the home, these incentives include: * Use of the State Historic Building Code for future rehabilitation/restoration; or If rehabilitated for commercial use, potential to receive Federal Investment Tax Credits (200) ; P-2 Work on interesting GTE or PacBell in sponsoring restoration, perhaps for use as a museum dedicated to early phone history in Etiwanda; P-3 Have the City/RDA purchase or condemn the property for affordable housing, a historic park, municipal service offices, or for lease to the Etiwanda Historical Society (EHS) for expansion of their interpretive museum activities; or P-4 Work on interesting Habitat for Humanity, JobCore, or other groups interested in purchasing and restoring. RELOCATION R-1 Suggest Flocker offer house for relocation to qualified party and put demolition costs towards relocation costs; R-2 work on involving the EHS in the relocation process; or R-3 work on interesting Habitat for Humanity, JobCore, or other groups interested in relocation and restoring. -�)-?;, RECEIVED Robert C . Fl ocker OCT 2 7 1993 6226 Topaz Street Alta Loma , CA 91701 City of Rancho Cucamonga 909/987-2304 Planning Division October 27 , 1993 Mr . Brad Buller City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr . Buller , I have considered our meeting of October 18 , 1993 and our discussion of options for relocation/preservation of the Norton-Fisher house . Either of the following two approaches will work for me : 1 ) RELOCATION As we discussed , I will put up the money I anticipate spending on demolition of the house as a contribution toward the moving cost . I will donate the house to either Mr . and Mrs Banks for relocation to their property or to another qualified party . 2 ) PRESERVATION ON SITE I will enter into a lease of the house to a qualified party ( i . e. , Etiwanda Historical Society "EHS" ) for a period of five years . This assignable lease will provide that EHS will assume all risk and pay the expense of all preservation and/or renovation of the house . This lease will be a part of an overall agreement between myself and the City of Rancho Cucamonga , wherein we agree as follows : A) The City of Rancho Cucamonga will immediately restore my property to its original and irrevocable zoning of C-2 or the equivalent , so that I may actively seek out a developer to incorporate the house into a commercial development ( i . e . , small shopping center , office center , etc . ) . (31 / P - B) If , at the end of five years , I have been unable to interest a suitable developer in building such a commercial development incorporating the house into the plans , the City of Rancho Cucamonga agrees to permit relocation of the house to another lot within the City at that time . I will agree to sell the house , upon relocation , to either EHS or another qualified buyer for one dollar . Kindly advise which approach you prefer to recommend to the Planning Commission , provided you agree with these suggestions . -ncerely � Robert Flocker CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 8, 1993 TO: Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 93-02 - ROBERT FLOCKER - A request to demolish the Norton- Fisher House, a designated local Landmark, located at 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga - APN: 227-131-23. BAC r.RDDND A Landmark Alteration Permit is required to be approved before any person can carry out a material change to any designated Landmark, including demolition, as provided under City Code Section 2.24. 120. Furthermore, Subsection C.4 of this Code requires, "Where the application is for demolition, the necessity for demolition shall be justified" and the Commission make findings including, Subsections G.3 and G.4, "The action proposed is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property; or, the applicant has demonstrated the denial of the application will result in immediate or substantial hardship." Final action on a Landmark Alteration Permit rests with the Commission unless appealed to the City Council. Deadlines for actions are not specified with the City Code for this type of application. The Norton-Fisher (Fisher) House was designated a local Landmark by the City Council on September 21 , 1988. (See attached City Council Minutes. ) The decision by the City Council to designate the Fisher House a local Landmark was made over owner objection and was taken after several hearings by both the Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council (see attached copies of previous Staff Reports). It should be noted that the 1988 Landmark designation was a City initiated application. The application was a portion of a package of applications made during a period when the City was pursuing an aggressive policy toward designating on a prioritized basis those properties within the City which had been identified as historically significant. In this case, the Fisher House, which is listed as having the potential of being on the National Register, was in the first group of historic properties considered in 1988. The purpose of landmarking properties is primarily one of identifying the importance of historical cultural resources within the community. In addition, Landmark designation also allows the property owner to utilize several State and local laws which are /_ ITEM A HPC STAFF REPORT LA 93-02 - ROBERT FLOCKER September 8, 1993 Page 2 generally financially beneficial to the property. These laws include property tax reduction provisions provided by the Mills Act, contract provisions, and the use of the State Historic Building Code. The Fisher House which is located across Etiwanda Avenue from the Chaffey-Garcia House is a Queen Anne Victorian style structure built in 1892. From 1907 to 1930 the switchboard of the Home Telephone Company, a mutual cooperative company owned by Etiwanda citizens, was located in this house and operated by Mrs. Florence Fisher and her daughter, Nellie. The house is significant because of its architecture, age, and historical role in the development of Etiwanda. Also, the house is one of 15 structures identified in the Etiwanda Specific Plan as "Notable Structures" (reference Figure 5-43 of Etiwanda Specific Plan) and thereby, significantly contributing to the character of the Etiwanda community. Incentives available to help preserve the Fisher House include the provisions for "Notable Structures" (reference Section 402(a) pages 5-41 ) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan that enable a non-conformance to be treated as conforming; the exclusion of these notable structures in the residential density calculations which .allows a structure to be an extra unit; the conversion of houses to non-residential uses as a Conditional Use Permit; an entitlement, if it is a landmark to use the Historic Building Code. If the house is qualified for listing on the National Register and were to be used as a rental or office or other depreciable use, and were to undergo substantial, certified rehabilitation, it would qualify for a tax credit equal to 20 percent of the rehabilitation costs. The applicant, Mr. Flocker has requested demolition indicating in his application that, ". ..structure is a fire trap and a serious hazard to the community, especially to children." In addition, he sites that vagrants have broken into the premises consistently causing additional damage to the structure. Furthermore, Mr. Flocker indicates that the justification for the demolition includes the offer of donation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in 1988 on the condition that the City remove the structure within a reasonable period of time at the City's expense. In addition, he notes the City has failed to act upon this offer. (See attached newspaper clippings from the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. ) However, it should be noted that Mr. Flocker made a formal offer to the City Council in a letter dated August 9, 1988, in which six specific conditions were listed as prerequisites to his donation of the structure to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Within this letter one portion of a condition reads, ". . .the City of Rancho Cucamonga will honor my request not to designate the house as a Historic Landmark until the house is moved from my property. " Therefore, the City Council's action to designate the property a local Landmark appears to run contrary to the proposal made by Mr. Flocker. No new offer has been made since the original Landmark designation in 1988. �) 9 HPC STAFF REPORT LA 93-02 - ROBERT FLOCKER September 8, 1993 Page 3 Staff was able to confirm only one instance of a police report concerning the use of the house by a vagrant and that took place in 1991. The City Code Enforcement Division has not received any recent complaints within the last three years concerning conditions of the subject property and the Building and Safety Division has indicated that they have not received any complaints regarding the physical condition of the structure. It should be noted that City staff will be conducting a detailed interior/exterior inspection and analysis of conditions of the structure prior to the Historic Preservation Commission meeting but not in time to include within this written staff report. Therefore, a follow-up report will be made on September 8, 1993 at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting concerning physical conditions of the property. ANALYSIS In evaluating the applicant's request for demolition, the Commission must evaluate the actual need to remove the structure versus the property owner's desire to be rid of a potential liability. In this regard, staff must note that there has not been and there is currently no proposed development request affecting the subject location. Therefore, the need to remove the structure must be evaluated upon whether the maintenance of the structure constitutes an economic hardship to the property owner. The City has a Nuisance Abatement Ordinance administered through the Zoning Code Enforcement Division which requires properties be maintained at an acceptable level in terms of landscaping and structural condition. Other than the property owner's desire to not rent out the structure and to keep it boarded up, staff has not been presented with any factual information concerning maintenance costs or rehabilitation estimates by the property owner. Staff will attempt to provide at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting cost estimates relative to an inspection of the premises by staff who normally provide residential rehabilitation consulting services for the City's Home Improvement program. Intervention by the City or others to move the structure has been considered previously during the 1988 Landmark designation process. A discussion of the alternatives for City intervention is included on page 3 of the September 21 , 1988 City Council staff report attached hereto for reference. In regards to intervention by other private property owners or developers, it should be noted that the applicant has indicated that he has verbally been contacted by several persons over the years and that the primary obstacle has been the securing of a vacant lot in the Etiwanda area to move the structure to. However, it should also be indicated that according to an advertisement carried by the property owner in a local newspaper, Mr. Flocker had been requesting a sum of $38,500 in order for the structure to be bought by an individual. It is unknown what the results would be if a similar advertisement were to be run in the local paper offering the structure for a dollar and perhaps the property owner's including a sum of funds equal to the cost of demolition towards moving the structure. HPC STAFF REPORT LA 93-02 - ROBERT FLOCKER September 8, 1993 Page 4 RNCOMMEMATION Staff recommends that this item be continued from 30 to 60 days for the applicant to present additional documentation to justify the request per the City Code and allow staff to analyze the new information and present a complete analysis of the condition of the structure. In addition, staff will be able to determine whether the required Facts for Findings can be determined as prescribed by City Code. Respectfully submitted, .s r 91-aW AvIler Bra Buller City Planner BB:LH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Historic Photos of Residence Exhibit "B" - August 2, 1993, letter from Applicant with Attachments Exhibit "C" - City Council Resolution No. 68-406 Exhibit "D" - September 21 , 1998, City Council Minutes Exhibit "E" - September 21 , 1988, City Council Staff Report Exhibit "F" - August 3, 1988, City Council Minutes Exhibit "G" - August 3, 1988, City Council Staff Report Exhibit "H" - June 15, 1988, City Council Staff Report Exhibit "I" - HPC Resolution NO. 88-07 Exhibit "J" - May 5, 1988, HPC Minutes Exhibit "K" - May 5, 1988, HPC Staff Report Exhibit "L" - April 7, 1988, HPC Staff Report Exhibit "M" - Advertisement of House for Sale Exhibit "N" - City Code Section 2.24. 120 �) 9 v r ' NORTON-FISHER HOUSE 7165 Etiwanda Ave. Built about 1892, this house was k 1 the location for the switchboard for the Home Tele- phone Co. in 1907. y 6226 Topaz Street Alta Loma, CA 91701 909/987-2304 August 2, 1993 "AGA r raCNO `ON kUG '�3 3 Is Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner The City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Anthea: Per our recent telephone conversation, I have enclosed a completed Application For Historic Landmark Alteration Permit. Please contact me if I can be of any further help. Sincerely, Robert Flocker City of Rancho Cucamonga Application For Historic Landmark Alteration Permit Identification 1. Common Name: None 2. Historic Name: Fisher House or Norton-Fisher House 3. Street Or Rural Address: 7165 Etiwanda Avenue City: Etiwanda Zip: 91739 County: San Bernardino Assessor's Parcel Number: 227-131-23 Zone: Low-Medium Residential Legal Description: The North 65 feet of the South 305 feet of the West 1/2 of Lot 12, Block 'K', according to Preliminary Map of Etiwanda Colony Lands, as per plat recorded in Book 2 of Maps, page 24, records of said County. 4. Present Owner: Robert Flocker Address: 6226 Topaz Street City: Alta Loma Zip: 91701 Ownership is: Private 5. Present Use: None Original Use: Single Family Residence Other Past Uses: Single Family Residence 6. Proposed Use: Not Applicable 7. Proposed Work: (i.e. demolition, remodel, addition, etc.) Immediate Demolition 8. Condition Of Structure: Not Inhabitable 9. Justification For Work: Structure was donated to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in August 1988 on the condition that the City remove the structure within a reasonable period of time at City's expense. City has failed to act upon this offer. (Please see attached newspaper clippings from The Daily Report.) 10. Other Information: Structure is a firetrap and a serious hazard to the community, especially children. Owner has boarded up all windows and doors and posted no trespassing signs on all four sides of the structure. Owner has patrolled the premises on a regular basis. Nevertheless, vagrants have broken into the premises consistently, building fires and utilizing the structure for overnight transient lodging. In 1992, a vagrant accosted children on the way to school and the police were notified but the suspect was never found. Again, I boarded up the door. Due to the increasing number of homeless and transient people in the area, it is impossible to secure the structure in a manner that will provide adequate protection to the community. �'�v I am extremely disappointed that the City of Rancho Cucamonga has failed to act in response to my offer of August, 1988. If children should break into the structure and cause a fire, they could be trapped inside. I urge you to issue a permit for immediate demolition of this structure for the safety and well being of our community. I will pay all costs of demolition immediately upon receiving your approval. Historical restoration in R .C. pits owners against city hall . By LEE PETERSON longed historical designations in the Staff Writer put,the potential for unfriendly desig- nations multiplied this year u the If Rancho Cucamonga ever wants to city's historic preservation commission make history, someone will have to began upon a program of considering make a sacrifice. three local sites each month as histori- When it comes to historical restora- cat landmarks. tion,just who is going to bite the bullet When an Etiwanda house was ree m- is not very clear in this contest pitting mended for a historical designdtion in private citizens against city hall. May,the property owner,an Alta Loma Property owners feel they are the High School teacher, challenged the ones bearing the brunt of the push for designation. historical restoration. The Fisher House,a nearly 100-year- In turn, pro-restoration city officials old structure in Etiwands, sits upon a feel that,sooner or later,it is they who 4%-acre site which the owner wants to will have to take the political heat for clear and sell to developers. telling the property owners what to do. The historic commission decided the Though property owners have chat- Sea MSTORY/B3 History/from B1 Fisher House had historical sig- "As an overall policy we may nificance and sent it along to the have to get a little bit tougher City.Council. on this than we are ppeerceived u The council postponed the being at this time,"Buquet said. matter from a June meeting to "The City Council has to the first meeting in August. make a decision if it isgoing to u Council members again post- perserve what hbeen here for poned consideration of a desig- 100 years or allow four new nation on the property,pending houses to be built."amid Council- further discussions with the woman Deborah Brown. property owner,Robert Flocker. Councilman Jeff King dif. I don't want to spend $100; fared.He said the council should 000 of my own money to fix the be willing to "put its money house up,' Flogker said. I feel or like I have no control over what when its mouth is"and pay[. I own. I don't think the historic restorations that it'wanta done. preservation commission ever Mayor Dennis L. Stout said listened to what I had to say." the city's efforts at historical Flocker has said that no preservation actually benefit the amount of incentives to restore landowners by the creation of a the house will sway him from bankable community image. his decision to have it somehow However, Flocker, owner of removed from his property. He the Fisher House, said a land- said he will am if the city mark designation without the deal too the site u a land- owner's consent is a "misuse of mark against his will. power••' If the house does blooms a Buquat challenged Flocker's landmark, Flocker would be re- motivations. quired to have anyplans for "We have a responsibility to a 'modifications" of the home lot of people who are going to be cleared by the historic commis- here a long time after you are cion. gone.You are seeing the dollars Reardlese of designation, and cents on this issue and not any Smolition or major modiff- much else,"Buquat told Flocker cation projed would have to be at a recent council session. auththe planning com- Flocker said he is more than mission. willing to donate the house to Ostensibly the historic com- any person or any agency which minion is more sensitive to would remove it from his proper- Chan gas of the building's exteri- ty. or which affect its historic char- While Flocker meets with rep• aeter. resentatives from the council More than 300 homes await and the planning department. consideration u potential his- over the next month, two more fowl*,landmarks, while 31 al- gonterted historical designations ready have received landmark are tentatively'scheduled to be status. considered by the council. U the city is going to have An incentives plan is being areas with historieal character, drawn up to further entice prop- Councilman Charles Buquat arty owners to restore their his. said"somebody,somewhere will toric homes. and Associate have to be the bad guy." Planner Arlen. Banks said an In a discussion of the policy *duration program would be de- on unfriendly designations, Bu- signed to create a "positive mo- I� quet said the council owes it to mentum" for historical future residents of the city to privation in Rancho Cuca- Cy preserve the past. mon1w • Section aLcalThursday The Dally Report August"''988 Owner is willing to donate house... to c1 er would like to tee what the council become a landmark,the historical oem. R.C. officials see history but he sees a big price tags. d his latest offer before be miwian and the city planning .tall himself considers any other proposals cited court cases in which the courts By Lee Paterson The City Council has until Oct. 5 to .price d the house's restoration•estimat- about the preservation of the house. ruled that the local government could staff Writer decide whether to accept the haus,orad ed at$100,000. Flockar said Wednesday he does � designate a structure as a landmark a year after that to remove it from his The city, on the other hand, hu know what he will do if the council even if the property ownir does not Robert Flocker wants to give away a, Btiwanda A M1 property, Flocker a oro willingness-to dip into its rejects his fifer,but in the past he has want the landmark status. house said. soften to pay for the renovation. suggested that he will take legal re- Flocker does not agree. he House hunters should know there's a TAlta Loma High School teacher Councilman Jeffrey King said he coarse if the Fisher House is made a 1, certainly doing my part and catch: He not only wants someone to made the eQn to the city in resporue to does not see Flocker's offer u ore inti- historical landmark while it remains on offering to donate the house for free.I'm take the house off his hands but also off the city's historic preservation commis- matum. his land. trying to do m they should be his ISO& "'a recommendation to make a local King.considered the council member Discussion d incentives to restore y r Flocks has given fust rights at the landmark d the Fisher Hage, which most sympethetic to Flocker's argu- the home are premature as Flocker has willing to do their part too," Flocker sits on Flocker's at 7165 Lti- meat, said the matter will likely be no immediate plans to develop the 5. said. deal to the cit d Rancho g the n wl wands Ave. property resolved by the end of September in a acre parcel,King said. "I think(the city)has the resources whish V ons maks the nearly Flocker balked at the commissions that 100-year-old home a Iota historical Flocker make everybody happy. In making its recommendations to and ability to restore it that I don't landmark. plans.unwilling to foot the bill for the wa lity Planner Brad Buller said Flock- the City Council that Flocker's house have,"he said. N t Landmark declared By Lee Peterson the special privileges offered to The city did not accept. financial benefit to restore it," Staff We those who preserve their land- If the city were to accept Flocker said. marks. Flocker's donation of the Fisher On the City Council, only Whether he likes it or not, However, Flocker said he was House at 7165 Etiwanda Ave., Councilman Jeff King agreed Robert Flocker now owns a cerci- interested only in one day sell- the city would incur the Finan- with Flocker. fied piece of Rancho Cucamonga ing the five-acre parcel on which tial responsibility for moving, "We are getting to the point history. the so-called Fisher House sits, rehabilitating and maintaining where we are beginning to dic- The nearly 100-year-old house and felt that the land would be ' the property. tate to people what they should that sits on his five-acre parcel sold more easily if the buyer did do with their property," King in Etiwanda has been declared not have to worry about the City Planner Brad Buller said said an official historic landmark. a landmark. the removal of the house may honor he does not welcome. Moving, demolition of, or sig- rondiminish the "historical envi- Councilman Charles Buquet Flocker had been fighting the nificant alterations to the exteri- the city would be setting a will not preclude the highest t� of Etiwanda and that disagreed. Such a designation designation ever since it was or of an official landmark is the cit first recommended by the city's subject to the review by the Precedent that the city will and best use of this property, move historic structures if own- he said. historic perservation commis- city's historic preservation com- ers object strenuously enough to sion in June. mittee. The committees deci- the designations. Flocker said he has been con- "I haven't really decided yet sion may be appealed to the tatted by a person interested in what I'm going to do," Flocker City Council. Flocker said he felt that the moving the house to another said of his next step. Last month,Flocker offered to city was making an example of parcel in Etiwanda and restor- City officials attempted to give the house to the city or him. ing it. However, nothing is cer- convince Flocker to accept the anyone willing to move it off his "It seems like they are trying tain about that situation, he �y' \ landmark status by pointing out property. to portray that it would be to my said. i RESOLUTION NO. 88-406 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGNATION OF THE FISHER HOUSE, LOCATED AT 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE AS A LANDMARK WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission had held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all comments on the proposed Landmark Designation and issued Resolution No. 88-07 recommending to this City Council that said Landmark Designation be approved. WHEREAS, the City Council has received and reviewed all input from the Historic Preservation Commission regarding said Landmark Designation. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY specifically find, determine, and- resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The application applies to property located at Assessor Parcel Number 227-131-23. SECTION 2: The proposed landmark meets the following criteria established in Chapter 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code: A. Historical and Cultural Significance: 1. The proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historical period and style. 2. The proposed landmark is an example of a type of building which is now rare. 3. The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. 4. The proposed landmark is connected with a (historic) business. B. Historical Architectural and Engineering Significance: 1. The overall effect of the design of the proposed landmark is beautiful. C. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: Resolution No. 88- 5 Page 2 1. The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. 2. The proposed landmark in its location represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community. SECTION 3: Designation of a landmark is exempt from CEQA (Article 19. Section 15308) . SECTION 4: Based on the substantial evidence received and reviewed by this Council and based on the findings set forth above. NOW, THEREFORE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY approve designation of the Fisher House as a Landmark. PASSED. APPROVED. and ADOPTED this 21st day of September. 1988. AYES: Buquet, Wright, Brown. Stout NOES: Ring ABSENT: None �~ Dennis L. Stout. Mayor �~ ATTEST: Beverly Authelet. City Clerk I. BEVERLY A. AUTHELET. CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved. and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. California. at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of September, 1988. Executed this 22nd day of September. 1988 at Rancho Cucamonga. California. Beverly 4Authelet. City Clerk �) IC� City Council Mintd .0 September 21, 1980 Page 14 Councilman King requested a breakdown of the $140.00 i w■m " !'trai — nand irrigation. Councilman Buquet ezpresse we could reduce some of the cost in some ways, such as planting t -20 feet from the center line, instead of 8-10 feet, thus thinni the trees. s Council received and filed the report. (44) G4. A PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE THE SITE OF THE HAVEN AVENUE W41FIC&TION PROJECT LOCATED IN THE HAVEN AVENUE 1$DIAN ISLANDS BETWEEN FOOZIM AND WILSON AS A POINT OF HISTORIC INTEREST. Staff report presented by L Henderson, Sr. Planner. (1402-06 HISTORY RESOLUTION NO. 88-586 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DES TION OF THE SITE OF THE HAVEN AVENUE BEAUTIFICATION JE CT, LOCATED IN THE MEDIAN ISLANDS BETWEEN FOO D WILSON AS A POINT OF . HISTORIC INTEREST MOTION: Moved by Wright, second y Buquet to approve Resolution No. 88-586 • designating the Haven Avenue B tification Project as a point of historic interest. Motion carried una ' usly, 5-0. (45) G5. A PROPOSAL TO D GNATS THE RFLP HOUSE 9468 L TA A LANDMARK. (TABLED TO 0Cr08ZR 5, 1988 402-06 HISTORY RESOLUTION NO. 88-587 SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGNATION OF THE RELPH HOUSE, LOCATED AT 9468 LOMITA AVENUE AS A LANDMARK A N: Tabled to October 5, 1988. (46) G6. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE - APN 227-131-23. (Continued from August 3, 1988 meeting) Staff report presented by Brad Buller, City Planner. (1402-06 HISTORY) Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. 0 �XN/�/T '0 — / iii . City Council Minutes September 21, 1988 Page 15 Mr. Flocker stated he did not wish to address Council, but had presented Council with a letter for informational purposes. There being no other public response, Mayor Stout closed the public hearing. Councilman King expressed there was no time crunch regarding this house, and felt we were setting a bad precedent. If we would work with Mr. Flocker, he thought we could come to an amiable agreement. He also expressed that in his opinion, we were beginning to dictate to people what they were going to do with their property above and beyond normal planning issues. Councilman Buquet expressed that it was appropriate for Council to take necessary action in order to preserve historical property; and he personally felt the historical designation would enhance this property. RESOLUTION N0. 88-406 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGNATION OF THE FISHER HOUSE LOCATED AT 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE AS A LANDMARK MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Wright to approve Resolution No. 88-406. Motion carried 4-1-0 (King, no). G7. CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ILLUMINATED STREET NAME S CE (47) DESIGN. Staff report presented by Jim Harris, Associate Civil En r. (0807- 02 SIGNS) Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public input. Add ing Council was: John Nicolopolous felt that $450.00 was ssive for a street sign. There being no further public input, or Stout closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Maguire, City Engineer, hasized we were already spending $450.00 on each illuminated sign on the affic signal. All staff was proposing to do was change the face of t ign to have the City name or logo included, which would run approximately .00 more per sign. Mr. Wasserma City Manager, pointed out that a lot of the signs going in are paid for b eveloper fees, and that money cannot be spent for other uses. Counc' an Buquet expressed he would like to see some information come back wit overall costs impacts. � t — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ h STAFF REPORT DATE: September 21, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Arlene Banks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING WITH MR. ROBERT FLOCKER, OWNER OF THE FISHER HOUSE, A POTENTIAL LOCAL LANDMARK I. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council not accept Mr. oc er s offer to donate the Fisher House to the City and to designate the house as a landmark because it is both architecturally and historically important and it is a notable feature on Etiwanda Avenue. II. BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting of August 3, 1988, Mr. Robert ocker spoke against landmark designation of the Fisher House, which he owns. The Council voted to continue the item so that a meeting with Mr. Flocker, a Councilmember, and staff could be arranged to discuss possible options. Councilmember Jeff King was appointed to serve on this subcommittee. The meeting took place on the porch of the Fisher House on Tuesday, August 9, 1988, at 5:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Flocker, Mr. Hudson, Jeff King, Brad Buller, and Arlene Banks. Mr. Flocker's brother James Flocker joined the meeting at about 6:20 p.m. The meeting ended about 6:55 p.m. III. DISCUSSION: Mr. Flocker said that he opposes landmark designation because hi—someday wants to sell the property for development and thinks that the value is in the land, not in the house, and that the land is more valuable without the house than with it. He said that the house would cost a great deal of money to rehabilitate, and he thinks landmark status would reduce the land's value because a developer would face the prospect of restoring it and developing around the house or moving it elsewhere on the property. It was explained that landmark status does not freeze a structure and does not mandate any requirements except to apply for a permit from the Historic Preservation Commission for material changes to the exterior and changes in use. Review by the Commission does not mean that changes, even demolition, cannot take place. CITY COUNCIL STAFF I J ORT The Fisher House September 21, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Flocker feels his land value was already affected once when the Commercial zoning under the County was changed to Residential with a Community Services overlay under the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He does not find the incentives in the Plan to be of interest and thinks that someday the property will be developed with "low impact" commercial uses. Mr. Flocker also objects to designation on principle because he does not like the City having any additional controls over his property. He feels he is being forced to make plans and commitments at a time when he does not want to do anything with the property. He thought that the best solution would be for the City to move the house off the property and he presented an offer in writing that the City accept the house and move it within a year. Councilman King asked Mr. Flocker if he had had the property appraised with and without the house. Mr. Flocker had not had the property appraised. Councilman King expressed the City's wish both to retain this house on the lot where it now stands and the City's desire to work cooperatively with Mr. Flocker to come up with a solution that would be satisfactory to everyone. Councilman King thought it would be helpful to put together different appraisals assuming various scenarios. He also mentioned the possibility of tabling the matter until Mr Flocker wishes to sell or to remove the house, at which time the Council will reconsider designation. Councilman King also inquired about the possibility or existence of liability insurance and placing a fence around the house. Councilman King expressed the idea that there are developers that would want something like this on his/her property and that it would create a unique development using this house as a centerpiece. He thought that the City would demand that projects on this portion of Etiwanda Avenue be of exceptionally outstanding quality, and the house would improve the prospects for such a development. He asked Mr. Flocker what would it take for him to cooperate with the City and support landmark designation. Mr. Flocker replied that he preferred to have the City consider first his offer of the house. The desirability of having the house remain where it is or close by was discussed. Potential lots for move-ons north of Base Line Road on Etiwanda Avenue were mentioned, as well as the possibility of moving the house to the Chaffey-Garcia property across the street. The group toured a few rooms in the house, which is boarded up. There are some signs of deterioration, but generally the house appears to be sound. c ` CITY COUNCIL STAFF �� _)ORT The Fisher House September 21, 1988 Page 3 IV. ALTERNATIVES: In staff's opinion, there are many possible direction o take. A. Designate the house as a landmark. The consequences of this are: 1. Landmark status would acknowledge the importance of the house and might help to preserve it. This option does not preclude the acceptance of Mr. Flocker's offer. 2. If Mr. Flocker wished to move or demolish the house he would have to apply for an alteration permit and justify the move or demolition to the Historic Preservation Commission. 3. The house would become eligible for current and future preservation incentives. B. Accept Mr. Flocker's offer. The consequences of this decision are: 1. The City would be spending many thousands of dollars to move the house and for possible property acquisition; 2. The historical value of the house would be lessened and it may no longer be potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places depending on the location and geographic orientation of the new placement; 3. The City would incur the responsibility of finding a lot and protecting, maintaining, and restoring or rehabilitating the house (or finding someone else to do so) ; 4. The historical environment of Etiwanda Avenue may be diminished; 5. Perhaps most important, this may set a precedent that the City will move significant historic structures if owners object strenuously enough to landmark designation. (As you know, landmark designation is an exercise of the City's police powers which in effect creates an overlay zone where there is special design review as well as special privileges. A city's right to designate landmarks was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York. ) C. Table the designation. The consequences of this decision are: 0 -�-q CITY COUNCIL STAFF ', 41ORT The Fisher House September 21, 1988 Page 4 1. Proposals to remove, demolish, or alter the house would reactivate the Council hearing because changes cannot be approved until a decision has been made by the Council . 2. The situation would remain as it is now. D. Deny the Designation. The consequences of this are: 1. Mr. Flocker would probably find this an acceptable alternative. 2. The house could be demolished or moved outside of the City or radically altered with no input from City agencies beyond issuance of an applicable permit. 3. The house would still be eligible to use the incentives in the Etiwanda Specific Plan (a "bonus" residential unit or adaptive reuse with a CUP), but would not be eligible to use the Historical Building Code and other incentives that may be adopted by the Council . In summary, the City Council is requested to act on the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission for landmark designation and secondly consider Mr. Flocker's proposal . Regarding landmark designation the Council may approve, deny, or table, action on the designation or continue the matter for further information. AReWee-r— BB:AB:vc lann Attachments: Staff Reports with Attachments Letter from Robert Flocker Resolution I C 6226 Topaz Alta Loma, CA 91701 August 9, 1988 Rancho Cucamonga City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Proposed historic landmark designation of 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga. APN #227-131-23 Dear Council Members: I appreciate your efforts to arrive at a satisfactory solution concerning the historic landmark designation of my house located at 7165 Etiwanda Avenue. Since the city wishes to preserve this house, I hereby make a formal written offer to donate the house, excluding all land which I own underneath and surrounding it to the City of Rancho Cucamonga under the following conditions: 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has 1 year from the date of acceptance of this offer to move the house from my property. 2. The house is to be moved from my property entirely at the City of Rancho Cucamonga's expense. 3. Upon acceptance of this offer, the City of Rancho Cucamonga assumes all liability for any injuries incurred by persons involving the house while it remains on my property. 4. I am not responsible for any of the expenses involved in the restoration of the house. 5. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will discuss the disputed historic landmark designation of my house at the September 21, 1988 city council meeting. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will honor my request not to designate the house as a historic landmark until the house is moved from my property. I will give the city council up to 2 weeks past the date of this meeting to decide whether to accept or reject my offer. 6. The city council must notify me in writing of their decision concerning this offer by October 5, 1988. Sincerely, Robert C. Flocker City Council Minutes d .� August 3, 1988 Page 15 Councilwoman Brown stated for the record that she felt this was in violati of the Etivanda Specific Plan and disagreed with the way it was being don But, it was a matter of getting this done by City standards instead of th ounty's so she would go along with it. MOTION: Moved by Ring, seconded by Wright to approve the ation Agreement 88-01. Motion carried 4-0-1 (ABSENT: Buquet - Councilman uquet had stepped out of the room). * * Consent Ordinances Nos. 364 and 365 were conside d and approved at this point in the agenda. The minutes were le ' in the original Agenda Order - nee items D1 and D2. * * * * * * G. CITY MANAGiR' STAFF RIPORTS G1. DISCUSSION OF OWNER NMIr D INCENTIVES FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION. (42) Staff report present/edT a, Associate Planner. (1402-06 HISTORY) ACTION: After consinion, City Council concurred in approving the incentives that did udgetary impacts, and to come back for those incentives which havmpact. *G2. A PROPOSAL TO D .P. LEDIG HOUSE 5702 AMETHY8T AVENUE RANCHO (43) CUCAMONGA AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK APN 1062-071-08. Staff report presented by A/carried iate Planner. (1402-06 HISTORY RESOLUTION NO. 88-503 As OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO A, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGNATION OF THE G.P. USE LOCATED AT 5702 AMETHYST AVENUE AS A LANDMARA My Buquet, seconded by Brown to approve Resolution 88-503. Mimously 5-0. G3. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE FISHER HOUSE 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE- (44) APN 227-131-23. (Continued from June 15, 1988 meeting) Staff report presented by Arlene Banks, Associate Planner. (1402-06 HISTORY) Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public comment. Addressing Council was: � a � City Council Minyces r August 3, 1988 Page 16 Robert Flocker, owner of the house, expressed he did not want to improve the house. RESOLUTION NO. 88-406 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGNATION OF THE FISHER HOUSE, LOCATED AT 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK MOTION: Moved by King, seconded by Wright to continue Resolution No. 88-406 to the September 210 1988 meeting in order to give a member of the City Council and staff time to sit down with Mr. Flocker to see if the problem could be resolved so the house might be preserved. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Councilman King was appointed to work with Mr. Flocker and staff. Mayor Stout opened the meeting again for public comment. Addressi ouncil was: Pamela Ring, 8730 King Ranch Road, expressed her conce to Council. Mayor Stout called a recess at 12:00 midnight. a meeting was reconvened at 12:15 a.m. with all members of Council present. (45) G4. UPDATE ON THE TREE PRESERVA N ORDINANCE - Staff will be presenting a report on the status of future ndments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. (Continued from July 20, 198 eeting) Staff report presented by Brad Buller, City Planner. (0203-02 TRE After considerable dis Sion, Council took the following action: ACTION: Council rested staff to obtain costs for the maintenance of eucalyptus trees both private and public property. (46) G5. CON ERATION OF COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE DEFENDING LAWSUITS WHICH ARE RE UES G TAX REFUNDS FOR GTE SPRINT ETC. V. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ET ALU SOUT PACIFIC PIPE LINES INC. V. BOARD OF E UALIZATION ETC. , ET AL. ; AND S IEGO PIPELINE COMPANY V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, ETC., ET AL. (0704-00 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r ' STAFF REPORT DATE: August 3, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Arlene Banks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: A Proposal to Designate The Fisher House, 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, as a Landmark. APN: 277--E=- I. Recommendation: The Historic Preservation Commission recommends that the i yi-Council designate the Fisher House a landmark because it has both historical and architectural value and meets the ,criteria established in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. In addition, the historical survey team's findings were that the house has State and National Register potential . II. Background: A. Current status: This item was continued from the meeting of June 15, 1988. The owner and his family object to designation of this property because they do not wish to be encumbered with the designation if they desire to remove the house and offer the land for sale. The Historic Preservation Commission finds that the house not only meets the criteria in the ordinance, but is a particularly important structure. They expressed the opinion that if the house must be moved, that it be moved to a more suitable spot on the site or at least remain close to its current location. If the house is designated a landmark, the moving or demolition would be subject to review and approval by the Commission. The owners do not wish to undergo this review. B. Incentives: The City Council requested that staff look into the matter of incentives that the City can offer to owners to make landmark designation more attractive. The general topic of incentives is discussed in a separate staff report. Incentives available to help preserve the Fisher House include the provisions for 'notable structures' in the Etiwanda Specific Plan that enable nonconformities to be treated as conforming; the exclusion of these notable structures in residential density calculations which allows the structure to CITY COUNCIL STAFF L THE FISHER HOUSE August 3, 1988 Page 2 be an extra unit; the conversion of houses to non-residential uses with a Conditional Use Permit; and entitlement, if it is a landmark, to use the Historical Building Code. If the house is qualified for listing on the National Register and were to be used as a rental or office or other depreciable use, and were to undergo substantial , certified rehabilitation, it could quality for a tax credit equal to 20 percent of rehabilitation costs. C. Site Plans: The City Council also requested to look at a site plan that shows the house in relationship to the site. Attached to this Staff Report are alternative layouts developed by staff. Two schemes assume a single family residential development, the other two assume a mixed use development with the Fisher House being adaptively reused. One of each leaves the house as it sits and the other shows the house located elsewhere on the site. There appears to be several ways to develop this property that would include preservation of the Fisher House. III. Alternatives: The City Council 's alternatives are: 1. ) to accept the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation and designate the Fisher House a landmark; 2. ) to deny the designation even though it meets the criteria in the ordinance; 3. ) to designate the Fisher House as a point of historic interest which recognizes the historical value of the house but does not require Historic Preservation Commission review of changes; 4. ) to continue the item. IV. Additional Rationale for Designation: A. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that designation of landmarks benefits all citizens and improves the quality of life, and that designation is legitimate as long as an owner is able to make a reasonable return on his investment. Designation of the Fisher House would not prevent use of the property or reasonable return on investment; it would help protect the house from inappropriate alterations and make it eligible to use the Historical Building Code. a -3 6 CITY COUNCIL STAFFt s?ORT t THE FISHER HOUSE August 3, 1988 Page 3 B. Now that a proposed shopping center and condominium development at the corner of Etiwanda and Base Line is making its way through the planning process, the value of this land may be increasing and the likelihood of development in the near future would be greater. Keeping the heritage of the Etiwanda area of Rancho Cucamonga alive depends on retention of as much of the original historical fabric as possible and on using the historic buildings as a touchstone for new development. Without inclusion of authentic, original buildings in the development of Etiwanda, the turn-of-the- century theme will be artificial and not in keeping with the goals and policies of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Designation of the Fisher House will help to keep the character of this unique community. C. The Etiwanda Specific Plan calls for the protection and enhancement of the visual and historical character and the quality of Etiwanda Avenue and its surroundings. Designation of the Fisher House is consistent with this purpose. V. Action Requested: Staff requests that the City Council accept the recommen a ion of the Historic Preservation Commission and designate the Fisher House as a landmark. Re fully t Br er City anner BB:AB:mlg Attachments: Staff Reports Resolution Alternative Site Plans 0 `' I HEhland Ave. i s 4 > C 4 i a :+ W W Victoria St. Base Line Rd. Site Location 7165 Etiwanda Ave. NORTH CITY OF ITEM: Wisher Nokse— RA.-'NTM CUCAMONGA Trru: HISTORIC PRESERVATION EXHIBIT: SCALE: COMMISSION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISHER MOUSE ETIwANDA MAILWAT STATION HCUse 7110 I , I W Z W i < I I • � o s ETIWANOA CONGREGATIONAL � CHURCH W I I FISHER HOUSE -- CHAFFET - OARCIA HOUSE i i i •ASELINE ROAD CONCEPTUAL DRAwwas CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISMER MOUSE ETIWAHDA RAILWAT tTATION HOUSE 71 10 fff-----------JJJ I — � W a' W > O . t 0 t ETIWANDA CONGREGATIONAL 1: CHURCH W I � O res"Ito NO CNAFFEr GARCIA HOUSE r I BASELINE ROAD CONCEPTUAL DRAwEUOs COr11ER Iowa... STIVJGTVM A CITY OF RA:iCHO CUCAMONGA FIsMEII MOUSE ETIWANDA RAILWAY STATION MOUSE 1110 1 1 W W i t - � o s 3 ETIWANDA CONGREGATIONAL H W CNURCN I 1 O NER N USE I C"AFFIT - GARCIA "OUSE 1 -�-� p 9ASELINE ROAD CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS commemc1AL Nf NfN„N MMS =><1Iw No L A / N CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISHER House I C�ETIWANDA RAILWAY STATION HOUSE 7110 D — I 1 I W i i < 1 I < I 49 s ETIWANDA CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH W 1 I FISHER Hous -- CHAFFET GARCIA HOUSE 1 --- _ � I � I SASELINE ROAD CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS OtGOINTIAL CO py MOM Mf mote* uIE LIGIAT190f CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISHER HOUSE STIWANOA RAILWAY STATION HOUSE 7110 ❑ -- -- _—� � t I 1 W W — -- -- -- 3 1 I s STIWANOA CONGREGATIONAL j CHURCH W t t I FISISII HOUSE CIAFFIT OARCIA HOUSE t \ � � I BASELINE ROAD ^\ CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS a3 rI "6090 AL F rgM we,— \\ �I J A M L — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA f A '.- STAFF REPORT `` -4 DATE: June 15, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Arlene Banks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: A PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE THE FISHER HOUSE, 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AS A LANDMARK i i I. RECOMMENDATION: The Historic Preservation Commission recommends that the i y ouncil designate 7165 Etiwanda Avenue a landmark. II. BACKGROUND: This house, located across Etiwanda Avenue from the a ey-Garcia House, is a Queen Anne Victorian-style structure built in 1892. From 1907 to 1930 the switchboard of The Home Telephone Company, a mutual cooperative company owned by Etiwanda citizens, was located in this house and operated by Mrs. Florence Fisher and her daughter, Nellie. The house is significant because of its architecture, its age, and its historical role in the development of Etiwanda. The property is located in the Community Services Overlay District and the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The Plan provides substantial incentives to help foster preservation of "notable" structures; e.g. , they may be converted to various commercial and professional uses with a Conditional Use Permit on this portion of Etiwanda Avenue. In addition, the Plan also permits notable structures to serve as a "bonus" for residential developments on lots of 1 acre or more. These structures are not included in density calculations and do not reduce the number of new dwellings permitted. Mr. Robert Flocker, owner of this house as well as several adjacent lots, is opposed to designation. Mr. Flocker is planning to sell the house and have it relocated possibly outside the City. Although landmark status would not necessarily prevent removal , the Historic Preservation Commission would review relocation plans. Mr. Flocker does not wish to be subject to such review. He does not want to demolish the house, but he does want to clear the land and sell it for development. He has expressed his opposition in writing as well as orally (a copy of applicable correspondence is attached for reference) . CITY COUNCIL STAFF 1' -,'ORT The Fisher House June 15, 1988 Page Z III. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTION: The Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously to recommend landmark designation at its May 5, 1988 meeting. The Commission felt that the house was important enough to warrant designation. They thought it should be kept near other important historic structures in Etiwanda. If the Fisher House must be moved, they would prefer that it be relocated close to its current location. Resp lly s ted ra Bul r City nner BB:AB.vc ETIVvANDA HISTORICAL SOCIETY Post Office Box 363,Etiwanda,CA 91739 June 14, 1988 Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council: In 1882 the Chaffey Brothers (who were friends of Alexander Graham Bell) completed a telephone line from Etiwanda to San Bernardino, the longestin the world at the time. On February 1, 1906 a public telephone was installed at the Frost Brothers Store in Etiwanda, and on June 2, 1907 the Home Telephone Company was formed as a mutual, cooperative company owned by the citizens of Etiwanda. The Home Telephone Company was located in the Norton- Fisher home at 7165 Etiwanda Avenue. Mrs . Florence Fisher and her daughter Nellie operated the °manual system until the 1930 ' s. At that time the Home Te phbi�,i�C6npany sold to Associated Telephone Company and a brick central switching station was built ( and is still standi g) on Victoria Avenue. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a unique opportunity to preserve an important segment of history. Due to the age of the Norton-Fisher house, its Victorian architecture, its ties to local history and its association with the national development of telephone service, the significance of the structure spreads beyond the boundaries of our City. The structure is a strong candidate in its original_ location for State and/or National landmark status . Furthermore, due to the proximity of three other City landmarks to the west and north, * the Norton-Fisher house, as a landmark, would complement and enhance the City' s preservation policy. For these reasons the Directors of the Etiwanda Historical Society have RESOLVED: That the action of the Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission recommending the Norton-Fisher house for landmark status is whole-heartedly endorsed and the City Council is urged to adopt their recommendation. Respectfully Submitted, 4 71 Gar Collins, President * Chaffey-Garcia House - directly west * Etiwanda Congregational Church - directly northwest * Pacific Electric Railroad Station - directly north cc : Arlene Banks --Z� 1-f 6 All donations of money or materials are tax deductible RESOLUTION NO. 88-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO DESIGNATE THE FISHER HOUSE LOCATED AT 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission had held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all comments on the proposed Historic Landmark Designation No. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Historical and Cultural Significance: 1. The proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historical period and style. 2. The proposed landmark is an example of a type of building which is now rare. 3. The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. 4. The proposed landmark is connected with a (historic) business. B. Historical Architectural and Engineering Significance: 1. The overall effect of the design of the proposed landmark is beautiful . C. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: 1. The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. 2. The proposed landmark in its location represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community. SECTION 2: Designation of a landmark is exempt from CEQA. (Article 19, Section NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission does hereby recommend approval of The Fisher House as a Historic Landmark to the City Council . PROVED AND ADO TED THIS 5TH DAY OF MAY, 1988. BY: Bobmi t, Chairman AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 1 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: COOP , ARNER, BANKS, BILLINGS, SCHMIDT NOES: COMMISSIONERS- ONE ABSENT: COMMIS ERS: STAMM, HASKVITZ --carried D. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO proposal o designate the Fisher ouse, tiw�anda Avenue, a Historic Landmark - APN: 227-131-23. Arlene Banks presented the staff report. Chairman Schmidt opened the public hearing. Robert Flocker, owner of 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, the Fisher House, expressed his opposition to the designation. Copies of his written objections were distributed to the Commission. Commissioner Banks stated that one of Mr. Flocker's main concerns is that the landmark status would prevent moving, which is not the case. She stated he would have to come before the Commission with an Alteration Permit. She stated that the house is of great significance, that across the street from the house are two landmarks and there are two more to the north and that it is a great advantage to the City to have so many landmarks close together. She stated that if the owner decides to move it that it will stay close by and maybe the property could be converted to commercial use. Larry Henderson, Senior Planner, questioned if Mr. Flocker was planning to sell the property and the structure. Mr. Flocker stated that not at this time. He stated he feels the house is in the middle of the four acres and in the way of being able to develop the property. He stated that he has been trying to sell the house for some time and has had two offers. Larry Henderson questioned if the two offers had expressed any idea as to what purpose or location. Mr. Flocker stated that it was for residential use and they had desired keeping it in Etiwanda. Larry Henderson questioned if the structure was designated, would it bring a better selling price. Mr. Flocker stated that he did not see how it would, but would place more restrictions on the property. He stated that it should be up to the property owner to have their prope.-rtty or structure designated. HPC MINUTES -4- �+ �� MAY 5, 1988 y f Larry Henderson explained the procedure for designation and moving the structure. Chairman Schmidt closed the public hearing. Commissioner Banks stated that she felt the economic value as a commercial use would be great if it was to remain at the site. Commissioner Arner moved to recommend to City Council the approval of the Historic Landmark Designation of 7165 Etiwanda Avenue. Commissioner Banks seconded the motion. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNER, BANKS, COOPER, BILLINGS, SCHMIDT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STAMM, HASKVITZ --carried E. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATIO OF 6797 HELLMAN AVENUE, RANCHO proposal to esignate the Lord House, 6797 e man venue, a Historic andmark - APN: 202-061-12. Arlene Banks presented the staff re ort. Chairman Schmidt opened the pu is hearing. Hearing none, Chairman Schmidt closed the public hearin . Commissioner Billings verified he significance of the house. Commissioner Billings moved recommend to City Council the approval of Historic Landmark Designati of 6797 Hellman Avenue, excluding the out buildings. Commissioner ner seconded the motion. The motion was carried by the following v te: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BILLINGS, ARNER, BANKS, COOPER, SCHMIDT NOES: COMMISSIONER NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONE S: STAMM, HASKVITZ --carried HPC MINUTES -5- MAY 5, 1988 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT " DATE: May 5, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Larry Henderson, Senior Planner BY: Arlene Banks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO proposal o designate the Fisher House, 7165 iw�—Avenue, a Historic Landmark - APN: 227-131-23. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: That the Historic Preservation Commission recommend o the City Council adoption of a Resolution designating the Fisher House, 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, a Historic Landmark. B. Location: The house is on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Base Line Road, south of the Pacific Electric tracks and across the street from the Chaffey-Garcia House. C. Site Land Uses - Zoning - General Plan Designation: The site is an unoccupied , boarded up, singlema family residence. The zoning is determined by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. It is in the Low-Medium Density Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre). The General Plan also designates it as Low-Medium Density. The Etiwanda Specific Plan includes the property in the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District and the Community Service Overlay District. C. Surrounding Land Use - Zoning - General Plan Designation: or - vacant; Designated ow- a ium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the Etiwanda Specific Plan Map and also on the General Plan Map. It is within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District and the Community Service Overlay District. South - Vacant (with a new chain-link fence) ; Designated Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the Etiwanda Specific Plan and on the General Plan. East - Vacant; Same designation as above. The property to the east is not within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District or the Community Service Overlay District. HPC STAFF REPORT RE: 7165 ETIWANDA AVE. May 5, 1988 Page 2 West - The site is directly across the street from the Chaffey-Garcia House which is on land designated "L", Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Victoria Planned Community Specific Plan. However, the Chaffey Garcia House is within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District and the Community Service Overlay District. E. Overlay Districts Within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: The Fisher House is within the Efiwanda Avenue Overlay District and the Community Service Overlay District. 1. The Etiwanda Specific Plan contains provisions tailored to the Etiwanda area. These provisions replace City- wide regulations. They were adopted to take into account Etiwanda's special character, while allowing a reasonable level of development. Throughout the Plan, there are references to historical features such as period architecture, windbreaks and tree lined streets, and rock curbs. The Plan encourages historic preservation. 2. The purpose of the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District is to protect and enhance the visual and historical character and the quality of Etiwanda Avenue and its immediate surroundings. Minimum setbacks are 25 feet with a 30 foot average setback. Structures facing Etiwanda Avenue must be at least 25 feet apart. Styles are encouraged to be traditional and field stone used as major design element. A single family appearance is to be maintained and landscaping is to be consistent with the streetscape theme contained in the Plan. 3. The Community Service Overlay District was formed to provide opportunities for limited or specialized, low- impact commercial and quasi-commercial services. Its purposes are to provide a focal point in the heart of the community that reinforces a sense of community identity and to encourage perpetuation of features that are tied to Etiwanda's heritage. With a Conditional Use Permit and provisions that assure no adverse impacts and enhancement of the visual and historical character of Etiwanda, professional offices, restaurants, beauty shops, farmers' markets and similar uses could be permitted, as well as schools, churches, community buildings and the like. HPC STAFF REPORT RE: 7165 ETIWANDA AVE. May 5, 1988 Page 3 F. Description: The Historic Resources Inventory form describes is house as Spindle-work Queen Anne. The description reads as follows: "An irregular shaped single story structure of wood construction with combination of hipped and front and side gables. Roof has composite shingles. Eaves are enclosed. Gable ends have shingle treatment and detailed verge boards. Siding is flush boards. An integral porch is located on the front with lattice work frieze suspended under porch ceiling, turned porch supports and spindle-work in the balustrade. Porches are of wood. There are similar porches located at the rear of the structure on both the north and south sides. Foundation material is wood. Doors and windows are unknown, due to being boarded. The structure is located on a large, vacant lot of 10 acres. A barn of similar structure was located at the rear of this structure, however, it has collapsed. There are two large trees located to the front of the house, between the dirt driveways. A row of trees lines the street in front of this structure." The large trees in front of the house appear to be Magnolias, and a tall Washington Fan Palm stands closer to the street. Silk Oaks line the edge of the property near the stone curbs. II. ANALYSIS: A. Background - General : This house was selected from the list if potential lan marcs iidentified in the 1987 survey. B. Reasons for Designation: This house is significant because of i s age and its Pc or an-era Queen Anne architecture. It is estimated to have been built in 1895. Etiwanda The First 100 Years gives an 1892 date. It is also significant ecause i was location of the switchboard for the Home Telephone Company which was organized in June of 1907 and owned by the people of Etiwanda. The switchboard was staffed by Mrs. Florence Fisher and her daughter Nellie. The switchboard was moved and mechanized in 1930. C. Issues: This house is unoccupied and boarded up. Designation couTcf perhaps help along the process of rehabilitation and reoccupuation. The City's Development Code allows landmark residences to be used for non-residential purposes with a Conditional Use Permit, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan also 9-�-/ HPC STAFF REPORT RE: 7165 ETIWANDA AVE. May 5, 1988 Page 4 provides for alternative uses. Funds for rehabilitation, however, are scarce. If the building is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and if it were to be converted to commercial use or rental residential use and needs substantial rehabilitation, then it might qualify for a 20% income tax credit for certified rehabilitation. There is also a possibility that future California Bond funds could become available for properties which a local municipal agency owns or has an interest in (such as a facade easement) . On the other hand, rehabilitation for owner-occupancy could take place as development pressure in the area increases. Respectful rehabilitation that is in harmony with the Victorian architecture of the house would help set the tone for this stretch of Etiwanda Avenue. The rehabilitation of the Chaffey- Garcia House has provided a solid start in the direction of developing this area in accord with the vision embodied in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The Fisher house is worthy of recognition as a landmark and should be encouraged to follow in the steps of the Chaffey-Garcia House and be reclaimed. D. Environmental Assessment: Designation of a landmark is exempt from GEQA requirements (Article 19, Section 15308). III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Criteria selected from the Ordinance that are applicable to the Fisher House are as follows: A. Historical and Cultural Significance: 1. The proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historical period and style. 2. The proposed landmark is an example of a type of building which is now rare. 3. The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. 4. The proposed landmark is connected with a (historic) business. B. Historical Architectural and Engineering Significance: 1. The overall effect of the design of the proposed landmark is beautiful . C. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting 1. The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. �i- t i HPC STAFF REPORT i C, RE: 7165 ETIWANDA AVE. May 5, 1988 Page 5 2. The proposed landmark in its location represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The ai y eport newspaper and notices have been sent to the owner an proper y owners within 300 feet. A message was left on the owner's answering tape informing him of the upcoming hearing. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the City Council that they adopt a Resolution designating the Fisher House a landmark because it meets the criteria established in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Such designation is also in conformity with policies of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Respectfully submitted, Larry Henderson Senior Planner LH:AB:ko Attachments / Q I 1 24 TH STREET � 1 SUMMi7�AVE. -- �� —C l�tiw• _*r0 - - 95 * �� I! -6Z / J� j ROUTE - - �- HIGHLAND AVE. E (VICTORIA !'� __ y -'"AK LAKE- __*6 *��ry a�0- VICTORIA AVE. �K '5g eeo Ino' ago lQSRN_,PACIFl RR O Q 0 r-. -.:---1 1 - _ J'S SELINE -- Ua°j �P of j .I Notable Structures (MILLER AVE. 7 W 6956 (Address) I 0 Chaffey/Garcia House I to be relocated i �'�,1.tiltvtx - / I Foothill blvd. S.P. ARROW-HWY.: title Uj figure <I� 'NOTABLE 5 _ 43 Q, STRUCTURES I- L L — — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cvC'`^�o STAFF REPORT z t � a 1 3 O O Ems- Z U a 1977 DATE: April 7, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Larry Henderson, Senior Planner BY: Arlene Banks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MAY 5, 1988 SCHEDULED LANDMARK PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS In keeping with the Historic Preservation Commission 's established Historic Preservation Landmark Hearing Schedule, the following properties will be scheduled for public hearing on May 5, 1988 CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY Assessor's Parcel Number: 208-041-29 Address: 7656 Archibald Avenue Potential Ranking: Local Landmark/State Landmark/National Landmark ALTA LO1MA COMMUNITY Assessor's Parcel Number: 202-151-12 Address: 7125 Amethyst Potential Ranking: Local Landmark/State Landmark/National Landmark ETIMANDA COMMUNITY Assessor's Parcel Number: 227-131-23 Address: 7165 Etiwanda Potential Ranking: Local Landmark/State Landmark/National Landmark As previously requested by the Historic Preservation Commission, this report serves as notice of the upcoming hearings for the second of a series of public hearings on those properties contained upon the Historic Survey List. Attached is information relative to the previously referenced Historic Survey. Copies of the Historic Resources Inventory form for each property is attached. This form contains basic identification information in terms of name, location, ownership, description, relevancy, year of construction, architect and so forth. In addition, we have included photographs. HPC STAFF REPORT RE: MAY 5, 1988 PH April 7, 1988 Page 2 Respectfully submitted, Larry Henderson Senior Planner LH:AB:ko Attachments J f City o. � .ancho Cucamonga Application for HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST DESIGNATION X Historic Landmark Historic Point of Interes,. IDENTIFICATION 1. Common Name: 2. Historic Name, if known: Fisher House or Norton-Fisher House 3. Street or Rural Address: 7165 Etiwanda Avenue City: Rancho Cucamonaa Zip: 91739 County: San Bernardino Assessor's Parcel No. 227-131-23 Zone: Etiw. Sp. Pl : LM Legal Description: Etiwanda rolonv Lanes Lot 12 Blk K 4. Present Owner, if known: Robert Flocker Address: 6226 Topaz City: Rancho Cucamonga Zip: 91701 Ownership is: public private 5. Present Use: Original Use: Single Family Residence Other past uses: Single Family Residence DESCRIPTION 6. Briefly describe the present physical apgearance of the site or structure and describe any major alterations rom its original condition: (See State Historic Resources Inventory Form) This Spindlewo Quenn Anne Victorian house has a complex hipped roof, porches with turnediT posts and a lattice frieze, and wood board siding. It is boarded up. 7. Location sketch map (draw alp label S. Approximate property size: site and surrounding streets, Lot Size (in feet) roads, and prominent landmarks): Frontage Depth or approx. acreage SEE SITE MAP 9. Condition: (check one) a. Excellent b. Good c. Fair_ d. Deteriorated_ e. No longer in existence 10. Is the feature: a. Altered? b. Unaltered? Aonarently 11. Surroundings: (check more thi one if necessary) a. Open land X b. Residential X c. Scattered buildings d. Densely built-up_ e. Commercial f. Industrial X g. Other 12. Threats to Site: a. None known b. Private development X C. Zoning d. Public Works Project e. Vandalism X f. Other 13. Dates of enclosed photograph(s) 1987 and 1988 NOTE: The following (Items 14-19) are for structures only. 14. Primary exterior building material: a. Stone b. Brick c. Stucco d. Adobe e. Wood X f. Other 15. Is the Structure: a. On its original site? X b. ]loved? c. Unknown? 18. Year of Initial Construction: 1895 This Date is: a. Factual b. Estimated x 17. Architect (if known): 18. Builder (if known): 19. Related Features: a. Barn b. Carriage house c. Outhouse d. Shed(s) e. Formal Garden(s) f. Windmill g. Watertower/tankhouse h. Other trees i. None SIGNIFICANCE 20. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): (See State Form) Home Telephone Company Switchboard located here from 1907 to 1930. Switchboard was run by Florence Fisher and her -laughter, Nellie. 21. Main theme of.the historic resource: kVft*X (Xa1lJ*X&MJ: a. Architecture X b. Arts k Leisure c. Economic/Industrial X d. Government - e. Exploration/Settlement f. Military g. Religion h. Social/Education 22. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: State Historic Resources Inventory form , Etiwanda, The First 100 Years. 23. Date form prepared April , 1998 By (name) : Arlene Banks Address: City: Zip: Phone: Organization: City of Rancho Cucamonga -�4-6 �� r, State of California—The Resources Agency Ser. No.]7171 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HABS HAER Loc SHL No. NR Status UTM: A 11-451870-3776775 C HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY B D IDENTIFICATION Fisher House 1. Common name: 2. Historic name: Fisher House 3. Street or rural address: 7165 Etiwanda Avenue City Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. Zip 91739 County San Bernardino 4. Parcel number: 0227-131-23 5. Present Owner: Robert—C. F 10 C ke r Address: 6226 Topaz City Rancho Cucamon4a Cali f._ Zip - 91701 Ownership is. Public Private X 6. Present Use: Resid nce Original use. Residence DESCRIPTION 7a. Architectural style: Spi ndl ework Queen Anne 7b. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: An irregular shaped single story structure of wood construction with combination of hipped and front and side gables . Roof has composite shingles.of are enclosed. Gable ends have shingle treatment and detailed verge boards. Siding is flush boards. An integral porch is located on the front with latice work frieze suspended under porch ceiling, turned porch supports and spindle- work in the balustrade. Porches are of wood. There are similar porches locate at the rear of the structure on both the north and south sides. Foundation material is wood. Doors and windows are unknown, due to being boarded. The structure is located on a largelObarn of similar uctur , vacant lot ur however, it has collapsed. structure was located at the rear of this stre, There are two large trees located to the front of the house, between the dirt driveways. A row of trees lines the street in front of this structure. Curb in this area is original stone. f Kul B. Construction date: h Estimated 1895 Factual 9. Architect Unknown tr 10. Builder Unkncwn 11. Approx.property size _(in feet) - -y Frontage Depth or approx. acreage• 1 0 ,:%�'•, .: ' 'tea"''. 12. Date(s)of enclosed photogrL July 1987 DPR 523 (Rev. 11/85) ! I 13. Ccndition: Excellent _Good Fair Deteriorated X No longer in existence 14. Alterations: _Removal of surrounding grove; boarding of structure Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land X Scattered buildings Densely built-up Residential X Industrial X Commercial Other: 16. Threats to site: None known_Private development_ Zoning Vandalism Public Works project Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? Y Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features- w A SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events,and persons associated with the site.) Location of the switchboard for the Home Telephone Co. a put stock co. owned by the people of Etiwanda and orgainzed on (512107. The switchboard was "wommaned" by Frs. Florence Fisher and her daughter Nellie. The switchboard was moved and mechanized in 1930. Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads,and prominent landmarks): 20. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is INNORTH checked, number in order of importance.) ?E' Architecture Arts& Leisure Economic/Industrial XExploration/Settlement Government .Military Religion Social/Education !r{tW�NOA 21. Sources (List books,documents,surveys,personal interviews �--j and their dates), e.Fl1N�( "A field Guide to American Homes", El !" L Virginia and Lee McAlester 22. Date form prepared September 29, 1987 15 By (name) Lynn Merrill Organization Address: city Zip Phone: ■ ■ adION "�••"„ ""•' lir be. S . pprride In awhor• • RGv faJ'V�P-Gi lu.paaca, , din LOMA LIN'1A Blow lo MIP,1127,iN.(NC21171X) ,� r MO aq. M. =ICE fiespltal. Shaws Income. 8855 1 P-51. Alla Loma OUT OF THE ORDINARY 1 EQUITY LOANS. 61,:55,110101 NEW LISTING thio ter lo" } ices. �artrollan) C@ Gihto9S% ALTA WMA *ONTARIO* Wall established N. mClarenwint homes. 94 DELUXE CONDO 2 bdrm. Finest laof q park. Large" PICK r at I br starter dna at Neuse'custom homes. 165 (MALL NO PMI-NO ESCROW wleetbn of 7 end 1 bdrm's. With this gnat 7 br starter Features super shed lom tyre with bltns.,2 baths,cots.,drooss w/bole,lovely light llv rm T LOW RATES i FEES VACANT. PRICE R IDUC[O ONE MONTH FREE R[NTI home. Priced•f i10f,S00. With w/lean dining area, w ale y compothwad Processing all ammenit Inctudlnq built DRDERS y ng couple. Excellent buy for In kitchen, breakfast area, A =Il room, and all the WU young couple. 947-3034 ONTARIO leundry ream, Fenced yard moat ses+reable am TATION" Can 24ikr rate horune far men 982-8844 anytime 874-5030... RIALTO 'ge'ed'"' with cava patio A RV prkq. i3 Info an all our Met~ Idea SUSAN O'CONNOR R ESTATE 'V7--rimE GOVT OWNED REPOT ADULT PARK,1 br.f he.din. SUN* 714/687-LOAN AL QUALIAF DOOR 9015-/W/07 EZ i c, A a:t aiit°> t s i tl n RE`21E6068 TE f21-6088 .9em-lOpm ni w T E R S* Free Into an buyina/aellk v i FOR sale I owner, 1 BR, flnancing meWli lwmes. No !O wr.7dayYs BAD CREDIT OK *SPECIAL* awleation.917.3011, 671-50110 a� eotrp'614d� r .g. 7 a 9am•IOpm Douglas EraekW&Aasee *HOME BUYERS* OPEN HOUSE fat.a Su le ztiwrauafia • • • 714/354-0280 6 spa,1 br. 7 M.xire n 700%Leans. ***FREE***e 4 owner 111:7,950.Call 9 11113. .IAL VI TORIA Nyle nncA hw fa An ►pow. Weekly Lift of Moores Alt•LOaO• AC NORSE PROP.1 `pMs'• 71MIS•1767 for Sale by Owner with am. rm, 3 car Yar • vi he moved ante year aNe. I REAL ESTATE LOANS addresses, price s, B•nyen,1700sI,ttsSK. 570 f30•f00907.7301 'TCY O phone numbers. FOR SALE BY AR /610096 BEST BUY 5116,950 Tiled root, 3 bdrm + SI aPE Xbt home in upcoming area.OF PROPERTY VALUE bonus room. LlvDNighflul swken Ilv rm w/5 9SL ON PURC 0,god Call980-6162 room and morel asuits, LOANS TO 1170,000 typic, eawa ftd, fcov rm, with broken. 11162,9 sessions TERMSTOISYEARS nieNY eecarated,1qe cev'd M This won't last longi 1110dfN FULLY AMORTIZED . do i a now not•/Mr' ry, ga Y 4 PMTS• 1fT,7N0,1RDPOSITION 1 711901186. B� �Kbt SSw4 /appu�'YVA 3$10,400,x. 1, dn. IY7 Falr, �''• 4 •NO APP RAI SAL aunvaiwe oorw,. I TAPE d NO UPFRONT PEGS is @NO MORTGAGE INSUR- 10071 Arrow,Manche Cues. its by over ANCE 3S 00-IT-YOURSELF IDEAS curaa, repo- •RUNDED WITHIN 10 DAYS ns,garnI r USE FOR ANY PURPOSE 81•bi •IMlg. GREAT WESTERN A READER SERVICE OF THIS NEWSPAPER irence,9-5) Housing REAL ESTATE 5 exper VILLAGE OAKS CUSTOM tr14evel 7171 S.F. K erviw MORTGAGE etre, parioramk vied. Unfgw + 'PE 714482-2692 Mobile Home Sale amealfles,alokon.9d7.1sa, y OTHER LOAN 3 months free space rent. 7 ,2 PROGRAMS AVAILABLE bdrm,doublewidnowe,ncarpet, OPEN HOUSE ' 1 • • • Homeowners-Need Cash?Credit oat eke Vacant.Make N/er. 1:004:00 Pbl-ms7 Runaway bll+st In re For-13-1 we Can NNPI S star Ontario park. 2 bd, � JNDFINANCIAL.91},>„, corner let, total incl. space 6246 Moonstone : Igo% LTV Meme loans ar. 1137S/mo. '7Ceentfuyry 21 Hembree "y ranged.Credit er Income preb- �g74M + ., films.cemm'1,ceastr.,land or Brand new doublwide.7 ad,7 he, on a double lot. Custom and halves. No Shore Lenders, node far you.dTotal incspace.te. Alta Loma Special 711.901 tttl or 377 919 74 firs. Spaciousb 11fff/mo. fppa•cus 1 BR,245 bath home. tic, In Your Mage 1 car garage, file root, seu7tasl NOQUALIFYING REPOS-All areas. Famll i spa, gesebe A cev'd Paaatale. i , "► adult. Low prices. Lew talar water s stem heatai the f -1m, moves you In last. Aome as well as the we rEs doubt* REAL ESTATE LOANS Sales Manager Needed. Full Newly painted Interior is clean IES ration, im- Income support. Top comm. Ask for A sharp. Pride ofNo credit check, no ownershlpe rmore Info. r9quiromonts,me up trent fees Paul er Los. Loma KhOOdfiOolsa excellent /511. f4 Illy no Problem if you're hehwt3 Vista Mobile Homes now. tint, second or third 2251 SaMo`main Ha ations* .gutty loans, 1135010.111110,0001 W s to ppaay for mere• 7S Yn lendMe oxp Fer (714) 391.1481 waf111�RChliViNY ) : fA Lllerlme out,t00rteaaaadrvkeull: RealEstaleUnnsion r h `Vt/ ,u"'Pi. ADULT MOBILE pard• an HOME PARK 980-3100 shirtwai: ,r a leg, Standard Mortgage While male ■rkr/Principe Upland Finest five star park. 3110 slef .on-smoking Pull amaliltles.Nome I,ceneo- GREAT BUY! Shoulde x.11.7760 (71.)"2.8211 minuy located to club hews. Vacant, 11Nw quick.Charming :: Ie,1 will net 1'O°' "le'"lo"a1L° green 3 sodtown plus 7 baths,famll TRESTLE DESK etas ales. WNI kept "me. i any debts OS 116 flea kitchen with extra ce - nom, i hent, inside lew- vone other E Impavomeat bans. No gey In h y►/e kitchen.1117,000. nets.breaklaot Mr a sells-ku. This easy to build trestle desk gives you maximum on ""oriel• •gully Na aPgra+sal• Na Agent(711)9/awos. Has thick carpdtint massive work space in a minimum of floor space.It features a C�. IraN lea. 10 gY fumfin 7e brick fireplace with raised rhls date I 3011• ALTA LAGUNA PRESTIGE hearth, large living ream de- 24'z 42'writing area and eight drawers for files and I r..da lisle ACAS"LOANTOf10,110el Oouble wide, 3+2, large fam. signed far easy furaltun aro supplies. Just trace the full-size pattern parts onto (B/ dratted bf� NO CREDIT OR rm, a/c, calor co-ordinated raMameth. Big Yard a Ile. hare myself. EMPLOYMENT NEEDED Hlroughout,all appliances.call- Jwf a real pace hone.11111,95s veneer plywood,saw out,and assemble.Step-by-step ario FOR NEW PROORAMI +ng fans. For beauty, Prestigephotos and instructions guide you through each phase fear, anxl- (916)229-II8f.H fin. end value,e•II awl AL91. of construction.A complete materials list and cutting others that In De H/rerecbwre9 U have an FAMILY PARK schedule remove all the guess work. workin Or option.Will buy your has.Saw your equity.George 627-OM. Ontario, nice 2 bdrm, vory whoo feel the oftoradable far your? family. Alta Loma d Phobias„. HOME equity bans,100%home Lw space rent.OMI — — — — — — — — — — — — — aily Repot, improvements paw bans that Pool Home Inlorio, CA Hr year nods.bave,9N•Sisi Qreaf location. Walking dis- AIRPORT CLOSE Sandclock to: ❑ 0435 Trestle Desk ....54.50 E.aC11 t i ad 12 be, a/c, all appll• t•nca to all schools• Excellent JOHN BARAKAT anus,owner transferred,must family neighborhood an cel4a ORD Pattern Dept. ❑ 112-page catalog.....53.95 61.00 P! )MING BROKEROBTAINS mew tow r tra sac.Wall kept 1 bodroorll home P.O.Bax 7383 (Picturing 700 projects) •:a cel+uile with in ground Pea.Lea of a- OFFEF ,«. ��- SUPER R/E LOANS 993-3672 trot.11121,9!0.Agent. Von Nuys,CA 91109 ural. 100% UPLAND ELDORADO (711)"11-61,115 JUL) :ea.ultao*” FORGET THE REST Corner let, 2 bdrm, vaunt. OPEN House fun. 1• N.of washer/dryer space, nice pa1T paw S•fld t0 'ITNESSEf l9fh eH MNimaa.91 WE ARE THE GEST file.UE12 $t.Ifts&A.,1 k 1%be,family Name Dept. t ' truth about FIXED PROM 9.A5li rm.,pa Ile,a/e,>i f/p's. p atlont 20r LAKE S11S,iM0.9u•11af.Weaget"S. Address Niles MI 434//1. We heve b"t dble wide mobile BY OWNER.Level 7500 q H. REFINANCE NOW homes In Les serram s a swan Hone an . acre l//a 11111h.° . 3 City Print Ni ,MfEavi tS is 1�Mmollali�/ tom 1e' ZI 95%PURCHASE ba,tam. rm, don,Ilv. rm,2Vs SIZE I. Save AVG. 90%PUR/REFI,NO PMI he.,2 Hrepl's,$nSAM.967. 4U State jig p' 0%M04NCOMEQUALIFIERIvomessage• far•pot• HOMESTEAD REALTY AND Iter.IN Y FHA/VA 9% D AND A MOBILE HOMES By owner, 1 br/7 be, f/p, din Price Includes Postage b Prompt Handling ELAS 1111 E.FOMIII Blvd. rm, Mpafb, Planters. %%79r add sale iii 627' DIRECT LENDER upland 714/901.11167 St07 N0/Per last sale.of PROBLEM CREDIT TT a Pinees.”"ftHouseatll Blvd,fp. MIG"DEBTS RATIO so, Cucamonga.paAdult prk, a 140%HOME IMPROVEMENT spat. 1 bdn be, eafhedri•1 tion ROM9%%-31LTV maint, screen parch, low �''�T THE JUMP FROM11y%•10Y[AR malnf,many oxMaa,must sea. � wof'l train- Greatly reduced for quick sale. oat Instruc- BEST RATES•SERVICE By caner top-mu oat Inst 1 STOP FIN.N[TWORK - — — CALL AL.REMC071M9001i117 ; s 0 iA ��. VORCED (714) 591-0557 ib?- PrNNmserba BRAND NEW 19885 skills? I14-0a2'011 set ,alk to new \ Local"ft,walk to shopping NANItU 11-1 l =LPI! 39 NEW DBLE WIDE* VtIJ raining In bill 71x52,7 BR,2 he,den,lea I' •a, of optionrl 2 . 24 . 120 B. An application for the special use permit shall be filed with the community services department upon the prescribed form and shall contain the following information: 1. A plan showing the relation of the proposed use to surrounding structures; 2 . Alterations required for the change of use; 3. Other information deemed necessary by the historic preservation commission. C. After receiving an application for a special use permit, the community services department shall refer it to the historic preservation commission which shall hold a public hearing. D. The historic preservation commission may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application. E. Prior to approval or modified approval, the historic preservation commission shall find that: 1. The action proposed is consistent with the pur- poses of this chapter; 2. The use proposed will not be detrimental to a structure or feature of significant aesthetic, cultural, architectural or engineering interest or value of an historic nature; or, 3. The applicant has demonstrated that denial of the application will result in immediate and substantial hardship. F. Upon approval of an application, the historic preservation commission shall issue a special use permit, one copy of which will be forwarded to the applicant, one copy of which will be retained in the files of the community services department, and one copy of which shall be forwarded to any other department or agency requesting it. G. Any person residing in or owning property in the city shall have the right of appeal to the city council. Notice of appeal must be filed with the city clerk within ten days following the action of the historic preservation commission. H. No special use permit shall be issued unless the proposed use at the subject location is permitted by Title 17. (Ord. 70 §11, 1979) . 2 24. 120 Landmark alteration procedure--Permit require- ments . A. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2 . 24 . 160 , it shall be unlawful for any person to carry out or cause to be carried out a material change on any designated landmark unless a landmark alteration permit has first been obtained for such material change. B. Any person desiring to carry out a material change on a designated landmark shall apply for a landmark alteration permit. 33 (Rancho Cucamonga 5/83 ) 2 . 24 . 120 C. An application for a landmark alteration permit shall be filed with the community services department upon the prescribed form and shall contain the following data: 1. A statement of the proposed work; 2 . Plans describing the size, height, and appearance of the proposed work; 3. A site plan showing all existing buildings and structures and the proposed work; 4 . Where the application is for demolition, the necessity for demolition shall be justified; and 5. Other information deemed necessary by the historic preservation commission. D. After receiving an application for a landmark alteration permit, the community services department shall refer it to the historic preservation commission which shall hold a public hearing. E. The historic preservation commission in considering the appropriateness of the landmark alteration application shall consider, among other things , the purposes of this chapter and the historic architectural value and significance of the landmark. Among other things, the commission shall take into consideration the texture and material of the building or structure in question or its appurtenant fixtures, including signs, fences, parking, site plan and landscaping. F. The historic preservation commission may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application. G. Prior to approval or modified approval, the historic preservation commission shall find that: 1. The action proposed is consistent with the purposes of this ordinance; and, 2. The action proposed will not be detrimental to a structure or feature of significant aesthetic, cultural, architectural, or engineering interest or value of an his- toric nature; or 3. The action proposed is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property; or, 4. The applicant has demonstrated the denial of the application will result in immediate or substantial hardship. H. Upon approval of an application, the historic preservation commission shall issue a landmark alteration permit, one copy of which shall be forwarded to the applicant, one copy of which shall be retained in the files of the community services department, and one copy of which shall be forwarded to the building official. In addition, a copy shall be forwarded to any other department or agency request- ing it. (Rancho Cucamonga 5/83 ) 34 2 .24 . 130--2 .24 . 160 I. Any person residing in or owning property in the city shall have the right of appeal to the city council. Notice of appeal must be filed with the city clerk within ten days following the action of the historic preservation commission. J. No building, grading or demolition permit shall be issued by the city, if the issuance of such permit will allow a material change to be carried out on a designated landmark, unless the applicant for such permit has first obtained a landmark alteration permit. (Ord. 70 §12 , 1979) . 2. 24.130 Landmark alteration permit--Commission advisory function. The historic preservation commission may, upon request of the property owner, render non-technical advice on proposed work on a designated landmark alteration permit. In rendering such advice and guidance , the historic preser- vation commission shall be guided by the purposes and criteria in this chapter. This section shall not be construed to impose any regulation or controls upon any property. (Ord. 70 §13, 1979) . 2 . 24. 140 Additional conformance requirements. Issuance of permit in conformance with this chapter shall not alter conformance requirements with the other standards and require- ments of this chapter, or any other applicable ordinance. (Ord. 70 §14 , 1979) . 2. 24.150 Unsafe or dangerous conditions. None of the provisions of this chapter shall be construed to prevent any measures of construction, alteration, removal, demolition or relocation necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous conditions of any structure, other feature, or part thereof, which such condition has been declared unsafe or dangerous by the building official, after informing the historic preservation commission when the structure is a landmark, and where the proposed measures have been declared necessary by such official to correct the said condition, provided however, that only such work as is necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition may be performed pursuant to this section. In the event any structure or other feature shall be damaged by fire or other calamity, the secretary or building official may authorize, prior to the commission' s review, that amount of repair or demolition necessary to correct an unsafe condition. (Ord. 70 §15 , 1979) . 2 .24. 160 Property owned by public agencies. The secretary shall take appropriate steps to notify all public agencies which own or may acquire property in the city, of the responsibilities involved in the ownership of designated landmark properties . In the case of any publicly owned landmark, the agency owning said property shall obtain the 35 f�/BiT RESOLUTION NO. 93-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 93-02 FOR THE NORTON-FISHER HOUSE, LOCATED AT 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA - APN: 227-131-23 WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all comments on the proposed Landmark Alteration Permit. WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has received and reviewed all input regarding said Landmark Alteration Permit. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby specifically finds, determines, and resolves as follows: SECTION I: The application applies to the building located at Assessor's Parcel Number 227-131-23. SECTION II: The proposed landmark alteration does not meet the following criteria for denial of a Landmark Alteration Permit established in Chapter 2.24.120 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code: FACT: The applicant has demonstrated the denial of the application will result in immediate or substantial hardship. FINDING: The applicant has not submitted written verifiable documentation that the denial of the permit will result in economic or any other form of immediate hardship. Moreover, the application is not consistent with neither the intent nor purpose of the Ordinance because the proposed alteration poses a decided threat to the historic integrity of the structure. Additionally, the proposed action will be detrimental to a noted and designated structure of significant cultural and architectural value to the community. SECTION III: This Landmark Alteration Permit is exempt from CEQA (Article 10, Section 15301) , however, the proposed demolition is not and is reviewed for environmental impacts separately. SECTION IV: Based on the substantial evidence reviewed by this Commission and based on the findings set forth above, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission does hereby deny Landmark Alteration Permit 93-02 for demolition of the Norton-Fisher House. 66 HPC RESOLUTION NO. 93-07 LAP 93-02 - NORTON-FISHER HOUSE November 10, 1993 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1993. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST• Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission held on the 10th day of November 1993, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Q � I RESOLUTION NO. 93-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 93-02 FOR THE NORTON- FISHER HOUSE, LOCATED AT 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA - APN: 227-131-23 WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all available comments on the proposed Landmark Alteration Permit. WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has received and reviewed all available input regarding said Landmark Alteration Permit. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby specifically finds, determines, and resolves as follows: SECTION I: The application applies to the building located at Assessor's Parcel Number 227-131-23. SECTION II: The proposed demolition of a designated local landmark constitutes a significant effect on a recognized historic resource per CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Item J. Lacking the needed environmental documentation, it is not possible to either approve or deny the project until an Environmental Impact Report is prepared. SECTION III: Based on the substantial evidence reviewed by this Commission and based on the findings set forth above, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission does hereby deny without prejudice Landmark Alteration Permit 93-02 for demolition of the Norton-Fisher House. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1993. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST• Brad Buller, Secretary HPC RESOLUTION NO. 93-07 LAP 93-02 - NORTON-FISHER HOUSE November 10, 1993 Page 2 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission held on the 10th day of November 1993, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: