Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1997-04-07 City Council (21)
TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s .Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: CITY MANAGER April 7, 1997 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment CMR:194:97 SUBJECT:Minor Modifications to the Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation, Demolition, and Alteration of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 and Status Report on the Interim Historic Program REQUEST When Council Members adopted Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation, Demolition, and Alteration of Residential Structures Built Before 1940, they understood that it might be necessary to amend them, particularly those portions of the regulations that were adopted by Resolution 7631. Council also requested that a status report on the process be prepared several months into the program. The purpose of this report is to recommend minor modifications to the Interim Regulations and to update the City Council on the status of the Interim Historic Program for Pre-1940 Residential Structures. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Council: Adopt the Ordinance making minor modifications to the Interim Regulations. Adopt the Resolution containing modifications to the Compatibility Review Standards and Standards for Historic Designation. Approve or modify the Draft Scope of Services to accompany the Request for Proposals for contract services necessary to perform an update of the permanent Historic Protection Ordinance and Historic Resource Inventory and direct staff to proceed with the Request for Proposal and consultant selection process without CMR:194:97 Page 1 of 16 following the normal process required by Policy and Procedure 1-10 for review of consultant scope of services by Council Committee. o Direct staff to return with an additional budget request, in a form satisfactory to the City Manager, to fund the Interim Historic Program $16,000 beyond the original cost estimates and budget amendment in FY 1996-97; to include in the upcoming budget additional contract costs estimated at $135,000 ($10,000 beyond the original estimates in CMR:488:96), necessary to implement the Interim Historic Program in 1997-98; and to return with a budget amendment to cover costs necessary to proceed with the permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Inventory, estimated at $222,000, $80,000 over the original estimate in the Planning Division Work Program. Of the original estimate, $47,000 is already in the Planning Division budget for 1996- 97 and $95,000 was estimated in the Planning Division Work Program to be budgeted for 1997-98. BACKGROUND On September 16 and 17, 1996, Council considered and adopted an Urgency Moratorium Ordinance affecting the demolition of residential structures built prior to 1940. On September 24, 1996, Council extended the moratorium until November 30, 1996. The Moratorium allowed time for Council to provide policy direction and staff to draft Interim Regulations based on that direction. On October 28, 1996, Council adopted Ordinance 4381, establishing Interim Historic Regulations, and Resolution 7631, adopting Compatibility Review Standards, Standards for Historic Designation and Standards for Alteration of Historic Landmark Residences. These Interim Regulations have been applied to all pre-1940 residential structures since the effective date of the ordinance, December 1, 1996. The Interim Regulations were adopted with a sunset date of November 30, 1997. The Council’s intent is to have permanent regulations in place prior to the expiration of the Interim Regulations. Recommendations of the.Historic Resources Board (HRB) The HRB, at its meeting of March 19, 1997, evaluated and made recommendations to the City Council based on their experience to date with the Interim Regulations. In general, the HRB members and staff agree that there are many modifications to the regulations which need to be considered, but that those modifications, including particularly, incentives for historic residential projects, should be the topic of the Permanent Ordinance and Inventory Update. It is very difficult for the public to adjust to rapid and frequent modifications of the regulations, and it is advisable to constrain recommended modifications to the types of minor adjustments contained in this report. The HRB urged the Council to endorse and proceed promptly with the attached Draft Scope of Services for the Permanent Historic Ordinance Update, Attachment C. They recommended that the Council support the preparation and provision of additional public handout materials and community educational CMR:194:97 Page 2 of 16 seminars. Finally, they recommended that the definition of "Landmark Properties" be modified according to Exhibit B of the attached Resolution (Attachment B), discussed in a subsequent section of this staff report. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Staff is recommending minor modifications to the Interim Regulations based on policy direction already provided by the City Council in their October 28, 1996 action. The purpose of this report is to clarify the regulations consistent with previous Council policy direction. DISCUSSION Status Report on Interim Historic Program The Interim Historic Program has been in effect since December of 1996. The most significant activity of the program to date has been in the area of applications for merit screening and evaluation. Attachment D to this report is the Interim. Historic Inventory, including the results of the property survey and HRB merit evaluation process. The information is current as of March 26, 1997. Activity levels under the program have exceeded original staff assumptions regarding application numbers. Merit Screening and Evaluation Number of Applications: A total of 96 applications has been received for Historic Merit Screening and Evaluation. During the first ten weeks, applications were received at a rate of approximately seven per week. Currently, over the past eight weeks, application submission has slowed down to approximately five per week. Results: Among the 96 applications, merit classifications have been completed for " 70 residences. These 70 residences have been classified as follows: Structure Without Historic Merit Contributing Residence Historic Landmark Residence 16(23%) 51 (73%) 3 (4%) One appeal has been received for property at 1171 Fife Street, and that appeal is tentatively scheduled for Council consideration on April 22, 1997. Turn-around Time: The average turn-around time between receipt of application and the hearing date with the Historic Resources Board is five (5) weeks. The Historic Resources Board has assisted in shortening this review period by scheduling weekly meetings, versus their normal bi-monthly schedule. Without this frequent meeting schedule, the typical turn-around time would be six (6) weeks. CMR:194:97 Page 3 of 16 Public Feedback: Public feedback on the Merit Evaluation process has varied from strong support for the broad goals of the Interim Historic Program to frustration over impacts on individual projects. The overwhelming public feedback from nonapplicants has been that the goals of the Interim Historic Ordinance, including stabilization of neighborhood character and preservation of specific structures designated as Landmark Historic Residences, are welcome and even overdue in Palo Alto. Applicants in the process have on many occasions endorsed staff recommendations for assigning historic merit and affirmed either their commitment to preserving their existing structures or their determination to create a compatible replacement residence. Objections to the Merit Screening and Evaluation process have generally consisted of objection to the delay caused to minor projects. Between 20 percent and 25 percent of the applicants for Historic Merit Screening and Evaluation consist of minor alterations to contributing residences. These minor projects do not trigger compatibility review if they do not affect the street-facing facade and impact less than. 50 percent of the exterior perimeter walls. Therefore, approximately 20 percent to 25 percent of the applicants undergo the delay of the Historic Merit Screening and Evaluation process without experiencing any effect on their final project. Staff is recommending amending the Interim Historic Ordinance to exclude many minor projects, in an effort to. reduce the number of Merit Evaluation applications, particularly when the subsequent remodels will not substantially benefit from the education exercise. A second recurring objection to the Historic Merit Screening and Evaluation process comes from applicants, particularly members of the real estate and single family design professions, who find the Compatibility Review Standards to be unduly restrictive. In objecting to receiving a historic designation of contributing residence, some applicants have cited the garage placement requirements or other provisions of the Compatibility Review Standards as not in keeping with their vision for new residences and contemporary lifestyles. A final source of objection to the Historic Merit Screening and Evaluation process comes from applicants who do not understand the impact of a proposed designation. Applicants and homeowners are often unaware of or unfamiliar with the Compatibility Review Standards or The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. They may also be unaware of the next step to take in advancing their design through the appropriate review process. Staff acknowledges the need for continuing education of the City staff, public and design community regarding these new regulations. Applicants are encouraged to contact the Preservation Architect for informal reviews of projects, and for general information about the program. CMR:194:97 Page 4 of 16 Additionally, informational handouts have been developed (refer to Attachment G) that respond to the most frequently asked questions about the program, and Planning and Building Division staff training in the program is ongoing. Compatibility Standards Number of Applications: A total of four (4) applications for Compatibility Review of replacement residences or extensive remodels have been received. Results: Two applications are close to having designs which can be approved for building permit review, and one is pending response of the homeowner and designer to Initial Compatibility Review comments issued by staff. The fourth project is for property at 760 Lytton Avenue, the Cowen Residence, and is currently under review. The applicant’s architect participated in a preapplication process, after which the design was amended to better respond to the Compatibility Standards. Turn-Around Time: Turn-around time for processing the applications is 3½ - 4 weeks. Following initial review, timing has varied according to response from the applicant. Public Feedback: Two projects that are near closure underwent design revision as a result of Compatibility Review. A summary of design revisions necessary on these projects is as follows: 261 Stanford Avenue; Koch Residence ¯ compliance with prevailing setback and conflict between setback and ¯desire to preserve existing backyard tree may lead to another plan revision and exception request ¯provision of a useable front porch ¯limits on quantity of ornamented non-rectangular- special windows on street-facing facade " 1187 Lincoln Avenue; Lovely Residence ¯revision of roofs and bay windows to respond to the Tudor style, as selected by the owner In both instances, the owners have been extremely cooperative and have acknowledged that the Compatibility Standards Review improved the design of their replacement residences. Both parties entered into the review process aware of the provisions of the Compatibility Review Standards, including informal reviews with staff prior to submittal. The Compatibility Review-related revisions to their designs CMR:194:97 Page 5 of 16 have had a contained impact on the overall floor plans for the houses and the required revisions have been achievable with a reasonable degree of effort. The Lovely Residence, which adopted Tudor architectural styling as part of the design for compatibility, requires relief from the front daylight plane requirement in order to proceed to a building permit. As designed, the residence does not comply with R- 1 zoning standards. The project does not qualify for a Home Improvement Exception, because it is a "demolition" beyond the HIE limitations. The design does reflect the Tudor style, and is very consistent with the Compatibility Standards. On the basis of this application and pre-application evaluations of other plans, staff is recommending that the Compatibility Standards be modified to allow full protrusion into the front daylight plane for pre- 1940 replacement housing in order to accommodate traditional architectural styles for new homes in traditional neighborhoods. This recommendation is consistent with prevalent architectural patterns in many traditional neighborhoods. The third project under review was developed without reference to the Compatibility Review Standards, and despite lengthy counseling from staff has not been modified or re-evaluated prior to formal submittal for Compatibility Review. A summary 0f compliance issues with the design of this residence is as follows: 1035 Los Robles; DeStefano Residence ¯ revision needed to setback of projecting three-car attached garage located at main facade ¯compliance with prevailing setback required ¯design revision needed to achieve massing that reflects the Spanish Eclectic style, as selected by the owner Compliance with the Compatibility Review Standards will require more extensive redesign of this proposed replacement residence. The fourth project at 760 Lytton Avenue is still being reviewed and the results were not available at the time this report was prepared. This residence is the first modem architectural style submitted for review under the Compatibility Standards. Approximately 18 additional projects have been reviewed through informal pre- application consultation with staff. The purpose of the informal reviews has been to familiarize homeowners and designers with the Compatibility Review Standards, and flag any potential areas of non-compliance in a timely fashion, so that appropriate modifications can be undertaken prior to formal submittal in the-review process. CMR: 194:97 Page 6 of 16 Among the 18 projects reviewed informally, at least six were found to be sufficiently modest in scope to not require Compatibility Review. This means that the proposed alterations did not affect the street-facing facade, and impacted less than 50 percent of the exterior perimeter walls. Landmark Alteration Evaluation Number of Applications: No formal applications for Landmark Alteration Review have been received. Results: A total of four (4) homeowners and designers have been counseled informally by staff. The purpose of the informal consultations has been to familiarize homeowners and designers with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and to assist them in developing sensitive alterations that retain the character-defining features of their existing historic residences. Turn-Around Time: In the absence of formal applications, a turn-around time has not been identified. However, staff anticipates that a turn-around of five weeks from date of formal application to a hearing with the Historic Resources Board will be typical. Public Feedback: Due to an absence of formal applications, public feedback on the Landmark Alteration Review process is not available. However, among the four potential applicants to this program, three have affirmed their desire to alter their residences in a manner consistent with National Standards. One homeowner, Mr. Campbell of 364 Kingsley, has expressed a desire to largely demolish his historic residence in order to achieve a larger dwelling size. This homeowner’s application for Historic Merit Evaluation was mistakenly processed this winter, although it should not have been, because the definition of Landmark Residence in the Interim Regulations automatically classifies all residential structures in the Professorville District as Landmark Residences; Staff has apologized to the applicant for the administrative error. Mr. Campbell has further been frustrated by the preservation mandate of the Interim Historic Program, has appeared several times before the City Council and written letters to raise his concerns.. Staffhas responded to Mr. Campbell in two letters which are included as Attachment I. He has requested that the Council modify the Interim Ordinance to treat structures within the Professorville Historic District as any other pre-1940 structures would be classified. He has requested that any structures in Professorville which were individually determined to be of less than Landmark status be permitted to be demolished or significantly modified according to Compatibility Review Standards. CMR:194:97 Page 7 of 16 Unassociated with applications, staffhas heard a number of local design professionals express trepidation about the use of the Secretary of the lnterior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. These standards are philosophical guidelines and are easier to implement with specialized training in the body of professional practice known as historic preservation and restoration. Contrary to the perception of some, significant additions and alterations are possible using the Standards, .but sensitivity to the historic resource is required. The Federal ~Govemment publishes these standards knowing that the local agency is empowered to apply the standards according to local considerations, traditions and needs. In the Interim Regulations, the Council directed the Historic Resources Board, recommending to the Director of Planning and Community Environment, as the primary body that will apply the Standards to individual projects, with appeal available to the City Council. This is consistent with the State Office of Historic Preservation recommendation that Historic Boards, with specialized training, be utilized for implementing historic protection programs and ordinances. The City’s Preservation Architect and many other local architects are familiar with, or can be made familiar with, the Standards. Staff has found that many single-family architects and designe.rs who are practicing locally are familiar with the Standards; however, many others are not. By early consultation with the Preservation Architect, designers, architects and homeowners are able to take advantage of staff’s expertise and experience in developing their projects. In some instances, staff is finding that the owner appears more receptive to education regarding the Standards than the designer. In other instances, all parties are already familiar with or are very willing or eager to learn more about historic rehabilitation. There has been at least one instance to date where neither the homeowner nor the architect was enthusiastic about the Standards or learning more about them. Other Services In addition to processing applications under the new Interim Regulations, staffhas supported the new program in a variety of other ways. Some of these support functions are described below. Interim Procedures for HRB and Procedural Training: Prior to the adoption of the Interim Regulations, the Historic Resources Board had little decision-making authority. Except in rare instances, their agendas were consumed with items that were advisory in nature. Their recommendations were non-binding to the property owner or the Architectural Review Board. For this reason, their meeting procedures were very informal, and they functioned with only modest staff support. CMR:194:97 Page 8 of 16 Under the Interim Regulations, the decisions of the HRB are binding, once approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, unless appealed, and affect more directly the property rights of the applicant. It was therefore necessary for staff to draft procedures for the HRB and to support them with conflict of interest and procedural training and procedural advice during their meetings, and to prepare staff reports for assisting them in decision making. The City Attorney’s Office and Planning Division have provided training and support, and the interim meeting procedures now used by the HRB are summarized in a public handout, Attachment E. Sample staffreports are contained in Attachment F. Minutes of their meetings are also prepared by staff to document HRB actions. These minutes have been distributed regularly to City Council over.the past several months, so samples are not included with this report. Public Handouts and Education: In order to provide education and assistance to applicants, staff has drafted public handout material to explain the Interim Historic Program. These handouts are included in Attachment G. The HRB has recommended that more could be done in this area to assist in educating the public and making the process easier. Staff agrees with the HRB, but has found it difficult to turn attention to this program improvement while training existing department personnel, responding to public inquiries and appointments, and continuing to process the high number of applications being received. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, has been an invited guest at the Board of Realtors meeting, as have members of the HRB. HRB members and Ms. Judy have appeared on the local cablecast program "Absolutely Real Estate," and have participated in Architecture Week. Professional Consultation with Applicants and Technical Assistance to the City Manager: Staff conducts office hours and provides telephone consultation each week for the purpose of meeting with the public. Ms. Judy and Ms. Lytle hold several public appointments per week, and Planning Division staff make referrals to their office hours when inquiries that relate to the Interim Historic Program arise at the counter or by phone. Members of the public have expressed a desire to expand Ms. Judy’s availability beyond the current 6 hours per week, in order to have improved access; however, that expanded access would compromise the remainder of the permit processing objectives of the Program. Ms. Judy has also served as a technical advisor to the City Manager on two occasions. First, Ms. Judy responded to the City Manager when questions arose over the contract enforcement status and potential property transfer of the Juana Briones Residence. At the request of the City Manager, Ms. Judy has prepared a Scope of Services to CMR:194:97 Page 9 of 16 provide a Historic Structure Survey, Attachment H, should the new owners agree to allow such an inventory to be completed. A meeting with the new owners was scheduled for March 28, 1997 to consider this offer. In the meeting, the new owners agreed to proceed with the City’s offer to perform an Historic Structure Report. Likewise, Ms. Judy offered her technical advice to the City Manager when questions arose over the condition and historic/structural intervention options for the Sea Scout Building, a City property, and the proper course of action for the City to consider in this fiscal year and future years. Proposed Minor Modifications to the Interim Ordinance During the initial period of implementation, staff has identified several minor modifications to the ordinance which should better accomplish the original intent of the City Council. They are described below and contained in the draft Ordinance, Attachment A. Eliminate Public Hearing Requirement for Merit Screening On September 30, 1996, the City Council adopted a motion to include in the Interim Regulations a simplified staff process for Historic Merit Screening, which would allow applicants an "off ramp" from the merit evaluation process if the residential structure were determined through initial staff field investigation to have no possibility for historic merit. Council requested that notification of the decision and opportunity for public appeal be provided, but Planning staff understood the Council direction to exclude advance public hearing and notification, differentiating the Merit Screening from the Merit Evaluation process. This concept is modeled after the ARB staff approval process. However, the Historic Merit Screening process in the current ordinance contains a requirement for advance public notification and hearing. Because the ordinance, as written, contains a public notification and hearing requirement, the Historic Merit Screening Process is no faster than the Historic Merit Evaluation Process. In fact, if the item is appealed by a member of the public, it can be far more cumbersome. Staff recommends, therefore, that the advance public notification and hearing requirement be eliminated in Section 16.50.020(i) (refer to Attachment A). Instead, staff decisions will be made without a public hearing and will be posted and mailed to properties within 300 feet, allowing for public appeal. The current Ordinance includes appeal to the Historic Resources Board, and finally the City Council. HRB consideration of Merit Evaluation would continue to be subject to a public hearing requirement. Clarify Definition of "Residential Structure" In a few instances, questions from the public have arisen about the applicability of the Interim Regulations to buildings that were either originally constructed as residential buildings and converted to commercial uses, or buildings that were constructed for another CMR:194:97 Page 10 of 16 purpose and converted to residential use. Staffrecommends adding a definition of residential structure, Section 16.50.020(1) in Attachment A, which clarifies the applicability of the regulations to structures built and most recently used only for residential occupancy. Allow Roof Repairs and other In-Kind Replacement of Architectural Features From a public relations perspective, one of the most difficult issues to arise immediately upon implementation of the Ordinance was the inconvenience of additional process requirements on reroofmg projects. The practice in Palo Alto is for roofing contractors to expect an over-the-counter permit, to begin removing the roof prior to obtaining the permit, but to have the permit in time for any necessary inspections. Because the Ordinance went into effect during the rainy season, and the roofmg companies and contractors were largely unaware of the new regulation, many instances of homeowner inconvenience were experienced. Staff, after receiving complaints and recognizing the ramification of the new regulations on reroofmg projects, prepared and mailed notification to all roofing contractors so they would discontinue their former practice of roof removal prior to permit issuance. In order to prevent considerable unnecessary inconvenience, staff also began to administratively allow those who were replacing roofs with "in kind" materials or materials that were listed as acceptable in the Compatibility Review Standards to proceed with their permits without the Merit Evaluation Process. The ordinance does not specifically allow staff the administrative authority to exempt "in kind" or compatible architectural material replacement; although staff believes our current practice is consistent with the intent of the regulations. A proposed revision is recommended to allow for "in-kind" or compatible architectural material replacement, Section 16.50.065, Attachment A. Minor Projects Exemption In many instances, projects that trigger the requirements for Historic Merit Screening and Evaluation are minor in scope. Three disadvantages of subjecting these minor projects to the regulations are: 1) the applicant, in these instances, is more likely to feel unreasonably burdened by the requirement for historic merit screening, particularly when they are not now a structure on the historic inventory; 2) because the structure is not otherwise subject to HRB review and due to the minor scope, the project will only marginally benefit from the educational advantages of the program, and 3) the Interim Historic Program activity is far beyond what was originally expected and these applications add to the application load. The advantages of subjecting the applicants to the program are twofold: 1) updated inventory forms are being prepared for many more pre-1940 residences, and a greater number of homeowner/applicants are exposed to the educational benefits of the Merit Evaluation Process, and 2) in a few instances, undiscovered landmarks are revealed through the process, and. in these instances even minor changes can be of greater relative significance. Staff believes that the disadvantages outweigl~ advantages of including these minor projects in the CMI~:194:97 Page 11 of 16 program, however, and recommend another modification to the regulations which would allow minor projects to be exempt. The defmition of a minor project is contained in Section 16.50.020(j), and reads: "Minor project means a project involving a Protected Residence, other than a structure or site which has already been placed on the City’s Historic Inventory pursuant to Chapter 16.49, that does not affect a street-facing facade, does not affect the half of any side facade nearest the street, does not affect more than l O pereent of the exterior perimeter walls, and is limited to the first floor. " Clarification of the Applicability of the Compatibility Review Standards The Compatibility Review Standards were intended to be applicable to all pre-1940 residential structures which receive an Historic Merit Designation of "Contributing Residence," and for which building modifications meet the definition of "demolition" contained in Section 16.50.020(d). Some confusion has arisen with members of the public and design community because Section 16.50.080 also seems to require other "alterations" to fall subject to the Compatibility Review Standards. Staff recommends that the word "alteration" be stricken from this section of the regulations to make it clear that the standards are applicable only when more than fifty percent of the perimeter walls or any portion of the street facing facade are removed. Proposed Modifications to the Compatibility Review Standards Two modifications to the Compatibility Review Standards are recommended, as described below. Relaxation of front daylight plane As discussed in an earlier section of this report, staff has found that there is an additional conflict between the Compatibility Standards and the Zoning Ordinance, beyond the prevailing front setback and garage placement issues which were raised and resolved in the initial adoption of the Compatibility Standards. This conflict is related to the front daylight plane requirement. When structures are required to comply with the prevailing front setback, versus the automatic 20-foot setback in the R-1 regulations, they automatically protrude into the front yard daylight plane if the prevailing front setback is less than 20 feet. Additionally, that front facade protrusion is likely to exceed the allowable protrusion under the R-1 regulations for many traditional architectural styles, e.g. Tudor or Spanish colonial. Under ¯ current zoning requirements, designers of remodels will typically apply for and receive a- Home Improvement Exception (HIE) under these circumstances. For a new residence, applicants generally comply by modifying the massing of the facade in a manner that is not consistent with the traditional massing of the selected architectural style. However, under the Compatibility Standards, the traditional style and massing are required to be respected CMR:194:97 Page 12 of 16 and it is not consistent with the Standards for the designer to "mutate" the traditional massing to fit the daylight plane rule. The project is often beyond the scope of the HIE process. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Compatibility Standards be modified to allow automatic relief from the front daylight plane requirement in order to assure stylistic architectural integrity. (Refer to Page 14, Compatibility Review Standards, Attachment B, Resolution, Exhibit A.) Clarification of the definition of "Front Facade" The demolition of any portion of a front facade will trigger the Compatibility Review Standards. Staffhas found, through several months of administration, that this parameter of the regulations requires a more specific definition in order to be fairly and consistently administered. After formally and informally reviewing plans, staff recommends that the following definition be added to page 2 and 3 of the Compatibility Standards to clarify this important threshold: "The street facing facade shall consist of all architectural features, including walls, architecturally featured roofs and awnings, porches, columns, eaves, trims, windows, doors, and architectural appurtenances that create a coherent architectural composition on a plane facing the street. The extent of the street- facing facade shall continue ten feet back from the primary front street facing wall of the composition." Proposed Modification to,,,,,the Standards for Historic Desi_~aation The Historic Resources Board has recommended that a modification be made to the Standards for Historic Designation, definition of Landmark Properties. The purpose of this modification is to clarify that there are instances where a structure may have historic value, beyond what it has as an individual structure, when it is part of a larger grouping of structures. This additional wording is recommended by the HRB because the City is approaching the historic inventory during the Interim period on a structure-by-structure basis. During the permanent Inventory process, a comprehensive survey of the community will be undertaken which will examine historic resources in a more comprehensive fashion, and district, contextual and thematic classification will be examined in additional to individual structure inventory. Until that time, the HRB recommends that this additional wording will better protect single structures within landmark groupings. The additional wording-to the current defmition requested by the HRB is italicized below: "Landmark properties are exceptional or major buildings, groups of buildings, structures, objects, landscape elements or natural features which are of preeminent national, state, regional or local importance, exhibit meritorious work of the best architects, are an outstanding example of the stylistic CMR:194:97 Page 13 of 16 development of architecture or landscape architecture in the United States, California, or Palo Alto, or are identified with historic people or with important events or activities in the city, region, state or nation. A property may be designated a landmark when it is one of a distinctive contiguous assembly of historically significant structures with a unified architectural theme or setting that creates a significant and distinguishable entity. The Landmark may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained." Draft Scope of Services for the Permanent Historic Ordinance and Inventory. Update Included in Attachment C to this report is a draft Scope of Services meant to accompany the Request for Proposals for the permanent Historic Regulations contract. If Council finds the scope satisfactory, staff will proceed with the RFP process immediately and initiate the selection of contract services for this assignment. Staff requests relief from the normal process of going to Committee with a Scope of Services in order to expedite the consultant selection process. The City Attorney will separately make a request to Council for funding for contract attorney services which will be necessary for this project. The Request for Proposals includes revisions to the original estimated time line for preparation and adoption of the permanent regulations and update of the Historic Inventory. Staff estimates that the time line will need to be extended beyond the original June 1997 adoption date, to November 1997. The Historic Inventory will likewise need to be extended an additional 6 months, into mid-1998. The Interim Regulations will, therefore, likely need to be extendedto accommodate the expanded time line, prior to their expiration. Staffwill report on the progress of the permanent regulations once a consultant has been selected and a contract and more specific time line are developed. ALTERNATIVES The City Council can modify or amend the ordinance in any manner it decides. Revisions will need to return on a subsequent agenda, if they are directed. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal and Work Program impacts of the interim ordinance were previously discussed in CMR:436:96 and in CMR:488:96. Based on application activity and special services for the Juana Briones House requested by the City Manager, the current consultant contract with the Preservation Architect will not be sufficient to last until the conclusion of the fiscal year, and the $75,000 contract is expected to run approximately $16,000 short. Likewise, the cost estimate for the Interim Program in 1997-98 is expected to run approximately $10,000 over the original estimate, and more if the Council does not adopt the ordinance modifications recommended in this report. Finally, permanent regulations were originally estimated, in the 1996-98 Planning Division Work Program, to cost $142,000 for both the Historic Protection CMR:194:97 Page 14 of 16 Ordinance and the Historic Inventory Update. The cost of the Historic Ordinance was approved and included in the Planning Division budget for 1996-97. Based on the information gleaned from the Interim Regulations program, staff now estimates that the budget for the Inventory Update will need to be expanded to $175,000, $80,000 more than the original estimate in the Planning Division Work Program. The increase is largely the result of two factors. There are more potentially historic structures that will need to be inventoried as a result of advancing the inventory date from 1939 to 1947. In addition, it has been found during through the Interim Program that there are many properties that contain more than one historic structure, each of which requires separate historic evaluation. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The interim regulations have been directed to strengthen the City’s Historic Protection Ordinance, prevent demolition of significant structures, and improve design compatibility of new residences replacing existing contributing structures. The ordinance is found to have no significant impact. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Staff will return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Council adoption on April 22, 1997, to cover approximately $16,000 in additional contract service costs for Fiscal Year 1996-97. Also, staff will return with a budget amendment to include the costs of the Historic Inventory Update, estimated at $175,000. The costs of the permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance were already budgeted for 1996-97, and amount to $47,000. The costs of the Interim Historic Program for 1997-98 will be included in the proposed 1997-98 Budget. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIB~S mo D. E. F. G. H. I. Ordinance Resolution, Exhibit A Compatibility Review Standards, and Exhibit B, Standards for Historic Designation Draft Scope of Services for Update of Permanent Regulations and Inventory Interim Historic Inventory Interim Meeting Procedures for the Historic Resources Board Sample Staff Reports for Historic Merit Evaluations Public Handouts Scope of Services for Historic property Survey for the Juana Briones House Responses from Staff to Michael Campbell and Mafia Zago CMR:194:97 Page 15 of 16 PREPARED BY: Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CC:Historic Resources Board Planning Commission Architectural Review Board Chamber of Commerce Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage Board of Realtors State Office of Historic Preservation Owners of 261 Stanford Owners of 1187 Lincoln Owners of 1035 Los Robles Owners of 364 Kingsley Owners of 4155 Old Adobe Road Owners of 760 Lytton Avenue Barron Park Association College Terrace Residents Association Crescent Park Neighborhood Association Community Center. Neighborhood Association Downtown North Neighborhood Association Midtown Residents Association Palo Verde Neighborhood Association Ramona Homeowners Association University Park Association University South Neighborhoods Group Ventura Neighborhood Association CMR:194:97 Page 16 of 16 ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE cITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 16.50 OF THE PALO ALTOMUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING INTERIM REGULATIONS GOVERNING HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES BUILT BEFORE 1940 BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 16.50.065 AND AMENDING SECTIONS 16.50.020, 16.50.080, AND 16.50.120 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. Legislative Findings. declares as follows: The Council finds and A. To further the protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of structures, districts, and neighborhoods of historical and architectural significance within the City of Palo Alto, the Council on October 28, 1996, adopted Ordinance No. 4381, adding Chapter 16.50 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Chapter 16.50 contains interim regulations governing historic designation and demolition of residential structures built before 1940, and review of the design quality and neighborhood compatibility of replacement structures ("Interim Regulations"). B. Since the effective date of Ordinance No. 4381 and implementation of the Interim Regulations, it has been determined that two aspects of the Interim Regulations may operate to unnecessarily delay prompt decisions on the historic status of properties, and delay roof repairs or replacement necessary to protect structures from deterioration. In addition, staff has recommended that the ordinance be revised in order to clarify the time period within which appeals to the City Council must be filed, and to add other clarifying language. C. It is necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare to amend the Interim Regulations in order to (I) streamline the process for obtaining an preliminary staff decision as to the historic merit, of a pre-1940 residence, and (2) allow certain roof repairs or replacements to be made to pre-1940 residences without requiring historic merit evaluation of the structure, (3) clarify the applicability of the ordinance, and the time period for filing direct appeals to the City Council, where such appeals are allowed. SECTION 2. Section 16.50.020 of Chapter 16.50 of Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read: 16.50.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply: (a) "Aggrieved Person" shall mean a person entitled to appeal specified decisions and determinations made pursuant to this chapter, and shall include only the owner of a Protected Residence, 1 970402 lac 0080453 or other person acting with the owner’s written consent, or a residential property owner or resident who owns or resides in property within three hundred feet of the Protected Residence. A member of the city council, city staff or any city board or commission member shall not be deemed to be an Aggrieved Person unless they are an applicant under this chapter. (b) "Compatibility Review Standards" means design criteria and compatibility standards promulgated pursuant to Section 16.050.110 which shall be applied by City staff in a ministerial review of the design quality of a Contributing Residence replace- ment structure. The Compatibility Review Standards shall assure that the replacement structure is compatible with the pattern of the existing neighborhood and that it is at least in n structure. an exception process to provide hardship relief when site conditions cause unusual circumstances that make application of such Standards an unreasonable burden. (c) ~’Contributing Residence" means any Protected Residence that is not a Historic Landmark Residence, but which is determined to meet the applicable Standards for Historic Designation pursuant to this chapter. (d) i’Demolition"means removal of more than fifty percent of the perimeter walls, or removal of any portion of a street- facing facade, of a Protected Residence other than a Historic Landmark Residence. Demolition does.not include the removal and replacement in kind of deteriorated, non-repairable materials required for the restoration and rehabilitation of the historic structure and resulting in no change to its exterior appearance or historic character. (e) "Historic Landmark Residence" means any residential i’Significant Building" as defined by Section 16.49.020, and any Protected Residence that is determined to meet the applicable Standards for Historic Designation pursuant to this chapter. (f) ~Historic Landmark Residence Alteration" means any alteration to the exterior of a Historic Landmark Residence, including but not limited to removal or modification of siding, roofing materials, windows, chimneys, walls, or any other architec- tural features. (g) "Historic Landmark Residence Demolition" means an act or process, including neglect or failure to maintain, that destroys or razes in whole or in part a Historic Landmark Residence. Demolition does not include the removal and replacement in kind of deteriorated, non-repairable materials required for the restoration. and rehabilitation of the historic structure and resulting in no change to its exterior appearance or historic character. 2 970402 lac 0080453 (h) "Historic Merit Evaluation" means the director of planning and community environment’s or his or her designee’s written determination of whether a Protected Residence will be designated as a Historic Landmark Residence, Contributing Resi- dence, or Structure without Historic Merit, which determination shall be reached upon the basis of a recommendation of the historic resources board which has been developed during a public hearing noticed pursuant to Section 16.49.040. (i) "Historic Merit Screening" means a preliminary review and written determination of the historic merit of a Protected Residence, conducted by the director of planning and community environment or his or her designee ~ .... ~ ...... ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ "~ ~ ~ for the purpose of determin- ing whether there is no possibility that the Protected Residence could meet the Standards for Historic Designation. q-~ !iii!~ii"Protected Residence" means a residential structure that was orig~lly constructed before 1940. ~ ii~i!i!iiiiiiiii"Standards for Alteration of Historic Landmark Residences" m~i~criteria and standards promulgated pursuant to Section 16.50.110 which govern Historic Landmark Residence Alteration, and which shall include and be based upon, at a minimum, the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, as they may be amended. ~ Standards for Historic Designation" means criteria and =~:~~ndards promulgated pursuant to Section 16.50.110 for the determination of whether a Protected Residence shal! be designated as a Historic Landmark Residence, Contributing Resi- dence, or a Structure without Historic Merit. ~m~ ii~i~i~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii’Structure without Historic Merit" means a Protected Res~e that is neither a Historic Landmark Residence or Contributing Residence. SECTION 3. Chapter 16.50 of Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new section to read: SECTION 4. Section 16.50.080 of Chapter 16.50 of Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read: 16.50. 080 Compatibility Review for Replacement of Contrib- uting Residences. No building, demolition or other permit for the i iiiiii’,of contr±but±ng es±dence shall be ±ssued unless the pro~~~~d-replacement structure complies with the Compatibility Review Standards. ~ SECTION5. Section 16.50.120 of Chapter 16.50 of.Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read: 16.50.120 Appeals. (a) Historic Resources Board Review. When authorized by this chapter, an appeal may be taken to the historic resources board by any Aggrieved Person in accordance with the procedures in this section. (i) An appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed with the city clerk within ten days after the mailing of notice of the decision of the director of planning and community environment. An appeal shall not be processed unless it is filed within such time. The appeal shall state in detail the factual and legal errors claimed by the Aggrieved Person. (2) An appeal shall be subject to an appeal fee as prescribed by the municipal fee schedule.No part of the appeal fee shal! be returnable to the appellant. (3) Filing of an appeal with the city clerk shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed until the determination of the appeal as provided in this chapter. Upon the filing of an appeal, the city clerk shall promptly notify the 4 970402 lac 0080453 director of planning and community environment and chairperson of the historic resources board of the appeal, and shall forward all materials submitted with the appeal to the director of planning and community environment. (4) Upon notification and receipt of the appeal, the director of planning and community environment shall set a date for a public hearing on the appeal which date shall be no later than sixty days after filing of the appeal with the city clerk. Notice of hearing shall be given in the same manner as provided in Section 16.49.040. (5) The director of planning and community environ- ment shall transmit to the historic resources board copies of the original application, the appeal, and any other papers and exhibits constituting the record upon which the action appealed was taken, including a written statement setting forth the reasons for his decision. The appellant at his or her expense shall be required to provide for the board and council sufficient copies, as determined by the. director of planning and community environment of the papers, including plans, that constitute the record of appea!. (6) Upon the date set for hearing, the historic resources board shall conduct a public hearing, unless, for cause, the board on that date continues the matter. Upon conclusion of the hearing on the appeal, the board shal! make findings and ~recommend to the city council that the decision of the director of planning and community environment be affirmed, changed or modified, or in lieu thereof, make such other or additiona! recommendations as it deems proper. The findings of the board shall be submitted in the form of a recommendation to the city council. (b) City Council Review. The city council shall consider an appeal within sixty days of receipt of the historic resources board recommendation, or the appeal if direct, bE the city~ clerk. ~ ~ing procedures and requirementsliiiiiiii~~iiiiiiiiii~:. ....... ~iiiiiiiiii~i~iiiiiiiiiii~i~ ~£~:~: to the historic resources board. The council shall conduct a public hearing on the matter. The council may by motion reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or may modify any decision, determina- tion, or requirement recommended by the historic resources board, and may make such decision or determination or may impose such conditions as the facts warrant with respect to the appeal and £o the approval or denial of the application, and the decision or determination of the council shall be final. If granted by the council upon appeal, the requested permit shall be effective immediately. Notice of the council’s decision shall be mailed to the original applicant and to the person filing the appeal. (c) All appeals pursuant to this chapter shall be conducted de novo so that any person, including city staff, may introduce any evidence or argument, even if not presented in earlier proceedings. SECTION 6. The City Council has determined that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment because the construction and reconstruction of single family homes on lots of record is itself an exempt activity. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption and shall remain in effect until the earlier of its repeal or the last day Ordinance No. 4381 is in effect. INTRODUCED: PASSED : AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT : ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment 6 ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF PALO ALTO AMENDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGULATIONS INCLUDING COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS, STANDARDS FOR ALTERATION OF HISTORIC LANDMARK RESIDENCES,AND STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION WHEREAS, on October 28, 1996, the Council adopted an ordinance entitled, "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 16.50 TO THE PALO ALTO ~ICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH INTERIM REGULATIONS GOVERNING HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES BUILT BEFORE 1940 AND REVIEW OF THE DESIGN QUALITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY OF REPLACEMENT STRUCTURES"; and WHEREAS, the above-referenced ordinance required the Director of Planning and Community Environment to promulgate written Historic Preservation Regulations to facilitate implementation of the ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Regulations must include Compatibility Review Standards and Standards for Historic Designation; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 1996, the Council adopted Resolution No. 7631, which approved Historic Preservation Regulations including the Compatibility Review Standards which were Exhibit "A" to that resolution, and Standards for Historic Designation which were Exhibit "B"; and WHEREAS, staff has recommended modifications to the Historic Preservation Regulations in order to clarify the Standards for Historic Designation as applied to groupings of structures, to clarify the definition of "front facade," and to address daylight plane requirements applicable to historic residences; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the proposed amended Historic Preservation Regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION i. The amended Compatibility Review Standards attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "~’ are hereby approved. These Standards replace in their entirety the Compatibility Review Standards approved by Council by Resolution No. 7631. 1 970402 lac 0080484 SECTION 2. The amended Standards for Historic Designation attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "B" are hereby approved. The Standards replace in their entirety the Standards for Historic Designation approved by Council by Resolution No. 7631. SECTION 3. The Historic Preservation Regulations approved by this Resolution shall be published and distributed to the public as an appendix to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this resolution does not constitute a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant effect on the environment. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES : ABSTENTIONS : ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 970402 lae 0080484 2 Exhibit "A" COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OR SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION OF PRE-1940 CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCES City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department December 1996 Re~sedand ~ted COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION How to Use These Compatibility Review Standards .........2 Remodeling a Pre-1940 House ..........................9 Requirements and Recommendations for Designing a Compatible Replacement House ................................. 11 Part 1: Streetscape & Neighborhood Character ........12 Part 2: Architectural Style .....................27 Completing the Compatibility Worksheet: Identifying Neighborhood Character and Architectural Style ..........41 Guide to Palo Alto Architectural Styles & Other References . 45 Compatibility Worksheet .............................50Vie INTRODUCTION Background and Purpose of the Compatibility Review Standards In the first nine months of 1996, permits were granted for 62 single family houses in Palo Alto tO be demolished and replaced with new houses. Thirty-four of these houses were constructed before 1940 and located mostly in the city’s older, more traditional neighborhoods. Concemed that the loss of so many older houses would erode the distinctive character of these neighborhoods, the City Council adopted Interim Regulations to limit or restrict demolition of houses that have historic significance, either as Landmarks or as Contributors to the historic character of the neighborhood, to encourage sensitive rehabilitation of older homes, and to assure that in cases where these houses are demolished the houses that replace them will contribute the same quality of design and compatibility with neighborhood characteristics as the original houses. These provisions help to assure current and future residents that the character of their neighborhood will not undergo radical change, and to protect the investments that residents have made in their houses and neighborhoods. When do the Compatibility Review Standards Apply? The Compatibility Review Standards apply to new construction that replaces a house that was built before 1940 and has been determined to have historic significance as a Contributing Residence. In addition, the Standards apply to extensive remodels of. Contributing Residences when 50% or more of the exterior walls or part of the front facade are being removed. In rare instances where a Landmark building is permitted to be removed or demolished, the replacement structure also would have to comply with these Standards. See Section I. for more details about how to determine whether the Compatibility Review Standards apply to your project. The Compatibility Review Standards do not. apply to remodels of Landmark Historic Residences uil~ h~st~distriCts these buildings are subject to The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯1 SECTION h HOW TO USE THESE COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS Consider the option of an addition to or remodel of your house rather than demolition and replacement. An addition to or remodel of your older house that is sensitive to its original characteristics will help to preserve the distinctive historic architectural qualities of Palo Alto. Before you decide to demolish and replace your house, consider whether an addition or remodel will meet your household’s needs. Read Section II, which discusses in more detail the opportunities and benefits of a successful addition or remodel. As you complete the Compatibility Worksheet in Section III, consider the special characteristics of your house and how it contributes to the special character of the neighborhood. If you decide to retain at least 50% of the walls of your house, including the front facade, you are not required to comply with the Compatibility Review Standards. Instead, use the information provided in the Compatibility Review Standards and the Compatibility Worksheet exercise to help you identify the essential characteristics of your house and neighborhood and to design your addition or remodel in a way that will celebrate and enhance the style of your house and the special qualities of the neighborhood. Determine whether the Compatibility Review Standards are mandatory for your project. Your project must comply with the Requirements of the Compatibility Review Standards if both of the following apply: The original house that is being replaced or extensively remodeled was constructed before 1940 and has been determined to be an Historic Landmark Residence or a Contributing Residence The proposed construction plans will result in removal of 50% or more of the exterior walls or part of the street facing facade(s) of the original house. :t ~ COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE" 2 I. HOW TO USE THESE STANDARDS Q Find out if your house is an Historic Landmark Residence or Contributing Residence, or is located in an historic district (The City Council-adopted criteria for evaluating historic merit are available at the Planning Department.). 1)First, verify that your house was constructed prior to 1940. Consult the Assessor’s data, available on microfiche in the Planning Department, which will show the date of construction for your house. 2)Next, consult the City ofPalo Alto’s current Historic Inventory, and fmd out whether it has been identified in the Inventory as a structure with historic architectural or cultural significance. Structures identified as Category 1. or 2 are considered to be Historic Landmark Residences, but structures identified as Category 3 or 4 will require an Historic Merit Evaluation to assess their level of historic significance.. Because the Inventory has not yet been updated to assure that all structures with historic, architectural or cultural merit are identified, the house may still have historic merit even if it is not identified in the Inventory. 3)If your house is not on the Inventory, you must request a Historic Merit Screening by Planning staff to determine whether the house could possibly be considered to be a Contributing Residence or a Historic Landmark Residence. 4)If based on the Historic Merit Screening, it appears your post- 1940 house could not meet the Standards for Historic Designation, then you are not required to follow the requirements which apply to demolition, alteration and replacement of Contributing Residences. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE- 3 I. HOW TO USE THESE STANDARDS 5) You may wish, however, to follow, the recommendations in order to help assure your house is compatible with the quality and character of other homes in your neighborhood. If it appears, based upon~the Historic Merit Screening, that your house may meet the Standards for Historic Designation, a Historic Merit Evaluation will be required. This evaluation will include a recommendation by the Historic Resources Board to the Planning Director regarding the determination that a pre-1940 house is either a Historic Landmark Residence or Contributing Residence. Figure 1: Contributing Buildings support the historic character of a neighborhood or district. 6)If the house is determined to be a Historic Landmark Residence, no application for demolition will be approved during the current interim regulations, except under special circumstances. Any remodel or additions will need to be approved by .the Historic Resources Board according to National COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯4 I. HOW TO USE THESE STANDARDS Standards and Guidelines. See Planning Department staff for more information about these Standards. 7)If your house is determined to be a Contributing Residence, you must comply with the Compatibility Review Standards and obtain approval for a remodel or for a replacement structure prior to demolition or alteration of the Contributing residence. Demolition is defmed as removal of more than fifty percent of the perimeter walls, or removal of all or part of the street-facing facade. Demolition does not include removal and replacement in kind of deteriorated, non-repairable materials required for the restoration or rehabilitation of the structure and resulting in no change to its exterior appearance or historic character. o Review the Requirements and Recommendations section of the Compatibility Review Standards, and Complete the Compatibility Worksheet 1)Look over the Requirements and Recommendations section (Section III) to become familiar with their goals and general content. Make sure the architect or designer you may hire to assist you in designing your addition or new home is familiar with them as well. 2)Complete the first sections of the Compatibility Worksheet (Section VI.), which helps you assess the elements of the "streetscape" which help contribute to the character of your neighborhood. You may want to photograph elements you feel give your neighborhood special appe, al. Use Section IV to guide you in completing the Worksheet. 3)Complete the second section of the Compatibility Worksheet, which helps you assess the architectural character of your home and other homes in your neighborhood. Refer to Section IV and to the Guide to Palo Architectural Styles and other references in ¯ Section V for help in determining the predominant style of your house and neighborhood. 4)As you begin reviewing your options and developing your plans, it is recommended that you make a pre-application appointment COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 5 I. HOW TO USE THESE STANDARDS 5) to meet with the city’s preservation architect, who can help you in complying with the Compatibility Review Standards and assist you with your application. After you have learned more .about your house’s architectural style, take a hard look at the possibility of retaining some or most of your Contributing residence, and accommodating your needs for additional space and updated amenities with an addition or remodel. See Section II for a discussion of some of the ¯ advantages of doing so. Retain any sketches you make from this stage and attach them to your Compatibility Worksheet, whether or not you decide to retain part or elements of the existing home. 6)Having decided the amenities you wish to include in your new home and the elements of the original home you wish to retain, work with your designer to produce a design which meets the Compatibility Standards. Although "recommended practices" are not absolutely required, by trying to fulfill them wherever possible you will have a greater opportunity to produce a house which is compatible with neighborhood streetscape and architectural character. 7)Upon completion of your design, complete Sections 3 and 4 of your Compatibility Worksheet, which ask you to describe your proposed design in relationship to Neighborhood Character and Streetscape Patterns, and to Palo Alto architectural traditions and the original house. If you notice ways to refine the design to increase its compatibility with neighborhood and architectural character during this process, do so, noting your efforts on the Worksheet. Submit an application for Compatibility Review of your proposed remodel or replacement Residence When you have completed the Compatibility Worksheet and have assembled the other Submittal Requirements identified below, make an appointment with the city’s preservation architect to submit your application for Compatibility Review to the Planning Department. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯6 I. HOW TO USE THESE STANDARDS You will be given a date by which the assessment of your design’s compatibility will be available. This written assessment will include a determination of approval, approval with conditions, required and recommended design or application revisions before a determination can be made, or denial of approval. If you have any questions about the recommendations or requirements, contact the city’s preservation architect. Submittal Requirementsfor Design Compatibility Review (note: this is a partial list - refer to the complete checklist available from the Planning Division.): Photographs: a.Photo montage of the block, both sides of the street b.Photographs showing all sides of the original house, garage, and any other structures on the site c.Photographs of architectural details of the house and other buildings All photographs should be 4 x 6 inches mounted on cardboard sheets 81/2 x 14 inches with property address on each sheet, or unmounted, with property address on the back of each photograph Completed Compatibility Worksheet, assessing character of the neighborhood and showing how the replacement house meets the requirements of the Compatibility Review Standards. Plans: a. bo Schematic design plans showing all proposed development Site plan showing location of all existing and proposed structures and all existing trees on the site, the location of adjacent structures, and the location of all existing curbs, curb cuts, paving, and other infrastructure including street trees located in the Public Right of Way. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯7 I. HOW TO USE THESE STANDARDS Consult the Submittal Checklist, available from the Planning Department, for more specific direction about information to be included on development plans. 4.Aerial photo or Sanborn Map excerpt (available from the Planning Division and Building Divisions, respectively.) Figure 2: Bungalow courts found in older Palo Alto neighborhoods include several small dwellings grouped together on a large lot or a collection of very small lots. These courts and other multifamily residential buildings may require flexibility in applying the Compatibility Review Standards, particularly regarding driveway and garage treatment. 6.Exceptions to the Compatibility Review Standards. In cases where unusual site conditions make the strict application of the Compatibility Review Standards an unreasonable burden, exceptions to the Standards may be considered. For example, in cottage courts or other sites with multiple units, driveway and garage requirements in the Standards may not be appropriate. The Exception review process will involve a hearing opportunity and a decision by the Planning Director or his designee. Based on fmdings that the proposed alternative better COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯8 I. HOW TO USE THESE STANDARDS achieves design quality and compatibility with the existing neighborhood than would the strict application of the requirements of the Compatibility Standards, the proposed alternative may be approved. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE. 9 SECTION H: REMODELING A PRE-1940 HOME Remodeling or adding on to an existing house may be the best altemative for households that need more space or have changing requirements. There may be an opportunity to improve the layout of the entire house and to enhance compatibility with the neighborhood. By retaining elements of the original homes and continuing their architectural character in additions, remodeled homes can preserve Palo Alto’s precious architectural heritage and the charm and desirability of older neighborhoods. You may also want to explore tax incentives for restoration and rehabilitation of historic buildings. Figure 3: This well-designed remodel added desired additional space while respecting and enhancing the character of the original home. In remodeling a pre-1940 home, keep the following thoughts in mind: The first step in planning an addition is to study the Zoning Ordinance regulations to determine what may be built..Be aware that you can apply for a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) if you fmd that you cannot adhere to the strict provisions of the zoning ordinance for site development regulations such as setbacks, daylight planes, height, lot COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 10 II. REMODELING OF A PRE-1940 HOME coverage and incidental amounts of floor area. Home Improvement Exceptions apply to projects where 75% of exterior walls and 25% of existing roof area is maintained, and are intended to help sustain the integrity of the existing house design concept or neighborhood character. If you are remodeling a Historic Landmark Residence or Contributing Residence, you may also be eligible to use the State Historical Building Code. This code provides added flexibility in meeting the intent of the code where strict interpretation of the Uniform Building Code could adversely affect the preservation of historic buildings. Next step, review these recommendations and requirements, recognizing that if you retain more than 50% of exterior walls including the street- facing facade, the requh:ements are not mandatory. In either case, following the recommendations will help you assure that your remodeled home preserves its original architectural character and enhances your neighborhood character. You may also wish to consult an architect to help you with the planning and design process. Use the Worksheet in Section VI and the reference materials in Sections V to identify distinguishing characteristics of the neighborhood and patterns which contribute to the streetscape. Refer to the Guide to Palo Alto Architectural S .Wles and the reference materials in Section V to identify the original architectural style of your house. As you design your addition, look for ways to continue the architectural character and features of the original home in the remodeled portion. Be sure that if you are adding at the ground floor or second story that the overall building massing is consistent with the house’s architectural character. Be sure to continue streetscape patterns that help define neighborhood character as well. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE .10-A SECTION HI: DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of these Compatibility Review Standards is to guide design and construction of new residential structures or substantial alterations to pre-1940 residential structures to preserve the special and desirable qualities of the neighborhood. Defining Characteristics of Pre-1940 Palo Alto Neighborhoods These special qualities come from characteristic patterns of building placement, open space, landscaping and architectural detail. These patterns are similar throughout Palo Alto’s pre-1940 neighborhoods, even though the styles of architecture may be varied. The repetition of these qualities in hundreds of houses, each one different yet conforming to the essential pattern, gives these neighborhoods their strong character, cohesion, and visual richness. Essential characteristics of these neighborhoods can be identified in the following six points. The main focus of each house is on the design of the front facade, particularly the entry, and its connection to the front garden and to the street. Regularly spaced street trees and planting strips line the streets, helping to define the street and sidewalk area while providing shade and unifying the streetscape. The houses are located in a "garden" setting, with planting, open space and views between buildings. Garages and car parking are located at the back of the site and do not dominate the front or side street facades. The architecture shows careful attention to scale, balance, proportion, detail, materials and craftsmanship. Architectural styles reflect the history of Palo Alto, local materials, lifestyle and climate. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯11 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Figure 4: Houses are located in a "garden" setting. Organization of the Requirements and Recommendations Section This Section is divided into two parts. Part 1: Streetscape and Open Space includes those elements that determine the view from the street and the arrangement of buildings and open spaces. Part 2: Architectural Character includes those elements that comprise the design of the individual structures, which in turn contribute to the character of the neighborhood as a whole. Each section describing one of the characteristic elements is organized in the following way: A description of the Existing Pattern and how this element contributes to the special character of the pre-1940 neighborhood An outline of "Recommended Practices" that will help to preserve and enhance that character. A list of the "Requirements" that each project will have to meet regarding this element in order to be approved. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯12 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Part 1: Streetscape and Open Space Recommendations and Requirements The front yard, sidewalk, street trees, fences, driveways, landscaping, everything in front of the house, all contribute to our experience as we walk or drive down the street. This combination of elements constitutes the streetscape. The streetscape of older,Palo Alto neighborhoods is characterized by a high degree of architectural variety and pedestrian detail, unified by certain characteristic patterns of landscaping and building placement. Figure 5: Street trees and buildings with similar setbacks define the street edge and frame the sidewalk area, while porches, front gardens and architectural details add human scale and pedestrian interest. FRONT AND STREET S~E SETBACKS/FRONT DAYLIGHT PLANE Existing Pattern: The front setback is the distance from the front of the house to the front property line (not the sidewalk). The minimum setback established by the zoning regulations is 20 feet. However, in historic neighborhoods with a different setback pattern a smaller COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ° 13 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS or larger setback pattem may prevail, and should be respected by new construction. Recommended Practice: Maintain the existing setback pattern by building to the prevailing setback line. Notice that corner houses may be located closer to the street than other houses on the block. Requirements: Locate at least 50% of the front facade of the house at the prevailing setback line, with the remainder of the front facade at or behind that line. The prevailing setback line is the line closest to the street with 75% of the houses located behind it. 3.If the house is on a corner and the original house is located closer to the street than the prevailing setback line, then the required front setback is the front setback of the original house. Side setback requirements set by zoning apply unless the original street side facade is being retained. If the front facade of the original house is being preserved, the setback of the original house may alternatively be the allowed setback. 5.Similarly, if the street side facade of a house on a corner lot is preserved, the setback of the original house is considered the allowed setback. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 14 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GARAGES Existing Pattern: In most pre-1940 neighborhoods, garages are separate from the house and located at the back of the lot. This pattern continues the outbuilding relationship to the main house that carriage houses had in a previous era. It has a powerful impact on the character of these neighborhoods in at least five ways: Figure 6, 6a. Location and design of garages and driveways are an important componem of neighborhood character. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 15 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GARAGES (continued) 1) the amount of paving in the front yard is the minimum required for access; 2) the most prominent design element on the facade of the house is the entry or a major window rather than the garage; 3) side driveways provide open space and separation between houses; 4) cars can be parked in the driveway while still being out of the front yard; 5) the difference in size between houses and garages establishes a pattern of variety in building volumes, rather than mostly large, uniformly sized buildings. Recommended Practices: 1.Locate the garage to minimize its visibility from the street. Design the garage to be architecturally compatible with the house but not competing with the house as the primary focus. Figure 7: Attached garage in rear, partially screened by front of house, provides similar appearance to traditional detached rear garage and is permitted with certain conditions. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 16 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GARAGES (continued) Requirements: Locate the garage at the rear of the site and detached from the house by at least 12feet. If located at least 75 feet from the front property line, zoning allows the garage to be located adjacent to the side and rear property line. Figure S: Diagram of permitted attached ~-~r~g-e-10ca~i-on - for standard size non-comer lots. Alternatively, the garage may be attached to the house, provided that it is located no closer than 60 feet from the front property line, and that a side setback as maintained. o more than thus partially screening view of the driveway and garage from the street. No part of the second story can extend overthe garage within lO feet of the garage side wall The garage must have a separate roof that is the same pitch as the house roof, or less. In this case, second floor balconies are not permitted over the garage, in order to COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 17 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS protect the privacy of the adjacent property. If the house is located on a corner, the garage may be placed in the rear yard setback and accessed from the side street. The garage must be located at least 16feet from the street side .property line. Alternatively, garages on corner lots may be attached if located outside the rear yard setback. The front of the garage must be recessed at least 2feet behind the of the house. Figure 9: Many existing houses on comer lots have detached garages located in the rear yard with access from the street. These Standards permit garages in this location, which can provide better access between the house and garden than an attached garage. In a single car garage, use a garage door that is 8feet wide, or less. In a double car garage, use two doors not more than 8feet wide separated by a vertical support at COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 18 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS least 8 inches wide, or use one door not over 16feet wide. Where three car garages are permitted by ordinance, use one door eight feet wide and one door 16 feet wide, or less. Design garage doors with square or vertically proportioned elements to minimize the apparent width of the doors. If the door is more than eight feet wide, design the door so that it has the appearance of being divided vertically into two distinct sections. Do not use Rancher style doors, because the strong horizontal proportions emphasize the width of the door. Do not use steel garage doors. Do not use non-rectangular or decorative windows on garages or garage doors. If the garages on the two adjacent properties and the garage for the original house are on the same sides of their respective houses, then locate the driveway for the new house in this same way so that the pattern of open space between houses is preserved. If alleyway access is provided, required parking shall be accessed from the alley and the garage shall be located within 5feet of the rear property line. On substandard lots less than 50feet wide or 80feet deep, and where no alley access is available, only one on- site parking space is required and a single car attached garage is allowed. The front of the garage must be recessed at least two feet behind the main front facade of the house. If two parking spaces are provided, one must be tandem. 8.Carports are not permitted, unless they are located where the open sides cannot be seen from a public street. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE. 19 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DRIVEWAYS Existing Pattern." Driveways at nearly all ofPalo Alto’s pre-1940 houses are between 6.5 and 10 feet wide, with 9 feet being the most common width. They are typically located several feet from the side property line and several feet from adjacent building walls; usually this space is planted with a hedge or other landscaping. Traditionally, driveway surfaces are treated in one of two ways. The most common treatment is a simple, unobtrusive surface of asphalt or poured cement. In other cases, the driveway is surfaced with bricks, cobbles, stones, rubble or gravel, and adds textural interest and an element of craftsmanship to the front garden. Figure 10: Not permitted. This 20 foot wide driveway with attached walk reduces the front yard landscaping dramatically and displaces street trees and curbside planting. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯20 DRIVEWAYS (continued) III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Practice: Treat the driveway as a garden element. Minimize the width of the driveway and the amount of paving on the site. "Hollywood" strips, with planting between the wheel tracks, may be used instead of solid paving. Use simple, traditional paving materials, and provide planting that will help to frame the site and screen the paving. Requirements: Make driveways 9feet wide or less. Driveway curb cuts must have a vertical curb and be no more than 10feet wide with a 3foot radius. Within 27feet of the garage doors, driveways may widen to no more than the width of the garage door(s) plus 2feet. However, no driveway may be more than 12feet wide within 5feet of the public sidewalk. Interior sidewalks, patios, etc. may adjoin the driveway for no more than 6 linear feet. Locate driveways at least 1.5feet from the side or rear property line and at least 1.S feet from the side of the house to provide space for planting on both sides of the driveway., except that no planting space is required between the driveway and the back half,f the house. (An illustration or diagram will be provided) Use the following materials for driveway surfaces: asphalt; poured cement with a troweled or exposed aggregate finish; real brick, cobbles, or stone; rubble; or gravel For driveways, do not use precast interlocking pavers or stamped concrete, since these materials generally lack the appearance of craftsmanship associated with traditional materials. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 21 DRIVEWAYS (continued) III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Figure 11: By providing a low hedge, wall or fence and by setting garages back from the closest street facing wall, the view of driveways and garage entries can be screened. This attached garage is on a comer lot and accessible from a side street. If the driveway widens to more than 18feet at any location inside the property line that is visible from a public street, provide a wall, fence or hedge along the property line to screen the paving. STREET TREES AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY Existing Pattern: Street trees are one of the most striking features ofPalo Alto’s older neighborhoods. Trees provide shade and canopy and help define the street and sidewalk areas. They also provide a COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯22 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TREES AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (continued) unifying element to the streetscape of older neighborhoods, while the variety of tree species used provide a range of shade, color and other characteristics. The planted area within the strip between sidewalk and street provides water and nutrients to street trees and additional visual interest for the pedestrian, while screening views of the street paving from within the house. Figure 12: Street trees and planting in the strip between sidewalk and street define a pedestrian zone and provide a unifying element to the streetscape of older neighborhoods. Recommended Practice: Note the location, spacing and type of street trees on the street and take this into consideration in the design of the new house, locations of garage and driveway and the design of landscaping and paving in the front yard and planting strip. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 23 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TREES AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (continued) Requirements: Do not relocate, realign or widen a driveway to within 10feet of any existing street tree, unless it is not possible to access the site and still meet this requirement. If street trees are missing along the property frontage on the street, locate the driveway to allow replacement of the missing trees at approximately 25feet intervals. Limit paving or hard surfaces within the parking strip to no more than 5.5 linear feet per street frontage, not including the driveway apron. Provide irrigated planting of ground cover or small shrubs in the parking strip. If there is a fence or wall along the property line, provide irrigated planting in the space between the sidewalk and the fence or wall LANDSCAPING Trees provide shade and canopy and provide an asset to both the individual property owner and the neighborhood. Mature trees and other large plant material are a part of the special quality of older neighborhoods~ Recommended practice : Locate and identify all mature trees and shrubs on the property. Observe their characteristics and what benefits they may be providing in terms of shade, seasonal color, etc. Consider that some may be old species no longer generally available in the trade and therefore rare. Retain and protect mature vegetation where possible. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 24 IlL REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LANDSCAPING (continued) Consistent with neighborhood pattems, fence materials and design should be compatible with the house’s architectural style and neighborhood character. Solid fences and fences over four feet tall should be avoided, except to provide backyard privacy. Locate perimeter fences or walls behind the property Figure 13: The proportion and details of this redwood fencing are compatible with the Craftsman house. o line to allow planting to soften the appearance of the fence. If there is an uninterrupted sweep of lawn across several properties, maintain this pattern. Design the landscape to be compatible with the house design and neighborhood. Be aware that irrigated front lawns are the main source of water for many street trees, so if drought tolerant landscaping is used, consider providing irrigation to the street trees. If irrigation to the front yard is being turned off during construction, use soaker hoses to water street trees. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ° 25 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LANDSCAPING (continued) Requirements: All valley oak and live oak trees over 11.5 incites in diameter or 36 inches in circumference measured 4.5feet above natural grade that are located in required setbacks are protected under the City’s street tree ordinance and must be retained. 2.Prior to demolition and during construction, provide protective fencing and frequent deep watering to all plant materials that are being retained, including street trees. Figure 14: Planting is used to define the edges of garden areas and to screen garages and paving. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 26 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PART 2: ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER Palo Alto’s older neighborhoods are characterized by a combination of architectural styles, with certain styles predominant in each neighborhood. Each of these historic house styles is composed of a coherent and consistent combination of materials, window treatments, building massing, ornamentation and roof treatment. While individual details may vary, these characteristics provide a sense of unity within each house and with others of the same style. Additions and remodels of pre-1940 houses should be compatible with the style of the original structure. A first step in designing a remodel or addition is therefore to identify the architectural style of the original home. Common Architectural Styles in Palo Alto Houses A number of architectural styles predominate in Palo Alto homes built before 1940. Illustrations and descriptions of character-defining elements of these styles can be found in Section V. These houses represent the history of this area, dating from the founding of the town of Mayfield and Palo Alto through the start of World War II. While there are some other architectural styles represented in pre-1940 buildings, the list below includes the most common styles. This list is in approximate chronological order, with related styles grouped together. Within theses groups, styles influenced each other and are sometimes blended in a single building. Colonial Revival Shingle Style Craftsman Bungalow Spanish Colon Mission Revival Tudor Modeme COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE. 27 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Figure 15: Shingle style and Craftsman details are blended in shingle-covered houses with prominent overhanging roof lines. Skilled builders and architects used locally available redwood and created indoor/outdoor living areas suited to the area’s mild climate. Some of the predominant styles are particularly well adapted to the area’s climate and building materials, such as the Craftsman, Shingle and Spanish Colonial Revival styles. Prominent California architects such as Julia Morgan and Birge Clark have designed local homes in these styles which are an important part of Palo Alto’s distinctive architectural heritage. For further information on Palo Alto and Bay Area architectural traditions, consult the following references, available at the Planning Department and the Public Library, and local book stores: Section V: Guide to Palo Alto Architectural Styles Historic and Architectural Resources of the City_ of Palo Alto Rehab Right: How to Utilize the Full Value of Your Old House Single Family Residential Design Guidelines COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE. 28 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COMPATIBLE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Existing Pattern: Each of Palo Alto’s older neighborhoods gets its distinctive character from a blend of architectural styles. Some neighborhoods and blocks are more eclectic and others are more homogeneous. Often there is a predominant style, such as the shingle style or bungalow style, which gives the neighborhood a sense of unity and distinctiveness. Recommended Practice: Where possible, significant architectural features and street facades of the original house should be retained and the architectural style of the new construction should continue the materials, details, proportions and craftsmanship of the original house to produce a unified overall character. Figure 16: Simple, symmetrical design of original Colonial Revival house is continued in an architecturally compatible second story addition. New residential construction should be compatible with the architectural character of the neighborhood. Each house should be designed with an understanding of the characteristic COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯29 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WINDOWS (continued) elements of the particular style selected for the house and with careful attention to scale, balance, proportion, detail and craftsmanship. o When using characteristics of a traditional architectural style, use these characteristics in a consistent manner, rather than combining characteristics of a different style in a single structure. For example, Mediterranean/Spanish style stucco houses should not employ neocolonial details such as shutters or steep roofs. Where characteristics of related styles are often combined in Palo Alto homes, elements of these related styles can be combined into a unified composition. Requirements: Plans which use traditional architectural features are required to identify a style from the references: Section V: Common Palo Alto Architectural S~_ les; Historic and Architectural Resources of the Ci~_ of Palo Alto; Rehab ~" Single-Family Design Guidelines, A Field Guide the American Houses, House S~les in America, or Dover Reprints. Only those architectural characteristics included in the description of a particular style in the above references may be included in a single structure unless the style is identified us having influences from another, related style in Palo Alto houses. Alternatively, if an applicant can provide a local example of a pre-1940 residence with the same combination of original architectural characteristics in a single structure they may utilize that combination of characteristics in their own plans. WINDOWS Existing Pattern: Windows contribute a great deal to the character of the house. An addition that uses windows that are significantly different from those used in the original house will severely disrupt the character of the house. For instance, using sliding aluminum windows in a house that has wood double hung windows would detract from the architectural character of the house. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯30 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WINDOWS (continued) Certain distinctive window shapes, such as round, arched, pointed, fan- shaped or diamond-shaped windows, need to be used sparingly so that they complement the architectural style and do not overwhelm the proportions of the facade. Extremely tall windows can also disrupt the scale of the house. Most older residential styles did not use non- rectangular and oversized windows at all, or used them only for emphasizing the major living area or an entry. Figure 17: Palladian window in this Mission Revival home highlights the main living area. Recommended Practices: Each architectural style is characterized by specific window proportions, materials, mullion detailing, trim and placement. Refer to the description of common architectural styles and examples of original houses for models of appropriate window treatment for the architectural style of your proposed design. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯31 !II. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WINDOWS (continued) Figure 18: Many older houses have a distinctive muntin pattem which is repeated in windows throughout the house. True divided lites provide shadow and depth. Requirements: Where the architectural style of the original house is being retained, reuse or match original window materials. Maintain proportions, detailing and materials of original windows. 2.No more than one non-rectangular or "special" window may be used per street facade. No windows on street facades can be taller than the top of the first floor of the building. Where non-rectangular windows are used; they must be compatible with the architectural character of the house and neighborhood. This limitation does not apply to windows located on the front door. 3.Windows must be wood, wood with vinyl or metal cladding, or steel Vinyl or aluminum windows will be allowed for bathrooms and basements but must have the same or similar COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARD.S PAGE ¯32 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WINDOWS (continued) finish to other windows. Windows must have clear glass, except that glass block or frosted glass may be used in bathrooms or for privacy along property lines. Windows with divided lights must be true divided lights, or double pane windows with full size (minimum 3/8" deep) muntins attached to the exterior and interior of the glass. Recessed windows: In stucco walls, recess window pane a minimum of 2.5 inches behind the outside wall surface, not including trim around the windows, in order to enhance the impression of the massiveness of the walls. In other types of walls a minimum recess of 1.5 inches is required. 6.Dormer windows may be used only where they open directly into habitable space. This does not preclude small, "eyebrow" type roof vents, where compatible with the .architectural style. FRONT PORCHES AND ENTRY FEATURES Existing Pattern: Entry features in Palo Alto’s older neighborhoods include front porches, alcoves, loggias, terraces, and covered or uncovered stoops. Front porches can be viewed as covered entry features which are open on two or more sides. These front porches and entries often provide a seating area as well as an entryway, and become an important scene for neighborly interaction while providing visual interest to the passerby. They also provide a transition in scale between the house and the outdoors at the pedestrian scale. The materials, proportions and location of front porches, entries and primary windows should be compatible with the house style and neighborhood character. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 33 III. REQUIREMENTS AND ~COMMENDATIONS WINDOWS (continued) Figure 19: New house incorporating front porch and other patterns which enhance street. Requirements: 1. If there is an established pattern of porches on the block, (50 % of houses on theblockface or on both sides of the street combined), then provide a front porch. 2.If a porch is not incorporated, include an entry feature or principal window (larger than other windows) in a main living area on the front of the house. 3.Design porches with a minimum dimension of at least 6feet in depth and an area of at least 60 square feet to provide both an entry area and usable seating area. Entry feature openings and roof eaves cannot be higher than the top of the first floor of the building. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 34 IlL REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BUILDING MASSING (continued) Figure 20: Arched entry and accent window and roof projection call attention to from door without exaggerating entry and facade proportions. BUILDING MASSING Existing Pattern: Building massing is a fundamental ingredient of architectural style and neighborhood character. While many houses in Palo Alto’s older neighborhoods are two stories, they often contain a number of elements which serve to decrease the visual impact of the two story volume with a one story portion, roof or gable details, articulated walls, or entry features. These features provide a pedestrian scale. The taller building elements and trees help define the larger scale of the street. Together these elements contribute to the overall character and richness of the streetscape. Building massing is also a key concern of neighbors, where two story elements can affect sunlight access, views and privacy for adjacent properties. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯35 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BUILDING MASSING (continued) Figure 21: New two-story house which uses dormer windows in a steeply sloping roof to reduce the apparent height and bulk of the house from the street. Recommended Practices: Employ one story elements such as porches, entry features, and arcades to create a transition in scale between the street and two story building elements. o Consider neighbor’s needs for sunlight, privacy and views. Use setbacks or sloping roofs to reduce shadows and intrusions on neighbor’s windows and open spaces. Building massing should be compatible with the house’s architectural style and neighborhood character. For example, for bungalow designs and other traditionally single-story houses avoid two story elements unless they are set back at least ten feet from front and rear walls. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯36 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Figure 22: Second story addition is set behind front part of the house to preserve single story scale from sidewalk. Roof detailing is repeated to unify design. ROOF DESIGN Existing Pattern." Roof lines and the detail.ing of roof design and construction contributes to the character of Palo Alto’s older neighborhoods. Generally, the existing pattern is houses composed of simple shapes with simple roof forms. Some newer houses have introduced a profusion of roofs over individual building elements, which clutter the facade. Roofs should not over- emphasize the garage or entryway to the detriment of the overall facade. Roof forms found in Palo Alto vary from the shallow to moderate slopes of bungalow, shingle and Spanish Eclectic houses to the steep forms of Tudor and Victorian houses. Deep roof overhangs and details such as exposed rafters and repeating roof forms are distinctive features of Craftsman and Bungalow style houses, while other styles are characterized by different patterns of overhang.and detailing. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE " 37 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Compatibility with neighborhood patterns and the specific architectural styles of the house should be continued in new construction. Traditional roof materials in older Palo Alto neighborhoods depended upon the architectural style. Shingle style houses used wood shingles and shakes; Spanish style houses used genuine clay tile, or tar and gravel for flat roofs; Tudor and neocolonial houses sometimes used slate. Recommended Practices: Where roofs are specially highlighted as a prominent design feature, use authentic, high quality materials such as wood shake, wood shingle, clay file or slate. Requirements: Roof line, roof details and roof materials must be compatible with the architectural style of the house to produce an overall, unified architectural style. For traditional styles, the Figure 23: Compatible second story addition preserves the cascading roof lines and horizontal massing typical of the bungalow style, repeating original Roof line and detailing. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 38 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ROOF DESIGN (continued) 2. 3. style must be identified and the roof features must be consistent with those described for that style in the following references: Section V: Guide to Palo Alto Architectural ~" Historic and Architectural Resources of the Ci~_ of Palo Alto; Rehab R~ht; or Single-Famil_v Design Guidelines. Alternatively, if an applicant can provide a local example of a pre-1940 residence with the same combination of architectural style and roof characteristics they may utilize that combination of characteristics in their own plans. The roofs over entry features must have the same roof pitch and detail as the rest of the house. Eaves on entry feature roofs must be located no higher than the top of the first floor of the building. For roofs, use asphalt shingles, wood shingles, wood shakes, genuine clay tile, genuine slate, standing seam metal roofs, or tar and gravel WALLS AND FINISHES Existing Pattern: An important characteristic of older neighborhoods is the generally high level of quality and craftsmanship used in construction and finishing of wall surfaces. Often the variations in color or texture resulting from hand craftsmanship add to the appeal and interest of the fmished wall. In addition, certain styles were marked by specific finishes, such as white, cream or other light colored paints on stucco for Spanish style houses, and unpainted redwood shingles and beams on Shingle Style houses. Requirements: Stucco must be applied by hand. Do not use spray-on finish materials or textured paints. Use a traditional stucco finish texture found on pre-1940 buildings in Palo Alto, such as Float, Spanish, Mission, Monterey, Californian or English. Do not use Lace or heavy textures. 2.Use real wood siding, not composite products, vinyl or aluminum siding. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 39 III. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Figure 24: Stucco ~exture shows the hand of the craftsman and adds visual interest to large wall expanses found in Spanish Colonial homes. Change from one wall material to another only where there is a change in wallplane and at an interior corner, not at an exterior corner, since this gives the appearance that the material is only applied to the surface and not integral to the structure of the wall Where remodeling, use same materials and finishes as existing house. If documentation exists showing that the house originally had a different finish, then that finish may be used. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 40 SECTION IV.COMPLETING THE COMPATIBILITY WORKSHEET Completion of the Compatibility Worksheet in Section VI is required for your application for approval of a major remodel or construction of a new structure to replace a Contributing Residence. The Worksheet should be completed at the very beginning of the design process, so that information you assemble regarding the character of the neighborhood and the house can guide your design decisions. There are several major steps in completing the Worksheet: 1.Identify Neighborhood Character and Streetscape Patterns. Identify the Architectural Character of Your Home and Other Homes in the Neighborhood. Describe your proposed design for a remodel or replacement home in relationship to Neighborhood Character and Streetscape patterns. o Describe the Architectural Character of your proposed design in relationship to the Pal. Alto architectural traditions and the original house. ¯Describe your proposed design in terms of its design objectives, internal consistency, proportions and harmony. 1.Identify Neighborhood Character and Streetscape Patterns Attach your photographs of the streetscape, patterns of planting, and fencing, and other elements which give the neighborhood its unique character and charm. Study the patterns which contribute to the richness of the neighborhood and choose those that are consistent with the character of your home. Identifying and defining each neighborhood by its own special character helps to define important design criteria for an individual project. Here are some broad characteristics to define and distinguish the neighborhood character and streetscape patterns in various districts in Palo Alto where most pre- 1940 houses are located. Craftsman Examples: Professorville, Community Center and Old Pal. Alto - Most of the homes were built prior to the 1940s. - Streets are lined with mature trees, which provide a unifying feature. - Landscape strips exist with street trees between sidewalk and street. - Lots are generally narrow with houses consistently set back on the lot. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 41 IV. COMPLETING THE WORKSHEET - Predominant architectural styles include the bungalow and craftsman style. - Front porches are common as are low fences with houses visible from the street. - Garages are generally detached and located in the rear of the lot with a narrow driveway to the street, minimizing views of parking areas and pavement. Mixed Examples: College Terrace, Ventura, Old South Palo Alto, Downtown North - Mixed or eclectic neighborhoods are the least uniform in Palo Alto. - Amount of landscaping varies as does type and placement of street trees. - Mixed density and architectural style. On some blocks, there is no uniform pattern with respect to number of stories, lot size or garage location. - Nonetheless, elements of building appearance, size, placement on a lot and!or landscaping help unify diverse character and scale. Estates Examples: Crescent Park, some parts of Old Palo Alto - Lots are very wide and large, with substantial houses set back 40 feet or more from the street, having large side setbacks. - Trees and lush landscaping dominate the streetscape. - Planter strips add to the rich greenery along the street. - Predominant styles include Tudor, Colonial Revival and Mediterranean. - Houses are two and three stories. - Garages are detached in the rear. Rural Example: Barron Park - The character of rural neighborhoods is dominated by trees and foliage. - There are many trees, but no tmiform street tree type. - The rural character is emphasized by the lack of curbs and sidewalks. - Streets are rambling and narrow. - The architecture is varied, but most houses are small, one story and set back from the street. Identify the Architectural Character of Your Home and Other Homes in the Neighborhood Architectural character is derived from the harmonious combination of a number of character defming elements. These elements include materials and finishes, roof slope, ornamentation, massing, and window design and placement. Most pre-1940 houses are buil~ in a distinctive architectural style, which combines these elements in a characteristic pattern. Use Section V as a reference to help identify the character and distinguishing features of your house. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯42 Describe your proposed design for a remodel or replacement home in relationship to Neighborhood Character and Streetscape patterns Using the Worksheet, describe how your design fulfills the Streetscape and Open Space requirements and recommendations in Section III. Attach photographs or sketches to show models you used in designing your house. Describe the Architectural Character of your proposed design in relationship to the Palo Alto architectural traditions and the original house. Using the Worksheet, describe how your design fulfills the Architectural Character requirements in Section III. Identify any portions or features of the original house which are being retained and integrated in the new design. Use photographs or sketches as needed. Attach any preliminary designs which explored option for retaining portions of the original house and explain why the proposed design was chosen. 5.Describe your proposed design. Explain your design objectives and any unusual constraints. Describe how the design is internally consistent, including the proportions of its facade and harmony of materials and elements. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯43 SECTION V.GUIDE TO PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL STYLES AND OTHER REFERENCES REFERENCES The Compatibility Standards are based onthe following three reference documems. You may pick up copies of Historic and Architectural Resources of the City_ of Palo Alto and the Single Family Design Guidelines at the City Planning Department. All three references are also available at the Main Library. Additionally, several field guides and reprinted pattern books are available and provide useful information about historic residential buildings. Historic and Architectural Resources of the City_ of Palo Alto, City of Palo Alto, 1979. Historical description of Palo Alto architectural styles and neighborhoods. Rehab Right, How to Realize the Full Value of Your Old House, Helaine Kaplan Prentice and Blair Prentice, City of Oakland Planning Department, 1978, 1986 Single Family Design Guidelines, City of Paio Alto Planning Department, 1991. A Field Guide to American Houses, McAlester, 1996. Reference guide defining house architectural style using major characteristics. House Styles in America, Massey, 1996. Reference guide defining house architectural style using major characteristics. Dover Reprints, 1890s to 1930s, various authors. House design guide books published from the 1890s to the 1930s, and rep.rinted by Dover Publications, Inc. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 44 V. GUIDE TO STYLES AND REFERENCES PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL STYLES The following text and illustrations provide a brief overview of some of the characteristics of the major architectural styles of houses found in Palo Alto. It draws on the suggested reference materials, particularly the publication "Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto." A number of the styles depicted below reflect influences of other styles from the same or earlier periods. This guide describe styles which are predominant in Palo Alto or which represent unique local conditions and traditions. ITALIANA~ VICTORIAN Predominant style in: College Terrace, Downtown. Examples throughout older neighborhoods. - 2 stories typical - Frequent large front entry porch substantially above grade - Unusual massing with dormer projections, bay windows and porches - Vertical emphasis - Fanciful wood trim and siding - Materials: varied painted redwood siding and trim with shingle roof QUEEN Predominant style in: College Terrace, some parts of Old Palo Alto - 1, 2 or 3 stories -Picturesque asymmetrical plans, sometimes with comer towers, gables and bays -Porch or veranda common -Lacy wood ornament and trim with fish scale shingles, variety of textures -Materials: contrasting wood siding materials with shingles COLONIAL REVIVAL One of several styles in Professorville, Crescent Park and Old Palo Alto 2 stories - Medium to steep roof pitch, with hip or gambrel roofs - Stately, ~.~ massing, revival of Georgian plans and forms - Use of Classical details such as pediments with columns, Palladian windows - Raised pedimented portico entry - Materials: horizontal wood siding or~~is~ing, with shingle roof and wood window shutters - Related styles: Greek Revival, Georgian Revival, i ira! COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 45 V. GUIDE TO STYLES AND REFERENCES SHINGLE Predominant style in: Professorville, Old Palo Alto, Community Center - Late 19th century architectural style with New England influences - 1 or 2 stories with simple massing - Walls and roofs are covered redwood shingles and include curving surfaces - Brackets common at eaves, along with deep overhangs - Emphasis on wood craftsmanship and details -.Wood windows with divided panes of glass CRAFTSMAN Predominant style in: Professorville, Community Center - Materials: unpainted redwood shingles and siding with massive redwood timbers, boulders, and. clinker bricks - Massing: generally low and horizontal - Roofs: Repeated shallow gabled roofs with wide sheltering overhangs, exposed rafters and supporting roof brackets - Architectural style early 20th century Arts and Crafts movement which combined a respect for craftsmanship and natural material with a life lived close to nature - Most often found in bungalows and two story structures employing Figure 25: Sensitively designed new house incorporates the overhanging eaves, roof brackets and exposed rafters, use of unpainted wood shingles and trellises and other details of the Craftsman/Shingle style. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE. 46 V. GUIDE TO STYLES AND REFERENCES overhanging roof lines with a horizontal emphasis. - Related to the Shingle Style, which also uses redwood shingles and simplified details - Frequent use of redwood in simple pergolas, fences and other built elements which continue building style and blur the distinction between indoors and outdoors BUNGALOW Predominant Style in: Boyce Addition, Community Center, Downtown North - Approximate original construction date:~00~ to 1940s - Generally 1 story - Slightly raised large, deep entry porch on front of house - Shallow roof pitch and generally horizontal massing - Wood detail prevalent in details such as roof brackets, exposed rafters - Materials: wood siding, stucco, or shingles - Windows: true divided light windows, generally horizontal or square in shape, often with unusual mullion patterns repeated throughout house Figure 26: This Spanish Colonial Revival Style house exhibits the massive stucco walls, decorative ironwork and red barrel tile roof characteristic of the style and suited to Palo Alto’s bright sunlight and Mediterranean climate. COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯47 V. GUIDE TO STYLES AND REFERENCES SPANISH COLONIAL~DI Predominant Style in: Old Palo Alto, Crescent Park, Community Cemer Popular style in 1915-1940 in California - Many fme examples designed by Birge Clark, prominent local architect, which feature massive stuccoed walls with carefully irregular fenestration and ornamentation with colored files and wrought iron. - Asymmetrical building massing of one or two stories, often partially enclosing courtyards and incorporating arcades and pergolas. - Use of stucco or timbered arcades to create shade and indoor/outdoor transition - Massive looking wails with recessed windows - Shallow pitch tile roof, with hip or gabled roofs, some fiat roofs with tile- covered shed roofs over windows and doors. - Colors - Light colored walls, red clay roof tiles, frequent use of colorful glazed tile as accent-Materials: stucco walls with heavy wood timbers, wood or wrought iron railings and clay tile roof - Windows: Occasional use of heavily recessed arched windows, sometimes in series. - Windows generally composed on multi-panned metal or wooden casements. - Related styles: Mission Revival, Monterey style, ~h~l . TUDOR Found throughout Crescent Park, Community Center and Old Palo Alto. Characteristic of "estate" neighborhoods with traditional, more formal styles. - 20th century interpretation of English Tudor architectural style - Ior2 stories typical - Vertical emphasis - Sense of mass in walls with recessed windows - Materials: stucco walls, often with wood trim (half-timbering common) and accents .MODERNE -Popular in 1930s -Streamlined ~p~etrie detailing, often with curved lines COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯48 V.-GUIDE TO STYLES AND REFERENCES -Simplified detailing -Materials: generally ~mooth stucco walls, metal windows,lhorizontal emphasis COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯49 SECTION VI.COMPATIBILITY WORKSHEET Please complete this worksheet and submit with your proposed remodel or replacement home design for review according to the Compatibility Standards. Attach any requested or relevant photographs or sketches and other information. Property Address: Assessor’s Parcel No. Property Owner:(phone) (address) Architect/Designer (phone) (address) Proposed Action:Alteration with removal of over 50% of exterior walls Alteration with removal or alteration to street-facing facade ~ Demolition of Contributing residence and construction of replacement residence Alteration of less than 50% of exterior walls with retention of street-facing facade (s) (Advisory only, review not required) 1.Identify Elements of Neighborhood Character (Attach Photo montage of block face and other relevant photographs) NEIGHBORHOOD LOT SIZE PATTERN Neighborhood Name(s) Predominant Lot Size Your Lot Size Special features of your lot COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ ~0 VI. COMPATIBILITY WORKSHEET CHARACTERISTIC FRONT (PREVAILING)SETBACK Setback of existing residence Neighbors Front Setback house on left (when facing the house) house on fight Setbacks for houses on your side of the street (your block only) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Setbacks for houses on other side of the street (your block only) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (Note: measure from sidewalk, then subtract distance from sidewalk to property line) Prevailing Setback (Note: this is the line behind which 75% of the houses are located): NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE PLACEMENT PATTERN Number of houses on your block, counting both sides of the street, with each type of placement pattern: 1.Detached rear yard: Detached with alley .access: Attached behind front facade: Attached in front facade: COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 51 NEIGHBORHOOD "GARDEN FRONT" and PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PATTERNS Driveway Patterns (summarize typical placement, width, materials): Street Trees (summarize typical type, planting interval, width, materials): Planter Strips (summarize typical irrigation & planting treatment): Landscaping: (summarize existing patterns for lawn, style, materials, presence of mature trees/fence height, design, materials, location) 2.Identify Architectural Character of the Original Home, if it is being retained. Provide photographs to illustrate the following elements: Include Historic Photographs, if any are available. Date of Construction (note source of information) Name of Architect and/or builder Historical Events/Associations, if known COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯52 Identify Architectural Style of Original Home: Other Stylistic Influences: Distinctive Features: Entry Features (front porch or other entry form): Building Massing (one or two story, massing and form): Roofs (materials, pitch, gable hip or other form, detailing): COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 53 Walls and Finishes (materials, paint): Windows (shape, materials, mullion designs): o Describe your proposed design for a remodel or replacement residence in relationship to Neighborhood Character and Streetscape patterns Neighborhood Pattern Prevailing Setback: Proposed Driveway: Width and Material Public Right of Way: Street Trees Planting Strips Landscaping o Describe the Architectural Character of your proposed design in relationship to Palo Alto architectural traditions and the original house Architectural Style of Original House (if being retained): COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 54 Architectural Features of Original House to be Retained Materials or other Elements to be Reused Architectural Style of Proposed Design (if replacement residence is" proposed) Predominant Architectural Styles in Neighborhood Explain how the following elements of the Proposed Design relate to elements found in the neighborhood and/or the original house: Windows Entry Features COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯ 55 Building Massing (note setbacks, roof design and other measures to reduce apparent bulk) Building Massing (note efforts to reduce privacy and shade impacts on neighbors) Roof Design Walls and Finishes (Note: show materials and finishes on development plans) Cite sources for the architectural features included in your design; include Xeroxes from sources listed in the Compatibility Review Standards, photographs of local examples, etc. COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE. 56 5.Proposed Design: Internal consistency and relation to design objectives What were the design objectives for this house: How were they achieved: What elements and characteristics contribute to the consistency of the design (materials, construction techniques, etc.): COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯57 CREDITS Palo Alto City Council Ron Anderson Gary Fazzino Joseph Huber Liz Kniss Jean McCown Dick Rosenbaum Micki Schneider Joe Simitian Lanie Wheeler Planning and Community Environment Department Staff Ken Schreiber, Director Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner Compatibility Review Standards Preparation Alison Kendall, AiCP, AK Planning & Design Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner, City of Palo Alto Dan Solomon, FAIA, Solomon, Inc. Palo Alto residents provided some of the photographs and contributed much other helpful information for the development of the Compatibility Review Standards. COMPATIBILITY R EVIEW STANDARDS PAGE ¯58 Exhibit "B" Standards For Historic Designation: The following Standards for Historic Designation .would replace the existing Historic Categories and Criteria for Designation found in Section 16.49.020 (b) and Section 16.040 (b) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The current designation Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 would be replace by two categories-- Landmark and Contributor. The current designation criteria would be replaced by the new Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historical Resources. Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historical Resources A property would be deemed to be historically-significant of it is found to be of significance to Palo Alto, the Bay Area, the State of California or the nation under one or more of the following criteria. Histdric property may include buildings, structures, objects, landscape elements or natural features, e.g., E1 Palo Alto. It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history and cultural heritage of California or the United States. o It is associated with the lives of architects, builders, other persons or historical events that are important to Palo Alto, the Bay Area, the nation or to California’s l~aSt. It is an example of a type of building or is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare, It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, region, state or nation, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values or contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of Palo Alto, the Bay Area, the state or nation. Designated historic property will be categorized as a Landmark or Contributor according to the following definitions. Landmark ..Properties: Landmark properties are exceptional or major buildings, groups of buildings, structures, obj_ects, landscape elements or natural features which are of preeminent national, state, Standards for Historic Designation Page 1 regional or local importance, exhibit meritorious work of the best architects, are an outstanding example of the stylistic development of architecture or landscape architecture in the United States, California, the Bay Area or Palo Alto, or are identified with historic people or with imporant events or activities in the city, region, state or nation. A property may be designated a landmark when it is one of a distinctive contiguous assembly of historically significant structures with a unified architectural theme or setting that creates a significant and distinguishable entity. The Landmark may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained. Contributing Properties: Contributing properties are buildings, groups of buildings, structures, objects or sties that relate to and support the historic character of a neighborhood grouping or district because of historical or cultural importance or in scale, materials, proportions, setting or other ’ factors. A contributing property may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details or changes to exterior materials. Standards for Historic Designation Page 2 ATTACHMENT C Request For Proposals Revise Historic Preservation Ordinance and Update Historic Inventory Scope Of Services BACKGROUND Existing Historic Inventory. and Historic Ordinance. The city’s existing Historic Inventory was completed in 1979. Shortly after the completion of the Inventory, the city established a Historic Preservation program by adopting the Historic Preservation Ordinance and establishing The Historic Review Board. Palo Alto is a Certified Local Government. There is a strong level of interest and support for historic preservation in the Palo Alto Community, and active participation in the two community historical organizations, Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PAST) and the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA). The Historic Inventory includes over four hundred structures of historical merit. There are twelve buildings on the National Register, as well as two National Register Historic Districts: the Ramona Street District and the Professorville District. Nineteen sites are registered California Points of Historical Interest and seven sites or structures are listed on the California Register of Historic Landmarks. Under the current Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Historic Resources Board has limited authority to control alterations to designated buildings or prevent their demolition. It is essentially an advisory body, with voluntary compliance for single family residences, and with final authority for changes to commercial buildings resting with the Architectural Review Board or, in some cases, with the City Council. The City Council may require a moratorium on demolition for up to one year but cannot prevent demolition after the moratorium expires. Interim Regulations in Effect Since November, 1996. During the first nine months of 1996, demolition permits were issued for 62 single family houses in Palo Alto. Thirty- four of these houses were constructed before 1940 and located mostly in the city’s older, more traditional neighborhoods. In response to the large number of demolitions of older residences, the City Council adopted Interim Regulations protecting pre-1940 residential buildings, which went into effect December 1, 1996, and are effective until November, 1997. 3-27-97 1 Planning staff anticipates recommending to the Council that the Interim Regulations continue in effect until the Historic Inventory and the Historic Preservation Ordinance can be revised and updated to better protect the city’s historic resources. The goal is that a revised Historic Preservation Ordinance will be presented to City Council by November, 1997, with the updated Historic Inventory to be completed by mid-1998. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT The purpose of the project is to revise the Historic Preservation Ordinance and update the Historic Inventory. The Historic Resources Board, the Preservation community and city decision-makers have identified the need to revise the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Under the current Ordinance, the Historic Resources Board lacks authority to protect designated historic resources or to prevent demolition. Having been changed little since it was adopted eighteen years ago, the Ordinance is no longer consistent with current State and National standards and includes a Category I-IV designation system that is neither an accurate nor valid indication of the relative historical importance of historic resources. The Ordinance does not address archeological resources, and there are no provisions for response to catastrophic events. Standards for reviewing projects are very general, and do not specifically refer to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation, although the City Council has adopted these Standards for the review of designated historic resources. The Ordinance does not include incentives to encourage appropriate alterations and additions and to prevent demolitions; this is especially needed to protect smaller, modest buildings in a area with very high land values. All these issues, and others, need to be addressed in the Ordinance revision. While there have been some additions and changes to the Historic Inventory in the eighteen years since it was completed, it has not been systematically updated. The survey for the 1979 Inventory was limited, with minor exceptions, to that part of the city located north of Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road, and while this area includes most of the city’s older buildings, a substantial number of older structures are located in the south part of the city, which has never been surveyed. It is likely that there are significant historic resources that have not been identified in all parts of town, and there may be potential historic districts or multiple property listings that have not been identified. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED The Scope of Services will includethe following three major tasks. Task 1.Establish the methodology and organize and direct the process for revising 3-27-97 2 Task 2. the Historic Preservation Ordinance and updating the Historic Inventory. Revise the Historic Preservation Ordinance Task 3.Update the Historic Inventory Task 1. Establish the methodology and organize and direct the process for revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance and updating the Historic Inventory_. No Methodology. The consultant will provide a written description of the survey methodology to be followed. It is expected that the Inventory Update will be conducted according to the standards and procedures described in National Register Bulletin #24, Guidelines For Local Surveys: A Basis For Preservation Planning, published by the National Park Service, and Instructions for Recording Historical Resources by the Office of Historic Preservation. Initial Survey. The Inventory update will be conducted in phases, beginning with a review of available background information and a broad-brush initial survey, followed by the intensive survey. The purpose of the initial survey is to formulate the city’s historic contexts and their elements: buildings, streetscapes, street plans, building uses, cultural activities; a preliminary identification of potential districts; a general idea of the number and quality of structures likely to be eligible for protection; and identification of any buildings or districts particularly vulnerable to loss in the immediate future. For the initial survey, the consultant will document: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6~ The kinds of properties looked for; The boundaries of the area surveyed; The method of survey, including the extent of survey coverage; The kinds of historic properties present in the survey area; Specific properties that were identified, and the categories of information collected; Places examined that did not contain historic properties. Final evaluations of individual properties should be deferred until a reasonable body of survey data on relevant historical contexts has been developed and the survey has reached a certain level of maturity, unless an immediate historic evaluation is required by an application to the city. The Historic Resources Board and other members of the community are concerned about the vulnerability of high modernist buildings and neighborhoods in Palo Alto that are not yet fifty years old but are exceptional examples of this period of architecture. For example, there is at least one intact neighborhood developed by Joseph Eichler in the 3-27-97 3 Do 1950’s where the residents have begun preparation of application for National Register designation. The initial survey will include potential historic resources from this period in order to establish a framework for addressing upcoming preservation issues regarding these potential historic resources. Using the results of the initial survey data, the consultant will plan Subsequent phases of the project, working in close coordination with city staff. The results of the initial survey will be used to establish the extent of the documentation survey, since budget limitations may not permit all buildings in the city that are over fifty years old to be included in the documentation survey. Early Identification of Policy Issues. It is necessary to identify, in the first few weeks of the project, issues with policy implications that may be expected to arise in the preparation of both the Historic Ordinance and the Historic Inventory so that these issues can be presented to City Council for input and direction. Based on the results of the background review, the reconnaissance survey and consultation with the Historic Resources Board and citizen participants, the consultant will prepare, together with the Planning Division and the City Attorney’s Office, a report to City Council early in the process. The report will outline tentative recommendations for revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and possible structural changes to the Historic Inventory, and will identify and discuss related policy implications and options. The consultant will attend the City Council meeting to present the report. Public Participation. Revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance and updating the Historic Inventory will be an interactive process with oppommities for the members of the public to participate and contribute in an effective way. Throughout the process, the consultant will meet with the Historic Resources Board and with an appointed advisory group representing all interests: the Chamber of Commerce, Realtors, homeowners, consmaction industry representatives, architects, neighborhood representatives, as well as historic preservation advocates. The consultant will meet at least monthly with the HRB and/or the appointed advisory group. Members of the two local preservation organizations, Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PAST) and Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) have begun preliminary research and survey work in preparation for active participation in the development of both the Inventory and the Ordinance. The consultant will meet with members of PAST and PAHA to determine how they and other members of the community will participate in the historic survey, and will train and supervise volunteer survey teams. It is expected that approximately 80% of the research effort for contributing structures will be done by trained community volunteers. The consultant also will provide advice, suggestions and examples to volunteers regarding production of publications and other outreach efforts to educate the public regarding the preservation effort. 3-27-97 4 Task 2: Revise the Historic,,Preservation,,Ordinance The revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance will be conducted in close coordination with the update of the Historic Inventory as new information is developed in the initial survey and documentation survey, with each process informing the other. The current Interim Regulations are in effect until November, 1997, and the revised Historic Ordinance needs to be completed and approved by City Council before the Interim Regulations expire. It is expected that completion of Inventory update will take longer and may not be completed until mid-1998. The consultant will work closely with the City Attomey during the development of the revised Ordinance. The consultant will get input early in the process from HRB members regarding their understanding of the shortcomings of the current Ordinance, and will meet and confer periodically with the HRB and the Historic Ordinance Advisory Group throughout the ordinance revision process. Topics to be addressed in the revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The following issues have been identified by the HRB to be included in the revision of the Ordinance: 1.Establish Criteria for Evaluation of Significance 1) Assess the appropriateness of the evaluation criteria adopted by City Council in the Interim Regulations. (See attached Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historical Resources.) The consultant may recommend changes to these criteria if they are believed to be inconsistent with current state and national standards .in a significant respect. 2) Assess the appropriateness of the evaluation categories, "Landmark" and "Contributor" and their definitions, and recommend any changes or additions that may be needed. If recommended changes to the evaluation criteria or categories are anticipated, they will be presented to City Council for review and policy direction under Task 1.C. bo The criteria for evaluation should include the criteria for National Register listing, and the evaluation of each historic resource should indicate its eligibility for the National Register. C°Special consideration needs to be given to criteria for evaluating groups of buildings that may comprise historic districts, multiple property listings or other neighborhood groupings with an historic character, and for identifying the components of the historic context of these areas. 2.Comparison with historic preservation standards and historic preservation 3-27-97 5 ordinances in other cities. o Compatibility and consistency with current State and National historic preservation standards and regulations; relationship to the Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for California. Responding to catastrophic events, treatment of historic resources damaged by flood, earthquake or fire. Criteria for permitting demolition of historic resources. Requirements for documentation prior to demolition of a designated historic resource: a)Historic American Building Survey (H S) or Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) recordation. b)Salvage of materials for reuse as Heritage Building Materials Criteria and requirements for permitting moving or relocation of designated historic structures or other historic resources. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Incentive programs to encourage preservation and appropriate alteration of historic resources and discourage demolition Authority of the HRB in.reviewing proposed alterations to historic resources, and the role of the HRB in the city’s discretionary review process, including tools for requiting greater protection of historic resources Operational guidelines and procedures for conducting the business of the HR. Standards for review of proposed alterations to historic resources. Possible use of Design Guidelines for designated historic structures, historic districts and conservation areas. Relationship between the Historic Preservation Ordinance and other city ordinances and codes, particularly the R-1 Zone Ordinance. Recommended revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and other city codes that may be needed to effectively implement the Historic Preservation Ordinance, including possible use of the Compatibility Standards or a discretionary review process. 3-27-97 6 15. 16. 17. Revisions to the process for designation of historic resources. Use of the State Historical Building Code. Protection of archeological resources. Task 3: Update the Historic Inventory. A.Resources to be Surveyed. Use the National Register resource classifications: District, Site, Building, Structure, Object (See pp. 9-11 of National Register Bulletin #24.) The survey area will include the entire city, except that in the area west of Highway-#280 only possible landmark structures will be identified. All properties within the survey area will be included, with the following exceptions: ao Properties that are clearly identified, on the basis of established criteria, as nonhistoric; Structures that are identified as Category I or II on the current Historic Inventory. Community volunteers will be reviewing the completeness and accuracy of the existing information for these properties. The consultant will provide advise regarding possible reevaluation based on new information that is generated by the volunteer effort. The time period to be covered by the intensive survey will include resources that are more than 50 years old, with construction prior to 1948. The current Historic Inventory includes only structures that were constructed prior to 1940, and the current Interim Regulations protect residential buildings from that same time period. Assessor’s data indicate that there are approximately 5600 addresses in Palo Alto with structures built prior to 1948. Approximately 3866 of these structures were built prior to 1940. An additional 642 structures were built between 1940 and 1945, and 1118 structures were built during the years 1946 and 1947. It is estimated that these numbers may vary by approximately 10%, due to inaccuracy of the data source. In addition, many properties have multiple structures or other resources. B.Conduct Intensive Survey. The consultant will be responsible for collecting and 3-27-97 7 documenting all the information needed to evaluate the historic properties and prepare the Historic Inventory. This documentation will include the kinds of information specified in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Identification. The intensive survey will document: a.The kinds of properties looked for; b.The boundaries of the area surveyed; c.The method of survey, including an estimate of the extent of survey coverage; d.A record of the precise location of all properties identified; and e.Information on the appearance, significance, integrity, boundaries of each property sufficient to permit an evaluation of its significance. Every effort should be made to compile the kinds of information described in National Register Bulletin #16, Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms, and Instructions for Recording Historical Resources by the California Office of Historic Preservation. For each property identified in the survey, provide the following types of information, as described on pp. 10-12 of the Instructions: a.Header block b.HRHP status code c.Resource name or number d.Historic name e.Common name f.Original use g.Present use h.Architectural style I.Construction history j.Related features k.Architect 1.Builder m.Significance statement n.References o.Evaluator and date of evaluation p.Sketch map The consultant will establish methods of recording survey data. Use standardized forms and maps, with photographs, supplemented by sketches and additional records. Volunteers are expected to perform part of the survey work. The consultant will train and supervise the volunteers. The consultant’s survey coordinator will 3-27-97 8 review, organize and analyze all fieldwork data as it is generated, then correct, supplement and record the information. C.Prepare Revised Historic Inventory. and Final Report The consultant will provide a recommended final evaluation of significance for all historic resources included in the survey. After appropriate public notice and public hearing, the Historic Resources Board will approve, disapprove or modify those recommendations and send them to City Council for final action. The consultant will attend the HRB and City Council meetings to present their final recommended evaluations of significance. It is anticipated that this process for review and acceptance of the consultant’s proposed designations of historic resources will be accomplished one district or group of buildings at a time. The consultant will prepare a Final Report that summarizes the results of the survey. The Final Report should follow a format similar to the report prepared for the 1979 historic survey titled, "Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto", prepared by Paula Boghosian and John Beach. The consultant will compile the Revised Historic Inventory, including all historic resources currently on the Historic Inventory and all additional historic resources from this historic survey that are approved by City Council. Organization, presentation..and, storage of survey data. The consultant will establish a system for storing, organizing and using the survey data, including maps, written material and photographs. The consultant will provide the city with a hard copy of a completedState Inventory form with photograph and location plan sketch for each historically significant property and for each property within any identified historic district or conservation district. The Inventory Form used is to be the standard format issued by the Office of Historic Preservation titled DPR 523A-L. A typical entry will consist of pages A and B of the State Form. If the site or structure has exceptional features, then additional pages in the State format will need to be completed. The consultant will establish a system for numbering, processing and filing photographs and slides so that they can be easily identified, correlated with inventory forms, and systematically filed and retrieved. The consultant will advise and cooperate with the Palo Alto Main Library on establishing a hard data filing system that allows the city to maintain the original material products of the survey in perpetuity for archival purposes. The filing system will incorporate the Inventory Forms and any remaining original materials 3-27-97 9 from the 1979 Historic Survey and Inventory. The consultant will advise and cooperate with the Palo Alto Main Library and the Planning Division on establishing a computer-based catalogue system for the storage and retrieval of survey information. One option that will be considered is making the survey information available on the city’s Intemet Web site. Optimally, the electronic system should provide: ao Easy access to basic information for use by city staff and the general public bo Ability to combine and sort information for use by city staff in land-use, policy, .and project planning Comprehensive lists of, and information on, properties or types of properties for setting protection and enhancement priorities d°Information on what properties in the community have been surveyed and how comprehensive the survey is to date eo Clear identification of the location of further information on each property in the hard data survey files DELIVERABLES The consultant will provide the city with the following products: Interim draft deliverables as determined by the consultant in consultation with and concurrence of the city. Final Report for the historic survey, similar to the document, "Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto" prepared as part of the 1979 historic survey. A.100 bound copies of the final document No Reproducible master copy provided in both hard copy and machine readable versions. °Completed Historic Inventory: A.50 bound copies of the final document 3-27-97 10 No Hard copy originals of historic survey forms with photos; Reproducible master copy of the complete updated Historic Inventory with photos, including all historic resources currently on the Historic Inventory. The reproducible master will be provided in both hard copy and machine readable versions. Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance approved by the Palo Alto City Council: A.100 copies of the final document B.Reproducible master provided in both hard copy and machine readable versions. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS These documents or typical samples are currently available for inspection, and a comprehensive set of documents will be provided later to the selected applicant: Current Historic Inventory Current Historic Preservation Ordinance Copies of City codes and ordinances GIS base maps with street names and property addresses These information sources will be available for the selected applicant to use in completing the project: Access to TRW data on microfiche Access to TRW and MetroScan electronic data Access to History Collection and other resources of the Palo Alto Public Library Access to Planning and Building Division records SELECTION SCHEDULE The anticipated schedule for the selection process is that the Request For Proposal will be sent out April 16, 1.997 with an optional pre-application meeting to be held soon thereafter. Responses to the RFP will be due back to the City by May 12, 1997. At least three, but no more than seven applicants responding to the RFP will be selected to be interviewed. Interviews with the Selection Advisory Committee are tentatively scheduled for the week of May 17, 1996. At the conclusion of the interview process, the Selection Advisory Committee will make a ranking of all consultants. Based on the response to the RFP, the interview, and information provided by references, the preferred candidate will be selected by the Selection Advisory Committee to enter into negotiations for a contract with the city. 3-27-97 11 PROJECT SCHEDULE. AND RESOURCES The project is expected to start the first week in June, 1997. The revised Historic Preservation Ordinance is expected to be completed for review by City Council by November, 1997, with the updated Historic Inventory to be completed by mid-1998. Proposals should clearly demonstrate how the required services can be provided within this time frame. While the actual cost of performing the required services is to be determined through the proposal selection and negotiation process, the total amount of the contract is not expected to exceed $222,000. PROPOSAL GUIDELINES A suggested format for the consultant’s response to thisRequest for Proposals is indicated below. These guidelines are intended to facilitate the Project Study Committee’s review of the consultant responses. Consultants are requested, but not required, to follow these guidelines. Project Statement. Prepare a brief, general statement indicating the consultant’s overall understanding of the nature of the project and the services to be provided. Proposed Work Pro_re’am. Identify specific major tasks and related work elements to accomplish the proposed services. Include for each work element: (a) a statement of OBJECTIVE indicating its purpose, (b) a statement of PROCEDURE indicating how the work will be accomplished, (c) a statement of OUTPUT indicating what information and products are to be provided, (d) and a statement of RESOURCES, person-days and dollar costs, estimated to complete the work. Schedule. Prepare a work schedule indicating total time and staging for each work element. Resource Summary_. Present a summary of the estimates of person-days and total dollar costs for each work element. o Staffing. Identify specific individuals proposed for this project, including: (a) their project responsibilities (19) their specific experience related to the responsibilities on this project, (c) estimated level of effort person-days), and (d) personal resumes References. Provide three references (name, address, and phone) of recent, similar consulting work. 3-27-97 12 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS The criteria to be used by the Selection Advisory Committee to evaluate responses to the Request for Proposal and to select consultants for oral interviews, include: 1.Completeness of response to Request for Proposal. Composition and expertise of the consultant team, including specific individuals who will perform the work, and the time to be spent by each. Responsiveness to time requirements and demonstrated means to accomplish necessary inter-relationship between consultant and City staff efforts. Demonstrated recent experience with similar type and quality of work expected in this project, and demonstrated ability to complete work within budget and schedule. Demonstrated experience and skill in responding to community and special interest concerns, and in working successfully with community volunteers. Estimate of required resources, including proposed fee relative to the services to be provided, and projected Palo Alto staff time in assisting consultant(s). Selection of a consultant is based on the best qualified proposal within the project budget. Demonstrated expertise in architectural history, historic architecture, design review in an historical setting, and in the technical, legal and political aspects of preparing and implementing historic preservation ordinances. MANDATORY PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETING Attendance is required at a pre-submittal meeting scheduled for Monday, April 28, 1997, 10:00 a.m., Council Conference Room, first floor, Civic Center, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. The meeting is for the benefit of all consultants to whom an RFP was sent. The purpose of the meeting is not to consider in any way the qualifications of the consultants. Information to be presented at the pre-submittal meeting will include: 1) review of the current Interim Regulations program and relationship to the Inventory and Ordinance update process; 2) degree to which mobilization of volunteer efforts by PAST and PAHA can be expected; 3) archival resources of the Palo Alto Public Library and research experience of the current Interim Regulations program. SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSALS Eleven (11) copies of the completed proposal are to be delivered to the Director of Purchasing Services, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, 94301, by 3:00 p.m., on May 12, 1997. 3-27-97 13 ATTACHMENT D Interim Historic Inventory CONTRIBUTING Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on January 15, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 1. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner:Ms. Teresa Lui, Happy Valley Development Corporation, 4966 E1 Camino Real, Suite 101, Los Altos, CA 94022. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 15, 1997 1102 Guinda: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-Ht~-44.) REOUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board ~vas requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1102 Guinda. Under the city of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN,: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1102 Guinda was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. APPEALS: " All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the-applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someon.e else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY: Greg W. Benton, 5546 Harvard Drive, San Jose, CA 95118 Prepared By:Barbara Judy Signed By:Nancy IVl~ddox Lytle, Chief l~’t’~ning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page I DEPARTMENT OFIPARKS AND RECREATION PR -NRHP Status Code 5S3 Page l of 2 ¯ Resource Name or #:1102 Ouinda P1. *P2. Other Identifier: Location: [] Not lot Publication [] Unrestricted a. County Santa C|a ra b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Date T ; R ~1/4 of 1/4 of Sac __.__; C. Address, 1102 Ouinda ciw ,, Palo Alto d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear feature)Zone ,mE/ e. Other Locational Data: (e.g. parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, additional UTMs, etc. as appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 003-43-001 zip *P3a.Description: (Describe resource and Its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) This is a modest Craftsman style residence with Classical details on a corner lot, featuring a columnated porch along two sides, and a detached garage of same character located at the rear. A wood trellis with shaped rafter ends abuts the covered porch on one side. The low-pitched, gabled roof masses are clad in asphalt shingles, with half-round louvers iti the pedimented gable ends. A dentilated entablature course terminates exterior walls of smooth stucco, resting on a brick foundation with projecting brick water table. Intact windows are double hung wood sash with divided upper lites. The original, exposed side left, flared chimney is clad in stucco. An unadorned stucco clad chimney appears to have been added at a later date ~. on the right. Mature redwood trees line the left side of the lot. The fair condition of this structure is indicated by a badly deteriorated roof; stucco damage, and shoring at the front trellis. ¯"P3b. Resources Attributes: ¯ P4. Resources Present: (Ust attributes and codes) HP2. Single Family Proper _ty [] Building [] Structure rlOblect [] Site ~ Dtstdct [] Element of Distdct [] Other (Isolates, etc.) PSb. Description of Photo: (View. date, etc.) 1102 Ouinda, front corner facade, 01/06/1997 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: [] Prehistoric [] Hist~dc [] Both c.1922 P7. Owner and Address: P--Private *PS. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation " Architect, San Francisco, CA *Pg. Date Recorded: 01/07/1997 *P10. Survey.Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance *Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey report/other sources or "none’) *Attachments:WI NONE [] Location Map [] Archaeological Record [] Distdct Record [] Pt~otograph Record [] Other: (Ust) [] Sketch Map [] Continuation Sheet [] Unear Feature Record [] Milling Station Record Building, Structure and Objecl Record [] Rock Art Record [] Artifact Record DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Inlormation . B4. Present Use: Residential Const,-uctlo~ History: (Contraction dale, ~lteraIlons, ~d (~le o~ altec~l|ons.) Original permit for residence and garage issued November 1922. There is evidence of later foundation work to front porch, yet dates for these plans and permits are inconclusive. *BT.Moved? [] No [:::1 Yes [] Unl<~own Datei __... Oflglnal Location: ~’B8. Related Feature~: *BIO. ~r~r~t~ct: Unknown b. sulfa, r: Significance: . TI)eme Residential Architecture ~ea ~ ot s~n~ 1922-1940 ,,, Propert~ Type Applicable, Criteria, {I:Xscuss lrnporlance In terms of historical or architectural context a.s defined by theme, pedo<:l, lmcl geographic scope. A~so address Integflty.) The residence, in its scale, style, and setting, supports the historic character of its district and employs period architectural themes that are Characteristic of Palo Alto residences of the 1920s. *BI~ B13. *BI4. A:ldiliona] Resource Allrtbutes: (Ust ~ttflbutes and codes) Palo Alto Dept. of Building & Safety, original permit Sanborn Insurance Co. Maps, 1924 (updated 1962) Ev~luator: Barbara A. Judy Date 0! Evaluation: 01/07/1997 space reserved for.offic, l~l comments.) (Sketch Map’~lh north arrow requlreo’) *Required Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on January 15, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 2. ,-...,~’~.’:~.~.....~.’~:’o~.~..~..~..~.~.’..~’~.. ~.~.~.~.....‘..~::~.~.~.~.?~.’..~.y.~.~.~.~×~:.:~.:.~z~z~.~:~.:+~°~°.~..~.‘.~.~.:.:~:~:.:~..~...~.~:~.:~.~:~.~.~.~.~...~.~:. TO:Owner:John Van Home and Lani Avocet, 200 Fulton, Palo Alto, CA 94301. FROM:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 15, 1997 200 Fulton: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-HKB-45.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 200 Fulton. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RE¢OMMEND,,ATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ~IRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Histoi’ic Resources, 200 Fulton was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the-Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. Ifyou challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY:Mr. Monty Anderson, Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, 941 Emerson, Palo Alto, CA 94301 .. Prepared By:Barbara Judy Signed By:~,~ ~ y dox Lytle, Chi~"P~lanning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment ~age__!l of 2 *Resource Hame Or #:200 Fulton P1. *P2. O|P, er Identifier: Location: [] Not lot Publioatio~[] Unrestricted a. County ,,Santa Clara b, USGS 7.5’ Quad Date ~T ~ R : ~1/4 of ~1/4 of Sec .,.,,_..3 . Address 200 Fulton City, Palo Alto d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear feature)Zone ~,mE/ e. Other Locational Data: (e.g. parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, additional UTMs, etc. as appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 003-01-024 Description: (Describe resource and Its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) This is a modest one-story Craftsman style bungalow with a low-pitched asphalt shingled roof. Deep overhangs feature triangular wood brackets under the eaves: An unadorned interior chimney is offset at left. A wood trellis at the left front of the structure features shaped rafter ends and rests atop a flared brick pylon~ Similar pylons flank the front entry stairs. Exterior walls are clad in horizontal wood siding. Intact windows are predominantly wood sash casement with divided rites. A period front door with six square lites completes the historic structure. The residence is located on a street composed almostentirely of bungalows. *P3b.Resources Attflbutes: (List attributes and codes) *P4.Resources Present: [] Building [] Structure HP2. Single Family Proper .ty r-I Object [] Site [] Distflct I-I Elemeni of Dtstdct [] Otl~e~ (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Pl~oto: (View, dale, etc.)!acade 01/06/1997 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: [] Prehistoric I~1 Historic [] Both c.1916 *P7. Owner and Address: P--Private *PS. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address) Catherine Watts *pg. Date Recorded: 01/07/1997 *PIO. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance *Pll. Report Citation:(Cite survey report/other sources or "none’) *Attachments:I"1 NONE [] Location Map [] Archaeological Record [] Distdct Record [~ Ptmtograph Record [] Other: (Ust), [] Sketch Map [] Continuation Sheet [] Unear Feature Record [] Milling Station Record 1~I Building, Structure and Object Record [] Rock Art Record [] Arlifact Record DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Information ,~-~.or.e or #: 200 Fulton B1.Historic Name: B2.Common1 Name: ~.o~g~r~ u=~: Residential *aS,~hlte~! Style: Craft~qma~ "NRHPStllu= Code 5S3 B4. R’esent Use: Constructlo~ Hlatory: (Conslructton 0a~e, alterations, a~d clale of a~leralions.) Asphalt shingles were added to the structure in June 1976. Residential "B7.Moved? m No [] Yes r-i Unknown Date:.Original Loc~lon: *B8. Related Fellures: *B10. Architect: Unknown b. Bullc~er: Significance: Tl~me Residential Architecture AreaP~oa or s~nn~w.~ 1916-1940 ~ r~ ~l~ c~ (~ Im~ce In te~ of hl~o~ or ~h~uml ~nt~ ~ defln~ W theme, ~, ~a g~hlc ~. ~so addre~ Inlegd~.) The residence, in its scale, style, and setting, supports the historic chEacter of its disEict and employs period Echitectura] themes that Ee Characteristic of Palo Alto residences of the 1920s. Bll. *B12. B13. *B14. Ad~tonat Resource Altrlbutes: (List attdbutesand codes). References: Palo Alto Dept. of Building & Safety, original permit Sanborn Insurance Co. Maps, 1924 (updated 1962) Evatuator: Barbara A. Judy Date of EvHuatlon: 0110711997 (This space reserved for-officlal commenls.) (Sketch Map with north arrow r~ltllreo) DPR 5238 (I/~5) *Required Information TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: ¯Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on January 15, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 3. O~vner: Laurie Hardin and Jim Sacherman, 981 Lincoln, Palo .Alto, CA 94301 Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 15, 1997 979-981 Lincoln: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File .No. 96-HRB-47.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 979-981 Lincoln. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRI.BUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 979-981 Lincoln was assigned the category of STRUCTURE WITHOUT HISTORIC MERIT by the Historic Resources Board. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to.an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY: Mr. Bob peterson, Peterson Architects, .57 El Camino Real, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official Desigtiee of the Director of Planning and CommunitY Environment a. County Santa Clara T ; R __;1/4 of 1/4 of Sec _...-3 city Palo Alto Zone ,mE/ *P3a.Description: (Describe resource and Its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) (981) Located within a deep lot with dense foliage, this is an unadorned single-story, formerly detached, cottage with painted wood shingles. The low-pitched wood shake roof has decorative louvers at gable ends. Windows are typically multi-lite wood casements. Modern additions include a non-descript single-story wing that connects the cottage to the main house (979 Lincoln). (979) Located at the front of the lot, this is a modest single-storyresidence with no dear stylistic signature. The low-sloping roofwith modern wood shakes covers an enclosed front porch (porch previously open). Existing period elements include double hung wood sash windows and an exposed side left brick chimney with sloping shoulders. Exterior wails are dad in horizontal siding that is pr.oba.bly modern. *P3b.Resources Attflbutes: (List attributes anti codes) *P4.Resources Present: [] Bullriing [] Structure HP2. Single Family Property I"10blect L’] Site I-1 District [] Element of District [] Other (Isolates, etc.) Phb. Descrtptlon of Photo: (View, date. etc.) 979 Lincoln, front facade 01/06/1997 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: D Prehistoric [] Historic [] Both c.1935 *P7. Owner and Address: P--Private *P8.. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation CA Dale Recorded: 01/07/1997 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) lnce *Pll, Report.Citation: (Cite survey repod/other sources or "none’) *Attachments:r"l NONE I-’1Locstion Map [~ Archaeological Record [] Dlstdcl Record [] Photograph Record [] Other: .(List) [] Sketch Map !~ Continuation Sheet [] Unbar Feature Record [] Milling Station Record Building, Structure and Object Record [] Rock Art Record [] Adifact Record DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Information Page 2. of 3 *NRHP Status Code ~,,~,0,,:979-981 Lincoln , B1.H~c N~e: ~-Common Name: =.o~g~r~ use: Residential a4. Present Use: Residential ¯ ~s.~,,=n~te=ur, t sty~: Vernacular , Original pe~t for residence and g~age issued 1935. (981) Pe~it issued for the addition at rear of residence to create a bedroom and bath. The tool shed was also removed at this time. (979) Porch screens, window extensions, and a new entr~ce door were added in 1975. ¯ B7. M~d? ~ No ~ Yes ~ Un~n ~te: .......~ginal L~tlon: ¯ B8. Relat~ Featu~: Bga. =B10. BI|. *B12. /u:ldltional Resource Altrlbutes: (Ust attributes and codes) Releren¢e=: Palo Alto Dep.t. of Building & Safety, original permit Sanborn Insurance Co. Maps, 1924 (updated 1962) *B14. B13. P, emzu’~: Fv=luator: Barbara A. Judy Date 0! Evaluation: 0110711997 (This space reserved for.officlal comments.) (Sketch Map with north arrow required) DPR 523B (I/95) *Required Inforn~tion *Resource Hame or #: *Recorded by. Catherine Watts 979-981 Lincoln "Dat~ 01/07/1997 ~eontinuation [] Update 981 Lincoln, front facade with addition photomontage 01/06/1997 DPR 523L (1/95)*Required Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Pla .nning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on January 29, 1997 on Agenda Item I. 1. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Regina and Souheil Saliba, 440 Santa Rita, Palo Alto, CA 9~301-.3943 Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 29, 1997 440 Santa Rita: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-I-1RB-46.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 440 Santa Rita. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION.:. Staff recommended assigning anhistoric designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. !tRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 440 Santa Rita was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by .the Historic Resources Board. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY:Mr. Peter Barber, Plant Construction, .300 Newhall, San Francisco, CA 94124 Mr. Jonathan Rattner, Gray Cary Ware Friedenrich, 300 Hamilton Avenue,Palo Alto, CA 94301-3029. Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy Nancy Ntaddox Lytle,’!21~ief Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 State of California ;~ The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY.REC~ORDI: ’::: i ::":-iI :;: I’ " ::"::. :::.:.;;:") " :::" : ."" ’: ::: " ""Review Code: Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or#:440 Santa Rita P~imary # -.. . - HRI # ..Trinomial NRHP Status Code,5S3 :Reviewer " : P1. *P2. Other Identifier: Location: [] Not for Publication [] Unrestricted a, County _ Santa Clara b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Date ~T ~ R .-----.3 ~1/4 of ~1/4 of Sec ~ . Address 440 Santa Rita c~y ,,,,,, Palo Alto d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear feature) Zone ~, mE/ e. Other Localional Data: (e.g. parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, additional UTMs. elc, as appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 124-10-48 zip 94301 mN Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) On a block characterized by architecturally significant period residences, this charming one-story cottage is the lone typical period middle class dwelling. The medium-gable roof is cladwith wood shingles. A small, offset brick chimney is located on the front facade. Exterior wails are clad in horizontal wood siding. Intact windows are double hung wood sash with divided upper and lower lites. Other period elements include wood shutters and a wood sash fan lite at the front gable end. The original single car garage at the back of the lot consists of a wood shingled medium-gable roof and horizontal wood siding. Alterations include a side porch entry to the rear left. "P3b. Resources Attributes: (Ust attributes and codes) HP2. Singl.e Family Proper .ty "P4. Resources Present: ~ Building [] Structure [] Object [] Site [] District [] Element of District [] Other (Isolates, etc.) ¯..~;., .. ,~,,~ PSb. Description of Photo: (View. dale. elc.)440 Santa Rita, front facade ¯ i ,,,,,,,12/20/1996 ~ °P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: [] Prehistoric [] Hislodc [] Boll1 c.1930 *P7. Owner and Address: Saliba, Regina M. & Souheil N. 440 Santa Rita Palo Alto, CA 94301 P--Private "PS. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA *Pg. Date Recorded: 01/07/1997 " *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance i *Pll. Report Citation:(Cite survey report/other sources or "none")None -Attachments:17"1 NONE r’-I Location Map [] Archaeological Record [] Districl Record I-I Photograph Record I-1 Other: (List) r"l Sketch Map r-I Continuation Sheet [] Linear Feature Record [] Milling Station Record Building. Structure and Objecl Record [] Rock hJ’l Record [] Artifact Record DPR 523A (1/95)*Required intormation Residential Moved? I~ No I"1 Yes I"1 Unknown Dale:Original Locallon: Related Featum~: EL~a.Archilecl: Unknown b. sutlaer: Si.nificanc,: Tlleme .Residential ~cNtecture ~ of ~n~ 1930-1940 ~T~ (~ ~ In te~ of hl~o~ or ~h~ ~nt~ ~ defln~ W I~me, ~, ~d g~hlc ~. ~so addm~ Integd~.) The residence, in its scale, s~le, ~d setting, suppons ~e historic ch~acter of its district and employs pe6od ~c~tectur~ themes that ~e ch~acte6s~c of Palo ~to residences of the 1930s, Bll. *B12. B13. *B14. /~ldHionsl Re~o~Jree Altrtbutes: (Ust altrlbules and codes) References: Pale Alto Dept. of Building & Safety, original permit Sanborn Insurance Co. Maps, 1924 (updated 1962) Threats: Demolition ev,,u,~. Barbara A. Judy Date ol Evaluation: 01/07/1997 (This sp~ce reserved for-official comments.) DPR 523B (I/~) *Requ|md Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on Janum’y 29, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 1. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Kenneth and Fatijah Clark, 4040 Amaranta, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 29, t997 4040 Amaranta: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-HRB-50.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 4040 Amaranta. " Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim .Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ~ ACTION TAKEN: ¯ Under the City ofPalo A|to’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 4040 Amaranta was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. APPEALS..;. All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the publi9 to file an appeal from the decision of the director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mai!ing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy ancy l~laddox Lytle, Cl~i~f Planaing Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment P~el 4040 Amaranta Other Identlller: Location: r"l No~ lot Pubilc~’tlon [] Unrestricted a. County ,,, Santa Clara b. USGS 7.5’ Oued .O=te T ._j R .,,;1/4 of ~1/4 of Sec _._._;C. Address 4(’}/10 Arnnrant,n c~y Palo AI~o d. UTM: (Give more lhan one for I~tge and/o linear fee.lure) Zone ~, mE/’ e. Other Locatlonal Dale.: (e.g. p~cel #. legal description, directions to resource, elevation, additional UTMs, etc. a.s appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 137-20-052 zip 94306 mN *P3a.Deecdption: (Describe resource and Its meier elements. InctuOe Oesign, materials, con0ttlon, e~tera~ions, size. setting, anO bouna~’les.) This is a single-story residence with multiple wings and an attached garage, employing an eclectic combination of architectural treatments characteristic of the Streamline Moderne and Mission Revival styles. Streamlined Moderne elements include steel casement sash assembled in butted units at outside corners, occurring in a cascading sequence on the left side and at a single corner on the right side. De- taling of brick elements continues the Moderne theme, with single wythe strips of brick at window sills, massive yet simply expressed brick chimney with projecting belt course at the primary facade, brick pier and vestibule at main entry, and obscure glass full height panel located by the main door.. Mission Revival elements include hand-pressed stucco walls with deeply molded insets at windows, " " low-pitched roof masses resting on exposed projecting rafters, main entry door consisting of routed planks with wrought iron hardware, and adjacent wrought iron lantern-style light fixture. Incompatible modern features include shutters added at select windows and wood shake roofing. The attached garage is similar in detailing to the residence, and’is placed in front of a residential wing located in the rear yard. HP2. Single Family Property D o~J~:t D~o D Dis~ct [] Element of District [] Other (Iso~tes. etc.) PSb. Description of P’noto: (View. dale. 4040 Amaranta, front facade "P6. Date Conetructed/Age end Sources: [] Prehistoric I~I Historic [] Both 1937 *P7. Owner and Address: Clark. Kenrlcth 4040 Araaranta Palo Alto. CA 94 P - Private *Pa, Recorded by: (Name, affiliation;, ad0res.s) .....Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA ¯P.. os~ ~ecordad: 01~14197 ¯P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance *Pll. Repo~t Citation: ¯(Cite survey report/other sources or "none’) *Attachments: [] NONE [] Location Map [] A/chaeok)glcal Record r"l District [] P~ol’ogreph Record [] Other: (List) De,etch M~o D Conllnt~tlofl Sheet [] Building, StnJcJure and Object ~[] Unear Feelure Record 1-1 Milling Sl~lon Record [] Rock ~J1 Reco~ DAttif~ct R~cord DPR 523A (1/95) "Required Information . ~.~.~m~ =.:4040 Amaranta B1. Hist~c ~, ~mmon Name: Moved? le~ No r-I Yes [] Unknown Date:Original Location: Related Features: *BIO. BI|. "B12. B13. *B14. /~:Jditiona] Resource Altdbutes: (Ust attributes and codes) References: Palo Alto Dept. of Building & Safety, original permit Ev=luetor: Barbara A. Judy Date or.Evalua.on: " 01122/1997 (Tills Sp,~ce reserved for officio/commenls.) (Sketch Map with no~li~ arrow required) *Required Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on January 29, 1997 on.Agenda Item II. 3. ~........-..~.~.$...-..~....-~’;~<.,~:~:?.~L-~:.~.~:~i .~ x,,...-,. ,,..,.,., ~:.,.....~..~ ..,.~.x.:o×~ TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Bruce and Kathy Greenwood, 1656 Madrono, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 29, 1997 1656 Madrono: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-HRB-52.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1656 Madrono. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Confributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. ~COMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ]]!IB ACTION_TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1656 Madrono was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written corresPondence delivered to the City of Paio Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY: Glen Dodds & Associates, 750 Menlo .Avenue, #200, Menlo Pk, CA 94025. Prepared By:Barbara Judy Signed By:Nancy 1V~addox Lytle~ Chi~"~lanning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 *Resouine Name or #:1656 Madrono P1, Other Identlllen *P2.Location: rl ~ for Publication rl Unrestricted b. USeS 7.5’ Qued d. UTM: (Give more tl’~n one for Isxge and/or linear feelure) Date ,. C~unt~ ,,Santa Clara __; R,;1/4 of ~I/4 of Sec ._.__;B.M. c~, Palo Alto zip 94306 Zone ~, .mE/InN e. Otl~r I.ocatlonal De.m: (e.g. parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, addlllonal UTMs, etc. as ~o~ropr~zte) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 124-23-006 Delcdptlon: (Desodbe resource ~ Its major elements. Incltxle design, maleflaJs, condition, alterations;size, selling, and This is a modest, two-story, Tudor style residence set on a compact lot with steeply-sloped roof covering an arched entry. Signature elements include dominant front gable, and exterior walls clad in stucco with decorative half-timbering at gable ends and front facade. Special window sash consist of grouped wood casements with diamond shaped lites located below the main gable; typical sash are wood double hung. The exterior left stucco clad chimney is of medieval origin with its large size and horizontal banding. Incompatible modern features include simulated crown glass replacement at front facade windows, and asphalt shingle roofing. There is a detached garage ~.t the rear left of the lot with stucco walls, pyramidal roof clad in composition tile, and period style .wood door. "P3b.Resom’ces Attributes: (List attflbutes and codes) "P4.Resources Pmsen~ [] Building Fi S~mcture HP2. Single Family Property [] Object D See [] D~ " D Bement or District [] Other (~e~, etc.) P5b. Description of Pl~oto: (View. dale, etc.} 1656 Madrono. front comer facade 0 !! 13/97 "P~. Date Conatructed/Age end Soum~: r-I Prehl$loflc [] Hbtodc I’1Boll~ 1926 *PT. Owner and Address: Greenwood. Bruce and Kathy 1656 Madr0no Palo Alto. CA 94306 p - Private *PS. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA -Pg. OateRecorded: 01/13/97 *Pi0. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance "P11. Report Cllltlon: (Clle sunny report/other ~:)urces ot "none’). *Attechmente: n NONE 0 Pl~o(ogreph Record [] Location Map [] DLstrict Record [] Otter: (List) [] Sketch ~ D Continuation Sl~eet [] Unear Fealure Flecon:l [] Milling Station Record 17U Building, Structure and ObJecl Record DPR 523A (1/95)*R~o,llr~.. Inf~rrn*Ho~ Historic Resources Board Notice of the Dedsion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on January 29, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 4 ~‘.~.....~..‘~..*~..~.~.~...~....z.‘‘........~‘‘..%%~.~..~.‘~..‘~.~.~.~.~....~..~.~2~..4.~.$.~&‘~‘‘..‘.....‘..~.‘.~2‘’~i~‘.‘.‘‘‘..+:..x.:‘....+..~:...‘..:...~.....‘..~...‘.....~...........~....~:............~...~....‘....~.....‘~..~..‘............’....... TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Linda Lovely, 1187 Lincoln, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 29, 1997 1187 Lincoln: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-HRB-54.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1187 Lincoln. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Histor.ic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residenc~e. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. !:IRB ACTION .TAKEN.: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1187 Lincoln was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy Nancy~addox Lyt(e, ~h~f Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment *Resource Name or #: P1.OUter Identifier:. 1187 Lincoln ¯. ~u,~ ... " Santa Clara ~ T .____._; R ~ ~1/4 of ~1/4 of Sec _..__.;B.M. c~ PaloAlto z~p. 94301 Zorm ~, .mE/.mN Location: [] No~ lot Publlcatlo~[] Unremtdcted b. USGS 7.5’ Qued Date C. Addr~, ] 17 Lincoln d. UTM: (Give more tl’mn one for Im’ge arid/or linear feature) e. Other LocsiiormJ DeJa: (e.g. Wcel @. lega] descflpllon, dlre~JIo~ls to resource, elevation, e, ddllion~J U’i’Ms, etc. e.s app,’oprlale) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 003-19-047 "P3a.Deacdp(ion: (Describe resource ~ its major elements. IncltK~e (~eslgn. ma!erlals, condition, eJter~ions, size. seeing, and tx~rKJades.) This single-story Spanish Eclectic style cottage, with 1950s additions, is set on the front corner of an historic bungalow court. The original volume has a flat roof with stepped corner parapets and small clay tile roofs cantilevered from the wall surfaces. Most pominent feature is the corner projecting entry vestibule with arched opening and rounded front steps. The vestibule is topped by a clay tile roof, canti- levered with decorative wood brackets. Exterior walls are clad in stucco with evenly-spaced scuppers and intact painted metal gutters. Period windows are wood casements with divided lites. The wood front door appears to be original. Additional period features include decorative medallion at left side of stmctureand detached garage, similar in detail to the. residence, at rear of structure. Additions include rectangular bays at front and sides, and aluminum slider windows. "P3b. ~.,o~,A,m,ute,: (U=~a~ut~ad~l HP2. Single Family Property *P4.Resources Prelmnt: [] Bulk:ling [] Structure [] Object [] S~te [] Disldct [] Element Of Dtstdct [] Other (Iso~tes, etc.) PSD. Descrlpllon of Photo: (view. dale. elc.] ,, 1187 Linco]n, front facade *P~. Date Constr~’ted/Age and Source~: [] Prehtstodc [] Histodc rl Both ¯ 1896 *P7. Owner and Address: Lovely. Linda 1187 Lincoln Palo Alto. CA 94301 P- Private Recorded by: (Name. afflllalk~, a<:~lress) C.~therine Watts. B..arbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA *p~. =,ateaecorded: 01/14/97 *P10. Survey Type: (Descdbe) Reconnaissance .-11. Report Citation: (Clle survey report/other sources or "none’) *Attachment~: n NONE n Location Map [],~’cheleologlca] Record I’1 District Record [] I~o(ogreph’Record rl Other:. (U$I) [] S~tch Map [] Continuation Sheet [] Une~tr Fealure Record r’l Milling Station Record IX] Building, Structure ~ ObJ~ Record DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information .,~esource Name or #: 118"7 Lincoln , BI.Historic Name! B2.Common Name: B~.o~g~ use: Residential B4. Present Use: Con~trucllo~ History: (ConslnJcllon (~ale, alleratlons, ana dale of ~e~alions.) Residential "BY.Moved? ffi No [] Yes n Unkl~own Dale:Original Loc~tlon: "B8. Related Failures: *B10. k-chitecl: Unknown b. Bullaer: Unknown Significance: Trlome Residential Architecture P~ed oT S~nt~c~ce 192% 1940 P~peW Type Applicable CNerta (Dlscuss Importance In terms of historical or atcNeclural context ~s defined by li’leme, podod, al~d geographic scope. Also address Integdly.) The residence, in its scale, style, and setting, suppoi-ts the historic character of its district and employs period architectural themes thi~t are characteristic of Palo Alto residences of the 1920s. ¯ B11.,~:ldit|onal Re~,ource ~llrtbutes: (List altdbutes and codes) *B12.Reference|: Palo Alto Dept. of Building & Safety, original permit Sanborn Insurance Co. Maps, 1924 (updated 1962) B13.Remark: Barbara A. Judy eva~ua.on: 01/2211997 (Tills sp~ce reserved Ior:officl~J comments.) *Required Information HisWric Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on January 29, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 5 ~..~.......,..................,.............~.......,....,.. ........... .......... ,........,.. .............,.,...,....,......,.,..~..~..,.~.~ ............................~,.. .....................~....~.’.~.~ ............................. .............. .............,,...~ TO: FROM: " PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Daniel A. Bloch, 244 Robin Way, Menlo Pk, CA 94025. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 29, 1997 1551 Emerson: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-HKB-55.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1551 Emerson. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. HRB ACTION,TAKEN,,: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1551 Emerson was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the D!rector of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in.court, you may be limited to raising.only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this hotice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy C~f Planning Official Designee of the Director of. Planning and Community Environment Page 1 P1. "P2. Other Identifier: Location: [] Not for Publication r"l Unrettdcted e. County S ante CJ are b. USGS 7.5’, Qued Date ~.T : R ~ _..__1/4 of ..~l/~t oi Sec _..__.;c.,~dam,, 1551 Emerson c~y Palo Alto d. UTM: (Give rno~e trmn o~e for large ar~l/o~ linear fealure) ~’one ~, . mE/ e. O(l~er Loc~flomd Data: (e.g. parcel #, legel description, Qlrecllons to resource, elevation, addlllon~d UTMS, etc. 8.s epp~opdale) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 124-16-070 zip 94301 De=cdptlo~: (De=cdbe resource and Its rn~or elements. Include design, rr~tert~Js, cond|tlon, ~era~lons, size. setting, and bo~Jr’,~rles.) This is a modest single-story Craftsman style bungalow, set on a deep lot behind a semicircular driveway. The hipped roof with flanking brick chimneys has narrow eaves with exposed wood rafters. Exterior walls are clad in painted wood shingles. Signature elements of the symmetrical facade include double hung wood sash windows with divided upper lites and original wood multi-lite entry door. A wood trellis with profiled rafter ends covers the front entry. Modern additions to the historic resource visible from the street include left side trellis with new wing beyond, and modern garage at right. "P3b.Re=ogm.,e~ Attdbules: "P4.Resourcel Present: (~ a,a~ute$ and ~) HP2. Single,,,,Family Property r-’l Building [] ~ructure r-I Oblect [] S~te ~ D~tdct [] Element ot District [] O~laer (Isolates, etc.) PSb. Description of Pr~to: (View. date. etc.) ...... 1551 Emerson, front facade "P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sourcs,=: ~ Prehistoric ~ Historic [] Both c. 1906 *P7. Owner end Address: Bloch. Daniel 244 Robir~ Way Menlo Park. CA 94025 P- Private *Pa. Recorded by: (Neme, afflllallon, address) Catherine Watts ...Barbara A. Judyl Preservation ,,Arch{’teet, San l~raneisco, CA *~’~. t~ateRecorded: 01/13/97 *P10. Survey Type: Reconnaissance *Pll, Report Citatlo~: (Cite survey ~’eport/other ~ources or "no~e’) *Attachment=: n NONE [~] Location Map r-J NchaeOl(~ll¢81 Recoil [] District Record E3 Prlolograph Record 1"30lher: (List) [] Sketch Map [] Congnuatk)n Sheet [] Unear Fe8lure Rec~d I-1 Milling Station Rec~d ~_~ Building, Structure and ObJoct F!~,ord [] ~ A~ I~e~d [] Aaifact Record Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on January-29, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 6 TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Janice Cowan, 27635 Red Rock Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 29, 1997 760 Lytton: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-HRB-56.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 760 Lytton. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ~ ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 760 Lytton was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, thepublic hearing. COURTESY COPY:Mr. Christopher Tripoli, 725.N. Shoreline Blvd, Mtn. View, CA 94043~ Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chie’f Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Pag~ I Page ~ of ~ ¯ ~e.our=, ,,me =" #:~.w~O n P1,Other Identifier: °P2.Location: I"3 Not tot Pul:fllcatton b. USeS 7.5’ Quid 94306 °P3a.De~dptlon: (Describe resource and Its m,~lor elemenls._Inclu~..~esl_gn:mate.rials, condition, ~lera~!ons, size, seI~In.g@nd ._b~_ ~ _n~rL Le~s~)...."The structure is a small, single-story, 5pamsh PLclect~c style cottage set on a wine, yet sna,uw, lot. The flat roof has a low curving parapet centered a the front facade. Narrow, tile-covered shed roofs flank the parapet above symmetrically-placed wood sash double hung windows. Entry is through a central projecting bay with low-pitched; clay tile roof. Wrought iron railings lead to the multi-lite wood door, which appears to be original. A small wood casement window is located to the left of the door. Exterior walls are clad in smooth textured stucco. Additional period features include decorative gable end vent at the front bay and exterior right chimney with decorative banding, stepped and sloped shoulders, and inset ornamental relief.panel. The street is characterized by these single-story stucco cottages. ¯ p~. B,,ou~, A~,,~u~ea: ¢u= a,,.ou,es ~d ~o0~) HP2. Single Family Property "P4.Resoume= Present: [] Building [] S~ructure [] Object [’1 Site [~ EP.str~.t r-1 Element ~ D~strlct [] O~er (Isolates, etc.) PSb. Description of P’noto: (View. dele. etc.) ¯7150 L.vtton. front facade0!114197 *P~. Dale Constructed/Age ind Soumes: [~ Prehistoric ~ Historic [] Both 1929 *P7. Owner and Addrese: Cowan. Janice 27635 Red Rock Road Los Altos Hills. CA 94022 P- Private *PB. Recorded by: (Name. 8fflllaBon, ~’JdresS) Catherine Watts ......Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA *Pg. Da,emecor~m: 01/14/97 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe)p~econnaissance "Pll. Report Citation: (.Cite survey report/other sources or "none’) *Attachments: [] NONE I"lNchaeoioglcal Record [] P~o~’ograph Record r-1 Location Map [] D~gtdct P, eco~d E3 diner: (UsD [] Sketch M~p ~ Continuation Sheet [] Building, Structure and Object Recocd [] Unear Feature Rec~d " [~] Milling Station Record [] Rock Ad Raco,-d [] Artifact RecOrd DPR 523A (1/~5) -Required Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on January 29, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 7 ~ ... ¢...-..~ ~::"~&~.’~. ~..~. ,.~.~:~. ~.-.?,~,.....~,.....~...~ ~.~., ,.~.,.~ ~.~..~ ~ ~. ~...-~!. ~. ~-’?.~ ."~ ~...:.x. x~. x.:~ :..+ x~,.o+:-:.:~..x.:~.....:.:~.:~x.:.’~.~:,:.~:- +x.:,:..:-~x.:~.+..:.:.:.:.:,.:.x.:.~:..-~x-:,.:. ¯ TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Thomas C. and Mary J. Thomas, 249 Santa Rita, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 29, 1997 249-249~ Santa Rita: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-HRB-57.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 249-249½ Santa Rata. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, pr’~perties may be assigned a historicdesignation of Structure Without HistorieMerit, Cbntributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCES to these residences. ttRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating theSignificance of Historic Resources, 249-249½ Santa Rata was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCES by the Historic Resources Board. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the directorofthe project. The appe.al period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy Nan6"y Maddox Lyric, Ch~e~f Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page I P1.Other Identlflen I.J:~..allon: rl Not Ior Pubtlcatlo’n I’1Unreltdc~ed a. count~ Santa Clara b. USOS 7.5’ Ou’,d Dire ~T ; R ~ ~1/40t ~1/4 O! Sec ~ c. ~.ddr~=,. ’~q_9~.q 1/9 .Rnnr~ Rira cw Paid All;O d.I.rrM: (Give more than ~ for im’ge ~nd/~’ linear feature)Zone ~,mE/ e. Other Locattonat Data: (e.g. I:~rcel @, legal description, directions to resource, elwstlon, addlllonat UTMs. etc. as appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 17_4-19-029 9430 °P3a, D,.~dptlom. (,Describe resource ~ Its major elements. Include ~sign. materials. onditiOn a]ter~lons, size. setting, anO boundaries.)e main !aouse is a moctest, single-story, Spanish Eclectic style cottage with a rambling addition at rear. Signature elements include low-pitched gable roof clad in regular laid Spanish clay tile, recessed prominent window and door openings, and heavily textured stucco clad exterior walls. An exterior left chimney with sloped shoulders and horizontal banding is clad in stucco. The historic resource features a round-headed front entry, with period wood door, set in a projecting bay and capped with a hipped clay tile roof. Typical windows include wood double hung with plain and multi-lite sash. Special window includes a three paneled, arched, wood sash with fan lites at the front facade. A modern addition at rear, with stucco clad walls and flat roof with clay tile edging, is visible from the street. At the rear of the lot. is a detached garage with similar deta~’ling to the main residence, including stucco clad walls and original wood multi-lite door. The cottage at rear is a diminutive single-story structure composed of simple masses finished with gable end louvers, horizontal wood siding at exterior walls, wood double hung sash, and an asphalt shingle roof. This is an unadorned but intact version of a period cottage. "P3b. Resoumes Attributes: (LL~ attributes and codes) ¯ ’P4. Reeources Pm=ent: r"l Building rl Structure i *P11. Report Cllatlon: HP2. Single Family Property [] Oblect I-1S~te [] I:~stact .rl Element ot’ Bsldct D Diher (Iso~te=, etc.) PSb. Description of Prloto: (View, date. etc.’l 760 L.vtton. front facade 0!/13/97 "1=6. Date Con=tructed/Age ,,nd Sources: rl Prehistoric r~ H~stod¢rl Both 1931 *P7. Owner end Address: Thomas. Tom 249 Santa Rita Avenue Palo Alto. CA 94301 ...... P - Private *Pa. Recorded by: (Name. 8fflllalicn, address) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation .... Architect, San Francisco, CA ¯=,s. O=t~.,cord~: 01/13/97 ¯P10. Survey Type: (Describe) ~econnaissance (Cite ,,urwy report/otl~er sources o~ "none’) *Attachments: D NONE [] Locallon Map r"l Archaeoleglcat Record rl District Record [~] P’notograph Record [~ Other: (Ust) [] Sketch M~o D Continuation Sr~et F~ Building. Structure end OOJect Record [] Unear Feature Rectal rl MIIIIr~ statlo~n Record [] Rock A¢t Record DAalfact Ra~,d DPR 523A (1/~’) -Required Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on January 29, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 9 TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Omer Salem, 499 Hamilton Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 29, 1997 1028 Emerson: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-HRB-59.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1028 Emerson. Under. the City of Palo Altors Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit,-Con[ributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ~ ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1028 Emerson was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant Or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this aetibn, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY: Carolyn Tumbull White, 1040 Emerso.n, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Prepared By:Barbara Judy Signed By:y "° ox Lytle, Chie~anning Official Designee of the Director of Plarming and Community Environment Page Other Identifier:. Location: I"l No~ for Pub~lcat~n r-I Unmatdcted -,.County Santa Clara b. USGS 7,5’ Quad Date ~ T _........_..; R ,; ....1/4 of ~1/4 of Sec ..__._;c. Address | (Y~R NmPr~tq c~ Palo Alto d. UTM: (Give more ll~m one for Ilrge and/or llrlear feslure)Zone --,mE/e. (:~her [J:)Catlorml D~t~: (e.g. Wcel #. legal description, dlrectlo(ls to resource, elevation, addltlonat UTM% etc. e.s appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 120-30-004 z~p 94301 mN D,~, edptlo~: (Dencrt.l>e reso.urce.and ,s mNor~elem~enls. Incluae (~eslgn. materJ.atn, condition, nlterallons, s~ze. Satllng. ana bourK:latles.)structure xs a single-story, tSrattsman style bungalow, set on a small lot and surrounded by dense foliage. Signature elements include low-pitched, gable roof with wide overhanging eaves; exposed wood roof rafters; decorative wood brackets added under the gables; full-width porch, with roof supported by square columns and solid railing continuing to ground level; and cheek walls housing the entry stairs. The wood-shingled roof is pierced through the eaves at left by a slope-shouldered stucco chimney with simple cap. Exterior walls clad are in stucco. Typical windows are double hung wood sash with horizontal emphasis. The original wood entry door with diamond lite completes the historic resource. Note the building is under construction with missing windows and scattered debris. op3b. n~ou~ ~=ab.t.: (~ ~n,ut. ma =x~) HP2. Single Family Property "P4.Reloumel Pmlent: [] Building I’1 ~ructure [] Object [] ,~le [] ~[] Element o! D~slrtct [] O(her 0so~es. etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View. date. etc.} "1028 Emerson. front facade *P~. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: [] Prehistoric l~ Hlstoflc [] Both c. 1916 *P7. Owner end Address:. S~lem. Omer 499 Hamilton Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 P - Private *PS. Recorded by: (Name. a~lllatlon, address) ...... Catherine Watts...Barbara A. Judy, Preservation ..... Arehiteet, San Francisco, CA *p.. oaten~.ra~: 01114197 *Pl0. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance -Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey report/other sources or ’no~e’) *Attachmer~: [] NONE [] Location Map D ~raph ~ D ~hen (U~) [] Sketch Msp [] Contlnuallorl Sl’met IX] Bulk:ling, Structure ~ ObJecl Record [] Une~r Feature Record [] Milling Station Record [] Rock Art P~ D A/tlfac~ Record DPR S23A (i/S5) "Required Infonmatlon -.P,~ 2. of 2 "NRH~’S1.I.seO~e 5S3~,~,ome or #:1028 Emerson B1.Hlslodc Nm’ne: B2.Common Name: ~.o~g~r~ use: Residential *B5.A~chlteetural Style Vernacular *B6. B4. Ptesen! Us~: Construction History: (Cor~nJellon {lade, alleralk)~s, ~1 dale of atleradions.) Residential *BT.M~’ed? !11 No /"1 Yes 1~] Unl(nown Dale:Orig|na~ Location:*iZB. Related Features: Affchilecl: Unknown ~. Builder:Unknown s~n.l~,n~,: "r~me Residential Architecture ~oaP~r~oa or S~nntcanco 1916-1940 Prop~ Type Applicable Critorla(DIscuss Imporlance In terms of htslo~.~ or archllec/ural context a~ defined by lheme, pedod, maa geographic scope. A/so address Integdly.) The residence, in its scale, style, and setting, supports the historic character of its district and employs period architectural themes that are characteristic of Palo Alto residences of the 1910s. Bll. "612. B13. *B14. At:ldilional Resource Altrlbmes: (List allrfbutes and codes) References: Palo Alto Dept. of Building & Safety, original permit Sanborn Insurance Co. Maps, 1924 (updated 1962) Palo Alto Times, 01/02/17 Barbara A. Judy Dale of Evaluation: 01/2211997 (This space reserved Ior-officl~J comments.) *Required Irlformalion Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on January 29, 1997 on Agenda Item I. 11 TO:Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Steve and Vera Kilston, 651 Tennyson Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 29, 1997 65...1 Tennyson: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-HRB-61.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 651 Tennyson. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. tIRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 651 Tennyson was assigned the category of STRUCTURE WITHOUT HISTORIC MERIT by the Historic Resources Board. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the-deeisionofthe director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY: Nadine Matityahu, Coldwell Banker, 285 Hamilton Av, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Prepared By:Barbara Judy Signed By:Naney-Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment -~aesourc, .ame or #:651 Tennyson P1. *P2. Other Identifier:. Location: r’l Not lot Publlcat~’on r’l Unrestricted e. Coun~ Santa Clara b. USG$ 7~5’ Ou=d Date T ; R ____._; ._~1/4 of ~1/4 o! Sec ._.__; =.~dd~, 6ql Tennysnn c.y Palo Alto d. UTM: (Give rr~ce tl’mn o~e for I~rge end/o linear feature) Zone --, mE/ e. CXher Lor..~lonaJ D~ta: (e.g. parcel #, legal descdpt~’~, dlrectlens to resourca, elevation, additl~na~ UTMs, etc. a.s apl:~’opr~te) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 124-02-052 94301 mR *P3a.Description: (Describe resource ~nd Its me,}o~ elements. Include d~sign, malerlzds, condition, alienations, size, setting, and bour’K:~Jles.) Set on a lot of dense foliage and evergreen, this charming Tudor style cottage has been extensively altered. The gabled roof of the original structure slopes to cover an arched entry and is clad in wood shakes. Painted wood shirigles cover the exterior walls and an unadorned brick chimney is offset at right. Period features include wood front entry door with square lites,double hung wood sash windows with divided upper lites, and a half-round gable end window with divided lites. Non-period details include paneled wood shutters with leaf cut-outs, concrete entry stairs, and a steel sash bay window at the front facade with leaded glass. Alterations to the main structure include a modem second-story addition at rear with a fiat roof and aluminum slider windows. Additional alterations include a shed roofed extension to the rear detached garage. *P3b. Resources Attl’ibule|: (Llsl attrt~utes and c~les) HP2. Single Family " - -rroperty *P4. Re=oume= Pr~nt: [] Building r’l S~mc~ure [] Ob.lect [] Site [] District [] Element of £Hstflct [] O~her (lso~tes, etc.) PSb. Descrtptlon of F~oto: (View, date. etc.’l 651 Tennyson. front facade 01/13/97 °P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: r-I Prehistoric I~ HIstodc r’l Both 1927 *P7. Owr~r and/~ldre==: Kilston. Steven and Vera 651 Tennyson Palo Alto. CA 94301 P- Private *PS. Recorded by: (Name, afflllallon, address) ,,Catherine Watts ...Barbara A. Judy, Preservation ...Architect, San Francisco, CA *~s. t,-ta.ecord~: 01/13197 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance *Pll. Report Citation:(Cite =urv~] report/other sources or *Attachments: n NONE E] Location Map I’1Archaeok~lcal Record I"1 D~strlct I:l~:x~d n F~otograph Record E] Other: (Usl) [] Sketch Map [] Continuation Sheet [] Unear Feature I:~,eord [] Milling Station Record Building. Structure and Object Fl~.ord [] Rock Atl R~..ord [] A,’~fact Record DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Information ¯Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 5, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 2 TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Renard Iarussi, P.O. Box 850 Menlo Park, CA 94026. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 5, 1997 549 Stanford: Application. for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-HRB-63.) REQUEST/PROJECT..DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 549 Stanford. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECO~NDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ACTION.TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 549 Stanford was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision with this notice. APPEALS." All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior t6, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY:Glenn Dodds & Associates, 750 Menlo. Avenue, #200, Menlo Park, CA 94025. Prepared By: Approved By: Barbara Judy l~a~ac’y"-l~addox Lytle, Cfi~f Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment D~te ¯. co..t~ Santa Clar~ T : R., ;I14 of ~114 ot Se¢:.B.M. c~ Palo Alto z~p 94301 ~ ~,,mE/mH e. (:~er Locallonal Del8: (e.g. parcel #, legal de=edpllon, dlmcllo~sto resource, ele~llon, a~:lltlon~l UTM$, etc. as appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 120-30-007 *P3a,Description: (Des~be m~ource ~ II~ ms]o~ etemenls, Include leslgn. rnalerlaJs, condition, aJterallons, size, setting, 8ncl boun<:latles.) This is a story-and-a-half, Craftsman style residence with Classical style detailing. The hipped, asphalt- shingled roof covers a full-width front porch, and is pierced through its overhanging eaves by a stucco clad chimney with sloped shoulders at the left side. There is an interior brick chimney at rear, and the exterior walls of this handsome, symmetrical structure are clad in narrow, horizontal wood siding. ¯Special features include central dormer at front facade with pyramidal roof and fixed wood sash window with diamond-shaped lites; original front door with divided lites; and doric column porch-supports at front facade. There is a detached garage visible from the street, accessible through a rear alley. *P3b. *P4. (u= m~ta. =ha =x~) HP2. Single Family Property r-i Element ot’ Dist.,let I-IOther (Isol~, elc.) PSb. Desc~IpUon of,Plmto: (View, :lale, , 1090 Emerson. front facade ~’P6. Dlle Cormln.,~ded/Age lnd Sources: 0 Pmhbtoflc I~I Hlsloflc [] B~II~ 1908 *PT. Owner end Addm~: Fan’ell. Keith and Hall. Tracy 1090 Emerson Palo Alto, CA 94301 P - Private *Pa. Recorded by: (Nm’ne, ~/llll~Ik:na, acKIres~) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA *~,s. D,te.~,~ra~: 01/24/97. *Pl0. Survey Type: (Oescrlbe) Reconnaissance il. Repoa Cllation: (Clle survey repo~l/other soumes or .no~e-): ........ "Atlachment~: rl NONE n ~n Map [] Arch,,eologlcal Record [] DistriCt Reco~:l [] Pndograph Record [] D S~tch M~ D Conllnuatlo~ [] Unem" Fealure Record [] Milling ,St~tton Fl~cord D Building, Structure ~xl ObJeel RecordD Rod~a P~.~d D~a~ ~x~ DPR 523A (1/Ib-’) -Required Infommt~on Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 5, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 3 ~:.~................~, .....~,.~ ~......,,,..~-:?-:~ ............~.’...~.~.~,,.~:~. ...............~.~...........o.~2~ ...........................,..,.......,~.. .................-..-.-.-.-.~...~.-... ............................ TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Nazim and Khalida Kareemi, 2145 Emerson, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 5, 1997 21.45 Emerson: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-HRB-64.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 2145 Emerson. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Con~ibuting Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 2145 Emerson was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision with this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the d.eeision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY: Leannah Hunt, 232 Middlefield Road, .Palo Alto, CA Prepared By: Approved By: Barbara Judy Nancy l~laddox Lyric, Chief !~anning Official Designee of the Director of Plarming and Community Environment Page 1 -Rasour~l Name 04" #: P1. ............ 2145 Emerson Other Identifier:. Location: [] No¢ 1o¢ PubilcaUon n On~ b. USGS 7~’ O~d Date c. ~d~ ? 14~ F.mer~nn d. ~M: (~ ~ ~ ~ for Imge ~/~ ,~ fe~e) Assessor,s P~cel Number: 124-19-085 ,. County Santa Clar~ T : R .__.__.; ~/4 of ~/4 .of Sec ~ c~_ Palo Alto Zone _,mW ztp 94301 mN -Paa.De~crtpAlon: (Descttl:~ resource 8n(J tts n’m}or ekements. Inch.~e l~es|gn, malefle,~, condition, alterAtions, size, setting, end bour~:letles.) This is a single-story, U-shaped, Spanish Eclectic style cottage. There are low, scroll-shaped parapets at roof comers with clay tile edging, and a central awning cantilevered from the wall surface that is clad in regularly laid mission tile. Exterior walls are clad in stucco with groupings of scuppers placed at comers. Typical windows include divided lite wood casement sash at front facade, and double hung wood sash with divided upper and lower lites at side facades. Additional period features include decorative, half- eliptical insets above front window heads; ceramic spark arrestor at original claimney cap; wood front door with divided square lites and ornamental strap hinges and escutcheon; and original lantern fixture at entry. There is a detached garage at r.ear, similar in detail to .the main structure, featuring half-eliptical inset above garage door. Modem additions include flat, metal awning covering front porch; astroturf flooring at porch and entry stairs; and Spark arrestor at new chimney. [] Element o~ District []Other (zso~tss, PSi. Description cA P’noto: (view, date.2145 Ernersgn. front facade *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: r’a Prel~lsZoac Og Historic r-i E~lh 1937 *PT. Owner and Addmsz: Kareerni. Nazim and Khalida 2145 Emerson .Palo Alto, C&. 94301 P- Pdva,te - *Pa. Recorded by: (Name, aJlltlAtlon, a0Omss) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Prese .~ation Architect, San Fran.~isco, CA -~. t),:e,~ora,,a: 01124/97 *Pl0. Survey Type: (Oescrlbe) Reconnaissance .,11..Report CllatiO~l: (Cite survey report/other ~ or "n~le’) *A~lacl~ments: E] NONE n location Map I-IArcheeologlca~ ~I"1 DistriCt Record 0 Raofo~raph Record 0 Other:. (Lbt) [~] Sketch Map I--I Contlnoatlon She~l [] l.lne~r FeAture Record 0 Milling StAtion P, ecorO [] Building, Structure and Object Record DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 5, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 4 TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Howard Churcher, 1205 Fulton,P.alo Alto, CA 94301 Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 5, 1997 1012 Fulton: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-01.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1012 Fulton. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit~ Contr!buting Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1012 Fulton was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision with this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decMon in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By: Approved By: Barbara Judy Nancy’l~addox Lytle, Chigt" Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page ! ,. county Santa Clara Dido ~T ; R ; ,.,~114 Of ~114 Of SO¢ .___;c~y Palo Alt0 z~p 94301 Zone ......mE/ e. Other Loc~k:~’mJ I:~1~: (e.g. percel #, iegel (:Sescflptlon, llrectlorm to resource, elevation, acJ~l~lonaJ UTMs. etc. a~ appropr~de) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 03-033039 De~rlpllt~n: (De~’Ibe resource ~ I~ rn~t]o~ elements, l.nclu(~e (l~slgn. 11~lefl~. conalllon. Bllemllons, slze. setllng0 8n(:l boun(~tl~s.) This is a modest, one-and-a-half-story residence with a partial basement. Signature elements include steeply-pitched hipped roof with overhanging eaves; central front, hipped dormer with wood siding; and partial-width, covered, front entry porch. Exterior walls are clad in horizontal wood siding, and there is an interior brick chimney offset right. Special features include projecting bay window at front facade resting on decorative wood brackets, and period wood door with glazed panel. Typical windows are double hung wood sash and divided lite hopper sash at basement. Classical detailing includes slender, doric, porch-support columns and profiled entablature under narrow overhanging eaves. There is a period detached garage at th.e right rear of the lot with board and batten siding, gabled roof with .exposed rafter ends, decorative wood brackets, and ornamental strap hinges at garage door. "P3b. "Pr. Date Constructed/Age and Soumes: [] Prehi~tor~I’~ HL~odc [] Both 1910 *P7. Owner and Addrosa: Chureher. Howard] 1205 Fulton Pale Alto, CA 94301 ...........P - Private *PS. Re¢orded by: (Name. offlllo, on. a(k:lross) ,Catherine Watts Barbara A. Jud~, Preservation ..Architect, San Francisco, CA -e~. Dste.~c.r~: 01/24/97 *Pl0. Survey Type: Reconnaissance 11. ReportCilati~’l: . (Cltesurveyreport/othersou~,es~’n(me’) ¯ Attachments: rl HONE [] Ncl~aeologlce~ Record D ~ofoor~p~ 0 Locstlon ~ 1:3 D~staet E! Other: (List) [] Sketch ~D co.u.u~ sheet [] Buddy, ~nmur~ ~m ~ ~D Unear Fe~ure Record rl Mill|rig St~Jort F~)rd D P~.k A~ P~d DPR 523~ (1195’)*Requlmd Information TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 5, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 6 ~:~:!: Owner: Burke and Deb Robinson, 2361 Columbia, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 5, 1997 2361 Columbia: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-04.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 2361 Columbia. Under the City of Pal0 Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence; or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION..: " Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING:RESIDt~NCE ~6~this residence. ¯ ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 2361 Columbia was assigned the category of STRUCTURE WITHOUT HISTORIC MERIT by the Historic Resources Board. The Director-of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision with this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant, or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Di.vision (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in cotirt, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the CityofPalo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY:Pia Graves, 2130 Yale, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Alpheus Jessup, Mesa Design Group, 385 Sherman Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Fred Balin, 2385 Columbia, Palo Alto,’CA 94301 Prepared By: Approved By: Barb ara J ud~!/~a,,k~.7../~/~/._ /~’------ " Nancy ~Iaddox Lytle~ Chi~l~Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 e. Otl’~r LOCallonal Dala: (e.g. I~’Cel e, legal ae~cdptton, dlrecllorm to resourca, ele~llon, a~llllonal UTMs, etc. an appmprlale) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 137-05-034 ll.M.zip 94301 mN °P3a, *P3b. *P4. Delcdpllo¢l: (De,zcflbe resource ~ I1~ rna~" ~nt~ I~t~ ~lgn, ~e~, ~d~, ~e~ns, ~e, ~ffing, ~ ~u~.) This is a modest Craftsman style bung~ow, with second-sto~ ~terations connecting to rear of s~cture. The steeply-sloped wood-sNngled roof, wi~ n~ow overhanging eaves, extends to cover porch at front ~d continues to re~ addition in one long gable. Extegor wNls ~e clad in n~ow, hofizontN wood siding, ~d there is an exterior side fight brick chimney. The few remNNng pefod windows ~e double hung wood sash with divided upper lites. Special feature includes a p~tial-wid~ covered ent~ porch with roof supposed by shon, squ~e colu~s. Porch-suppo~s rest upon a solid balusvade which extends to ground level. The single most signific~t ch~ge t0 the s~cture is ~e roof m~s ~terafion, w~ch " e~nates ch~acterisfic bungNow sVeet facing gable en~. The new m~sive roof is ch~acter~ed by a single ridge line ~d ~eNcN Slope. C~pafibie Nterations include ashed-r00fed.le~-to at~e fight facade, si~l~ in detN1 to the mNn s~cmre, wi~ divided lite double hung wood s~h windows. Incom- patible Nterafions include bay window at front facade wi~ modem s~h ~d fNse munfins, extensive use of roof sol~ p~els, ~d modem double hung w~dows wi~ fNse munfins ~oughout s~cmre. ~ ~b~: (~ ~a~t~ ~ ~) v ~2....Single F~ly Propeay ~ p~m: ~ ~mg ~ ~u~ ~ ~ ~ ~te ~ ~ ~ E~menl ~ ~m~ ~ ~ (~, ~) ~. ~n ~ ~o: ~. ~e. ~) 2361 Columbia. front comer facade ~ ~h~t~~ H~to~~ ~1927 *PT. ~r and ~d~: Robin~on. ~urke and Deb .2361 Columbi~ ..... ~ Palo A!to, CA 94301 .. P - Private Catherine Watts Barbara A. ~, Pr~ewation Architect, San Eran~’~ CA -~. ~me ~N~: 01/24/97 Reconnaissance ,.’11..Repoa Ciletion: (Clle suntey report/olher ~ources or "none’) _ *Atlachmenll: r’l NONE rl A~chaeolog~,a~ Reco~l[] eno~o~r~ e,~or~[] Distdct RecordE] (~ner. (Usa) [3 S~etch Map [] Conllnuatlon Sheet [] Unear Fealure P,~,ocd [] Milling Slallon R~cord [] Building, Structure and ~ Record DPR 523A (’1/9~1 *Requlre~ lriformat~on " Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 19, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 1 ~:~?.~~~:i~‘~.:i~i?.!~!:i:i:~i~i:i~?~:~.~i~;.!~.~:i~i~i:.::~:!.~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~.~..i~!~i~i~i~i~i~!~i:i~i~i:~.:?..~.~.~i~ TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Mehdi Moheimani, 708 Boar Circl(, Fremont, CA 94539. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 19, 1997 851 Homer: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-05.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 851 Homer. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. ~COMMENDATION.: " Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ACTION T.AKEN:. Under the City ofPalo Aito’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 851 Homer xvas assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision with this notice. APPEALS,; All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By: Approved By: Barbara Judy Nancy~Maddox Lyric, Chief Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment IEI e. O~er LocallOnal Dela: (e.g. parcel @, legal de~rlptlorl, dlrecllorm to resource, etwatlon, ~ldltlonal UTMs, etc. Assessor’s Parcel Number: 003-31-027 °P3a.Description: (Describe resource and Its rnNor e~ements, Inctu4~e de~lgn, malerlals, concl~llon, alterations, size, setting, and boun<~rles.) This is a single-story Spanish Eclectic style cottage with Modernistic characteristics. Identzfying features of the Spanish Eclectic style include flat roof with stepped parapets at front facade, including entry and comer parapets; stucco exterior wall cladding; and stucco clad chimney with decorative band at cap. The uncommon symmetrical facade features a prominent covered entry porch with square porch supports and stucco clad cheek walls flanking concrete stairs. Additional period details include scuppers at front facade, double-sash wood entry doors with multi-pane glazing, and prominent three- panel windows with wood casement and fixed sash at both sides of front porch. Modem elements, both. Art Deco and Art Modeme in origin, in.elude the smoooth wall surface, coping at roof line, applied decorative tile elements at front facade;and a.general horizontal and geometric emphasis~ Alterations include the replacement of select window sash with aluminum sliders. There is a detached garage at the right rear of the lot, similar in detail to the main structure, with a modem door. Homer Street is characterized by small bungalows. -~..==x~.~ ~atan,t.,: (u= att~e= and=x~ HP2. Single Family Property "P4. RelOtlrCe~ Prlle~: I-I Bulk:ling I"1 SlRIcltire [] ~ I-I S~le [] Dtsldct I-I Element ol District I-1~ (Iso~les. etc.) pr~. Desc~ptlon of F~noto: (View, aste, et~851 Homer. front facade *!~. D~te Constructed/Age end Sources: "[]~to~ mH~toac nc. 1924 *P7. O~rand ~d~: Moheimani. Mehdi 708 Boar Circle Fremont. CA 94539 . p - Pfiyate "PS. ~a by: (N~e. ~I~ ~) Catherine WattsBarbara A. Judy,...Pr~e~ation Architect, San Francis, CA -~,s. D,te.~co~ed: 0,,1/30/97 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance 11..Repod Cilallorl: (Clle survey report/other lources or *Ataachment~: [] NONE n Locatk)n Map r’hk,’chaeologlr~] Record r"l Dlstdct Record 13 R~otograph R~cord 0 o~. (L~t) I’-I Sketch ~ [] Cont|rluatk:~ Sheet [] Unear Fealure Re~ord 1"1 Milling Sllltlon Record [] Bulk:ling, Structure ~ ~ Reco~ ~PR s2a~ (lieS)oRequlmd information TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the .Public Hearing on February 19, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 2 Owner: Bao Lamsam and Scott Sagan, 470 Coleridge, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 19, 1997 470 Coleridge: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-06.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board xvas requested to assign a historic merit designation to 470 Coleridge. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Cont.ributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATIOn,,: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING KESIDENCE to this residence. ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 470 Coleridge was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources. Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision with this notice. APPEALS.: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project. The appeal period is 10 daysafter the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or Someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public heating. Prepared By: COURTESY COi~Y: Approved By: Barbara Judy Richard Eimore Design, Inc, 345 Forest Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Nancy 1Vl~ddox Lyric, Chi~f~anning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment P~I "P3a. s is a large, two-story, ~panxsn t~o~omal t~evlval style residence set on a formally landscaped comer lot. Signature elements of this handsome structure include the low-pitched gabled roof with little over- hang; regularly laid mission tile roof covering; and stucco exterior wall cladding. The front facade is dominated by a central ornamented projecting entry bay with applied stucco swag, profiled entablature cap, and recessed door opening. Original wood door has beveled glass panel, vertical muntins, and period hardware. A balconette with wrought iron balustrade sits above the projecting entry bay, beneath a three-paneled arched window with moss glass. Typical window openings are recessed and include double hung wood sash with divided upper lites, and wood casement with plain and divided lites. Additional period details include painted metal gutters and leaders, and half-bay single-story appendages -’-wi~h arched openin~g~atside:facades. Compatible-alterations include.the addition of.w.rought.iron balustrades, similar to balconette at front facade, to second-st0ry balconies above h~f-bays; enclosed sun porch at left facade half-bay; and side.rear addition with attached garage. D Element of I:)tstrlct D O~her (~e~, etc.) PSb. DeSCdl~on of I:’m~o: (View. Me. etc.) . 470 Coleridge. front comer facade "PG. Da~e Constructed/Age and Sources: [] I~’ehbto,’k:. r~ H~odc [] Both 1923 *P7. Owner and Address: l.am.~arn. Bao & Sagan, Scott 470 Coleridge Palo Alto, CA 94301 P - Private. *P8. Recorded by: (Name. Idllllallort, a(Rlress) Catherine Watts .... Barbara A. Judy,.Preservation .. Architect, San Francisco, CA -Pg. D,tea~r~ea: 01/30/97 *Pl0. Survey Type: (Descdbe) Reconnaissance 11.’.keport Citation: : (Cite ~u~ report/olher aoumes or "no~e’) °Atlachmeflts: [] NONE I’1Locellon Map [],~’chaeoiogl~d Record I’1 D~strlct Record [] P~ogr~ph P~or~[] O~h~. (ust) D Sketch Map [] Contlnua~o~l Sheet [] Building, Structure and Ot)Je~ RecordDUnear Fealure Recorcl [] Milling S~atlon Reeora D RocRAd Record DA~ Record DPR 523A "Required Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 19, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 3 TO:Owner: Charles Junkerman and Bjork, 565 Chaucer, Palo Alto, CA 94301. FROM:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program PUBLIC HEARING:Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 19, 1997 SUBJECT:565 Chaucer: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-07.) REOUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 565 Chaucer. Under the City of PaloAlto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 565 Chaucer \vas assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision with this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By:Barbara Judy COURTESY COPY:. Approved By: Robert Jencks, 454 Forest Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301. N~ancy la¢laddox Lytle; ’Chid~’lSlanning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 565 Chaucer zip 94301 InN *P4. °P3a.Dosedl~lO~: (Descdb~ resource and Its rna~ elements. Inclu~ aeslgn, malerlaJs, condition, nllerallons, size, setting, and bounclade~.) This is a modest, T-shaped, Spanish Colonial Revival residence set on a lot characterized by over- grown foliage. Identifying elements include low-pitched gabled roof masses clad in regularly laid mission clay tile; exterior wails clad in hand textured stucco with recessed window and door openings; and second-story projecting bay supported by decorative vigas. Typical windows are steel casement sash with multi-paned glazing throughout structure. Special features include arched front door with vertical wood planks and rectangular lite; exterior-right painted brick chimney with sloped shoulders; small arched window at second story; and second-story wood balconette with jigsaw .cut wood balustrade supported on decorative brackets. There is a second-story period alteration at the rear of the building, similar in deatil to the main sL,’ucture, with fiat roof and comer steel casement sash windows. . -There is a detaehekt g~~,e.--.a.t~?eright r.ear of the lot, sitnilar in de_tail.to the residence,---with mpn.u~ , _mental vertical wood plank door and original hardware. Alterations include replacement hard~,vare at front door, non-original gutters and entry light fixture, incompatible spark arrestor at chimney cap, and modem single car garage addition to original garage structure. a~,~,~tan, t.,: (t~~.a~) HP2. Single.Family Property Restores Pr~llt: J"l Bui~ing r’! Sthj¢~,,e I-’lObJect I-l,~le l"lDIsblcl r’l Element ot D~trlet I-I other (~solalen, etc.) PSb. Dean o! Pt~o: (Vle~. ~le. etc,)565 Chaucer. front comer facade *PC. Date Constructed/Age and So~mes: IS] Prehbtoac [] Hlslorlc [] Bothc. 1930 *PT, Owner ~nd Addr~: lunkerrnan& Bjork 565 Chaucer Palo Alto. CA 94301 ..P - Private *PS. Recorded by: (Name, e/flllallon, Catherine Watts .....Barbar.aA. Judy, Preservation Arehit.ect, San Francisco, CA "~. ~),te Za.cordea: ... 01/30/97 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance --Pll..Report Cllation: *Attachm~/lll: [] NONE [] ~’chaeologP.,al Record D,,R s2a~ (Clte survey reporl/olher sources or "none’) []Location Idnp [] D~strlct Flecord Other:. (List) r-l,Skelch ~ i-’I ConllnuaUon She~l [] Unear Fealure Recortl [] Milling Stallon Record [] Building, Slructure ~d OblA¢l *Re~lulmd Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 19, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 4 ~:~:~!~~:i-’:.:i !:~ ~:~::’:i:~:!: ~. :.::~::’.i:i ~:~:~:.::i:.::i:! ~. :.:~.:i:~ ~:,~.:i:i:i:i-"::i ~i:~:’::~: ~-’:’:i:! ~" ":.:~:.::i:i:i: TO:Owner: Allan Biller and Nancy Melton, 557 W. Crescent, Palo Alto, CA 94301 FROM:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program PUBLIC HEARING:Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 19, 1997 SUBJECT:557 W. C,rgsccnt: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-08.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 557 W. Crescent; Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMEND,ATION,;, Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 557 W. Crescent was assigned the category of STRUCTURE WITHOUT HISTORIC MERIT by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision with this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file. an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the deeision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY:Sara Virginia McLeod, 595 W. Crescent Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Prepared By: Approved By: Barbara Judy ....... Nancy M’~dd~x Lytle~ C~)~ Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page I 557 W, Crescent Other k~entlflor:, Location: I"1 No~ for PubllcaUon r’l Unrestricted b, USOS 7.5’ Ouad d. UTM: (GNe more than o~e for I~rfle anti/or linear festure) e. Other Loc~k~,al D~a: (e.g. INucel ~, k~al descdpl]on, dlrec~|o41s to r~sourc~, elevallon, additional UTM$, etc. as app~’opr~le) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 003-08-033 zip 94301 InN DelCdl~lon: (Describe resource and Its Ina~or e4emenls. Include ~e~lgn. malerl~ds, condition, ~tera~lons, size, setllng, and boun<~rles.) ’ This is a single-story Spanish Eclectic style structure set on a small lot on a street characterized by Spanish Eclectic and Tudor style cottages. Identifying features include low-pitched, cross-gabled roof with little eave overhang and profiled wood cornice; asymmetrical facade with slightly recessed window and door openings; and stucco clad exterior walls with gable end scuppers. Additional period features include exterior right stucco clad chimney with brick cap and decorative medallion at side; intact wood casement sash windows; prominent stepped entry with solid, stucco clad balustade and awning roof canti- levered from wall surface with decorative brackets; and wood entry door with large glazed panel and - original hardware. There is a period detached garage at the right rear of the lot with clay tiled gable roof and stucco clad exterior walls:~Alterations-to the main structure include the replacement-of original roofing, most likely red clay tile, with incompatible asphalt shingles. " ........... [] Element.~ D~lrlct [] Oll’mr (bo~e~, etc.) PSb. De~crlpUon Of Photo: (View, dale. 557 W. Crescent. front facade "1~. D~de Constructed/Age and Source~: El Prehistoric r~ H~odc [] Both 1924 *PT, Owner end Addm~x: Billet. Alan & Melton, Nancy 557 W. Crescent Palo Alto, CA 94301 . ..P - Private *P& Recorded by: (Name. e/flllallon, a~lress) ,,Catherine Watts l~arbara A. Judy, Prese~ation Arehiteet,.San Francisco, CA -pa. ~te,eco~ea: 01/30/97 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) R~connaissance r~11. Report Cltetlon: (Cite survey repoll/other sources or "no~e’), *Art=ohmerlin: D NONE n Location Map D Sketch Map [] Continuation Sheet I~] Building, ~ruc~um m~d Ob~:~ Re¢o~ArchaeOlOgiCal Record r’l I:Wsldcl Reco~D Unea, r Fealure Re~o~l rl Milling Station Record [] Rock At1 Record [] Artifact RecordP~ngmph Reco~El Oth~. (Ust).. DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Inform~tlon Hi~storic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 19, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 5 TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Bruce and Tamara Gravelle, 2315 Ramona, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 19, 1997 2315 Ramona: .Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-09.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested tO assign a historic merit designation to 2315 Ramona. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Cont.ributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTKIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ACTION TAKEN.; ¯ Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 2315 Ramona ~vas assigned the category of CONTKIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision with this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project. The.appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal tiffs action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may .be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in ~vritten correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By:Barbara Judy COURTESY COPY: Approved By: Barbara Carlitz, 2291 Ramona, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Nancy l~£ddox Lille, Chie~lanning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 Other Identlflen Location: [] No~ lor PubUcaUoo [] Unrestricted it. County Santa Clal~a b. USOS 7.5’ Ouad Date ~;1/4 of ~1/4 o! Sec ____; .Aaar~, 231 ~ l~mnna cry Palo AlOe d. UTM: (Glvernocelhanoneforlazgem’,d/ocllneatfe~lure)Zone ~,mE/ e. Other Localk:x~ Dell: (e.g. p~’cal 0, legal descrlplk:m, (llre<dlor~s to resource, ekw~lon, ll~dltlonsl UTMs, etc. as appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 124-14-043 z~ 94301 "P3a. "P3b. DeSCriptiOn: (.De~l. be resource and its major ek~ments. Include Geslgn. materials, condition, a~terellons, s~ze, setting, and boun~u’le~.) This is a single-story Tudor style cottage set on a compact lot. Signature elements include steeply-pitched wood-shingled gabled roof with horizontal wood siding at gable ends; exterior walls clad in hand crafted stucco; and recessed window and dbor openings. The front facade features a central projecting gabled bay with horizontal wood siding at gable ends and recessed entry with period vertical wood plank door. Typical windows are wood casement sash with divided lites, and there is an interior brick chimney. There is a detached double car garage at rear, which appears to be constructed at a later date, with period detailing including wood-shingled gabled roof, gable end vents, and hand crafted stucco clad exterior " walls. Ramona Street is characterized by these Tudor style cottages. *1~. Dale Conetructed/Age and Sources: [] Prehlalorlc I~ Historic I~ Both 1928 *P7. Owner and Addmss: Gravelle. Brace and Tamara 2315 Ramona Palo Alto, CA 94301 P - Private *PB. Recorded by: (Name. elflllall~n, ack:lres.s) Cathelrine Watts Ill Barbara A. JudT, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA *pl0. Survey Type: (Oescflbe) Reconnaissance .Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 19, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 6 TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: George O. Wilson, 340 Lowell, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 19, 1997 340 Lowell: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-I Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-10.) REOUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 340 Lowell. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: ’ Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 340 Lowell was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision with this notice. APPEALS; All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, whicfi allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project, The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By:Barbara Judy COURTESY COPY: Pamela Garlick, 1736 Waverly, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Approved By:.Nancy lv~addox Lytle, Ch;e~Plannin~, Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page I ~4Q L~ell OUter k:lenUf|~n Location: I"I No~ lot’ Pubilc,~t~n [] Unrestricted b. USGS 7.5’ Ouad .....DMe ~ c. Addm~ ~I !" n~ll d. UTM: (~ve more ~ ~e for laxge an(I/or t~r~u" fee4use) e. (:~h~r Loca.tkx’~ 1::)~8: (e.g. pstcel e, legal de~=dpt~on, dlr~41o~s to resoume, ~ev~tlon, i~:~d~orm] L,rTMs, etc. as ap~op,’~te) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 124-08-053 ,.c+unty_ Santa Clara T ~ ~ _____; ...__~14 of ~/4 o~ Se~ ~c~y p~lo Alto m~/ zip 94301 op~a.De~ril~|o~: (O(~---rtbe ~source ~ Its m~<x e~ments, lnckx:le ~l~1gn, rn~ede~s, con~l~tJon, e]terM~ons, ~Jze, This is a stately Tudor style residence set on a large lot characterized by mature trees and overgrown shrubbery. A five foot high privacy hedge separates the lot from the sidewalk; street entry to semi- circular drive is through wrought iron gates with stone gate posts at front ends of property. Identifying features of this estate include steeply-pitched hipped roof with numerous steeply-pitched cross gables; the three massive interior stucco chimneys crowned with terra cotta chimney pots; and multiple window groupings with multi-pane glazing. Additional period elements include stucco exterior wall cladding, shallow overhanging eaves with exposed rafters, half-round wood casement windows at gable ends, and arched recessed entry with period lantern fixture. Typical windows are wood casement with mulit- - . pane glazing, in multiple and single groupings, and double hung wood sash with six-over-six divided rites. The original arched porte-corchere is located.on thezight-facade,- now overgrown.with foliage and_-.-::.. ~:--.-- without access to the driveway. A detached two car garage; with pyramidal roof and S-im~ia~:d~t~ to the " ;’~:: residence, was added in the 1950s to the left front facade. Non-period elements include incompatible wood enrty door with divided side rites and asphaltroof shingles. *P3b. Relource~ Alldbot~: (LI~I atlrlbutes and l~:~es) HP2. Single Family Property . *P4.Re~o~Jrclt PresetS: []i~,’~mmg C] SZructure . [] PSb. i:)esc~lp,Jon of P’n~o: (view, aate, e~c.) 340 Lowell. front facade .. ........... Date Constructed/Age rand Sources: [] PrehbtO~ [] H~odc I-I Both 1918 *P?. Owner and Address: Wil.~on. Geo~e O. 340 Lowell Palo Alto, CA 94301 + P - Private *P8. ~l¢.ol~ed by: (N~e, I~lll~ltOrl, 8l:~ros~) Catherine WattsBarbaraA. Judy, Preservation _ ¯ ArchiteCt, San Fr’anejse~’i CA -~,,. ~,te ~e,~ordod: 01/30/97 *P10. Survey Type: (Oescrlbe) Reconnaissance 11.1Report C~8~’I: (C~e survey report/other sources or "none’). *A~ac,nmonts: [~ NONE r-l~chaeologl¢~ P,~x~rd I~ P~Ol’OO.r~l~ R~rd DPR 523A (1/95) ~ Locstion Map r’ll:~stdcl Reeora [] Sketch MaT)I-I Continuation Sheet [] Building, Structure and Object I--I Unem Fealure Reco~ r’i Milling Station Record [] Rock Art ~ [::] kzllfact Fiecord *Required InfommUon HiStoric Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 19, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 7 TO:Owner: Charley Yasuda, 431 Pepper, Palo Alto, CA 94306-I 823. FROM:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 19, 1997 SUBJECT:431 Pepper: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-I 1.) REQUEST/PROJE.CT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 431 Pepper. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Re.sidence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence.. ,ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 431 Pepper was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision with this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, xvhich allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in cou~ you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in "~a’itten correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By:Barbara Judy COURTESY COPY: Approved By: Kenneth Sandelin, 586 Oregon Av, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Zeden Jones, 294 Monroe Drive, #8, Mountain View, CA 94040. Pria Graves, 2310 Yale, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Nancy~laddox Lytle, C’hi~t<lSlanning Official Designee of the Director of Plarm.ing andCommunity Environment Page 1 D~te ¯. counw, Santa Clara c~ Palo Alt0 zip, 94306 Zone ~,mE/mX e. (]her Localk:~mI Dell: (e.g. potcel @, legal ~escrlpllon, cilrecllocm to resource, elevallon, lladltlorml UTM$, etc. as apptopr1~e) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 132-37-38 Description: (Describe resource and Its mNo~ elements. Inctu~e ~lgn, maleflaJs, condition, a~ten~lons, size, setllng, and bour~:~de~.) This is a.small, single-story, Traditional Minimalist structure located on a deep lot south of the Oregon Expressway in former Mayfield. Signature elements of this compact T-shaped structure include medium-pitched gable roof with front facing cross gable and exposed fascia boards; narrow eaves with an extension over left front cutout porch; and exterior walls clad in horizontal drop wood siding with vertical trims at comers. Typical windows are double hung wood sash with divided upper lites, and there is an unadorned brick chimney located at side left. Additional features include door and window surrounds finished with trditional, simple, wood trims. The original owner, Real Investors Inc., and builder, R.D. Squires, constructed thre.e similar homes on the same block: 441 Pepper, 451 Pepper, and 470 Pepper. *P6. Dtle Constructed/Age and Source: FI Prehistoric [] Hlstodc r"l Both 1939 *PT. Owner and Addms~: Y~.~nda. Charley 431 Pepper Palo Alto, CA 94306 .. P - Private *PS. Reco,"ded by: (Name, el/lllalk:m, a~lres~} _ Catherine Watts..... !~arbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA "P~. ~),~e .~cora~: 02111197 *Pl0. Survey Type: (Oesertbe) Reconnaissance ~’11. Report (Cite survey report/other sources o~ "no~e’) °Attachment~: 0 NONE 0 Locatk:)n Map rl Archaeological Record r’l D~strlct Record [] Sketch Map [] Congnuat~ S~eet[] Unear Feature Reco~[] Milling ,~a~lo~ Recor~ *Required Information Hfstoric Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 19, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 8 TO:Owner: Andrew and Nancy Nichols, 1416 Tasso, Palo Alto, CA 94301. FROM:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 19, 1997 141.6 Tasso: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-12.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1416 Tasso. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: " Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ACTION,,T,AKEN;, Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic’Resources, 1416 Tasso was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision with this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in xvritten correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By:Barbara Judy COURTESY COPY: Approved By: Michael Shubat, 1055 Sladky Av, Mountain View, CA 94040. ancynvi " " ) i’ " nnin~, Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page I *R.our~ N-mo or #:1416 Tasso Pl.O~er k:~enUflen l.t)catlon: r’1 ~ I~r Publl,~lon ISI Unr~td¢’ted a. County ~anta C~ aI’~ b. USGS 7.5’ Ousd D~te ......T ,’ R ~ ____1/4 o! _.__1/4 ©. ~ldm. 1 tt 1 ~ T~n C~ Palo Alto d. UTM: . (GI’~ ~ tha/I orle for la/ge and/o Ilntsr fealure)Zolle ~,mE/’ e. Oilier LocslloIlai Dal~: (e.g. ptlrcel ~, k~al dest:dpll<:m, dlrectlotm to resource, ete~ltlon, 8¢ldltlona] UTId$, etc. as Assessor’s Parcel Number: 120-854 94301 mN *P~a.D~rlptlon: (Describe resource ~ Its m~ elements. IncltX:le aeslgn, lrmlerlaJs, conaltlon, alterellons, size, setUng. ~ botlr~lstles.) This is a single-story Spanish Eclectic style bungalow set on a compact lot bordering the Professorville neighborhood. Identifying features include low-pitched hipped roof with regularly-laid mission clay tiles; smooth-textured stucco exterior wall cladding with deeply recessed window and door openings; and prominent recessed entry. The round-arched comer entry vestibule has an awning roof clad in clay tile with exposed wood rafter ends that is cantilevered from the wall surface with decorative scroll brackets. Typical windows are double hung wood sash with divided upper lites at side facades. Special~ openings at front facade include a pair, of woo.d French casement doors with divided lites. Additional ~_~ features include a-eplademen_t:.tile .medallions above French.doors,~ period -wood en.t..ry%--d_._.0.o~ith ! .arge:.~’-::__--~----.~:=~_~.~;-~ rectangular li~es ;~u~d 0rigi~al hardware, prominent interior Stucco clad chJn~"~ibc~d~l~and : ¯clay tile roof, and secondary fiat roof mass at rear. Alterations include attached carport and rear right. *P3b. it~ Altdbut~:.tu~ .,~,.t. mm =~s) HP2. Single F~yProperty D Building [] Structure [] Ot~t I’I Stte [] i:~act r-i Element of District [] (Xber (l~.tes, etc.) 1416 Tasso. front facade *P6. Dlde Constructed/Age and So~Jmel: [] Prehistoric I~ Historic 0 B~II~ 1922 *P7. O~mer ~nd Addms~: Nichols, Andrew and Nancy 1416 Ta~so ... Palo Alto, C.A 94301p - Private *PS. Rl~orded by: (l~me, a/flllalk)n, a<Xlress) ,Catherine Watts . Barbara A. Jud¥,..Preservation ..Arehiteet,..San Francisco, CA *p.. o,tene+ome~: 02/11/97 *PlO. Sunmy Type: Reconnai.ssance *Required I~forn’mtlon Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community :Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 19,. 1997 on Agenda Item II. 9 TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Kay "khosrow Foroudi, 712 Waverly, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 19, 1997 712 Waverlv: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to-1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-13.) " REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board ~vas requested to assign a historic merit designation to 712 Waverly. Under the City of Palo AIto’s Interim.Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: ’ Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ACTION TAKEN: .Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 712Wavedy was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision with this notice. APPEALS; All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, ~vhieh allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the proje.ct. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge.this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By:Barbara Judy COURTESY COPY: Approved By: Howard Post, 430 Sherman Av, Palo Alto, CA 94306. N~nc)(~/Iaddox Lytle, ~hiefPlanning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 Date e. Olber Lz>callor, al Deta: (e.g. parcel #, legal description, dlre¢l|oll= to resource, e~watlon, additional U’I’Ms, etc. as appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 120-16-60 Zip 94301 mH *P3a.Descdpllocl: (Describe resource and Ils ma~ e~emenls. Include Oeslgn, rnalerl~ls, on(~ltlon, ~lterallons, size, setting, and bourKlatles.) This is a textbook example Craftsman style bungalow set on a compact lot between Professorville and Downtown Palo Alto. Identifying features of this intact structure include low-pitched gabled roof with wide overhanging eaves and exposed wood rafter ends; decorative wood braces added under front gable; and partial-width porch with roof supported by grouped, square, doric columns and column bases extended to ground level. Typical windows, varying in size throughout structure, are wood casement with divided upper lites grouped for horizontal emphasis. A decorative gable end vent with geometric pilasters and surround completes the historic resource. Alterations include composition replacement siding and non-period roofing. *1~. Dire Constructed/Age and Sources: ....... c. 1916 *PT. Owner and Address: Foroudi. Kaykhosrow ~ 712 Waverly Palo Alto, CA 94301 P - Private *PS. Recorded by: (Name, tlllll~lkm, I~Xlress) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA -e~. omta,,coraea: 02111197 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance 11. Repofl Citation: (Cite sunmy repofl/other sources or "none’) ¯ Allachrt~la: 171 NONE E] Localion Map I-IAtchaeoIoglcal R~mrd I~ District Record O PnOfogr~h Recora 0 ot~r:, (LL~) [~} Sketch Map [] Continuation Sheet [] Unaar Fealum Pecora 0 Milling Stltllon Record []BulMIng, Slructure and Objecl Record [] Rock Art ~ I-I DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Iflformatlon Historic Resources Boald Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 19, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 10 ~:~ ~: ~ ~:.::!:~:~:!:i:.::i~: ?.:,:~:~:~:,:-’.::i:i::’:!:~:~.":i:~-~:!:.:: ~:i::.:i:i ~.::~i:i~ TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner:Kristine and John Erving, 420 Palm, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 19, 1997 420 Palm: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-14.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESC~TIQN: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 420 Palm. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic d~signation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. NECOMMENDAT!ON..’,, Staffrecommended ass!gning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 420 Palm was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision with this notice. APPEALS.’. All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director 0fPlanning and Community Environment.. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in xvritten correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By:Barbara Judy COURTESY COPY: David Miller, c/o Moyer Associates, 430 Sherman Ave, #100, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Approved By:ing Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Pag~ I D~de County Santa Clar~a .j R ~ ~1/4 of ~1/4 of Se¢ ....._.;B.M.c~y Palo Alt0 z~p 94301 ~ ~,.mE/rnN e. Other Locallonal Dela: (e.g. parcel @, legal delcrlpUon, dlmcllons to resource, etevallon, ~:lttlonal UTMs, ~. Assessor’s Parcel Number: 003-06-018-00 *P3a.De~dpllon: (Descdb~ resource and Its me.joe elements. I~ ~Ign, ~efl~s, ~nd~, ~e~ns, ~ze, se~lng, a~ ~.) This is a two-sto~, sy~etrical, Medite~anean styleresidence set on a l~ge lot bordering S~ Fr~cisquito Creek in the neighborhood nonh of University Avenue. Identifying elements of tNs stately residence include medium-pitched Npped roof with regul~ly-laid ~ssion clay tiles; smooth-textured stucco exterior wall cladding; and pro~nent recessed enW. The speciN ellipticN-~ched end, with om~entN stucco detNling ~d applied keystone c~ouche+ visuNly connects to a second-sto~, half-round, ofel window with bNconette. SpeciN features of the oriel.window include wood casement s~h with geome~c patterned ~tes, om~ent~ pil~ter su~ound, and wrought iron balus~ade. Typic~ windows ~oughout the residence ~e double hung wood s~h with six-over-one divided lites. S~I~ windows ~e grouped at front facade to fl~ l~ge fixed wood s~h windows at both sides of ent~. Compatible -..-~..-~=~terations includ~ :eh~;~door :~sembly~i~ .~vided ~ide.~tes: ~he-bfi~e~y:~t~ghL~seS~ ~’~~ough a stucco clad w~ng wN1 w~th clay tale roof edging, where it continues to re~etached g~dge. The ~o-c~ g~age is s~ in det~ to ~e m~ residence, wi~ ~e addition of modem doors. Lush l~eaping ~d mature everg~ns complete ~e m~te=~e~ f~l 0f ~s Nstofc resource. -p~n. ~ ~: (~ ~ ~1 ~. S~gle F~ly ~ope~ *P4. R~ P~m: ~ ~lng ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~te ~ ~ ~ Bemenl ~ ~ta~ ~ ~ (~, ~c.) ~b. ~n ~ ~o: ~. ~e. ~)420 Palm. front facade *Pt. D~le Constructed/Age and Sources:I"1 Prehistoric [] Historic I-! Both 1924 *PT. Ownerand Addm~:Erring. Kri,~tin¢ and J0hn 420 Palm Palo Alto. CA 94301 P - Private *PS. R~rded by: (Nnme. ~afll~lon, address} Catherine WattsBarbara A. Judy, Preservation -Architect, San Francisco, CA -p~. t,,~n ~,~a~a:. 02/11/97- *Pl0. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance Pll. Report Cllaliorl: (Clle survey report/other ~x~rces or’none-) ........ *AttachrnelltS: [] NONE [] Locellon Map~ Archaeo~oglca~ Record [] Olstdct Reco~ [3 P~ogr~p~ ~Ord [] otto-: (LL~) ID s~tch Map [] Contlnuatk>n Sheet [] Building, Structure ~ ObJecl P,~[] Unlar Fealure Record rl Milling Station Record D Rock Art Record D Adifsct Record DPR 523A (1/95) *RequJrm:l Iriformatlon Historic ResoUrces Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 19, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 11 TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Nita and Jim Girand, 590 E. Crescent, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 19, 1997 590 E. Crescent: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-15.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIP.T!DN: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 590 E. Crescent. Under the City of Polo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Co.ntributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION,: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 590 E, Crescent was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision xvith this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in ~vritten correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By:Barbara Judy Approved By:N~n y dox Lytle, Ch~ei’Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page I z~p 94301 *P3a. De~cdpllon: (Describe resource m~l its mNo~ e~ements. Inctu(:~e aeslgn, materials. ondition, alteraLtons, size, setting, ar~ bourKlasles.) This is a handsome Monterey style residence set on a large, curving, comer lot in the neighborhood south of University Avenue. Signature elements of the historic resource include two stories with low-pitched gabled roof clad in irregularly-laid mission clay tile; hand-textured stucco exterior wall cladding; cantilevered second- story balcony covered by principal roof with turned wood balustrade, decoratively carved wood posts and brackets, and exposed rafters below with camber arch end boards; recessed window and door openings; and massive brick chimneys. Typical windows are grouped wood casement sash with three glazed panels throughout. Special window features include prominent arched wood casement sash at front facade with divided lites and applied turned wood ornament at vertical muntins; wood lintel and applied turned ornament at casement sash fla~...ki.’ng en.try; and full.-_length, divided lite, wood casements at balcony. Additional period -elements includeotnate-lant~’g-tyle fixtures ,-.~ ableli~ia d ~V.~~it~,. recessed ~bevel:at_entrY~th iSp~ishstly.tile:~ border, and profiled metal gutters. The massive wood entry door appears altered orm0dem. There is a : " " ........ detached garage two-ear garage at side, similar in detail to main residence, with gabled tile clad roof extending to covered walkway at rear. Mature olive trees characterize the well maintained landscaping. -~,3~. ta~=~ ~ata~a,,: tu~,,,~=~ ~r~ ~) ... HP2. Single Family Property *P4. Resources Pm~ent: r-1 Building r’l Stmclum [] ObJ~ [] S~le [] l:Hsblct [] Element ~ Otsblct [] O~her (It, o~tes, etc.) PSb, De~lptlon of F,noto: IVlew. (~e, et~.) 590 East Crescent. ~ont facade *i~ D~te Constr~ted/Age ~nd Sources: r-I ~h~¯ Hbto~~ ~th 1930 *PT. Owner Ind Address: Gir~nd. Nita and Jim 590 East Crescent Palo Alto, CA 94301 ..... P - Private =P& Recorded by: (N,sme, 8fflllalk)n, a~k:lmss) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA *p~. ~.ta.~ra,,a: ........02/1..1/97 *P10. Sunmy Type:. (Describe) Reconnaissance ,~11..Report Cllatlon: (Clle survey report/other sources or "none’). *Attachme~=: [] NONE [] Loca.on Map []Xrchaeoiog~a~ Record [] I~strtct Record1-1 F~ol’ograph Re~ord [] Othen. (Usl) [~] Sketch Map [] Continuation Sheet " [] Building. Struclum and Ob~ Record[] Unesr Fealure P, eco~d [] Milling Station Record [] Rock Arl Record [] Artifact Record DPR 523A (1/95) "Required Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February26, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 1. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Charles and Sara Botsford, 750 Melville, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 26, 1997 750 Melville: Application.for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R- 1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB- 16.) REOUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 750 Melville. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this ~esidence. ttRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources~ 750 Melville was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS.; All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allo~vs for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of.the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else rai~ed in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By: Approved By: Barbara Judy Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 750 Melville Avenue P1. *P2. Other Identlflen Locallon: r-i Not for Publication n Unrestricted ~, ~un~Santa Clara b. USGS 7.5’ Ou=d Date ~.T : R : ___..1/4 ol ~1/4 ot See _.__;c.~lar~ ’7q¢3 M~lvillo AVOnll¢,C~ Palo Alto d. UTM: (GIve mote |l~J1 o~e for laa’ge and/or linear fealure)Zone ~, ..mE/ e. Other Locsllorml D~la: (e.g. l[:mrcet M, k~at clescrlpllo~, dlrecllorts to resource, ek~llon, ~¢ld111o1,,81UTlds, etc. as apPtOl:Xlate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 003-44-003-00 z~ 94301 mH *P3a.IDelcdp(lon: (Descrlbe resource and its mNor e~emenls. Include Oeslgn, malerlats, ¢onclltlon, aJter~dions, size, setting, ancl bourx~J1es.) This is a single-story Craftsman style residence, with minimial detailing, set on a deep comer lot bordering the Professorville neighborhood on the edge of Rinconada Park. Although mostly intact, a period alteration reconfigured the front entry to be located on the longitudinal facade facing Parkinson Avenue. For the purpose of this survey, all descriptions refer to its current configuration. Signature elements include low-pitched gabled roof with overhanging eaves and exposed wood rafter ends; exterior brick chimney with stepped shoulders piercing through the eaves at front facade; and decorative braces under main and extended gable. Typical windows are double hung wood sash with ten-over-ten and six-over-six divided lites. Exterior walls are clad in painted wood replacement shingles. Additional period features include wood entry door with recessed panel and divided lites, profiled metal gutters, decorative metal grille at street facing gable end; and large wood barn doors at left detached garage. Non-period alterations include replacement asphalt shingle roof’mg; wood .window shutters; and the three-paneled, fixed sash window at front facade with incompatible wood trim. -P3b. ~.,,~ ~antn.,: (u~ ~ta~,i, ma ~) HP2. Single Family Property *P4. Resour¢el Present: [] Building E] S~mcture [] OI:>J~K~ [] S~le r-t D~rlct [] Bemenl of D~slrlcl [] (Xber (Iso~es, etc.) PSb. Delcdptlon of Pt~oto: (View. dale. 750 Melville. front facade from Parkinson Avenue *P6. Dtle Constru¢ted/Age.nd Sources: " [] Prehtstoflc ~ Historic rl i~lh 1920 *P7. Owner and Addrm~: Bot~ford. Charles alad Sara 750 Melville Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ....... P - Private *P& Recm"ded by: (Name, I~illlatlon, a<ldress}Catherine Watts . Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA -~,9. t)ete R~.ora~: .. 02117/97 *P10. Sunmy Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance Report Citation: (Cite survey reporl/olher ~ources or "r~r~’) *Attachments: [] NONE [] LocaUon Map i-I Xtcbaeok)glca~ Recon:l rl D~stdct [] P~ofngraph Record [] Other: (List) [] Sketch Map D Conllnuat~ Sheet " [] Building, Stn.~ure and ObJe~ Record [] IJnear Feature Recon:l r’l Milling Sta~on Re¢,o~¢l [] Rock A,’I Record [] Art~fact Recon:l DPR 523A {1195) *Required Informatk~n Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the I~irector of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 25, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 4. TO:Owner: Tim Knight and Yen-Chi Huang, 1171 Fife, Palo Alto, CA 94301 FROM:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 26, 1997 SUBJECT:1171 Fife: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-21 .) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1171 Fife. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ItRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1171 Fife was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, xvhich allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director ofth.e project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish tO appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land usedecision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. " Prepared By: Approved By: Barbara Judy Nanc~y ~Q’~ ddo~x~L"yl~e,~Ch ie’-~alanning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page I 1171 Fife Avenue Other IdenOfler: Location: [] ~ lot Pul~|.z~on [] Unre~td~ed z. County,Sap, ta (~la~a b. USQS 7.5’ Ouzd D~de ~T : R .- ____1/4 of ~1/4 o! Se¢ ___; e.. ~a~ 1171 Fi¢~ Avenue cry Palo Alt0 d, UTM: (Give more ti’la/t one for Imge luxl/o¢ linear fe~,ture) e. Otl~r Locallor~i Daln: (e.g. parcel ~, legal description, dlrecllons to resource, elev/ltlon, additional UTM’t, etc. as apptoprlale) Assessor’s Parcel Nurnber: 003-21-041 zip 94301 mE/mN "P3a.Descdp~lon: (Describe resource and its mNor elements. Include design, rnalerl~ls, condltltm, alterallons, size, setting, and bounclarles.) This is a single-story Traditional Minimalist residence, with Art Modeme detailing, set on a deeplot in the neighborhood south of University. The front-facing gabled roof with louvered end vents is clad in wood shingles, and extends to cover entry porch at left facade. Exterior walls are clad in smooth stucco, with lapped horizontal wood siding under the gable end of main structure, and vertical wood siding with scalloped edges at secondary gable end above projecting bay window. Typical windows are divided lite wood casement sash with horizontal emphasis throughout structure. There is a detached garage at the right rear of the lot, barely visible from the street. Street is characterized by mature plane trees, with several similar Traditional Minimalist residences. [] Element of Dlslrlcl [] Other (~x:~.ates. etc.) PSb. Description of Pl~oto: (View. ~lnle, etc.) 1171 Fife. fl’ont comer facade eP8. Dire Conetructed/Age and Sources: [] Prehbtorlc P~ H~odc [] Both 1938 *PT. Owner end Addmsa: Knight. Tim & Huang. Yen-Chi 1171 Fife Av.enue Palo Alto, CA 94301 P - Private *Pe. Reco,-ded by: (Name, alflllation, a<Xlres.s) _C..atherine Watts ...... Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA *~’9. D.te Reco~ed: ,, 02/17/97 *Pl0. Survey Type:’ (Describe) Reconnaiss.ance /11..Report Citation: (Cite survey report/other sources or "nor~’) *Altachment~: D NONE n Location [] ~tchaeologtc~l Record r’l D~strlct Record [] PlaOl’ograph Record I~l Other: (Ust) D Sketch Map [] ContinuaUo#l Sheet [] Building, Structure ~ Oh}eel Record [] Unear Feature l:k~c~d rl Milling Station P,~T, ord [] Rock Ad ~ D Atllf~"l Record DPR 523A (1/95)*Required IHfonnatlon TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 5, 1997 on Agenda Item I. 2. ~?::i:~: Owner: Olive Aid, 915 Channing, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 5, 1997 915 Channing: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-23.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Boardwas requested to assign a historic merit designation to 915 Channing. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION..: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 915 Channing was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS:. All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Directorofthe project. The appeal period is l~0 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, ontact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the.public hearing. COURTESY COPY: Cal-Pac Roofing, 2515 S. El Camino Real,-San Mateo, CA 94403. Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy Nancy IV~addox Lytle, Chief Pi~’n~ing Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page ! State ofcaiif0i~nia ~;The Resources AgencY, ;DEPARTMENT O.FPARKS AND RECREATION.: *Resou~e Name or #: P1. Other Ide.tlfier: ~ 1~ *P2.~Uon: ~ Hot for Publication b. USGS 7.5’ Ouad Date __ T ~ R ~1/4 of ~1/4 of Sec ~B.M. =. ~ss 91 ~ GhnnninE city Paln Alto Zip _ 94301 d. MTM: (Give more t~an one for ~ge and/or linear feature)Zone ~,mE/_mN e. ~her L~t~n~ Data: (e.g. ~rcel #, I~al de~dptl~, dir~lio~ to re~urce, ele~ion, additional UTMs. etc. ~ appropriate) Assessors £arce] ~umber: °P3a.Description: (Describe resource and Its m~jor elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size. setting, end boundaries.) This is a large Builder Style Foursquare with period wing additions and incompatible alterations located in the neighborhood south of University Avenue. In various states of disrepair, the structure is set on a lot characterized by dense and overgrown fo- liage. Identifying features of this extensively altered Foursquare include cube massing; clapboard siding remains at entry and side facades; grouped windows; and modest classical detailing. The original roof mass appears to have been hipped, and altered later to its present state as a steeply pitched gable with end vents and wood shingles. There is a prominent arched entry vestible, recessed at right of front facade with period wood door and original clapboard siding. A variety of period windows include dou- ble hung wood sash grouped at side facades, wood casement and hopper sash at sides and rear facad.e, and fixed wood sash with multiple pane glazing at side wings. Classical detailing includes profiled cornice treatment throughout structure and engaged square doric columns at left left wing addition. There is a large, unadorned, painted bdek interior chimney offset right. Incom- patible alterations include full-width shed roof dormer, with aluminum glider sash windows, and full-width awning addition to main roof mass; wood shingle exterior wall cladding; projecting bay at front facade with aluminum sash sliding doors; second- story addition to right wing with shed roof and exposed rafters at overhang; and replacement aluminum sash throughout striae-" ture. There is a dilapidated carport structure attached to residence at rear of no period significance. Element of District r’l Other (Isolates. etc.) Pbb. Description of Plaoto: (View, (late, etc.) 915 Channing, front facade *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Soumes: [] Prehistoric ~ Histodc [] Both 1013F; "P7. Ownerand Address: Aid, Olive 9,15 Channing Palo Alto, CA 94301 P - Private *PS. Recorded by: (Name, 8ffiliation, address) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA "Pg. Date Recorded: 0~2127197 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconn~i.~.~nee *PI1. Report Citation: (Cite survey report/other soumes or ;none’)Norio *Attachments:I~ NONE E] Location Map f"l Archaeological Record I-I District Record 1"3 Photograph Record F’I O~rter: (Usl) I"1 Sketch Map I"1 Conllnuallon Sheet i’-I Unear Feature Record [] Milling Station Record I-I Building, Structure end Object Record [] Rock Art Record [] .,tJllfacl Record DPR 523A (1/95)°Required Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 5, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 2. TO:Owner: Rob and Lucinda Lenicheck, 342 Oxford, Palo Alto, CA 94306. FROM:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program PUBLIC HEARING:Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 5, 1997 SUBJECT:342 Oxford: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-25.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: .The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 342 Oxford. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an ~historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 342 Oxford was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision.of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in Written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By:Barbara Judy Signed By:N y M~ddox Lyric, Chief~l~nning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page I DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1 1Page *Resource Name or #: P1.Other Identifier: 342 Oxford Avenue *P2,Location: [] Nol for Publication [] Unrestricted b. USGS 7.5’ Ouad c. Address Pa]o Alto a. County Santa Clara Date ~ T ..__,___; R :1/4 of ~1/4 of Sec ..__SCity Pa]O Alto d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear feature)Zone ~,mE/ e. Ollaer Locatlonal Data: (e.g. parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, additional UTMs, etc. as appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 124-31-007 *P3a.Description: (Descfi6e resource and Its ma~or elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size. selling, and boundaries.) This is a charming, traditionally scaled Cottage set with restrained architectural treatment set on a com- pact lot in the College Terrace neighborhood, near Stanford University. Signature elements include low- pitched, cross-gabled roof with close eaves and rake; and exterior walls clad in horizontal wood lapped siding. Features that echo the Tudor style include front facing gable and prominent exterior brick chim- ney With sloped shoulders and horizontal banding. Typical windows are six-over-six double hung wood sash with wood shutters. Additional features include profiled metal gutters, louvered vents at gable ends, wood entry door with recessed panels and original hardware, and a secondary side entrance at right with gabled portico. There is a detached two-car garage at rear of lot, similar in detailing to the main resi- dence, featuring period wood double doors with three recessed vertical panels and divided square lites. Oxford Street is characterized by period bungalows and a handful of Minimal Traditional residences. oP3b. Reaoumea A.dbutea:(t.lst attrttmtes aria co~s)HP2. Single Family Property "P4. Resource~ Present:[] ~tructure I"10blecl I"I Site [] District Element of District r-i Ottaer (isolates. etc.) PSb. Description of Ptaoto: (View, date, etc.) 342 Oxford, front corner f~eade *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: [] P~ehtstodc 1~ Historic. [] Both 1933 *P7. Owner and Address: Lenicheck, Bob and Lucinda 342..Oxford Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 P - Private *Pa. Recorded by: (Name. affilialton, address) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation ...... Architect, San Francisco, CA.. *P9. Date Recorded: 021213197 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconn ai.~.~anee *Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey report/other sources or "none’) *Attachments:I-I NONE r-I Location Map r-I A~chaeological Record [] Distdct Record I~ Photograph Record . r-I Olher: (USt), [] Sketch Map [] Continuation Sheet [] Building. Structure and Object Record [] L_lnear Feature Record [] Milling Station Record [] Rock ~ Record [] Atllfacl Record OPR 523A (1/95)*Required Information HiStoric Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 5, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 4. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Ron and Ellen Shulman, 1459 Hamilton, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 5, 1997 1459 Hamilton: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-30.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1459 Hamilton. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATIOn,: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1459 Hamilton was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to anappeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decisionofthe Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329.-2441) regarding time and fee. if you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By:Barbara Judy Signed By:Na "n cyJM~i a~da~’dox L’~yt/)le~," C~/~h iZe f Pl~n~n~nfl~g Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 *Resoume Name or #: P1,Other Identlfie~:: 1459 Hamilton Avenue *P2.Location: r-1 Not for Publication r-i Unrestricted b. USGS 7.5’ Quad C. Address P~l~ Alrn d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear feature) Date a. County ~RnI’FI Clara ~ T __.__.~ R ___..._; _.~1/4 of ~1/4 of Sec ._;B.M.city Pal~ Alto Zone ~,mE/mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g. parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, additional UTI,~, etc. as appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 003- l 1-051 *P3a.Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) This is a two-story Tudor residence set on a lot characterized by mature redwoods and formal landscaping in the neighborhood southwest of University Avenue. Identifying features of this sprawling structure include steeply-gloped gabled roof masses clad in wood shingles; prominent interior and exterior stucco clad chimneys, some with decorative chimney pots; recessed window and door openings; and tall, narrow windows with multi-pane glazing. Exterior walls are clad in rough textured stucco with an incompatible modern finish. Typical windows are steel casement multi-lite sash, with compatible .. replacement French doors. Additional features include profiled metal gutters, pointed arch louver vents at gable ends, and a recessed’arched entry with original wood door and iron hardware. Modem alterations include replacement fenestration at rear and side facades and a flat-roofed detached garage at rear. Hamilton Street is characterized by an eclectic array of building styles, yet includes many excellent and substantial Tudor residences. *P3b. Re$ou~ Attd, buteS: (L.L~I 811rtbute~ 8nd codes) HP2. Single Family Property *P4. Resources Present: r-1 Building I’1 Structure [] Oblect [] Site r’l DIstdct Element of District r’l Ottter (Isolates, etc.} PSb. Description of Pt~oto: (View, date, etc.). 1459 Hamilton, front c0.rner facade *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: r-I Prehistoric ~ Histodc [] Both1 q?,9 *P7. Ownerand Address: Shulman, Ron and Ellen 145.9 Hamilton..Avenue .Palo Al~o, CA ...94301 .. ,P- Private *PB. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address)Catherine Watts ..... Barbara A....Judv, prese~ation ...... Architect, S.an Francisco, CA .... *Pg. Date Recorded: 02/9_0/q7 *P10. Suntey "l’ype: (Describe) Reconn~i.~nce .... *Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey report/otber sources or "none’) *Attachments:I"1 NONE r’l Location Map [] Archmoologlc~l Record I"1 Distdcl Record [] Photograph Record I"1 Other: (Usl) I-I Sketch Map I-I ConlinuatlonSheel [] Building, Structure and Object RecordI-I U0ear Feature Record I"1 Milling Station Record f’q Rock Art Record i’1 Artifact Record DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Information ¯Historic Resources Board ¯ Notice of the. Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 5, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 5. TO:. Owner: David Simons, 125 Willow, Palo Alto, CA 94301. FROM:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program PUBLIC HEARING:Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 5, 1997 SUBJECT:1535 Bryant: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-37.) REOUEST/PRO,YECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1535 Bryant. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. .RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1535 Bryant ~vas assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS~. All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division.(329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY:Tony Carrasco and Michael Kaindal, Carrasco Associates, 120 Hamilton, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy ..... Nancy M~ldox Lytle, Chief Planning, Official Designee of the Director of Planning and .Community Environment Page I *P3a.Description: (Describe resource and its major elements¯ Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size. setting, and boundaries.) This is a two-story, rectangular-shaped, Mediterranean style residence set on a deep and narrow lot south of Professorville, near Bowling Green Park. Identifying features, of this grand structure include fiat roof with Spanish tile edging and right corner projecting bay; exterior wails clad in travertine stucco; and a prominent, three-paneled, arched window at front facade with fixed wood center sash, flanking case- ments, and decorative corinthian pilasters. Typical windows are mulit-lite wood casements throughout; some include special arched casement sash. Additional features include exterior left stone chimney with sloped shoulders; profiled gutters and fascia; applied swag and cartouche ornament above focal window; recessed arched entry with decor~itive ~urround, period lantern fixture, and original wood door with re- cessed panels and period hardware. There is a detached two-car garage visible from the street, similar in detailing to the main residence, with clay tile roofing and stucco clad walls. Alterations include replace- ment solar glazing at focal window, period rear addition at second story, and replacement garage doors. Bryant Street is characterized by Colonial Revival and Spanish Eclectic style residences. *P3b.Resources Attributes: (List attributes and o~es) *P4.Resource= Present: D Building [] StRicture HP2. Single Family Prope~y [] Object 1"1 Site [] District I’1 Element of District I"1 Other (Isolates. etc.) PSb. Description o! Pt~to: (View, date, etc.). .1535 Bryant, front facade Date Constructed/Age and Soumes: [] Prehistoric ~ Historic FI Both 1971 *P7. Owner and Address: Simons, David 125 Willow Street Palo Alto. CA 94301 P- Private *Pa. Recorded by: (Name. affiliation, address) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA *P9. Date Recorded: 02170197 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconn~i~anc~ °Pt 1. Report Citation: (Cite survey report/o~er sources or "none’)None *Attachments:[] NONE r"l Location Map !’1Atchaoologicat Record r-I Dlstdcl Record [] Pt’~otograph Record I"1 Other: (Llsl) [] Sketch Map [] Continuation Sheet [] Linear Feature Record I-I Milling Station Record [] Building. Structure and Objoct Record r-I Rock Art Record I-IAttifact Record DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Inlormallon Historic Resources.Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 5, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 6. TO:Owner: Stacey Olgado, 831 Melville, Palo Alto, CA 94301. FROM:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program PUBLIC HEARING:Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 5, 1997 SUBJECT:831 Melville: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-I Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-32.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 831 Melville. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic .Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 831 Melville -was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and .Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS:. All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of.the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision.of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City. of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY:-Alison Pratt Schelling, 1046 Harker Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy Designee of the Director of Plarming and Community Environment Pase 1 ot 1 *Resource Name or #: ~,1. oti~er~danti.er: 831 Melville Avenue *P2.Location: [] Not for Publication [] Unrestricted b. USGS 7..5’ Ouad Date e. Address Paid Alto d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or lineer feature) a. County Snr~ta Clara ~T ..__.___.; R ._....__; ~1/4 of ~1/4 of See __.__;B.M. City Pzlo Alto zip 94301 mE/mN e. Other Locatlonal Data: (e.g. parcel #, legal description, directions Io resource, elevation, addillonal UTMs, etc. as appropnate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 003-34-039 ¯ ’P3a. Description: (Describe resource anti its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, anti boundaries.) This is a single-story bungalow set on a deep, canted lot on the edge of the Professorville near Rinconada Park. Identifying features of this handsome structure include low-pitched gabled roof with wide, unen- closed eave overhang; partial-width covered porch, sheltered beneath a separate extended roof, and sup- ported by battered columns; and column bases that connect with stucco clad solid balustrade and continue to ground level. Exterior walls are clad in stucco with a special coved wall-roof junction under the eaves. There is an exterior stucco clad chimney with sloped shoulders and horizontal cap piercing through the eaves at left facade. Typical windows are double hung wood sash at side facades. Special symmetrical windows at front facade feature large fixed sash with square divided lites and flanking, narrow, double ~ hung sash with divided upper and lower lites. Additional period .features include imitation foundation of strucked plaster, intact multi-lite wood door with original hardware, profiled gutters and fascia, applied stucco shield ornament, and louvered vents at gable ends.. Incompatible features include replacement roof- ing, wrought iron balustrade at porch stairs, and prominent wood fence. The street is characterized by mod- est Tudor cottages and early Modem residences on the west side of Melville, and modem Eichler-style homes on the east side.-~,:~b. Res..,~ A.rib~es: (u= a.,~es ~ codes) HP2. Single Family Property ¯ P4. Resources Present: [] BulldOg [] ~mcture [] Obl .ect... 171 Site [] DLstrict [] Elemenl of District [] Ot~er (Isolates, etc.) PSb. Description o[ P’noto: (View, date, etc.) .83....1...Melville, front facade ¯ *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: [] Prehistoric ~ Hlstor~ [] Both ¯ 1995 ...~" *P7. Owner and Address: Olgado, Donald and Stacey 83!.....Melville Avenue. Paid Alto, CA...94301 _ P - Private *Pa. Recorded by: (Name, affiliallon, address) Catherine Watts ..Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San .Francisco, CA *Pg. Date Recorded: 02120197 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnai.~.~ance "Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey report/other sources or "none’) *Attachments:I"1 NONE [] Location Map [~] Archaoological Record [] Distdc! Record [] Wnotograph Record [] Other: (LISt) [] Sketch Map r’] Continuation Sheet r"l LIpear Feature Record D Milling Station Record I"1 Building, Structure and Object Record FI Rock Art Record [].qtifact Record DPR 523A (1/95)*Required |nlormat|on Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 12, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 1. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Shyam Pillalamarri, 1144 channing, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 12, 1997 1144 Channing: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-34.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designationto 1144 Channing. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. .RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE tO this residence. ]qRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1144 Channing was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The. Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APpEALS~ All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited toraising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY: AI Kramer, 628 Middlefield, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy Nancy lX~addox’-I~ytle, Chl~anning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment *P3a.Description: (Describe resource end Its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setling, and bour~aries.) This is a single-story Colonial Revival cottage, with a modem rear addition and detached cottage, set on a compact Professorville lot bordering E. Pardee Park. Signature features of this handsome structure include its symmetrical massing; steeply-pitched hipped roof with narrow overhang and profiled cornice; and cen- trally located portico with pyramidal roof. Typical windows are double hung wood sash with a distinct hor- izontal emphasis. Additional period features include prominent exterior chimney at left clad in wood shin- gles, and wood shutters at front facade windows. Alterations include replacement asphalt roof shingles; modem, painted, wood shingle exterior, wall. cladding; and incompatible, leaded glass, modem door with sidelites and replacement columns at front entry. The detached cottage at left rear of lot, hidden behind a large painted wood trellis, has a steeply-pitched gabled roof,.wood shingle exterior wall clading, and mod- em windows and doors. Channing Avenue is characterized by period cottages ofa modest scale and mod- em residences. "P3b.Re~Ource.~ Attributes:(List attributes ~nd codes) "P4. Resource~ Pre~ent:[] ,~ruclure HP2. Single Family Property [] Element of Dlstrlcl [] Ot~er (Isolates. etc.) PSb. Descdption o~ Plloto: 0riew, (~Je, etc.).1144 Channing, front.facade *P6, Date Constructed/Age and Soumes: [] Prehistoric ~ Historic [3 Bo~ I qgd. *P7. Owner end Address:Pill al amarri..,...S hyam ! 144 Channing Palo Alto, CA 94301 P - Private Catherine WattsBarbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA "Pg. Date Recorded: f12/27/97 *P10. Survey.Type: (Describe) Reconn~i~.~anee "Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey report/oll~er sources =Attachments:[~ NONE r-I Location Map. rlArchaeologlcal Record [] Dlstdct Record [] P~olograph Record I-1 Other: (List). Sketch Map [] Cordlnua~lon Sheet [] Building. Structure and O~ect Record Unear Feelure Record I"1 Milling Station Record [] Rock At1 Record [] Artifact Record DPR 523A (1/95)-Required Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on.March 12, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 2 TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner:Peter Vilkin, 1160 Greenwood, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 12, 1997 1160 Greenwood: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-36.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1160 Greenwood. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. tTRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1160 Greenwood ~vas assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period,which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By:Barbara Judy Signed By:Ch~e’i~ Planning Official ])esignee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment ::-"::::’" .-’~.?~: :"L’;’"::/-.:"~" ~’-’;::.:-’::’:""~::" *Re~u~e Hame or #: P1. Other Identifier: 11 ~ *P2.~tion: " ~Hot for Publication b. USGS 7.5’ Ouad Date T ~R~1/4of 1/4 of Sec ~B.M d. ~M: (G~ more th~ one for I~ge ~/or ~e~ feature) ~ne, mE/ mN e. ~et L~tlon~ ~ta: (e.g. ~r~l #, I~ de~dpl~, ~lrectio~ Io resource, election. ~ddltlonal UTMs, etc. ~ appropdale) ~ss~sso~’s P~c¢] Number:-003-35-050 *P3a.Description: (Describe resource and Its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, sefting, and boundaries.) This is a single-story bungalow set on a compact lot in the Professorville neighborhood near Rinconada park. Identifying features of this symmetrical structure include the low-pitched gabled roof with wide overhanging eaves and exposed rafter ends; centered, partial-width covered porch; and exterior brick chimney with stepped shoulders and decorative geometric cap piercing through the eaves at fight. Exterior walls are clad in narrow horizontal wood siding. The central covered porch is located under an extended gable and features slightly battered wood columns resting on modem brick column bases. Typical windows are wood double hung sash at side and rear facades. Symmetrical windows at front facade are fixed casement sash with three divid- ed lites and narrow, flanking double hung sash. Special window includes the rectangular fixed sash at fight front corner with moss glass. Additional period features include gable end lattice vent, decorative wood braces at front gable, and substantial wood entry door with recessed panels. Ihcompatible features include replacement asphalt roof shingles, modem spark arrestor, and the replacement galvanized metal gutters whose installation required the rafter ends to be lopped off. There is a compatible modem (1987) carport at fight rear, similar in detailing to the main residence, with the same low-pitched gabled roof, sharply ex- tended and exposed rafter ends, and rear enclosed storage shed. Greenwood Avenue is composed of an eclectic combination of structures, Unified by their.cottage scale. Styles represented include Tudor cottages, bungalows, anal Minimal Traditional, as .well as modem Eiehler-style dwellings. "P3b. Re~ou=es Attributes: (Ust nltributes nncl ocles) HP2. Single Family Property I"l Elemenl of CHstrlct [] Olber (Isolates, etc.) - PSb. Description of Pl~oto: (View, dale. etc.) 1160 Greenwood, front facade ~’P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: [] Piehistodc !~ Histodc [] Both1 q?q *PT. Ownerand Address: Vilkin. Peter 673 Maybell Avenue Palo Alto, CA .94306 P - Private *Pa. Recorded by: (Name. affiliation, address) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA , Date Recorded: 02/27/q7 0. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconn~i.~.~RnCe *Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey "Altachment=:[] NONE [] Location Map r-I Archaeologtcal Record [] Distrk:t Record 1"3 Pl~ograph Record [] Other: (List) DPR 523A (1/9S) I"1 Sketch Map r’l Continuallon Sheet I"1 Ruitdll~. Structure and Object Record [] Unear Feature Record [] Milling Station Record [] Rock Art ReCord [] Artifact Record *Required Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 12, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 3. TO:Owner: Robert Wedemeyer, 827 Guinda, Palo Alto, CA 94301. -FROM:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program PUBLIC HEARING:Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 12, 1997 SUBJECT:827 G~!j.nda: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HPO3-38.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 827 Guinda. Under tim City of Polo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATIOn.; Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN...’.. Under the City of Polo Aito’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 827 Guinda was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community En’,iironment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearingdescribed in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Polo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By:Barbara Judy Signed By:Nancy Ma~’dox Lyric, Chief Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment *P3a.Description: (Describe resource and Its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size. setting, end boundaries.) This is a single-story bungalow set on a compact lot in the Professorville neighborhood of Palo Alto. Iden- tifying features include the medium-pitched gabled roof, clad in wood shakes, with wide overhanging eaves and exposed rafter ends; exterior brick chimney with stepped shoulders and horizontal band at cap piercing through the eaves at left; and partial-width entry porch under extended front gable. Exterior walls are clad in smooth textured stucco, including the Classical style columns at covered porch. Typical wind- ows are double hung wood sash with divided upper lites and wood casements with stylized divided lites. - Additional period features include French doors with stylized divided lites, similar to casement windows, at front and side facades (stripped at main entry); beveled glass lantern fixtures at main and side entry; dec- orative triangular bracing at main and extended front gables; gable end vents with vertical wood louvers; and two unadorned brick chimneys at interior and exterior right. There is a compatible, modem, detached garage at left rear of lot with gabled roof, exposed rafter ends, vertical wood siding, and modem door. Guinda Street is characterized by modest scaled bungalows and recently built dwellings: "P3b. Re=oumeeAttrtbutee; (Listattributeaanacoaes) HP2. Single Family Property *P4. Resources Present: 13~ Bulk:final 1"3 ~lmcture 1"30blect I"1 Site [] Diatdct r"l Element of District 1~] OIl~er (Isolates, etc.) PSb. Description of Plloto: (View, (~tle, el.) 827 Guinda, front facade *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: [] Prehistoric ~ Historic [] Both lq?.5 *P7. Ownerand Address: Wedemeyer, Robert 827 Guinda Palo Alto, CA 94301 P - Private *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address) Catherine WattsBarbara A. Judy, Preservation ..... Architect, San Francisco, CA *Pg. Date Recorded: 02127197 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance ’*Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey report/other soumes or "none’)Nolle *Attachments:I-I NONE I-I Location Map I-1 Archaeological Record [] District Record I"1Ptaotogreph Record I-i Other: (List). I’-I Sketch Map I"1 Continuation Sheet [] Building, Structure and Object Record r’l Unear Feature Record r-I Milling Station Record I-I Rock Ad Record [],~rtlfect Record- DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Information ~° Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Di.reetor of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 12, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 4. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Curt and Margaret Weil, 867 Lincoln, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 12, 1997 867 Lincoln: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-40.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 867 Lincoln. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: .’ Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 867 Lincoln was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY: Michelle Belden, 171’ Forest Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy Nancy l¢~addox Lyric, Chief’l~l~nning Official " Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page I Page 1 of *Resource Name or #: Pl.Otherldentifler: 867 Lincoln *P2.Location: r’l Not tot Publication b. USGS 7.5’ Ouad C. Address ~67 f .~nPnln d. UTM: [] Unrestricted (Give more than one for large and/or linear feature) Date a. County SRnt~ Clara R ~ ~1/4 of ~1/4 of Sec _.__1 Pal~ Alto Zone ~ ,mE/ e. Other Locatlonat Data: (e.g. parcel #, legal descttptlon, directions to resource, elevation, Ilddittonal UTMs, etc. as appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 003-34-016 Zip ~ mN *P3a.Description: (Describe resource and Its m~Jor elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size. setting, end boundaries.) This is a single-story Spanish Eclectic style residence set on a compact lot with mature trees in the Profes- sorville neighborhood of Palo Alto. Identifying features of this U-shaped structure include flat-roof with central Mission tile clad awning, cantile’,iered from the wall surface with decorative wood brackets; exteri- or walls clad in smooth textured stucco with arched louver vents at front projecting bays; and three paneled arched focal window at large front projecting bay with divided lites and ornamental pilasters with Cor- inthian capitals. Typical windows are double hung wood sash with divided upper and lower lites at front and side facades. Special fenestration includes French doors with divided lites and side lites under awning at front facade. Additional period features include unadorned exterior left stucco clad chimney, solid wood entry door with recessed panels, period lantern fixture, and applied geometric tile at front facade comers. The use of stylized color throughout the residence, especially gold Corinthian capitals and pilasters, is in- compatible with the intended subtle quality of period Spanish Eclectic dwellings. There is a detached ga- rage at rear right, barely visible from the street, similar in detail to the main residence, featuring stucco clad exterior walls and a modem door. Lincoln Avenue is characterized by a variety of Revival styles including Colonial, Tudor, and Spanish Eclectic. Interst~ersed ~e 1.,arg~r residences of modem construction. P3b..e~ourcea t~,tlrtbut.,: (List altabutes and codes) UP2. Single vamzly r’roper~y , "P4.Resource= Present:r~ Bulldln I-I Slructure [] Object [] ~ite [] District [] Element of D~stdct I"1 Other (Isolates. etc.) PSb. Description of PP, oto: (View, date. elc.) 867 Lincoln, front facade *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: [] Prehistoric ~0 Histodc I"1 Both 1925 *P7. Owner and Address: Weil, Curt and Margaret 867 Lincoln Palo Alto, CA 94301 P- Private "Pa. Recorded by: (Name. affiliation, address) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Presevcation Architect, San Francisco, CA "Pg. Date Recorded: 02/27/97 "P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance *Pll. Report Citation: (Cite sunmy report/other sources or "none’) *Attachments:[] NONE [] Location Map [] Archaeological Record [] District Record I"1 PIxaograph Record r"l Other: (List) [] Sketch Map " [] Continuation Sheet [] Building. Structure and Object Record I’1 Linear Feature Record [] Milling Station Record [] Rock Art Record []/~lfact Record DPR 523A (1/95)’-*Required Informatio~ . Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 26, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 1. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Harvey and Barbara Jones, 2121 Waverley, Pat o Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 26, 1997 2121 Waverley: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-47.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 2121 Waverley. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significanceof Historic Resources, 2121 Waverley was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning andCommunity Environment approves that decision as of this notice. " APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Paio Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY: V. Schute Design, 675 Cowper, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Prepared By:Barbara Judy Signed By:Nancy Maddox Lytle, " "" ""ChlefPlanmng Offimal Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 ~=ge_ ] or -3 *Resoume Name or #: P1. Other Identifier: 2 ~ 21 *PZ ~tion: ~ Not for Publication ~ Unrestricted b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Date T =.~ss 2121 Waverley c.y Pain Alto ~ ~4301 d. UTM: (GIw more than one for I~ge a~d/or lineer feature)~ne ~,,mE/mN e. ~er L~tlon~ Data: (e.g. ~r~l #, I~ descdptl~. Oir~tio~ to resource, elevation, additional UTMs. etc. ~ appropriate) ~ss~ssoFs Pa~c~t H~r: 124-10-04~ *P3a.Description: (Describe resoume and Its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) This is a large two-story Tudor residence set on a wide Seale Addition lot. While Birge Clark and David B. Clark added to the residence in 1940 (the original architect/builder is not listed), subsequent additions and alterations have left the original structure almost unrecognizable. Remaining identifying elements of this rambling estate in- clude the steeply-pitched side-gabled roof with gable end louver vents; facade dominated by several prominent and overlapping cross gables; and evidence of a projecting entry vestibule with steeply-pitched gabled roof at front left facade. Exterior walls are clad in a modem, smooth textured stucco. There is a dominant semi-hexagonal one-story bay centered at front facade that is typical of Tudor structures, yet in such a la~’ge scale as to suggest that it is a later addition. A variety of windows throughout include six-over-six double hung Wood sash, four paneled casement sash with and without flanking fixed sash, French casement sash with diamond-shaped leaded glass, and grouped multi-pane glazed sash with divided lite transoms at front bay. Alterations include the incompatible front entry with prominent canted head and modem door assembly, attached two-car garage at left side with modem doors, green composition shingle roofing, canvas awnings at front facade windows, and the overall incompatible beige and green color scheme..The front and rear lot is currently under construction for a considerable change in landscaping, including concrete walkways, masonry paths and walls, and a central fountain. *P3b. Resources Attributed: (LIst attributes ~a co~es) HP2. Single Family Propell:y *P4. Resources Present: I~ Bulldln9 [] Structure [] Object [] Slle [] District I-t Element of District r"} Ottter (Isolates, etc.) PSb. Deschptton o! Photo: (View, dale, etc.) see Continuation Sheet *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Soumes: [] Prehistoric I~0 Histodc I"1 Both *P7. Ownerand Address: ,Jones, Harvey and Barbara 2121 Waverley Palo Alto, CA 94301 P - Private *PS. Recorded by: (Name, ~ffillalion. eddress) ...... Ca,~,herine WattsBarbara A. Judy, Preservation _Architect. San ~’rancisco, CA "Pg. Date Recorded: 03/1q/q7 *P10. Survey Type:(Describe) Intensive. *Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey reporl/olher soumes or "none’) ’ ....NoI’IP. "Attachments:[] NONE I-I Location Map [] Archaeological Record [~ Dlstdct Record [] Pl~olOgraph Record r"i Other: (List) [] Sketch Map [~ Conlinuallon-Sr~eel I~ Building, Structure and Objecl Record [] UneaJ" Feature Record [] Milling Station Record I-I Rock Art Record [] Artifact Record DPR 523A (1/95)"Required Inlormal|on "B7.Lloyd? ~} No IS] Yes [] unRno~n Dale:Odglnal Location: ¯ ,rt 8. Relnte~l F~lure~: ~. h,~t~: 03i~e M. Clar’l~ alteraitons) -s~0. ’s~,~: ~ Residential Architecture The residence, in its scale, style, and setting, supports the historic character of its district and employs period architectural themes that are characterisric of Palo Alto residences of the 1920s. 2121 Waverley is also associated with the life of architect Birge Clark who made a significant contribution to Palo Alto’s architectural image through the length of his career and his development of the "Early California" style in numerous Palo Alto residences, civic and commercial structures. Palo Alto Dept. of Building & Safety, original permit Sanborn Insurance Co. Maps, 1924 (updated 1962) BI~. Fl~m~rks; _Barbara A. Judy e,-x~.on: 03119/97 (This ~ los~ed fort~ncfeJ comments.) Map Wllb nodh =Lrrow re<iulrea) 19PR fi-231] I’1 !95~ *RerJulr~d In formation 2121 Waverley. front facade DI~R 57.3I,¯Required information Historic Resources Boald Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 26, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 2. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner:Steve McAdams, 586 N. California, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 26, 1997 586 N. California: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-53.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requestedto assign a historic merit designation to 586 N. California. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation .of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or.Historic Landmark Residence. ~COMMENDATION: Staffrecommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. I-IRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 586 N. California was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the-applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. -If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By:Barbara Judy Signed By:Nancy Maddox Lyric, Chief:Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 *P3a.Description: (Describe resource anti Its malor elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, anO boundaries.) This is a single story L-shaped Spanish Eclectic residence, with large addition at rear barely visible from the street, locat- ed in Scale Addition near the Oregon Expressway. Signature elements include medium-pitched gabled roof \vith exposed wood rafter ends at front facade overhang; hand pressed stucco exterior wall cladding; and recessed window and door openings. Typical windows are three paneled steel casement sash with projecting wood sills. There is a special two pan- eled window at front facade with moss glazing. Additional period features include vertical wood plank door with original hardware, lantern style light fixture at front entry, and exterior stucco clad chimney at right rear connection to addition. Alterations include replacement red tile roofing and modem spark arrestors. There is a detached garage at left rear of lot. North California Avenue is composed of a collection of transitional period houses ranging in style from Tudor to Mini- mal Traditional. Several of the Minimal Traditional houses contain charming references to earlier period styles. *P3b.Re~our¢ee Attributes: (Ust attributes and co<:les) *P4.Resources Pre~ent: [] Bulldln~l I"1 Structure HP2. Single Family Property [] Oblect [] Site [] Dtstrlcl 173 Elemenl of Dlstrk:t [] Other (Isolates, etc.) PSb. Description of Pl~oto: (View. aate, etc.) 586 N. California, front facade *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Soumes: [] Prehistoric ~ Historic [] Both 1933 *P7. Owner and Address: ,,McAdams, Steve & Hilarie Koplow 586 North California Palo Alto, CA 94301 P - Private *P8. Recorded by: (Name, efflilatton, ac~dress) Catherine Watts ........Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA *Pg. Date Recorded: 03119/07 *P10. Survey Type:(Describe) Intensive *Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey mix)n/other soumes or "none’)None *Attachments: [~NONE I-1 Location Map [] Archaeological Record [] Dlstdct Record 0 Pbologreph F~cord [] Other: (List) [] Sketch Map [] Continuation Sheet 0 Building. Structure and Object Record[] Unear Fe~lure Record [] Milling Station Record I-I Rock Art Record []/ullfact Record DPR 523A (1195)"Required Information : Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 26, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 3. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: John Erving, 420 Palm, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 26, 1997 1019 Waverley: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single.family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-54.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board xvas requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1019 Waverley. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. ITRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1019 Waverley was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDEN.CE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment.. If you ~vish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in.written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY: Applicant: Moyer Associates, 430 Sherman, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy ~’~ /v Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Plann’-’ing Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 DEPARTMENT OFf PARkSAND RECREAT!0NIiI:; : ::::-i::’: iiiiili :ii!:..:.:~:b~ni ~: ~ *Re~u~e Name or #: -~~tion: DNot for Publication DUnmst~cted a. ~unty ~ntR ~l~r~,.. b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Data ~ T ~ R ~ ~1/4 of ~1/4 of Sac ~B.M. C. Address 1 ~1 ~ WRv~rl~y~tr~t Cl~y _Pal~ Alt~~p ~ d. ~M: (Give more m~ one for I~ge ~/or linearfeature)Zone mE/mN e. ~er L~tlon~ ~ta: (e.g. parcel #, I~ descdptl~, alr~lio~ IO ~sour~. ele~lon, agdltlonal UTMs. etc. ~ appropriate) ~ssessor% P~cel Number: 120-18-028 *P3a.Description: (Describe ~esource and Its major elamants. Include design, materials, condition, aheralions, size, aetling, and boundaries.) This is a charming, two-story, Tudor residence that has been sensitively altered. It is set on a beautifully landscaped lot in University Park. While the lot size is typical for Palo Alto, the scale of the structure is large in comparison, giv- ing an overall "crowded" appearance to the site. Identifying features of the Tudor home include the steeply-pitched cross-gabled roof, capped with a hip, and clad in staggered wood shingles; hand textured stucco exterior wall clad- ding; tall, narrow windows in multiple groups with multi-pane glazing; and attenuated exterior brick chimney at left facade with horizontal cap and decorative chimney pot. Additional features include the recessed arched entry with brick surround and pronounced keystone and springer stones; original vertical wood plank door with decorative but- tons, hardware, and beveled glass window with vertical wood turnings; hipped dormer at front facade; replacement . profiled copper gutters; and non-period wood shutters at front facade and dormer. Typical windows are twelve panel wood easement sash throughout, with nine paneled wood casement sash at dormer. This block of Waverley Street is composed entirely of period houses ranging from substantial turn-of-the-century Foursquare dwellings to modest Co- lonial Revival cottages. I"1Elemenl of Dlslrlct . I"1 Other (Isolales, elc.) PS"b. Description of Pl~olo: (View, aale, etc.) 1019 Waverley. front facade *Pr. Data Constru~ed/Age and Soumes: ’ /-I Ptehisloric I~ Historic r-I Both 102.7 *P7. Ownerand Address: .Erving, John 420 Palm .Palo Alto, CA 94301 P - Private *PB. Recorded by: (Name, ~ffiliallon, address) Catherine WattsBarbara A. Judy, Preservation Arehiteet~ San.Francisco, CA "Ps. Data necordad: 0%119197 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) _In ten ~ive "Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey report/other sources or "none’) *Attachments:lk"l NONE r-I Loc~tlon Map I-I Archaeological Record I"1Dtstdcl Record I-1Pt~olograph Record [] Other: (List) [] Sketch Map I"1Conllnuallon S~eel [] Linear Fealure Record [] Milling Station Recol’d [] Building, Structure and Object Record I-I Rock Art Record [] Arllfact Record DPR 523A (1/95) "Requited Intormallon TO: FROM: ¯PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: ~ Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Commtmity Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 26, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 4. Owner: Margaret and Yogen Dalal, 1633 Webster, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 26, 1997 1633 Webster: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-56.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1633 Webster. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this residence. !:IRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1633 Webster was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or. in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY:Applicant: Moyer Associates, 430 Sherman, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy Nancy Mff~dox Lytle; ChmfPl~nmng Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 "+P3a,DesCription: (Desedl~e resource and Its major elemenls. Include design, materials, conditiori+ alterations, stze, setting, end I~oundarles.) This is a large, two-story, eccentric assembly of period architectural themes including a wood shingled Dutch Revival pitched roof with kick at lower pitch, Colonial Revival detail at pedimented entry and balconettes, and overall stucco mass remniscent of Early California style houses in its simplicity. The residence is set on a Scale Addition lot character- ized by severe landscaping with orthogonal brick paths, manicured hedges, ground cover, and symmetrically placed young trees. Typical windows are two-over-two double hung wood sash, almost square in appearance, throughout struc- ture. Additional characteristics of this eclectic dwelling include prominent interior stucco clad chimneys with decorative inset panels; second s.tory balcony above left projecting wing; lantern style light fixtures; and wood shutters at front facade with scroll shaped hardware. There is a detached garage and cabana at rear, barely visible from the street, with fiat roof, stucco clad walls+ and modem door. Webster Street is composed of substantial period houses in a variety of Re- vival styles including Tudor, Colonial, and Mission. There appears to be a consistency of builders between 1633 Webster and its comer neighbor at 610 Coleridge, in terms of plain stucco massing and detailing such as inset vents at gable ends. Additionally, there seems to be a relationship with the structure directly across the street at 1620 Webster. All three houses are united by their substantial scale and clear combined affect of period integrity. ¯ P’db. Resourees Attributes: 0dtsl altributss and c<xles) ~ Rssourees Pr~seni: I~1Bulklln~ n Structure HP2. Single Family Property. I"10I)]ect r"l site I"1 District ~7! Element of’ District - [] Otl+er (Isolates. PSb. Description o~ P~oto: (View, dale, etc,) 1633 Webster. front facade "P6. Date Constructed/Age and Soumes: [] Prehistoric ~ Historic r"l Botl~ *P7. Ownerand Address:Dalai, Margaret and Yogen ]1633 Webster Palo Alto, CA 94301 P - Private *P8. Rmmorded by: (Name, ~fflllallon, a~ldress) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation .. Architect, San Fran~ciseo, CA *PS. Date Recorded: 0q/19/97 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) . Intensive *Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey report]other sources or "none’) *~ltIchment=: 1~1 NONE [] Loe~tlon Map Archaeological Record 1"3 District Record Pt~lograph Record 1-’1 Other: (Usl) n Sketcla Map [] Conlinuallon St’leer ["l Building. Structure and O~Je~! Recordr’l Linear Fe~lure Record [] Milling Station Record [] Rock Art Record [].4~llfact Record DPR 523A (1195)¯’Required inlormatlon Interim Historic Inventory LANDMARKS Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on January 29, 1997 on Agenda Item I. 2. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Nelson Ng and Kimberley Wong, 1260 Emerson, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 29, 1997 1260 Emerson: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District ~ile No. 96-HRB-48.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1260 Emerson. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Confributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of LANDMARK HISTORIC RESIDENCE to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1260 Emerson was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY:Ms.Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant, Palo Al[o, CA 94306 Ms.Leannah Hunt, 2321 Middlefield, Palo Alto, CA Mr.John Northway, 437 Lytton, Palo Alto, CA Mr.John Hackman, 300 Bryant; Palo Alto, CA Ms.Shirley Wilson, 509 Hale Street, Palo Alto, CA Ms.Helen Low, 1230 Emerson, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Page 1 P.r.ePared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy Nane3qMaddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 2 DEPARTMENT OFPARKS PRIMARY RECORD ~" ".:: .~ ~’~ :" 4 . ~ 7:. ":...;:.;::~.:.’f.::.:~.:~.f~"~>’.(: Page. ] of 2 *Resource Name or #:1260 Emerson P1. Other Identifier: *P2.Location: [] Not for Publication [] Unrestricted b, USGS 7,5’ Quad c. Address 1260 Emerson d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear feature) Date a. County Santa Clara ~T ~ R ~ ~1/4 of ~1/4 of Sec ~c~ty PaiD Alto Zone ~,mE/ e. Other Locational Data: (e.g. parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, additional UTMs, etc. as appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 124-15-005-51 Zip . *P3a.Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) This intact Federalist style residence with steeply-pitched asphalt shingled roof is clad in horizontal wood siding. The accentuated front door with recessed panels and divided lite transom is flanked by pilasters, extended forward, and supported by attenuated doric columns to form an entry porch with profiled entablature course and gabled roof. Other period features include: six-over-six double hung wood sash windows with wood shutters, offset right brick chimney with corbeled cap, ceiling-mounted opera glass light fixture at entry, applied wood urn-shaped ornament at arched gable end of front porch, and second story arched window with fan lites and keystone head trim at the gable end. The enclosed porch at the rear of the structure was a later addition. This historic resource exemplifies the Federalist stlye with its dean lines, understated detailing, and balanced composition. *P3b.Resources Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *P4.Resources Present: [] Building 1"3 Structure HP2. Single Family Propertv [] Oblect [] Site [] District [] Element or Distdct [] Other (isolates, etc.) Phb. Description of Pholo: (View, date, etc.) 1260 Emerson, partial front facade, 01/06/1997 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: [] Prehistoric [] Historic [] Both 1924 *P7. Owner and Address: P--Private *PS. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA *Pg. Date Recorded: 01/07/1997 *P10. Survey Type: (Oescribe) Reconnaissance *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report/other sources or "none") *Attachments:[] NONE [] Location Map [] Archaeological Record [] District Record [] Photograph Record r7 Other: (List) [] Sketch Map [] Linear Feature Record [] Continuation Sheet [] Milling Station Record [] Building, Structure and Object Record r-I Rock A~I Record [] Adifact Record DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Information "B7, Common Name: ~19~r~ u~: ... Residential e4. ~nt u.~:Residential,~.~hltectu~l st~t,: _ Colonial Revival Conlt~cllo, rl HIItory: (Conzlructlon date, a/tera.o~s, and d~Je Permit issued May 1964 for rear and side closet addition. Composition shingles with tar and gravel were added February 1974. Fence permit issued August 1976 to construct a 3’ wood picket fence. October 1982 permit issued for addition of rear slab and skylit sunroorn. Moved? !~ No [] Yes I~ Unknown Date:_Original Locallon: Rel,~ed Feature,a: ,~¢nit~:~: Charles S. Keefe Slgnltle~nee: Tr~me Residential Architecture ~=~t~ed or s~,,v~a,-,~ 1924-1940 ~o~,,ay r~,~ .~e (DLSCUSS Importance In terms of hlstodca/or architectural context a~ defined by tt~eme, pedod, a~n~ geographic scope. AJso address Integrlly.) The residence at 1260 Emerson is an.excellent example of Colonial Revival architecture of the 1920s, characteristic of Pale Alto, and nationally significant. Designed by Charles S. Keefe of New York City, author of "The American House," the home was built for Miss Elizabeth M. Tyng, vice-president of Castilleja School. Pale Altan Birge Clark was associate architect for the project. 1260 Emerson was one of thirteen homes in the United States to win honorable mention in a contest conducted by "The - House Beautiful" magazine shortly after its completion in 1924. The contest was open to homes built within that three year period, both east and west of the Mississippi, costing not more than $2,500. Members of the jury were appointed by the president of the American Institute of Architects. Residing " jurors were William A. Boring of New York, Edmund B. Gilchrist of Philadelphia, and R. Clipston Sturgis of Boston. Bll. *1a12. B13. *B14. ,Mldtlionsl Res~Jrce Altrlbutes: (List attributes and codes) References: Pale Alto Dept. of Building & Safety, original permit Sanborn Insurance Co. Maps, 1924 (updated 1962) Pale Alto Times, 10/02/24 and 01/21/25 The House Beautiful, Barbara A. JudyEv~,luator: oet, o~ ~v,,lu~tton: 01/07/1997 (This sl:~co reserved for-o~claJ comments.) (Sketch Map With north arrow required) DPR 5238 (1/95)*Required Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on January 29, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 2. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: O~vner: Security Trust Company, as Trustee of Trust No. 1950-D, 925 "B" Street, Fifth Floor, San Diego, CA 92101. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 29, 1997 1055 Forest: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-HRB-51.) REQUEST/~RO~CT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1055 Forest. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of LANDMARK HISTORIC RESIDENCE to this residence. I-IRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1055 Forest was assigned the category of LANDMARK HISTORIC RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. ~PEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you ~vish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY:Mr. Steve Pierce, 209 Cowper, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ms. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy Nancy lqladdox Lytle, Chief Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 Pa~e__~of_2.___ *Resource Name or #:105’~ For~.~r PJ. Other ~tlfle~ *P2.~tlon: ~ ~ l~ Pu~l~on ~ b. USGS 7~’ Ouzd e. Other Localk:mal Deta: (e.g. We.el ~,, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, addlllonal UTMs, etc. as apwopd~te) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 003-19-071-72-73-74-75 *P3b. *P4. Description: (Describe resource ar~ Its ma~" e~emenls. Include design, materials, condltk:)n, ~ter~lons, s~ze, setting, end boundaries.) This is a large, stately, Queen Anne residence with period alterations dating from the 1920s. Original arch- itectural features include asymmetrical facade with full-width, one-story, wrap-around porch extending along the front and left facades; dominant front-facing gable; steeply-pitched hipped roof with lower cross gables; and decorative devices used to avoid a smooth-walled appearance. Exterior walls are clad in hori- zontal siding with decorative fishscale shingles at the front gable end. Typical windows are double hung wood sash, some with divided upper and lower lites. Additional period details include Classical porch- support square columns grouped in units of two with vertical posted balustrade, and profiled, painted " wood gutters. Compatible 1920s alterations include enclosure of front porch at its circular terminus.with. fixed, divided lite, wood sash windows; a second generation of double hung windows; enclosure of second story sun porch on the right side; and removal of select detailing. Incompatible modem alterations include concrete stairs leading to the front porch; wood entry door with recessed panels and side lites; wood case- ment doors with horizontal lites and wrought iron balconette at front gable end; side rough wood balcony and exit stair; metal downspouts; and asphalt roof shingles. ~e~x~.., k~bute,:HP2. Sin.gle Family Property Rezoume= Present:r’lOb~t [] S~te ~ Dtstrtct (List attributes arid codes) [] Bulk:ling [] Slruclure (Cite survey report/other sources or ’none’) []Element o1 l~stdct []Other (l~x~ales, etc.) PSb. Description of F~’oto: (View. (~le, etc.) 10~ Fnre~qt, frnnt enrn~r f~c.ade O1114107 "P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: [] Prehistoric [] Hlstortc [] Both ........... l gqf~ *P7. Owner and Addm==: Trllqt Nn 1950-D 025 B Street, Fifth Floor S~n Diega: (2A 92101 *P8. Recorded by: (Name. afflll~tlon, ~:~:Iress) Catherine WattsBarbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA *Pg. Date Recorded: 01/14107 *Pl0. Survey Type: (Descrtbe) Reconnaissance ’*Pll. Report Citation: *Altlchmertt~: I"1 NONE [] Nchaeologicat Record [] l~otograph Record []Locetlon Map [] Dtstdct Record Other: (List) [~ Sketch Map [] Contlnuatlort Slteet [] Unear Feature I:~:ocd [] Milling Station Record [] Building, Structure and Ob~ Record Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on January 29, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 8. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Ms. Margaret Schink, 510 Lincoln, Palo Alto, CA 94028. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of January 29, 1997 510 Lincoln: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-HRB-58.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 510 Lincoln. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Con.tributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of LANDMARK HISTORIC RESIDENCE to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under t.he City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 510 Lincoln was assigned the category of LANDMARK HISTORIC RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY: Glen Dodds & Associates, 750 Menlo ~venue, #200, Menlo Pk, CA 94025. Prepared By:Barbara Judy Signed By:N~ncy M~dox Lyt , chili" Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 *R.our~ Name or #: _ 510 Lincoln P1. Other Identifier:, *P2. Location: ~ No( for Pub~lcaL1o.n [] Un~ b. USGS 7~’ Quid ~. Add~ 51 0 Lincoln d.~M: (~ ~e l~ ~ for I~ge ~/~ Ilne~ fe~ure) Dire County Santa Clara ; R ._; ~1/4 of ~1/4 of S~c ____; cnv Palo Alto Zone ~.,mE/ e. Other Locational D~t~: (e.g. parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, addlllonat UTMs, etc. as apptopr~e) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 120-06-026 *P3a.Description: (Descflbe resource and Its rnsJor elements. Inc~uOe ~slgn, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and bour,,da~les,) This stunning, two-story, French Eclectic styie residence is set on a large comer lot with manicured shrub border. Two large bays project at rear and structure is connected to a garage a! fight. There are two types of dormers located throughout the residence: the larger is flush with the main wall plane and clad in stucco; the smaller is inset with a carved ornamental head. The historic resource is characterized by the .extensive use of flattened arches at dormers, entry doors, and garage doors. Signature elements include steeply- pitched hipped roof, large exterior brick chimney with sloped shoulders offset at front facade, and recessed window and door openings. The prominant recessed entry, featuring rounded arch, keystone, and period lantern light fixture, is centered on the front facade. Exterior walls are clad in stucco, with divided lite wood casement window sash. Addi.tional period details include wood shutters, copper sheathing, rounded double garage doors, and decorative basement vents. Compatible alterations include the replace- ment of window sash with insulated glass and roofing material with sympathetic asphalt shingles. [] Element of DLslflct [] Other (Iso~tes. etc.) PSb. Description of Photo: (View. dale. etc.) 5 ] 0 Lincoln. front facade 0!/14/97 *P~. Dste Constructed/Age snd Sources: [] Prehistoric [] HIstodc i-I Both !932 *P7, Owner and Addresa: Schink. Margaret 510 Lincoln . . Palo Alto, CA 94028 P - Private *PB. Reconded by: (Name, atflll~llon, ~:lress} Catherine WattsBarbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA -~,g. Dmte.,cor~ed: 01/14/97 *Pl0. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance ,11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report/other sources or "none’) *Attachments:["1 NONE [] A~chaeoioglcal P, eco~ I-’1P~ofograph Record [] Location Map [] District Record D Other: (Ust) [] Sketch Map [] Contlnuatio~ Sheet [] Linear Feature Record [] Milling Station Record [] Building, Structure and Objec~ Record [] Rock Arl ~ [] ArUfac~ ~ DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Information ...~-,ya~,__2. .~ 2 " .-~":’"°u’~ ,,me or #:510 Lincoln B1.Historic Name: "NRHP Stelul Code 4 B2.Common Name: B3.Orlglrml Us~: Residential B4. Present Use: *85,Architectural Style: Frenc.h Eclectic "B6.Con~ructlon History: (Conslrucl!ort (Jate, alteraLk~s, end date of ~terstlons.) Residential *B7.Moved? [] No [] Yes [] UnRlaown Dale:.Original LOCation: *BS. Related Feature=: ~,chit~,:t: Henry Gutterson b. Builder: Clinton Stephenson Construction Co. sl~.ili=~=e: T~me Residential Architecture P~oa o~ ~nm~ 1932-1940 ~ TyD . @l~le (~u~ Imbalance In te~ of hlsto~ or ~ch~u~l ~nte~ ~ defln~ ~ theme, ~, ~d g~g~hlc ~. ~so ~ddre~ Intogd~.) 510 L{ncotn Js ~ loc~y s~nWm~nt ]~ndmar~ st~ctum ~u= to hs d~s~n by H~n~ Gutt~rson, ~ preen=at Bay ~ Echh=ct. Gutm~son was bo~ Jn Ow~tonn~, M~nn~sot~ Jn 1884, and ~d~c~t~d at ~u~h~m, WJ]tJs Po~, ~d ]ohn G~n HewEd, b~fom ~st~bl~shJn~ his own offic~ J~ 1913. ~s most Foducfiv= y~Es w¢~ from 19 ~ 0-1913; thus 5 ~ 0 LJnco]n Js on= of ~s l~t~r woT~s. H~ d~d Jn 19~4. Gutt~rson was on th~ UC School of A~chh=cmr~ faculty b~J~fly, a m~mb~T of th~ advJso~ co~tt~ on CJv~c D~vdopm~nt, and h~ s~rv~d on th~ ~rkd~y Chy P1an~ng Co~ss{on. d~s~n~d loc~1ly by HCn~ Gmmrson; ms~Ech to d=t~ has not {d~nfifi~d ~h=~ wo~ Pate ~to. Bll.Addlllonat Resource A~lrlbutes: (List attributes and codes) *E12.Relerences: Pale Alto Dept. of Building & Safety, original permit Sanborn Insurance Co. Maps, 1924 (updated 1962) Pale Alto Times, 10/25/28 and 10/23/31 San Francisco Chronicle, 08/24/54 Bay Area Houses House Beautiful, vs. 97 & 91 B13. Remmks: *B14.Ew,uator: Barbara A. Judy Dateof Evatuatlon: " 01/22/1997 (1"hiS space reserved for.official commenls.) DPR 523B (1/95) II Ol *Required Information Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Ac~tion Taken at the Public Hearing on February 19, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 12 TO:O~vner: Carina Rotzstain, 1022 Webster, Palo Alto, CA 94301. FROM:Barbara Judy’, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 19, !997 SUBJECT:1022 Webster: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-20.) REOUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a histori~ merit designation to 1022 Webster. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of HISTORIC.LANDMARK RESIDENCE to this residence. ACTION TAKEN: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1022 Webster was assigned the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision xvith this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By:Barbara Judy COURTESY COPY: Approved By: Jennifer Rothstein, 899 Webster, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Marc Rossner, 1022 Webster, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 *Resource Name ~’ #: P1. 1022 Webster Other klentlfler: LOCation: I-I Not tot Pubtic~t~n [] Unmstdcted b. USGS 7.5’ Oued c. Addr~ 109") WPh~t~r d. UTM: (GNe rr~x~’e tl’~n ore [or Im’ge arC/or linear ~ealure) ,. cour~ Santa Clara ~T : !t ~ _..__1/4 ol ~1/4 el Sec __._1cny Palo Alto Zor~ ~, e. Other I.~Q~lor~d DeJ~: (e.g. patcet #, legal description, dlre~io~s to resource, elevation, ~ddltlon~ UTMs, etc. as app~owlate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 120-06-011 z~ 94301 rnN DeZCdptlon: (Describe resource and Its ma.}or elements. Include design, rnaterlaJs, condition, aJter~Ions, size. setllng, and bound~’les.) This is a single-story, symmetrical, Queen Anne cottage set on a comer lot near historic Professorville. Identifying elements of this twin cottage, unique to Palo Alto, include steeply-pitched hipped roof; centra! front-facing gable with deep pediment and decorative sawtooth shingles; full-width porch with decorative, jigsaw cut wood posts and diagonally-expresed open balustrade; and exterior walls clad in horizontal wood siding to avoid a smooth-walled appearance.-Typical windows are stylized double hung wood sash with two-over-two divided rites throughout. Additional period features include elaborate wood entry door with divided lites, recessed panels, and decorative wood trim; profiled cornice at roof- :~.. £:-.~v~all junction;, and de_tach¢._d_-_ggage .._a,! r_’~e.ar.~w_i_~ _s~l ..ar£~.e_._t_....~._’m~ .t..o_residen_ce.~Alter_ations include. roof balustraae- ,W ao;v s walk; i s ngie , and modem garage door. -~zn. R,~o~r~ ~.n#,ute.: It-~ .,~ut~ ~na ¢oa~)HP2. Single Family Property "P4. Resources PmSeld: I’-I Building I"1 Structure [] Oblect [] ~te [] DLstrtct [] Element o~ District [] Other (Isomer, etc.) PSb. Description of Photo: (view. date. etc.) 1022 Webster. front facade *Pt5. Date Constructed/Age and Source~: [] Prehistoric I~ Historic r’l Both ...... 1893 *P7. Ownerand Addres=: Rotsztain. C~rina 1022 Webster Palo Alto, CA 94301 P - Private *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA *p~. O,te.ecor~ed: 02/11/97 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey report/other sources or "nor~’) *Attachments:[] NONE [] Location Map [] Archaeolog~ Record [] District Record [] Pl~olograph Record [] Other: (Ust) [] Sketch Map [] Conllnuatk:xl Sheet [] Building, Structure aJ-KJ Object Record [] Unear Fealure Record [] Milling Slatloll Record [] Rock Ad Record [] Artifact Record DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Irfform~tlon =’NRHP Status Code 4 ~-.Common Name: B3.C~’lglnal us~: ,,,Residential B4. Present Use: *1~5.Amhltectur~l Style: Queen Anne *B6.Construction History: (Construction 0ale, alteratloi~s, 8,10 dale of alterations.) Residential *57.Moved? [] No [-I Yes [] Unk;lown Date:OdCllnal Location: *BS. Related Features: =BIO. ,~.i~,~: ~. ~uJ~r: H.W. Hook Slgnltleance: Theme Residential Architecture P,~loa ot s~nm~ 1893-1940 ~ T~ . ~l~le C~e~a(~ Imbalance In te~ of hlsto~ or ~ch~ural ~nte~ ~ defln~ ~ theme, ~d~, ~d g~hlc ~. ~so addre~ IntegdN.) The residence, in its scale, style, and setting, supports the historic ch~acter of its dis~ict and employs period ~chitecmrN themes that ~e characterisric of the few remaining Palo Nto residences of the late nineteenth cenmw. One of a pNr of twin cottages, there are also t~ee other houses designed and built by Hook nearby on the s~e block, facing Addison. At the time 0f its construction, 1022 ~Webster was one of only~!~5~buildings in ~e new_to~.P~o Alto, population ~50 .... ~:~__.~ .. ~ ~_.~ =-~-~ .... :.~ .... Bll. *B12. B13. *B14. Additional Resource Altrtbutes: (Ust altdbutes and codes) References: Palo Alto Dept. of Building & Safety, original permit Sanborn Insurance Co. Maps, 1924 (updated 1962) Palo Alto Times, 01/05/1894 Palo Alto City Directories Barbara A. Judy Date o! Evaluallon: 02/11/1997 (’rNs sp~ce reserve~ for.otficlal commenls.) DPR 523B *Required Information -. Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Commtmity Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 26, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 5. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Vicky Ching, 63 Crescent, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 26, 1997 63 Crescent: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-57.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit designation to 63 Crescent. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence; or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of HISTORIC LANDMARK RESIDENCE to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 63 Crescent was assigned the category of HISTORIC LANDMARK RESIDENCE by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-244 l) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY: Applicant: Allen Schuhe, 787 Corto St, Mtn. View, Palo Alto, CA 94043. Prepared By: Signed By: Barbara Judy J~/~ ../~’1;...! , ,~ ~ ~ - Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Pia’hning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 *P3a.Description: (Describe resource and Its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and t~oundaries.) This is a grand, symmetrical, Mission estate set on a large lot in Crescent Park bordering San Francisquito Creek. The parcel features many structures including the main residence, multi-car detached garage at rear left, central tennis court and swimming pool, and a rear cabana/pool house. Signature elements of the intact, two-story, main residence include the simple rectangular plan v~ith hipped roof; regularly laid small scale Spanish clay tile roofing; wide overhanging eaves with exposed profiled rafter ends; wrap-around covered porch with hipped porch roof supported by stucco clad Corinthian columns and solid balustrade; and exterior walls clad in smooth textured stucco. Additional period features include the prominent arched entry vestibule under swept roof at covered porch with classical pilasters, decorative wood braces, and original wood door assembly with sidelites, arched transom, and decorative wrought iron; second story ~ving. balconies under eave overhang with arched openings, sloped wing walls, decorative urns, and wrought iron balustrades; decorative lantern style and pendant light fixtures under covered porch; and solarium at right corner facade with leaded prism glass window panels. A variety of fenestration throughout includes divided lite French casement doors at second- story balcony above main entry, various wood casement sash with multi-pane glazing, and special wood fixed sash with arched muntins. *P3b.Resources Attributes: (List attributes a~d codes) *P4.Resources Present: [] Building r’-I Structure HP2. Single Family Property [] Oblect [] Site [] District r-1 Element of District [] Olher (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description o! Pt~oto: (View, date, etc.) 63 Crescent. front comer facade *P6. Date Constructed]Age and Sources: [] Prehistoric ~ Historic [] Both 1 92.7 ’=P7, Owner and Address: .. Ching. Vicky K. 63 Crescent . PaloAlto, CA 94301 P - Private *PS. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address) Catherine Watts Barbara A. Judy, Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA ~’Pg. Date Recorded: 03/19/97 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) In ten ~i ve ~ *Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey reporl/otner sources or "none’) Norl~ *Attachments:[] NONE [] Location Map [] Archaeological Record "[] District Record [] Photograph Record [] Other: (List) [] Sketch Map I-1 Continuallon Sheet [] Unear Fealure Record [] Milling Station Record Building, Structure and Object Record [] Rock Art Record [] Arllfact Record DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Information Regidenrial ’ ¯ B7. Mo~d? !~ No i"I Yes [] Unknown D~o:.OdglnaJ LOcatl0n; ,,t~8. Rallied Felture~,: ,,~a,~: t~. ~,u,~r: . Henry. H. Dabinett Slgnllle~rw~: Tl~rne Residentia! Architecture ~ o~ ~~ 199.7-1940 , ~y Ty~ (~ tm~n~ In te~ of hlsto~l or ~ur~ ~te~ ~ ~n~ ~ t~me, ~, ~d g~r~lc ~. ~ addre~ Integr~.) While records indicate that the architect of 63 Crescent was unknown, substantial evidence points to Joseph L. Stewart. Stewart was known for designing the Crest View Apartments in San Francisco, his own residence in St. Francis Woods (similar in design to 63 Crescent), and a Palo Alto country house for Mrs. Sarah Blakey. A May 1925 Architect and Engineer issue wrote, "Architect Joseph L. Stewart has completed plans for a group of six high-class homes, construction of which has been started in Crescent Park, Palo Alto, for Mr. J.K. Calley. The houses will cost $20,000-$25,000 each." The Crescent Drive estate was built by Harry H. Dabinett for John L. McNab, a prominent San Francisco lawyer and Republican party member. McNab was probably best known for nominating fellow Palo Altan, Herbert C~ Hoover, for the presidency of the United States. Many fields claimed Mr. McNab’s interest including the presidency of the Palo Alto National Bank, director of the Bank of Canton in San Francisco, and chairman of the Salvation Army advisory council, to name a few. The McNab family lived in Palo Alto for ten years prior to 1935, when they sold their home at 63 Crescent to move to San Francisco. B1 l. Additional Resource hatributes: (List aJlritlute= and codes). Reierence$: *B14. Palo Alto Dept. of Building & Safety, original permit Sanborn Insurance Co. Maps, 1924 (updated 1962) Palo Alto Times, 08/25/26, 09/23/26, 03/18/50 Architect and Engineer, v. 81, no. 2 San Francisco; Its Builders Past and Present, v. 2 Barbara A. Judy Evzdu,,t!on: 03!10/97 (This Sl~ce reserved lorofficlal comments.) (SRetch Map wlln’rlpdla arrow re<lulre~) ,.. . *Required In focrn~ll~r~ .’: Interim Historic Inventory NO MERI Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on February 26, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 3. TO:Owner: Richard Filipowicz, 779 La Para, Palo Alto, CA 94301 FROM:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program PUBLIC HEARING:Historic Resources Board Meeting of February 26, 1997 SUBJECT:779 La Para: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-t9.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit screening designation to 779 La Para. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historicdesignation of No Historic Merit or Possible Historic Merit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of NO HISTORIC MERIT to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 779 La Para was assigned the category of NO HISTORIC MERIT by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues yo.u or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By: Approved By: Barbara Judy Nancy I¢¢Iaddox Lytle, Chie--f’Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 5, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 1. ~ : :~: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :~:!: : : :!:: :!:i? :!: !: : :!:i:~:i: :~:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: ::::::::::: : ::: : :::: : :::::: : :: : ~ : : : : :::::: :: :: :::::::::: ::::: : :: : : : : :::: :: : : :::: : ::::: :::: ::: TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: A. Barr Dolan, 525 University, #1500, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 5, 1997 1189 Hamilton: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-24.) REOUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board was requested to assign a historic merit screening designation to 1189 Hamilton. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of No Historic Merit or Possible Historic Merit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of NO HISTORIC MERIT to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Al.to’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1189 Hamilton was assigned the category of NO HISTORIC MERIT by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, ~vhich allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY:Steve Pierce, 209 Co~vper, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Prepared By: Approved By: Barbara Judy N~ncy’Maddox Lytle, Chie~Planning Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 5, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 3. TO: FROM: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBJECT: Owner: Kimberley Lin, 1640 Cowper, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 5, 1997 1640 Cowper: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-28.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board ~vas requested to assign a historic merit screening designation to 1640 Cowper. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of No Historic Merit or Possible Historic Merit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of NO HISTORIC MERIT to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1640 Cowper was assigned the category of NO HISTORIC MERIT by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, xvhich allo~vs for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. COURTESY COPY:Scott Lee, Hill Glazier Architects, 700 Welch Rd, # 330, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Prepared By: Approved By: Barbara Judy Nancy Iv~addox Lytle, Chief-"Planninr, Official Designee of the Director o.f Planning and Community Environment Page 1 Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on March 5, 1997 on Agenda Item II. 7. TO:Owner:Sally Ann Rudd, 204 Cowper, Palo Alto, CA 94301 FROM:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Meeting of March 5, !997 SUBJECT:204 Cowper: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-46.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board xvas requested to assign a historic merit screening designation to 204 Cowper. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assign.ed a historic designation of No Historic Merit or Possible Historic Merit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended assigning an historic designation of NO HISTORIC MERIT to this residence. HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 204 Cowper was assigned the category of NO HISTORIC MERIT by the Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that decision as of this notice. .APPEALS: All projects approved are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. Prepared By: Approved By: Barbara Judy Nanc3 Lytle, Chtef Pl~mng Official Designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 Interim Historic Inventory DISQUALIFIED -City of Palo Alto Department of PIamffng a~zd Comnzzznityl~nviron,~zt Planning DMsion February 11, 1997 Ms. Melanie Trubman 560 Miramonte Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 Interim Historic Ordinance 560 Miramonte Avenue, File No. 97-HRB-17 Dear Ms. Trubman; This letter responds to your application for Historic Merit Screening and Evaluation for 560 Miramonte Avenue, a structure identified in the Tax Assessor’s records as being a pre-1940 residence. Research into the background of 560 Miramonte Avenue resulted in a finding that the Tax Assessor’s data for date of initial construction is erroneous. Based on review of the Building Division records and advertisements for new construction in the Palo Alto Times during 1940, the actual date of initial construction is 1940. Therefore, this structure does not fall under the purview of the Interim Historic Ordinance. The Planning Division will close the current file for Historic Merit Screening and Evaluation and will.not make a finding regarding historic merit for 560 Miramonte Avenue. We will also refund your application fee of$100.00. A copy of this letter will be made available to the Building Division, as documentation of the fact that application for building permits affecting this residence do not need to comply with the Interim Historic Ordinance. Please contact Barbara Judy at 617-3193 if you have any questions regarding the information in this letter. Very truly yours, Nancy Maddox Lytle Chief Planning Official CC: Building Division 2.50 Hamilton Avenue P.O.Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 943(B 415.329.2441 415. 329.2240 Fax Welcome to today’s meeting of the City of Palo Alto ATTACHMENT E HIS TORIC RESO UR CES BOARD You may find the following information helpful as you observe or participate in today’s meeting. First, pick up an agenda - it outlines the items of today’s meeting. If you wish to speak on an item on today’s agenda... 1.You must f!ll out a.speaker’s.....card and band it to our staff(seated at the table). 2.The Chairperson will announce your name and advise you when to approach the microphone. 3.Wloen it is your turn to speak, please b..qin with your name and address. You bare a lO-minute time limit if you are an applicant or appellant. All other members of the public bare a 5-minute time limit, unless there is a sizable crowd in which case the Chairperson may restrict the public to 3- minutes per speaker. 4.Please speak loudly and clearly, and please be concise. 5.Once you have made your initial remarks, you may not speak again, unless you are an applicant or appellant. Applicants and appellants are allowed a 3- minute summary at the conclusion of all of the public testimony. After all of the speakers have been heard, the public hearing will be dosed. The Historic Resources Board will discuss and make a decision on the item. Please note: If you wish .to speak on an item that is not on today’s agenda... 1.You must fill out a speaker’s card. 2.You may speak during "Oral Communications" (see agenda). 3.You may speak for thr~e minutes. APPEALS: Al! project approvals are subject to an appeal period, ~hich allo~2s for the applicant or members of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Director on the projec~ The appeal period is 10 days after the mailing of notice of the decision of the director of Planning and Community of Environrnent. If you wish to appeal any item on this agenda, contact the Planning Division (329-2441) regarding time and fee. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. HRBFORMS I A: ~BOARDAIST ATTACHMENT F Historic Merit Screening Staff Report Item No. II.3 TO:Historic Resources Board FROM:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program AGENDA DATE:March 5, 1997 SUBJECT:! 640 Cowper: Application for Historic Merit Screening of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97- HRB-28.) REQUEST/PROJECT...DESCRIPTION: The Planning Department staff is required to screen residences constructed prior to 1940 for Historic Merit. When the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program is invoked, propertie~ must be " screened and assigned a historic designation of No Historic Merit or Possible Historic Merit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends, assigning a designation of NO HISTORIC MERIT to this residence. DISCUSSION: Architectural Description: Date of Initial construction: 1921 This is a two story rambling courtyard residence on a large lot which was perhaps originally a structure of architectural merit, but has been altered by the replacement of most of its exterior features with modem substitute materials and by additions’ to the original structure. While the style of the building may have originally been Craftsman or Tudor, the residence has been altered by introduction of"Bungalow".elements such as dormers with low pitched gable end roofs and exposed eaves, introduction of"Classical" elements such as a colurrmiated arcade at the interior courtyard, replacement of all sash and doors, extensive rear yard additions, removal and alteration of chimneys, and recladding of all exterior surfaces with a uniform stucco coating. It is likely that removals over the years have included original front entry anda more appropriate exterior cladding material associated with the probable original style. Criteria for Historic Designation: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1640 Page I Cowper fails to satisfy any of Criterions 1 through 5, as the fabric of this residence consists almost entirely of modem materials, numerous ersatz historicizing elements have overwhelmed the original architecture, and its massing has been altered extensively. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1640 Cowper best fits the category of NO HISTORIC MERIT. Staff concluded that the residence, in its degree of alteration, does not support the historic character of its neighborhood grouping and district. No evidence exists that the site has a past history of association with historic people, events, activities, or archeological resources. It is staffs judgment that 1640 Cowper is so architecturally altered that it is not recognizable as historic in the Palo Alto neighborhood and district context. Therefore, staff concluded that the standards for designation as a PROPERTY WITH HISTORIC MERIT are not met. COURTESY COP~: Owner: Kimberly Lin, 1640 Cowper, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Applicant: Scott Lee, Hill/Glazier Architects, 700 Welch Rd, #330, Palo Alto, CA 94304. Prepared By:Barbara Judy Reviewed By:l~ancy’~addox Lytle, Chief Planning Official P~e2 Application for H i e’bo rio Review Applicant. Reo~ue~t, Interim Regulations for Residential Buildings: Historic Merit Screening Historic Merit Evaluation Historic Landmark Alteration Review Compatibility Review Compatibility Standards Exception Historic Property Survey Other Historic Review: Non-residential HistOric Review Downtown Contributing Residential Voluntary Review Non-residential Historic Designation or Re-designation Mills Act Contract O Propert,, Location Address of Subject Property : 1640 Cowper Street, 2alo Alto o CA Zone District ¯ R-1 (929)Assessor’s Parcel Number : 124-08-63 94301 Historic Category(if applicable) : e Reo~ueet,e~l Act,ion Historic screening and Merit evaluation.Description of requested action: IO Applicant, -Name: Scott Lee (Hill/Glazier Addressi 700 Welch Road; Suite City: Palo Alto, NOTE:The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken. Architects. Inc. ~ 330 Phone: /,15!~,17-rlq~ State: CA Zip: O Propert,3, Owner Name: Kimberly L. Lin NOTE:The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken. Address: 1640 Cowper Street City: Palo Alto State: CA Zip: 94304 Phone: 415/323-5908 hereby certify that I am the owner of record of the property described in Box #2 above and that I approve of the requested action herein. If this application(s) is subject to 100% recovery .of planning costs, I understand that charges for staff time spent processing this application(s) will be based on the Policy and Procedures document provided to me. I understand that my initial deposit is an estimate of these charges and not a fee, and I agree to abide by the billing policy stated. Signature of Owner:Date: / ,~:~" q7 TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Historic Merit Screening Staff Report Item No. II.3 Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program February 26, 1997 779 La Para: Application for Historic Merit Screening of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97- HAB.-19.) REOUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Department staff is required to screen residences constructed prior to 1940 for Historic Merit. When the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program is invoked, properties must be screened and assigned a historic designation of No Historic Merit or Possible Historic Merit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends assigning a designation of NO HISTORIC MERIT to this residence. DISCUSSION: Architectural Description: Date of Initial construction: 1924 Two residences exist on the lot; both are modest single story residences. One is clearly modern, and the second, smaller residence is period. The period residence is an unadorned three room structure. Walls are horizontal wood siding, with a low pitched roof of modem composition material Entry is from a simple door on the side facade. Sash is double-hung wood, as well as modem replacement sash. The structure lacks stylistic features, and has been extensively altered. Criteria for Historic Designation: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the significance of Historic Resources, 779 La Para fails to satisfy any of Criterions 1 through 5, as the design of this residence contains little articulation that would relate to period architectural themes that are characteristic of historic residences found in Palo Alto. Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 779 La Para best fits the category of NO HISTORIC MERIT. Staff concluded that the residence, in its scale, style and setting, does not support the historic character of its neighborhood grouping and district. No evidence exists that the site has a past history of association with historic people, events, activities, or archeological resources. It is staffs judgment that 779 La Para is so architecturally modest that it is not recognizable as historic in the Palo Alto neighborhood and district context. Therefore, staff con.cluded that the standards for designation as a PROPERTY WITH HISTORIC MERIT are not met. COURTESY COPY: O~vner: Richard Filipowicz, 779 La Para, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Prepared By:Barbara Judy Historic Resources Board Staff Report Item No. II.8 TO:Historic Resources Board FROM:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program AGENDA DATE:January 9, 19.97 SUBJECT:~: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of-a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96- HRB-43.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board is requested to assign a historic merit designation to 261 Stanford. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of No Historic Merit, Contributor, or Landmark.. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends assign!ng an historic designation of CONTRIBUTOR to this residence. Architectural Description: Date of Initial construction: circa 1930 The residence is a modest single story cottage-style residence. Walls are hand-pressed stucco, with a steeply-sloped roof of modern composition shingles and prominent gable end treatment of wood louver attic vents and wood fascias. Main entry is from a modest porch. Sash is double-hung wood with divided upper lites; special sash includes round-headed casement units. Brick chimney with stepped shoulders at side facade is visible from street. Criteria for Historic Designation: -Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for.Evaluating the Significanc~ of Historic Resources, 261 Stanford satisfies Criterion 4, as the design of this residence employs period, architectural themes which are characteristic of modestly-scaled residences of the 1920s and 30s. Categorization: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 261 Stanford best fits the category of CONTRIBUTOR PROPERTY. Staff concluded that the Page 1 residence, in its scale, style and setting, supports the historic character of its neighborhood grouping and district. , Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Histori( Resources, standards for designating LANDMARK PROPERTIES are provided. Research "into the history of the site did not identify noteworthy historic people, events, activities, or archeological resources associated with this residence. It is staff’s judgment that 261 Stanford is not an outstanding example of the Cottage style, because even though it presents period features characteristic of Palo Alto in its architectural qualities all the elements described above are common to residences of this period and are not exceptional. Therefore, staff concluded that the standards for designation as a LANDM.MLK PROPERTY are not met. COURTESY COPY:Owner: Mr. and Mrs Robert Koch, 261 Stanford, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Prepared By:Barbara Judy Reviewed By:Nano~Vladdox Lytle, Chief Planning Official Page2 State of California -- The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Primary HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Page ~ of 3 *Resoume Name or #: PI.Other Identifier: :other" Listings Review Code Trinomial NRHP Statue Code , 5S3 Reviewer 261 Stanford "P2.Location: []Not for Publication []Unrestricted .a. County Santa Clara b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Date T .~ R ~ ._.__.1/4 of ~1/4 of Sac ____; c. Addre,s 261 Stanford city Palo Alto d. IJTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear feature) Zone ~, mE/ e. Other Locationat Data: (e.g. parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, additional UTMs, etc. as appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 124-27-015 zip 94306 mN *P3a.Description: (Describe resource and Its malor elements. Include design, materials, condition, atterat|ons, size, setting, and boundaries.) The structure is a modest single story cottage style residence. Walls are hand-pressed stucco with a steeply-sloped roof of modern composition shingles and prominent gable end treatment of wood louver attic vents and wood facias. Main entry is from a modest porch. Sash is double hung wood with divided upper lites; special sash includes round-headed casement units. Brick chimney with stepped shoulders at side facade is visible from street. *P3b. Resources Attributes: (Ust atlributes and codes) Hp2. SinNe Family P,roper .ty *P4. Resources Present: I~ Building [] Structure I-1 Object I"1 Bite [~] District [] Element of District [] Other (IsOlates, etc.) P5b. Description of P’noto: (View, date, etc.) 261 Stanford, front facade 12/20/1996 *P6~ Date Constructed/Age and Sources: [] PTehistoric I~ Historic [] Both 1930 *P7. Owner and Address: Koch, Robert W. & Kimberly. J. 359 Stanford Palo Alto, CA 94306 P--Private *Pa. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address) Catherine Watts ...Barbara A. Judv~ Preservation Architect, San Francisco, CA -P~. Date Re=ordeal: 01/07/1997 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance *Pll. Report Citation: (Cite sun/ey report/other sources or "none’)None *Attachments: I-1 NONE [] Archaeological Recordr-1 I:~olegraph Record r-i Location Map I-I District Record 1"1 Other:. (List) f-I Sketch Map [] Continuation Sheet [] Building, Structure and Object Record [] Unear Feature Recor~I-I Milling Station Record ~ Rock Art Record ~ Axtlfact Record DPR 523A (1/95)*Required Information *NRHP Statue, Code 5 S 3 Hl~orlc Name: ~ Common Name: Construction Hlsto~: (Construction d~le. ~eralk~s. and dale ~ all,milord.) Building permit issued for dwelling and garage March 1930. Garage construction dates to 1937. Asphalt shingles added in 1972-1973. *BT.Ml:w~d? I~ Pd),~ Yes I"1 Unk/lown Date:_Or’Jglna! Locsllon: *BS. Related Features: *B10. ~’~"~: b..u,,~,’:W.G. Bell and H.L. Page S~nm=,r=,: Theme Residential Architecture ~. ~ ~ ~~. 1930- ] 940 ~ r~~ ~e~(~ lm~ In te~ of hl~o~ or ~fl~u~ ~t~ ~ aefl~ ~ l~me, ~, ~a g~hlc ~. Nso ~m~ integer.) . The residence, in its sc~e, s~le, ~d se~ng, suppoas ~e ~stofic ch~acter of its dis~ct ~d employs period ~c~tecmr~ themes that ~e ch~actefistic of P~o ~to residences of the 1930s. B1 I. *B12. B13. *B14. References: Palo Alto Dept. of Building & Safety, original permit Palo Alto Times, 03/25/30 and 01/11/29 Barbara A. Judy tv=,,t~: 01/07/1997 (This space reserved forx)fflc~ comments.) *P.equimd Infon~tion TO: Historic Resources Board Revised Staff Report Item No. 1.1 ~~:.:: Historic Resources Board FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program March 26, 1997 3967 - 3959 LaDonna: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-40.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board is requested to assign a historic merit designation to 3967 - 3595 LaDonna. Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to both 3967 and 3959 LaDonna. DISCUSSION: Architectural Description: Date of Initial Construction: Main residence 1937/Cottage 1918. This is a single-story, H-shaped, Tudor residence set on a large Barron Park lot south of the Oregon Expressway. The secluded parcel is characterized by dense street facing foliage, a formal English courtyard complete with fountain and geometric boxwood, and mature trees throughout. Signature features of this stately residence include steeply-pitched gabled and hipped roof masses clad in wood shakes; recessed entry vestibule with steep gable, original multMite wood door with iron hardware, ceiling mounted lantern style light fmture, and arched opening at right; exterior walls clad in hand textured stucco with half timbering at gable ends, a horizontal profiled wood banding course around perimeter, and vertical profiled wood comer treatment; and tall, narrow windows in multiple groupings with multi-pane glazing. A variety of fenestration includes large fixed wood window sash at front facade with and without flanking wood casement sash, double hung wood window sash with divided upper lites at side facades, and French doors with divided lites surrounding the front Page 1 courtyard. Additional features include period gable end pointed arch louver vents; large interior/exterior stone chimney at rear courtyard with sloped shoulders and open hearth; profiled metal gutters; and replacement window sash at rear. There appears to .be a rear right compatible addition, where there is a noticeable change in foundation, possibly extending original U-shaped configuration to its present H shape. A modem, yet compatible, four-car garage at left rear of lot is visible from the street and is similar in detailing to the main residence. It features steeply-pitched gabled roof masses, stucco exterior wall cladding (modem texture) with half timbering, louvered gable end vents, divided lite casement sash, double hung wood sash with divided upper Iites, and modem garage doors. The lot also includes an earlier vintage, single-story, period cottage at right rear (3967 La Donna). The quaint cottage features a low-pitched gabled roof with exposed overhanging eaves, visible wood rafter ends, and gable end vents; exterior wails clad in narrow horizontal wood siding; d(ruble hung wood window sash; divided lite casement sash at side facades and lean-tos; and period wood door with glazed and recessed panels. A vine covered trellis and open balustrade attached at front facade completes the historic resource. The neighborhood in the vicinity of the residences includes numerous examples of modestly-scaled single story houses, both modem and period. Criteria for Historic Designation: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, both 3967 and 3959 LaDonna satisfy Criterion 4, as the design of these residences employ period architectural themes which are characteristic of period cottages built in the 1910s and substantial residences built in the 1930s. Categorization: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 3967. LaDonna best fits the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE. Staff concluded that the cottage, in its scale, style and setting, supports the historic character of its neighborhood grouping and district. While 3967 LaDonna is currently in a setting comprised of mixed early and late modem structures, its simplicity and rural quality is reminiscent of Barron Park’s early years, when much of the adjacent land was used for agricultural purposes and the area contained relatively few structures. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 3959 LaDonna best fits the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE based on the information currently available about the residence. However, this residence is of specialinterest because it is a substantial, handsome, well-constructed residence in marked contrast to all other structures in the. surrounding area. Staff research in archives for Santa Clara County, Palo Alto, San Francisco, as well as informal contacts among people versed in local history, failed to reveal noteworthy historic people, events, activities, or archeological resources associated with this residence. It is staffs judgment that 3959 LaDonna is a noteworthy example of the Tudor style rendered in a Bay Regional version, which may be described as follows: ’ "Stucco, brick, wood, and stone - traditional ’natural’ materials-were emPloyed both within and without. Generally, these materials were kept small in scale and were used in a rough fashion to imply that they were rustic and rural, not urbane and polished. Favored details included small casement windows (with leaded mullions if possible), simple board or paneled doors, rough plastered walls, ’hidden’ and!or irregular staircases, the appearance or fact of exposed structure, real or suggested changes in floor and ceiling levels, and above all a large brick or stone fireplace.’’1 Despite these apparent architectural qualities, no evidence exists that this structure exerted influence on local or other development, and there are no known associations with important architects, people, events, or archeological resources. Therefore, staff concluded that the standards for designation as a HISTORIC LANDMARK RESIDENCE are not met~ COURTESY COPY: Owner: Steve and Kathy Wong, 3959 LaDonna, Palo Alto, CA.94306. Applicant: Patricia Haight, 171 Forest Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Prepared By: Reviewed By: Barbara Judy Nancy Maddox L~le, ~l~f Planning Official 1. Bay Area Houses - Life.in the Dollhouse, David Gebhard, Sally Woodbridge editor, pp. 99-110: 1976. P~3 ¯ ’P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: [] R’ehlstoac ~J Nistodc [] ¯ P7. Ownerend Address:Wong, Steven and Kathleen 3967 LaDonna Palo Alto, CA 94306 P - Private ¯ PS. Recorded by: (Name, affillallon, address)Catherine Watts Barbara A. Jud¥,.....preservation Architeet, San Franeiseo, CA ...... Date Re~ordnd: 02127197 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Rec~nn~i.~nee *Pll. Report Citation: (C.~e survey reporl/o~er sources or "none’). "~l~chm~t~: I-I NONE 1"1 Location Map D P~ngrep~ Recor~ D O~ner. (~t) r-i Sketch Map I~ Conllnuallon Sheet I~ Bu,dlng. Structure and OINe~ Record [] Unear Feature Recon~ n Milling Station Record I"1 Rock ~ Record [] kztlfact Recom *Required Information ! Pa~ of~"R~o~ Name or# (~ *R,Leorded,,,,,, ....b},__ Catherine Watts "Date 03/1~)/97 B Continuation -[] Update 3959 LaDonna, front facade 3967 & 3959 La,Donna Residential ~4. sty: Tudnr (3967); Vernaculzr (3959) Hl~loty: (~ da~, atterallon~, ana a~e of alter~|ons.) Re~identinl "B6.R~l~t~d FeMum~: Bga.b. Builder: .... Residential Architecture , The residences, in their scale, style, and setting, support the historic character of thier district and employ period architectural themes that are characterisric of Palo Alto residences of the early twentieth century through the 1940s. This is the case particularly in their visual attributes. Period houses of this vintage"reassert their traditional relationship with their sites via historical illusion, not as a visual fact. They evoke the feeling of personal handcraftsmanship which has been realized by the machine." 813, *B14. Palo Alto Dept. of Building & Safety, original permit Doug Graham (Historian, Barton Park Association), phone conversation, 03.05.97 Bay Area Houses, edited by Sally Wo0dbridge Barbara A. Judyeva~.~,n: ~03/0_q197 "Rmlulred In~’mUon Historic Resources Board Staff Report Item No. II.2 TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Historic Resources Board Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program Jmmary 29, 1997 1055 Forest Avenue: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-HRB-51.) RIi;OUEST/PROJECT 1)ESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board is requested to assign a historic merit designation to 1055 Forest Avenue. Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without tIistoric Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMM-EN’DATION: Staffrcco~mncnds assiglting an historic designation of HISTORIC LANDMARK RESIDENCE to this residence. DISCUSSION: Architectural Description: Date of Initial Construction: 1896 This is a locally significant land~nark structure which is among the surviving residences from the turn of the century that were held to exe~nplify Palo Alto as "the ideal place to live in all the Golden West.~’’ When the Palo Alto Live Oak published illustrations of the forty most substantial houses in Palo Alto t0 commemorate the town’s growth at the turn of the century, tile Newcomer residence was anaong tile collection. The impetus for creation of Palo Alto was nearby Sta~fford University, which served as a source of the town’s early emphasis on progress and cultural achievements. The early owners of 1055 Forest Avenue were associated with the progress, culture, and ambition metropolitan style that the towa~ held from its earliest days. The Newcomer residence, along with its two neighbors to the north, had an especially commanding architectural presence in its early years, which wan’anted its inclusion among the first houses of the tovm. The house is a large, stately, Queen Anne residence with period alterations dating from the 1920s. Original architecttlral features include asymmetrical facade with full-width, one-story, wrap- around porch extending along the front facade; dominant front-facing gable; steeply-pitched hipped roof with lower cross gables; and decorative devices used to avoid a smooth-walled appearance. Exterior walls are clad in horizontal wood siding with decorative fishscale shingles at the front gable end. Typical windows are wood double hung sash, some with divided upper and lower lites. Additional period details include Classical porch-support columns grouped in units of two with vertical posted balustrade, and profiled painted wood gutters. Compatible 1920s alterations include enclosure of front porch at its circular terminus with fixed, divided lite, wood sash windows; a second generation of double hung wood sash windows; enclosure of a sun porch on the right side second story, and removal of select detailing. An original Queen Anne ornamented comer bracket treatment that is visible in early photographs of the building was probably removed in the 1920s. Incompatible modem alterations fi~clude concrete stairs leading to the front porch; wood entry door with recessed panels; wood casement doors with horizontal lites and wrought iron balconette at the front gable end; side rough wood balcony and exit stair; metal downspouts; andasphalt roof shingles. The house was built for Professor Ncwco~ner, a Stanford Uxtiversity professor who represented the best of early Palo Alto citizenry, in that he co~mnissioned a substantial residence to house his family and became a renowned scholar and published author in the English Department. In addition to his teaching duties, Professor Newcomer was the author of several volumes of poetry, including the "Memorial Ode" and other verse that was inspired by the Palo Alto and Stanford setting. He also edited a modem language rendition of Shakespeare’s "Much Ado About Nothing," published in 1913 by Stanford University. The house was desigaled by H. L. Upham. Constn~etion was by H. L. Uphmn mid P. P. Qui~m. The tenure of the Newcomers lasted neatly twenty years (1896-1915), followed by Professor Howard J. Itall (1915-1918), then retired Colonel Clifford M. Whitney of the Army Veterinary Corps (1919- 1931). Period alterations were probably carried out during the tenure of Col. Whitney. Criteria for Historic l)esignation: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1055 Forest Avenue satisfies Criterions one, two and four. Criterion one recognizes Ihe role that association with "events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of loc’~ or regional histo~3"’ carries in adding sigmificance to a historic resource. The Newcomer residence is associated with the early prominence that Palo Altans sought for their yo.ung university town, and achieved in part through arclfitectural expression. The residence was The Newcomer residence is associated with the early p~ominence that Palo Altans sought for their young university town, and achieved in part through architectural,expression, The residence was justifiably identified as being among the first houses in the town at the turn of the century. In publishing a "Century Edition’!, the Palo Alto Live Oak took proud note of the town’s growth and its potential, and the major concerns of its citizens. Palo Altans were reported to be dedicated to their institutions such as schools, social clubs, and Churches, and eager to join the ranks of prominent California communities. These outward looking civic themes, identified early in Palo Alto’s history, were expressed in the architecture of the Newcomer residence. Criterion t~vo recognizes the role that association with "the lives of architects, builders, other persons or historical events that are important to Palo Alto, the Bay Area, the nation or to California’s past" carries in adding significance to a historic resource. Professor Newcomer provided an early instance of an exemplary Palo Alto citizen. He intermingled his academic career and enthusiasm for Palo Alto living in the form of verse that celebrated the life of the town. The Newcomer house had a continuing association with the University that was so instrumental in creating the town, as both its original owner and the subsequent owner Howard J. Hall were professors at Stanford University. CriteriQn...four recognizes that historic significance arises when the resource presents "the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, is particularly representative of an architectural style orway of life important to the city, region, state or nation, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values or contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.’: The Newcomer house is among the surviving nineteenth century residences remaining in Palo Alto. At the turn of the century, Palo Alto’s population numbered 2,000, and the quantity of houses was appropriate for that modest population. This small initial stock of nineteenth century houses has been reduced over time. Currently, extant nineteenth century houses are uncommon, while substantial Queen Anne versions are rare. The Newcomer house gains significance from its relationship to two neighboring Queen. Anne houses of the same vintage and scale. Jointly, they provide an intact presentation of a substantial Palo Alto residential environment from the mm of the century. COURTESY COPY: Owner: Mr. Steve Pierce, 209 Cowper, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Prepared By: Reviewed By: Barbara Judy Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official 1. Palo Alto Live Oak Century Edition, January 1, 1900. rl Unrestdcted e. ~ ~ Dela: (e.g. parcel #, legaJ ae~erlptlon, dlmcllons to resource, el~/~ion, ~kllllonaJ LrTMs, etc. as ap~’oprlale) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 003-19-071-72-73-74-75 *P3b. *P4. Description: (De~=tbe ruuoure~ re’tO I~ major elements. Ineltxle aeslgn, rnalerlnJn, ~:)ndltlon. alleralions, size, selling, ~ boulxls~s.) This is a large, stately, Queen Anne residence with period alterations dating from the 1920s. Original arch- itectural features include asymmetrical facade with full-width, one-story, wrap-around porch extending along the front and left facades; dominant front-facing gable; steeply-pitched hipped roof with lower cross gables; and decorative devices used to avoid a smooth-walled appearance. Exterior walls are clad in hori- zontal siding with decorative fishscale shingles at the front gable end. Typical windows are double hung wood sash, some with divided upper and lower rites. Additional period details include Classical porch- support square columns grouped in units of two with vertical posted balustrade, and profiled, painted wood gutters. Compatible 1920s alterations include enclosure of front porch at its circular terminus with fixed, divided rite, wood sash windows; a second generation of double hung windows; enclosure of second story sun porch on the right side; and removal of select detailing. Incompatible modem alterations include concrete stairs leading to the front porch; wood entry door with recessed panels and side rites; wood case- ment doors with horizontal rites and wrought iron balconette at front gable end; side rough wood balcony and exit stair; metal downspouts; and asphalt roof shingles. ~x,~,~tat~a,,: (u~naa~n~co~s) HP2. Single Family Property_ tqetoun~ pr~ant: I-I ~t~mu~l 0 Stn~u~ Clot~t D~te I-I [mulet *P~. Date nmmrded: 01/14/97 *P10. Sunmy TFIm: (Oeseabe) Reconnaissance *P11..Repolt rdlalkx1: *Al~chmen~:I"1 NONE [C.e uurvey reporVo~her ~urces or "none’) Clt~tact ~ OOU~. D Sk~¢h Map RIBu~d~ng, Stnx~m ~nd Obje~ ~DUnea~Fea~ureRacom D~x~nP~or~ , D.~lJ~r~ Histori.c R~vi~w Historic Resources Board Revised Staff Report Item No. I. 1 Historic Resources Board FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program April 2, 1997 619 Guinda: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97- ln~3-4 ~ .) RECQUEST/I’ROJECT I)ESCRI.PTION: The Historic Resources Board is requested to assign a historic merit designation m 619 Guinda. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Sta~cture Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENI)ATION: Staffrecommends assigning an historic designation of LANDMARK HISTORIC I~SIDENCE to this mructure. DISCUSSION: Architectural Description: Date of Initial Construction: 1924 This is a unusual two-story residence that contains Tudor stylistic references, although its overall architectural eftkct is more accurately described as utfique rather than as a generic application of the Tudor style. The residence was designed by Birge Clark for Mrs. A~drew Field. The stucco clad two story masses are arranged in cross-ffabled wings, with a recessed arched entry vestibule at front right. Projecting eaves are simply detailed with lhscia boards. Patios top single-story wings at fi’ont left and rear left. Separated by a narrow gable-ended bay and stucco clad chimney with stepped and curved front shoulder and projecting belt course at top. Openings consist of double hung sash with divided six-over-six upper and lower lites. Select windows at second story gable ends are elega~t round headed versions of the standard units, echoing the arched front entry. The front door is a plank style solid wood door with period hardware. Alterations include installation of a.sphalt shingle rooting, removal of two from windows and wrought iron balconets and conversion of the openings into doors, removal of original shutters at the south and P~g~ 1 west Facade second story windows throughout the residence, and rer~oval of the wrought iron entry gate at the recessed entry vestibule.~ Guinda Street is.characterized by intact, substantial houses in a variety of Revival styles including Tudor, Spanish Eclectic, and Colonial Revival. While related to these houses by scale and setting, 619 Guinda is distinguished from them by an absence of conventional architectural style. Features of the house that were echoed in later residences by Clark include the emphasis on outdoor settings - in this case by incorporation of two ample verandas on the second floor; the relaxed understated quality of the overall composition both interior and exterior; and the use of materials that became signatures of the Early California style: low pitched roof lines over ,stucco walls, with wrought iron decorative accents. Birge Clark, Palo Alto’s Preeminent Architect Birge Clark’s career is surmnarized in Palo Alto: A Centennial 11istory: The first Spanish Colonial Revival house in Palo Alto, designed by Santa Barbara architect George Washington Smith, was built in 1924 at 1336 Cowper Street...(s)oon afterward, a home-gown architect, Birge Clark, emerged as the foremost exponent of this style, which he called Early California. Indeed, Birge Clark’s work over half a century on both local homes and commercial buildings established him, more fllan anyone else, as the .chief architect and shaper of the community. The son of Arthur B. Clark, Stanford professor of art and arclfitecture and Mayfield’s first "mayor," Birge Clark as.~isted his father as "clerk of the works" for the l.ou Henry Hoover house on the Stanford campus. Former President Herbert Hoover gave the home to Stanford after his wife’s death for use as the university president’s residence. Clark, fl~e only architect with an office on Palo Alto between 1922 and 1930, went on to design a total of 98 Palo Alto residences, including all of the homes on Coleridge Avenue between Cowper and Webster streets, and 39 Stanford campus homes... Architect Clark also had a hand in designing a highly distinctive business block in downtown Palo Alto: "Ramona Street between University and Hamilton. With genre archways, wrought iron work, tile roofs of varying heights, and courtyards, this block showcases the Spanish and Early C’,difornia styles...[t]he tariffed aspect of fl~e 5001 "~mona Street block was recognized by its designation in 1985 as a Historic Arclfitectural District on the National Register of Historic Places.2 Birge Clark’s Early Architectural Career Clark is generally acknowledged to have developed his "Early California" style by 1925, and the majority of the work of this prolific architect after 1925 hewed solidly to this style. His early work is. less known, but of interest due to its ability to reveal the development of his unique architectural vision~ Clark provided an inventory of residences he designed,among which are twenty-one Palo Alto houses, in addition to 619 Guinda, that were designed between 1922 and 1924. The list also includes five Stanford residences. .. To adequately evaluate 619 Guinda, some consideration of the other early Bh’ge Clark residca~ces was necessary. Therefore, this collection of residences was analyzed for degree of intactness and architectural slyle. The following table sutmnarizes staff’s analysis: Address 505/507 Addison 370 Channing 470 Coleridge 544 Coleridge 619 Cowper 590 Embarcadero 758 Everett 619 Guinda 331Lowell 556 Lowell 569 Lowell 640 Middlefidd 1400-1410-1420- 1430-1440 Middlefidd 1010 Waverley 1455 Webster 1525 Webster 1565 Webster Year Built 1922 1922 1923 1923 192l 1924 1923 1924 1920 1923 1924 1922 1924 1923 1921 1922 1921 Surveyed No; BD records show front and rear additions Yes Visited previously No; BD records show alterations No; BD records show alterations Ye.q Yes No; reported to be altered No No; repo.rted !o be altered Yes Yes Yes Yes N~; BD records show alterations 1711 Websler 1923 No; BD records show alterations Architectural Style Cottage Early California Tudor, 2 story Tudor, 2 story Signature chimney Tratmitional, 2 story Signature chimney Tudor Co,ages Cottage Early California Early Califomia Intactness Probably poor MuehMtere~ nondescript Altered by garage/ additions Carport addition lessens integrity Good Good Unsightly rear addition, 2 sto~j Varies, mostly altered Good Poor; sastddoor alterations Good The residences visited by statT indicate that Clark worked in a variety of revival styles, designing Tudor=and Medieval-inspired cottages and residences, interspersed with more Spanish appearing designas. Among the group of residences considered, the earhest ver.s~on of the "~ly California" style consisted of Clark’s own residence at 1525 Webster, designed in 1921. While apparently waiting for this style to gain acceptance, he continued to design in revival idioms that were popular in the 1920s. Among the residen.ces visited by staffin forming an impression of Clark’s early work, 619 Guinda stood out for its intactness, and its unique design that contains both the Tudor Revival idiom, overlaid with the Early California style. As such, it is best understood as a lransitional structure that signaled the focus of Clark’s mature work. Criteria for Historic l)esignation: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 619 Guinda satisfies the following criterions. - Criterion 2, as it is associated with the life of an architect - Birge Clark - who made a significant contribution to Palo Alto’s architectural image through the length of his career and his development of the ’~arly California" style in numerous Palo Alto residences, civic and commercial structures. - Criterion 4, as the design of this residence represents the early work of a master architect and contains his unique architectural vision while employing period architectural themes which in setting and scale are characteristic of residences of the 1920s. As such, the residence is a unique transitional structure and significantly augments Clark’s legacy. Categorization: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 619 Guinda best fits the category of LANDMARK HISTORIC RESIDENCE. Staff concluded that the residence is a locally significant representation of the early architectural development of renowned architect Birge Clark. The residence shows Clark’s work as he developed elements of the style he later titled " --’t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t?~ly C’,difornia;" Clark’s influence on Palo Alto’s development and architectural image were rooted in the development of this style. COURTESY COPY: Owner: Geoffrey Etnirc, 619 Guinda, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Prepared By:Barbara Judy Reviewed By: 1. Pl~s by Birge Clark of fl~e Residence for Mrs. Andrew Field; Exterior Elevatio~s, Footit~gs arid Floor Plans, 1924. 2. Palo Alto: A Centennial History, Palo Alto Histofie~d Assoeialion, 1993, pp. 110-112. a. County g~nta Clara : ~1/4 of .___.1/4 Of See ~; city P~Ic~ Alto mE/ *P3~.De~rlptlon: (Describe resourc~ anti its major elements. Inclucle cleslgn, malerlals, condition, alterations, size, setting, and bounclarles.) This is a unusual two-story residence that contains Tudor stylistic references, although its overall architectural effect is more accurately described as unique rather than as a generic application of the Tudor style. The residence was designed by Birge Clark for Mrs. Andrew Field. The stucco clad two story masses are arranged in cross-gabled wings, with a re- cessed arched entry vestibule at front right. Projecting eaves are simply detailed with fascia boards. Patios top single- story wings at front left and rear left which are separated by a narrow gable-ended bay and stucco clad chimney with stepped and curved front shoulder and projecting belt course at top. Openings consist of double hung sash with divided six-over-six upper and lower lites. Select windows at second story gable ends are elegant, round headed versions of the standard units, echoing the arched front entry. The front door is a plank style solid wood door with period hardware. Al- terations include installation of asphalt shingle roofing; removal of two front windows and wrought iron balconets, con- verdng the openings into doors; removal of original shutters at the south and west facade second story windows through- out the residence; and removal of the wrought iron entry gate at the recessed entry vestibule. Guinda Street is character- ized by intact, substantial houses in a variety of Revival styles including Tudor, Spanish Eclectic, and Colonial Revival. While related to these houses by scale and setting, 619 Guinda is distinguished from them by an absence of conventional architectural style. (see Continuation Shee0 *P3b. Re~ourcel ~Mldbutel: (List ~ltributes ~ COdeS) ¯ *P4. Relour¢~l Pmlmnt: I~ Bullaln~l [] ~lructum "7/ HP2. Single Family Pro.t~l’t-y [] Object [] Site [] D~tltct I"1Elemenl of District I-I O~ber (Isolates, elc.) P5b. Description o1’ Pt~oto: (View, Oale, etc.) 61 inda front facade Date Constructed/Age and Soume~: [] PrehLstorr~ ~ HIstodc [] Both *PT. Ownerand Address: Etnire Geoffrey_ Palo Alto CA 94301 *PB. Recorded by: (Name, alfill~ion, aCldress) Cat____herine Watts Barbara A. Jud Preservation Architect San Francisco CA *~. Date ~orded: 02/27/97 *P10. Suntey Type:(Describe) lnten.~ive ¯ Pll. Report ~tatlon: (C~te suntey report/other sources or "none’)None *Alta~hments:[] NONE I~} Location Map 13 ~otogra~ Reco~I"10(~r:. [] .~atch Map I~ Conttnuallon ~t , I~ Bulklln0, Structure ~nd Cl~ecl Record[] Unear Fealu~e Recorcl [] Mllitng b~,allorl Record [] Rock Art Record [] A,-tlfacl Record DPR 523A (1/95)"Required Inlormallon :! 619 Guinda is associated with the life of architect Birge Clark who made a significant contribution to Palo Alto’s architectural image through the length of his career and his development of the "Early California" style in numerous Palo Alto residences, civic and commercial structures. Clark opened his own office in his residence at 600 Embarcadero Road, after working with his father before becoming certified in 1921. Having the only architect’s office in Palo Alto at the time, much of his early work there consisted of "modest small houses for owners of limited means who had to put size ahead of any architectural pretentions." 619 Guinda was "a very economical house designed for ownerA.J. Field, who six years later had Clark build a much more ¯ pretentious house at 557 East Crescent." Although it wa~ probably the fifteenth home designed by Clark -in Palo Alto, 619 Guinda was one of the first to show signs of the emerging "Early California" style, which became firrrdy established in his work by 1927. The design of this residence represents the early work of this master architect and contains his unique architectural vision while employing period architectural themes which in setting and scale are characteristic of residences of the 1920s. As such, the residence is a unique transitional structure and significantly augments Clark’s legacy. B11. *B12. *B14. Palo Alto Dept. of Building & Safety, original permit Sanborn Insurance Co. Maps, 1924 (updated 1962) Palo Alto Times 2/28/24 Residences in Palo Alto and Stanford Designed by the Office of Birge M. Clark. t~,~.~:. Barbara A. Judy . tm~ orev,~,~on: 03/12/97 Page 2 of ~ *Resource Name or # (Assigned I~/re=r0ar) 61 c) C, uinda ¯ Recorded. blf,, Catherine Watt~,,,"Date 03/03/97 El Continuation- ID Update Features of the house that were echoed in later residences by .Clark include the emphasis on outdoor settings - in this case by incorporation of two ample verandas on the secbnd floor; the relaxed understated quality.of the overall composition both. interior and exterior; and the use of materials that became signatures of the Early Cali- fornia style: low pitched roof lines over stucco walls, with wrought iron decorative accents. DP~ $~’~ - (Z,~P~} .....~Requ~r~ information ~,Application for Historic Review o/~//6~.~,t,~.,.C~,,- o[ P~lo Alto ~~P~loAlto, CA 94701. Dc.partm~-r~t o[ Planning & C.ommunity ~,n,’ironmm~t, 250 t’]~mil t~n T~I~ 14151 529-2441 Applicant Interim Regulations for Residential Buildings: Historic Merit Screening Historic Merit Evaluation Historic Landmark Alteration Review Compatibility Review Compatibility Standards Exception Historic Property Survey Property Location Address of Subject Property ¯ Zone District Other Historic Review: ~ Non-residential Historic Review Downtown Cor~tributing Residential Voluntary Review Non-residential Historic Designation or Re-designation Mills Act Contract Feeis): $. [ Job.Ledger #’.: i :::::’L " Assessor’s Parcel Number"Historic Category(if applicable) ~1 Req, uested Action Description of requested action: (~) Applicant, Name: ... Address: City: 0 Property Owner The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken. Phone: State: Zip: NOTE: The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted ~ mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken. Address: ~/, ~ ~...~.~.,,. ~’ ~,,,.~..,,~ Ph°ne" State: ~"~ Zip: I hereby certify that I am the owner of record of the property described in Box #2 above and that I approve of the requested action herein. If, this application(s) is subject tO 100% recovery of planning costs, I understand that charges for staff time spent processing this application(s) will be based on the Policy and Procedures document provided to me. I understand that my initial deposit is an estimate of these charges and not a fee, and I agree to abide by the billing policy stated. Signature of Owner: ATTACHMENT G Information Regarding the Interim Historic Ordinance APPLICA~ON FOR HISTORIC MERIT SCREENING & EVALUATION What is the Interim Historic.Ordinance? The Interim Historic Ordinance affects all residences built before 1940, regardless of condition or presence of alterations. If the homeowner decides to carry out alterations to the exterior of the residence that require a building permit, then the provisions of the Interim Historic Ordinance are invoked. Projects are exempt from review under the Interim Historic Ordinance is they are limited to repairs such as replacing deteriorated features, or re-roofing. Ira residence is already a Category 1 or 2 historic structure, or is located within a historic district, Historic Merit Screening and Evaluation is not required. Design Review will be carded out as described under "Landmark Historic Residences" below. What do I need to do first? What effect does a residence’s historic status have on a proposed alteration or demolition? In order to review a proposed alteration or demolition, the HISTORIC STATUS of the residence has to be established - this is the purpose of Historic Merit Screening and Evaluation. Application materials are available during regular business hours at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor. There are three designations of Historic Status, and each historic designation has a design review process that follows after designation. They are: STRUCTURE WITHOUT HISTORIC MERIT - No design review occurs after t~s designation is made. Zoning and residential code requirements apply, but further review under the Interim Historic Ordinance is not required. CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE - This means that the residence contributes to the period quality and integrity of the neighborhood, but may not be exceptional. Design.Review that occurs ~ this designation is made consists of evaluation by staff for compliance with the Compatibility Review Standards. The Compatibility Review Standards apply only when the project will alter a street-facing facade, or will demolish 50% or more of the exterior perimeter walls. Refer to the document titled "Compatibility Review Standards. "’ LANDMARK HISTORIC RESIDENCE - This means that the residence is exceptional in it architectural and/or cultural merit. Demolition is prohibited except under extreme circumstances. Design Review that occurs after this designation is made consists of review by staff and the Historic Resources Board for compliance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (these are National Standards for preservation.) Refer to the document titled "The Secretary of the lnterior’s Standards for Rehabilitation." When will my neighbors find out about my plans? What happens at the Historic Resources Board meeting? How long does this take? How will the staff and the Historic Resources Board make their decision? Mailing labels are used to notify your neighbors of the public hearing in which the historic status of the residence is evaluated by the Historic Resources Board. Future plans for alteration of the property are not a consideration at this hearing. This Public Hearing is an opportunity for you and the public to address the Historic Resources Board. The only subject considered by the board is the historic merit of the existing residence; therefore future plans for alteration should not be discussed. Meetings occur on Wednesday mornings. On the Friday before the meeting a fmal Staff Report will be available at the Planning Department. The homeowner and applicant receive a copy of this report in the mail. The public hearing before the Historic Resources Board is your opportunity to convey to the board information that is pertinent to full evaluation of the historic significance of the residence. You or other members of the public may wish to comment or take issue with the Staff Report findings and augment the information provided in the report. Once the completed Application for Historic Merit Screening and Evaluation is completed, it takes about four to five weeks to bring the residence to the Historic Resources Board for a hearing. During this period, the preservation architect and technical assistant will visit the property to take photographs and notes regarding exterior features. Usually this can be done from the front sidewalk, however, if heavy vegetation or fencing inhibits access to your property, please note this on your application along with information on how to arrange access. Following the HRB meeting and a vote by the board on Historic Merit, the Designee of the Director Planning and Community Environment will issue a formal statement regarding the Historic Status of the residence. A ten day appeal period follows issuance of this decision. Refer to the "Standards for Historic Designation," available at the Planning Division. How can Iget early You may make an appointment with Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect review ofmy design? for the Interim Historic Program, by calling 617-3193. Information Regarding the Interim Historic Ordinance APPLICATION OF THE NATIONAL STANDARDS When will I know whether my project has to comply with National Standards? The Standards don’t look like an ordinary code - how are they applied? If your residence is currently designated a Category 1 or 2 structure, or has been designated a Landmark Historic Residence as a result of Historic Merit Evaluation, or if the residence is within a historic district, then your proposed alterations must comply with National Standards. The Standards consist of advice and recommendations that are intended to guide a wide variety of projects. They are therefore general in tone, with the intent of providing a philosophical framework for rehabilitation projects. Designation as a Landmark means that your rehabilitation design will be evaluated for compliance with the Secretary of the lnterior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The Standards are intended to foster sensitive rehabilitations, in which technical and programmatic needs are developed in balance with preservation goals. Review for compliance with the Standards generally proceeds in three steps: 1 - Make an historic evaluation and inventory of the character-defming features of the existing building. Staff.can assist you in this process, however, the Inventory Form for your residence will contain a statement of architectural features that is a good starting point for this step. Be aware that other information about your residence may be available at the City, in the form of permit histories and other sources. Ask staff for assistance in finding materials that may help you reach a full understanding of your residence. 2 - Develop a design that incorporates your improvement goals in balance with preserving and enhancing the existing character-defining features of the residence. Where new features are introduced, design them to blend well and be compatible with existing features. If the design includes adverse impacts on chamcter-defiuing features, consider introducing mitigations to the project, such as restorations that are achievable within your budget, and enhance the integrity of the residence and your enjoyment in living there. Regardless of any mitigations proposed, however, the cumulative effect of the proposed rehabilitation must preserve the essential features, identity and integrity of the historic State Historical . Building Code Definition of terms 3 - Present your design to staff and the Historic Resources Board by describing the character-defining features of the existing historic structure, acknowledging how these features have influenced your design. It is also important to acknowledge adverse impacts arising from your design, and steps you have taken to mitigate the adverse impacts. The response from the Historic Resources Board may include direction on ways to develop the design so that the favorable outcomes are enhanced and the adverse impacts are minimiT~dl Remember that as a qualified historic structure, use of the State Historical Building Code is an option for your project. This code offers alternative means of complying with life safety, structural, energy consumption, and other features of the modem code, where alternative means ensure preservation of historic fabric and are accepted by the Building Official. The following terms have specific meaning in preservation reviews, and are defined below. Character defining Very Significant Significant Contributing Non-contributing Restoration Rehabilitation Renovation Cumulative Effect Mitigating Measures these are the distinguishing features, assemblies, components and features materials that pertain to a given structure and express its historic qualifies. Features can be ranked for historic significance, as follows: The space or components are central to the structure’s historic character. The space or components are associated with the qualities that make the structure historic; they make a major contribution to the character of the building. The space or components may not be extraordinarfl." y importantas isolated elements, but contain sufficient historic character to play a role in the overall significance of the structure. The space or components are not historic, or have been so altered that little or no character remains. The process of accurately recovering, by the removal of later work and the replacement of missing earlier work, the form and details of a structure, together with its setting, as it appeared at a particular period of time. Involves equipping the building or facility for an extended useful life with a minimum alteration of original construction or the process of returning a structure to a state of usefulness by repairs or alterations. The process of making sound again any structure by cleanup, repair and replacement of deteriorated detail or structure. This entails an assessment of the degree of intactness of the character- defining features at the outset of a project, compared to the proposed final level of intactness. These are measures, such as Restorations, available to a project that may balance loss of character-defining features caused by proposed alterations. Information Regarding the Interim Historic Ordinance APPLICATION OF THE COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS When will I know The Compatibility Review Standards apply to all houses designated whether myproject Contributing Residences under the Interim Historic Program, where has to comply with the alterations meet the following thresholds: Compatibility Review Standards? ¯The proposal is to demolish and replace the existing residence ¯The proposed alterations affect any portion of a street-facing facade ¯ The proposed alterations will result in demolition of 50% or more of the existing exterior perimeter walls. Please note that the definition of "demolition" is cutting wall studs. Therefore, structural strengthening of aresidenee, as well as unanticipated demolition during construction, may add to the extent of impacts on exterior perimeter walls beyond what is apparent from review of the architectural plans. If your proposed alterations are close to affecting 50% of the exterior perimeter walls before the start of construction, the most prudent course is to submit the project forCompatibility Review. What do I need to do first? Evaluate your proposed alterations to determine whether Compatibility Review is required. If desired, you may make an appointment for consultation with Barbara Judy by calling 617-3193. Application materials are available during regular business hours at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor. How do I know which requirements apply to my project? Any one of the requirements may contain elements that apply your project However, some requirements will have more effect on replacement residences, while others will more strongly influence remodels. REPLACEMENT RESIDENCE - Key considerations for replacement residences that we strongly recommend be investigated at the outset of the design process are as follows. ¯ Establish the prevailing setback for your block using the formula provided in the Compatibility Review Standards. ¯ Establish a garage location that complies with the one of the strategies allowed under the Compatibility Review Standards. ¯ If you intend to adopt a traditional architectural style, identify the style from the menu provided in the Compatibility Review Standards. Familiarize yourself with the range of characteristics of that-style, including massing and architectural detail. Who carries out the review? REMODELED RESIDENCE - Remodeling projects are more likely to retain the existing front setback and garage placement pattern, which are allowed as existing conditions. Therefore, a key consideration for remodeling residences that we strongly recommend be investigated at the outset of the design process includes identifying the character-defining architectural features of the existing building and determining how they will be extended to any new additions to the residence. The Compatibility Review is carried out by staff, and does not return to the Historic Resources Board for comment. What is the basis for exceptions to the Compatibility Review Standards? What is the relationship between Compatibility Review and the HIE and Variance processes? Exceptions to the Standards may be granted when they better achieve neighborhood compatibility and design quality than would strict application of the Compatibility Review Standards. An exception must be applied for. If you apply for an exception, a hearing with the Director or the designee of the Director of Planning a~d Community Environment will be scheduled. Neighborhoods within Palo Alto vary considerably in character, and individual streets may even have unique features that warrant a design response. During the hearing, you will have an opportunity to describe unique features of your site or neighborhood and their role in achieving design quality and neighborhood compatibility in your design. Compliance with the Compatibility Review Standards precedes reaching closure on any requests for relief from the City’ R-1 Zoning Ordinances, such as the HIE process. Please refer to "Applying for a Home Improvement Exception" and "Applying for A Variance,,’ available at the Planning Division, for more information about these processes. Note that HIE’s are only available to remodelers, not new residences. Refer to the definition of remodel in "Applying for a Home Improvement Exception." The Compatibility Review Standards are regulations,, and compliance with them is mandatory. Therefore, when Compatibility Review and an HIE or variance are initiated at the same time, the Compatibility Review will be brought to closure first, before processing of the HIE or variance application is undertaken. Interim Regulations. for Protected Structures (Residential Buildings Constructed Before 1940) *For Information Only, or *Prior to Building Permit, or *Prior to Demolition Permit File Historic Merit Scree and Evaluation Application I (If not already 2! the Historic Inventory) Staff conducts Historic Merit Screening to determine if structure may have merit YES (If not already Category I or II, or in an Historic District) HRB Conducts Historic Merit Evaluation: Does the structure have historic merit? 1 YES Land "mlark Structure File Historic Landmark Alteration Review Application Is the Decision Appealed? YES * HRB evaluates all alteration projects for mandatory compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards ¯ * Demolition is not allowed except under extreme circumstances NO ContribUting Structure File Compatibility Review Application * If <50% remodel and no removal of front facade, then no design review * If>50% remodel, removal of part of from facade, or demolition, then staff evaluates replacement structure for mandatory compliance with , Compatibility Review Standards For Replacement Houses Alteratic a/ Demolition Premit Granted HISTORIC MERIT SCREENING AND EVALUATION/COMPATIBILITY REVIEW TENTATI~ APPLICATION SCHEDULE March 1997 through June 1997 Informal consultation with staff prior to submittal of designs for Compatibility Review is strongly encouraged. APPLICATION PERIOD Plan Check/Department Routing Staff Reconnaissance Survey Hearing Notice Mailed Public Hearing with HRB (Report Available Friday before) Notification of Director’s Decision Appeal Period Expires (Historic Status Final) Initial review Compatibility Review Standards Resubmittal and Completion of Design Review: as initiated by Homeowner. 2/27 thru 3/12 Within 14 days 4/2 41i 1 4/16 4/18 4/28 within 4 Weeks Within I0 days 3/13 thru 3/26 within 14 days 4/17 4/25 4/30 5/2 5/12 within 4 Weeks Within 10 days 3/27 thru 4/16 Within 14 days 4/24 5/2 5/7 5/9 5/19 Within 4 Weeks within 10 days 4/17 thru 4/30 Within 14 days 5/8 5/16 5/21 5/23 6/2 Within 4 Weeks Within 10 days 5/1 thru 5/16 Within 14 days 5/22 5/30 6/4 6/6 6/16 Within 4 Weeks Within 10 days 5/17 thru 5/30 Within 14 days 6/5 6/13 6/18 6/20 6/30 Within 4 Weeks Within 10 days 5/31 thru 6/19 Within 14 days 6/19 6/27 7/2 7/7 7/17 Within 4 Weeks Within 10 days 6/20 thru 7/3 Within 14 days 7/3 7/11 7/16 7/18 7/28 Within 4 Weeks Within 10 days City of P,do Aho 250 Hamilton A.e, Palo ARo, CA 94301. Tel: (415) 329-2441 Interim Regulations for Residential Buildings: r-’-I . Historic Merit Screening Histodc Merit Evaluation Historic Landmark Alteration Review Compatibility .Review Compatibility Standards Exception Historic Property Survey Other Historic Review: Non-residential Historic Review Downtown Contributing Residential Review Voluntary Review Non-residential Historic Designation or Re-designation Mills Act Contract Proper-by Local;ion Address of Subject Property ¯ Zone Distdct : Description of requested action: Assessor’s Parcel Number :Historic Category(if applicable) : IO Applicant, Name: Address: City: NOTE:The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted . mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken. State:, Zip: Phone: I0 Proper-by Owner Name: NOTE:The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken~ Address:Phone: City:State:Zip: I hereby certify that Iam the owner of record of the property described in Box #2 above and that I approve of the requested action herein. If this application(s) is subject to 100% recovery of planning costs, I understand that charges for staff time spent processing this application(s) will be based on the Policy and Procedures document provided to me. I understand that my initial deposit is an estimate of these charges and not afee, and I agree to abide by the billing policy stated. ¯Signature of Owner:Date: CHECKLIST Interim Regulations for Residential Buildings Submittal Package for Historic Screening and Merit Evaluation Required Documentation Application Form Items 1-5 completed Owner’s Signature $100 fee lVIailing labels Mailing labels for all property owners within 300 feet of the perimeter of the site. (The City of Palo Alto will supply the labels and the information of the labels may be obtained at the Planning Department. Preparation of the labels will require approximately 2 hours). Colored Photos (6 x 4 inches): all sides of the house all sides of any other structures on the site overall views showing entire site Floor Plan: plans should be drawn to scale. Single line diagrams are acceptable, provided door and window openings are indicated. Scale is optional; 118" or 1/4" should be sufficient. Site Plan: pla~ should be drawn to scale. Scale is optional; 1:20 should be sufficient. Reports: any current or past engineering reports or assessments of the condition of the property. Optional Documentation Historical research of an old building generally includes written, visual, and oral resources. ¯ Written resources usually include letters, legal transactions, account books, insurance policies, institutional papers, and diaries. ¯Visual resources consist of drawings, maps, plats, paintings, and photographs. ¯Oral resources are people’s remembrances of the past: o While the Required Documentation listed above includes the key information needed to carry out the Historic Merit Screening, we encourage submittal of the following supplemental material, when available, to aid in the evaluation. Original or earlier plans of the building (xeroxes are welcome). Existing photographs (xeroxes are welcome). Information on how long the applicant has lived at the house. Names and dates of residence for previous owners. Names of the original architect and builder. Oral histories of the building residents, or events at the site. Anecdotes that previous owners may have told about the property. Any other information abou~ the property or its inhabitants that you would like to share. If there are any questions regarding submittal requirements, please contact city staff. CHECKLIST Interim Regulations for CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCES Submittal Package for Design Review Required Documentation Appl.ication Form Items 1-5 completed Owner’s Signature Fee $300 Initial Deposit (Balance to be billed or refunded bases on 100% of City’s cost to complete the review. R-1 Plancheck Form ~ If additional square footag~ is being added, provide the following project data, submit the T-I Plancheck Form. Compatibility Worksheet ~ Completed Comparability Worksheet, assessing the character of the neighborhood and showing how the alterations or replacement house meet the requirements of " the Compatibility Review Standards. Photographic Display (all photographs should be 4x6 inches.) Provide mounted photographs on cardboard sheets 8-1/2 x 14 inches with property address on all sheets; or provide unmounted photos with property address on back of each photograph. Photo montage of the block, both sides of the street. Photographs showing all sides of the original house, garage, and any other structures on the site. ~Photographs of architectural details on the original house and other buildings, as required to support the new design. Plans (bound and folded to8-1/2 x 11 if possible.) Note: all plans must distinguish clearly between new and existing features. Information must be consistent on all sheets. Plans should be no longer that 24" x 36". Consult with Planning Division staff about submitting half size plans. Two (2) sets for Planning Division review. INTERIM REGULATIONS FOR CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCES- DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST Neighborhood Context Aerial Photograph of the site and adjacent properties (available from the Planning Department) Alternatively, a tracing of the block as it appears in the City’s Sanborn Map, showing both sides of street, lot lines and footprint of structures on site will be accepted. (Sanborn Map is at Building Division.) Site Plan: Show Existing conditions and proposed changes Scale North Arrow Dimensioned property lines Any underlying lot lines Footprint of all buildings and structures on the site Surface parking area, driveways, paths and sidewalks. Zoning setback lines Site contours Schematic Lafidseaping, including tre~s to be removed and trees to be retained. Identify all oak trees as required by the City’s Tree Ordinance. Light fixtures, fences, garden structure Improvements in the public right-of-way, including streets, curbs, sidewalks, street trees Any easements or encumbrances across the property Creeks or waterways on or adjacent to the property Building Elevations: show existing conditions to remain and proposed changes Elevations of all :side of all buildings Height limits and daylight plane restrictions All windows, doors, eaves, skylights, chimneys, rain water leaders, roof equipment and screens, and other appurtenances on the building exterior Type, finish, and material of all surfaces, including window materials All exterior lighting on the building Floor Plans: submit sufficient floor plans t6 indicate how the interior of the building affects the exterior design, particularly window and door placement, space usage, stairs, etc. Dimensioned floor plans showing how floor area was calculated. E.Roof Plans Detailing: sufficient to describe the character and quali~, of proposed construction and required relief at openings on the facade. Minimum submittal includes a window detail showing required relief at opening. ~ If there are any questions regarding submittal requirements, please contact city staff. INTERIM REGULATIONS FOR CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCES - DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST ATTACHMENT H BARBARA A. JUDY PRESERVATION ARCHITECT 60 DEARBORN ST. No. 6 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 (415) 861-7815 / (fax) 571-9502 Email: bajudy @ sirius.tom January 30,1997 Ms. Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE:Proposal for Additional Services Historic Structure Report- Site of the Juana Briones House Dear Ms. Lytle: Thank you for the opportunity to assist the City of Palo Alto in carrying out an Historic Structure Report for the Site-of the Juana Briones House, at 4155 Old Adobe Road. The Historic Structure Report is an ANSI Standard document that provides for adequate historic discovery and interpretation of historic sites and structures, in preparation for complex rehabilitation projects. Project Description & Approach The site of the Juana Briones House has both local and state historicstatus. Several structures exist on the site, including a single family residence reported locally to include portions of the original Briones ranch house. This privately-owned residence may be subject to proposed rehabilitation and extensive alteration in the future. The City needs a sound basis of historic infomaation about the residence to carry out r6views mandated by the local Preservation Ordinance and the California Environmental Quality Act. Due to the length of settlement on the site (from the 1830s), the variety of occupants of the site, and the .degree of change that may have occurred to structures on the site, authentication of the origins of the structures will be required to provide an appropriate basis for assigning historic merit. The importance of authentication of the structures was recently confirmed by Steade Craigo of the State Office of Historic Preservation, who visited the site and provided notes regarding his observations. The focus of our work will be-the reported Juana Briones House, with information regarding other structures on the site provided as available. The Historic Structure Report will include the following topics: ¯Background and History of the Site and Structure(s)¯Exterior Description and Condition Evaluation of the Juana Briones House¯Interior Description and Condition Evaluation of the Juana Briones House¯Recon’unendations for Preservation of the Site and the juana Briones House Due to the importance of authentication in reaching conclusions regarding the Juana Briones House, our report will include the services of Christina Lee Wallace, an experienced Architectural Conservator. Ms. Wallace will personally inspect the interior and exterior premises for indications of likely age, condition and past alteration. Her evaluation will include testing of Proposal for Additional Services: Historic Structure Report Page 2 of 2 January 30, 1997 select stucco, plaster and wood components of the house for composition. Ms. Wallace’s resume is enclosed; her hourly rate is $60/hour. Due to the length of settlement on the site, our report will include the results of an archival search of the Northwest Information Center. This state- supported archive will provide an experienced researcher who will focus on likely archeological resources on the site. The hourly rate of $90/hour for this service is set by the State of’California. Schedule We will undertake work in~ediately upon receiving the City’s written acceptance of this proposal. A draft Historic Structure Report will be available two months from the date of beginning work Following completion of a review period (duration specified by the City) we propose to complete the final report in three wee’ks. Fees and Contract Modification: Contract No. C7093610 The fee for carryout an Historic Structure Report for the Site of the Juana Briones House is $9,992. This includes professional time and laboratory services as described on the attached Fee Worksheet. We propose that the ¯ costs of printing the draft and final versions of the report be done under the City’s in-house service. We also propose that the cost of photographic work be done under the Planning Division’s exisUng locai account. This Additional Service will cause us to exceed our .contract maximum of $200,000 over the period of the contract. The Additional Service will also cause us to exceed our $75,000 maximum allowable billing up to June 30, 1997.. Therefore, in compliance with the terms of our contract, modification and increase of the original contract limits by $9,992 will be required. Very truly yours, Consultant to the City of Palo Al.to hzterim Historic Progra~n Enclosures: Fee Wor "ksheet, Christina Lee Wallace Resume, Site Notes by Steade Craigo FEE WORKSHEET ADD’L SCOPE: HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT FOR THE SITE OF THE JUANA BRIONES HOUSE Barbara A. Judy Preservation Architect City of Palo Alto Contract No. C7093610 January 27,1997 Senior Comer- Tech Resear Staff Archt vator Asst cher TOTAL ]Billing Rate Part I - Background Research history of site and structures - Palo Alto History Collection - Palo Alto City Records - Santa Clara County archives - NW Infom’tation Center archive search - Women’s Heritage Museum records Compile and Describe Site History Compile and Describe Chronology of Construction Compile and Describe Public Review Process $ 80 $ 60 $ 36 $ 90 7 0 38 4 1 1 1 1 1 6 4 4 4 12 8 4 Part 2 - Exterior Evaluation Field Survey Exterior Retrieve/analyze samples: wood stucco Assemble photographic views of exterior Complete written description of exterior, incl. condition & deterioration 2 9 16 1 4 4 4 4 8 6 4 13 1 2 8 1 2 1 1 2 Part 3 - Interior Evaluation Field Survey Interior Retrieve/analyze samples: wood plaster Assemble photographic views of interior Compile room-by-r.oom description incl. condition & deterioration 4 2 10 Part 4 - Recommendations; Bldgs & Site Provide General RecomnVendations Provide Exterior Recon’anendations Provide Interior Recommendations 15 4 .1 6 2 8 2 Part 5 - Assembly/Issuance of Report Assemble Draft Report and Issue to City Incorporate conm’~ents on draft Assemble final Report and Issue to City 8 0 40 2 20 4 2 20 Hrs Cost 49 $- 2,288 7 $296 5 $224 5 $224 5 $44O 5 $224 12 $432 s $288 2 $160 31 $1,896 5 $320 4 $240 10 $536 12 $ 800 23 $ 1;188 11 $488 .4 $236 3 $152 16 $ 800 19 $ 1,440 1 $ 80 8 $ 600 10 $ ~60 48 $ 2,080 22 $ 880 4 $ 320 22 $ 880 Subtotal of Hours and Fees 45 Direct Costs: -Wood Sample Lab Analysis @ $50/unit (6 units) -Stucco & plaster Lab Analysis @ $.200/unit (4 units) 24 97 4 170 $8,892 $300 $80O TOTAL COST $ 9,992 ,TI:~. ~1. 1997 ?: E>4AM OFF. HIST. PRES.MO. T79 P. I,% M MOTOT . Jammry 18, 1997 Post-It~ brand fax transmittal memo 7671 Subject:Site Visit to the Juana Brion~s property, Palo Alto, January 17, 1997 At the request of Barbara ~udy of the City, I met with her and Mr, Jiam Nulman, an interested buy=r of the property, and his architect, M.r, Mart~n B~, After a b.rieftour of~e structure and with little opportunity to do physical examination, I did not observe architectural elements of the 19"~ centm-y. -The existing building appears to be pfinoipally the 1908 building, the construction of Mr. C. P, Nott, The so-calbd "I 850 adobe" is non-extant., Mrs. Dorothy Regn~ry was correct in saying that the "adobe" is not constructed of adobe, nor is k ~r rammed eartli strucaum as proposed by Some, (Her wel!-d0ne ~search is in the office file.) The "adobe" portion of the stzu~um is contr.; possibly constructed around an internal wood f:rame. The construction methodology may have been somewhat similar to ~h~t of rammed earth based on th~ horizontal cold joints of the west elccation of~he center block, bctwrcn the north and south wings, Vist~lly the concrete alypears to be ripicalof thats~ma~themmoftheccntury. Mostofthe stmomzc app~zs to be on concrU~ footings of similar date; the western po~on of the north wing foundation is of more recent construction. This w~g has b~m substantially A 1908 photograph taken during the NoR work at that lime Spears to show heavy timber ¯ :framing with earthen infi]l (nogging), sometimes tu~d for its insulating, quality, of anearlier structure. The former Neary-Rodrigues Adobe (Now the reconstructed Santa Cruz Mission neophyte homing structure.) had an interior partition with a similar Jnfill of adobe bricks My hypothesis is that the existing building is sub.ally the 1908 re, modding done by Mr. No,t, The exten~ of this work may Imw b~’n significantly ~ then thought, although documents ~1o ai~ear to indicam a substantial re-build and new construction a¢ that time. l;urther, the existence of a true adobe structure does not Seem credible based upon the physical evidsno~ and historic record. The 1908 structure appe,ars to be a mmautic~ed constmotion. An historic structures report, ~oposed by the City, could provide an answer to mystery of the "adobe" and its history, as well as assist with the r~habilitation of the building. The Regnery re~.aroh certainly seems to be well on th~ way to the answer, if no~ out right solvin~ the mystery of the missing adobe, St~a’~’~go ,’ .qr. Restoration Architect ,// Office of Historic Preservation co: Dan, Oene, Maryln, aud Barbara 3udy, Christina L. Wallace Architectural Conservator The Clocktower 461 Second Street, #222 San Francisco, California 94107 (415) 546-4060 Experience Carey & Company Inc., Architects San Francisco, Calffomia January .1992 to present Responsible for all aspects of conservation work, including material analysis, documentation, existing condition surveys, recommendations for repair, specifications, and construction administrationl Supervised all testing and analysis at in-house lab. Jan Hird Pokorny Architects and Planners February 1989 New York, New York to January 1992 Responsibilities included the preparation of construction drawings, specifications, condition surveys and recommendations for numerous historically significant structures in New York City. Central Park Conservancy New York, New York December 1987 to February 1989 Staff conservator responsible for conservation work on buildings, bridges, and monuments in Central Park, New York City. Center for Preservation Research June 1986 Columbia University, New York, New York to September 1986 Conservation Intern. Performed existing condition documentation and materials analysis of Trinity Church on Wall Street, New York City. Education ICOMOS/ICCROM International Course on Wood Conservation Technology Trondheim, Norway. 1990 Master of Science in Historic Preservation Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation Columbia University in the City of New York Area of Concentration: Architectural Conservation Thesis: Evolution of Reinforced Concrete Technology 1848-1918 1987 Bachelor of Arts, cum laude College of Architecture and Urban Planning University of Washington. Seattle, Washington Area of Concentration: Architecture, Architectural History 1985" Honors/ Scholarships Architecture in Rome University of Washington, Seattle, Washington " Six-month foreign study program in Rome, Italy Scholarship, Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation Columbia University in the City of New York 1981 1986-1987 Undergraduate Honors, College of Architecture and Urban Planning ¯ University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 1982-1985 Portfolio and References upon request. Christina L. Wallace Architectural Conservator List of Projects Carey & Company Inc., Architects San Francisco, Califomla January 1992 to present San l~rancisco City Hail, San Francisco, California Architectural Conservator for seismic upgrade and earthquake damage repair project. Conducted survey of existing conditions of all interior and exterior materials, prepared all conservation specifications. Job Captain for survey of condition of copper-clad lantern, dome, and granite tower. War Memorial Opera House, San Francisco, Califomia Architectural Conservator for seismic upgrade and earthquake damage repair project. Conducted survey of damage to interior omamental plaster, cast stone and decorative finishes in the Main House. Conducted survey of exterior terra cotta and granite. Prepared all conservation specifications. Spreckels Temple of Music, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California Architectural Conservator for seismic upgrade and earthquake damage repair project. Surveyed conditions of highly deteriorated sandstone and terra cotta exterior. Prepared all conservation specifications. Performed construction administration for repair of original materials. Dunsmuir House, Oakland, Callfomia Project Manager and Architectural Conservator for exterior restoration. Performed paint analysis of original colors. Performed construction administration throughout construction. Oakland City Hail, Oakland, California Architectural Conservator for seismic upgrade and earthquake damage repair project. Conducted survey of exterior granite and ornamental terra cotta. ,Performed material analysis on all significant interior materials. Prepared all conservation specifications. Performed construction administration for repair of original materials. Bank of San Francisco, San Francisco, Callfomia Project Manager and Architectural Conservator for cleaning and repainting of exterior limestone and granite. Performed paint analysis of original colors. Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, Califomla Architectural Conservator for seismic strengthening project. Prepared recommendations for testing concrete repair techniques on highly deteriorated bridge abutments. Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California Surveyed and prepared recommendations for 26 buildings and 30 monuments for inclusion in Master Plan for Golden Gate Park. Santa Clara County Courthouse, San Jose, Califomia Architectural Conservator for seismic upgrade and earthquake damage repair project. Conducted survey .of exterior stucco, cast iron, and cast stone. Prepared all conservation specifications. Preformed limited construction administration duties. Mills Hail, Mills College, Oakland, California Architectural Conservator for seismic upgrade and earthquake damage repair project. Prepared conservation specifications for original materials. Performed paint analysis of " original colors. Christina L. Wallace List of Projects Page Two ¯Santa Rosa Depot, Santa Rosa, Califomla Project Manager and Architectural Conservator for analysis of original paint colors and mortars. ¯Falkirk Mansion, San Rafael, California Project Manager and Architectural Conservator for analysis of original paint colors. Conducted exterior and interior condition surveys, prepared recommendations for repair for inclusion in Historic Structure Reports for each of the following buildings: ¯San Francisco City Hall ¯War Memorial Opera House ¯Civic Auditorium ¯Palace of Fine Arts ¯Broadway Building, Oakland, California Jan Hird Pokorny Architects and Planners New York New York February 1989 to Jarmary 1992 *Old Merchant’s House, New York City. Interior and exterior conditions survey for inclusion in Historic Structures Report. ¯Titanic Memorial Lighthouse, New York City Drawings and specifications for exterior restoration and reconstruction. Erle-Lackawanna Ferry and Rail Terminal, Hoboken, New Jersey Conditions survey of copper cladding for restoration and rehabilitation. Former Third District U.S. Lighthouse Depot, Staten Island, New York Drawings, conditions survey, and stabilization recommendations for seven historic structures. ¯Century Club, New York City Drawings and specifications for facade restoration. ¯Snug Harbor Cultural Center, Staten Island, New York Drawings and specifications for exterior restoration of 13 historic structures. The Firemen’s Memorial in Riverside Park, New York City Drawings for restoration of granite and limestone monument. Morris-Jumel Mansion, New York City Drawings and specifications for exterior restoration. Mills Mansion, Staatsburg, New York Drawings and conditions survey for marble terrace restoration. Church of the Incarnation, New York City Drawings and specifications for roof repairs. *St. Mark’s Church, Mr. Kisco, New York Restoration of Tiffany stained glass window, "the Resurrection." Christina L. Wallace List of Projects Page Three Central Park Conservancy New York, New York December 1987 to February 1989 Cast Iron Bridf~e #24, Central Park Drawings, specifications, and construction supervision of 1865 bridge restoration and reconstruction. Green Gap and Willowdell Arches, Central Park Documentation and preparation of restoration documents of two masonry arch bridges. Center for l~eservation Research Columbia University, New York, New York ¯Trinity Church, Wall Street, New York City Survey of masonry conditions and drawings for exterior restoration. June 1986 to September 1986 ATTACHMENT - Cityof PaloAlto Department ~f Plq. nning and Community Environment March 18, 1997 PlanningDivision Michael Campbell and Maria Zago 364 Kingsley Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Campbell and Ms. Zago: I have been asked to re.spond to your letter to Mayor Huber, dated February 27, 1997, in which you describe and complain about the Historic Merit Evaluation application for your property at 364 Kingsley Avenue. Unfortunately, as you have now been informed, your application should not have been accepted in the first place. I apologize for the inconvenience of the Merit Evaluation process, which was unnecessary in your circumstance. As you acknowledge in the conclusion of your letter, the Interim Historic Regulations (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.50, adoptedby Ordinance 4381) are new and temporary. The Interim Regulations were developed and adopted in October 1996, and staff continue to be in training regarding their applicability. At the same time, we are attempting to expeditiously process a much higher number of applications than we ever anticipated. Chapter 16.50 defines a Landmark residence as "any residential ’Significant Building’ as defined by Section 16.49.020." Section 16.49.020, which is a part of the City’s pre- existing Historic Preservation Ordinance, defines Significant Building as including "...all structures within historic districts." Your residence, which is located in the Professorville Historic District, is considered a "Landmark residence" .by definition. A Merit Evaluation is not required to reach this categorization. I imderstand that we have refunded your application fee and hope you will accept my apology for your wasted time and effort. Given that staff made an error in accepting and processing your application, your complaints regarding the process also deserve to be addressed, for the sake of other applicants who are subject to the same procedures. I am addressing your "Formal Complaints Concerning the Historic Resources Board’.’ in the order you presented them in your letter to Mayor Huber, dated February 27, 1997. 250HarniltonAvenue P.O. Box10250 Palo AIm, CA94303 415. 329. 2~41 415.329.2240 Fax 1. The HRB has taken it upon itself to designate every Professorville home a "Landmark" residence. I hope that the position of the HRB at your hearing of February 26, 1997 is now understandable. The City Council, in enacting Chapter 16.50, defined all structures in Professorville as "Landmark Residences". Board Members Willis and Mario were reflecting, in their comments at the hearing, the regulations that City Council adopted in the Interim Regulations, rather than attempting to establish a new Ci.ty policy. i.) "The HRB is not empowered to make City policy." You are correct that the I-HLB is not empowered to make policy for the City. They are a recommending body to City Council and the Director of Planning and Community Environment in matters of historic preservation. ii) "This Policy is devastating to those who bought under the old rules." By designating your residence as a "Landmark Residence" the Interim Regulations do not prevent or "effectively prohibit" you or any homeowner from creating a livable residence on a Professorville property. The National Standards for Rehabilitation were developed in recognition of the need to modernize and renovate historic properties. Many residences have been renovated under these Guidelines, including significant alterations and sizable additions. The National Standards were used by the HRB in advising homeowners about their plans under the pre-existing, Historic Preservation Ordinance. A significant change that has occurred under the Interim Regulations is that the review by the HRB, advisory to the Director, is now a binding review, appealable to the City Council. iii) "Pr0fessorville residents deserve equal treatment" During the duration of the Interim Regulations, unless modified by the City Council, all properties in this National Historic District, as well as all other Landmark designated residences, will be treated in the same manner under Chapter 16.50. Landmarks may not be demolished, except under the provisions of Sec.16.50.100, and alterations will be subject to the National Standards for Rehabilitation, as interpreted by the Historic Resources Board, advisory-to the Director of Planning, and appealable to the City Council. iv.) "Landmark" stature decreases the value of our property." You have assumed that major alterations will be "impossible" and "more costly under the layers of bureaucraey"imposedby the Interim Regulations. Staff believes that major alterations will be possible, and that the additional "bureaucracy~’ will be minimal above that which was already required of a Professorville r~sidence. In the past, a demolition moratorium under Sec. 16.49.0,70, was a near-certainty for any Professorville residence that was to be altered to the extent you have described in your plans. Remodeling plans for Professorville residences were reviewed by the HRB, however their decisions were advisory. In the past, many residences have been successfully remodeled and rehabilitated consistent with the National Standards, in Palo Alto and in other parts of the country, to the satisfaction of the homeowner. Unlike the Historic Merit Evaluation process, where the Condition and economics of rehabilitation are not considered in the evaluation criteria, these facts are germane to the Landmark Alteration process. The HRB will be utilizing the National Standards, including information about the costs of the project and your rights as a homeowner in making their decisions about the alteration you propose. v) "The Planning Department is not equipped to deal with Landmark Stature" You state in your letter that you were unable to get a copy of the National Standards and Guidelines from the Planning Department. By the time we met on on March 4, 1997, you had already received a copy from staff and were by then aware that the brochures are located and available for homeowners from both the public libraries and ~he Filth Floor of City Hall. You also state that there is only one Landmark in town. Please be aware that there are many structures in the community which qualify as "Landmark Residences" automatically under the Interim Regulations. These residences are listed as Categories 1 and 2 in the Historic Inventory. There are also some residences that will be discovered to be "landmark" through the Historic Evaluation process. The Planning Department, as indicated by the error made in processing your application, is on a "learning curve" in administering the Interim Regulations, and we appreciate both critical and constructive feedback from homeowners, like you, in order to improve our procedures and make them less burdensome. vi) "The idea is absurd." The issue you raise has already been decided by the City Council in adopting Chapter 16.50; however, these regulations are interim in nature. One of the advantages of interim regulations is that they allow for study of rules during their duration and prior to adoption of final regulations. The City Council will be evaluating the Interim Historic Program at an upcoming meeting, tentatively scheduled for April 7, 1997, and I would invite you to bring your opinions to this meeting. 2) "The HRB is abusing the criteria for categorization" As you now know, the Interim Regulations automatically classify your residence as a Landmark residence. I would agree with the three main points you put forward, however, that the size, context, and knowledge of history do not, in themselves, lead to a finding of "Landmark Residence". 3) "The HRB is unclear on the rules under which it is to operate" As you are now aware, it was staff, not Chairperson Willis, who made the error in processing your residence for Merit Evaluation. The staff error understandably caused some confusion among the ~ members. I have stated to you previously in person, and reinforced again in this correspondence, that I am genuinely sorry for the confusion and inconvenience. In this instance, we should have considered the circumstances more carefully prior to scheduling the application for hearing. The HRB should not be blamed for this administrative error, however. Finally, I understand and am glad to learn that you have already made an appointment with Barbara Judy for an informal preapplication consultation regarding your remodeling plans and staff recommendations regarding the National Standards for Rehabilitation. I hope that her expertise in historic preservation architecture is useful to you in preparing an application for Historic Alteration Review by the Historic Resources Board. In our conversation on March 14, 1997, you explained that your first course of action was to sp.eak to the City Council at their April 7, 1997 meeting in an attempt to have them modify the Interim Regulations so that you would be free to demolish your residence. Be aware that the pre-existing Historic Preservation Ordinance, which is still in effect, provides for up to a one year moratorium on demolition of any residence in Professorville. The purpose of that provision, enacted many years prior to the Interim Regulations, is to encourage the preservation and’rehabilitation of all structures in this National Historic District. We would encourage you to reconsider a residential design which meets the National Standards, and to submit those plans for HRB consideration. If we can help or advise you further, please don’t hesitate to call on us. Sincerely, Nancy Maddox Lyt. le Chief Planning Official CC.City Council Historic R~sources Board June.Fleming, City Manager Ariel Calonne, City Attorney Ken Schreiber, Director Of Planning and Community Environment Debbie Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney Barbara Judy, Historic Preservation Architect Lisa Grote,. Zoning Administrator ¯ City of Palo Alto Departrnent of Plqnning and Community Environment March 28,’1997 Ptanning Division Michael P. Campbell and Marina Zago 364 Kingsley Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE-"Meeting of March 19, 1997 Rehabilitation of the Residence at 364 Kingsley Dear Michael Campbell and Marina Zago; It was a pleasure to meet you and to discuss in general terms how The Secretary of the lnterior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards) have been applied to numerous rehabilitation and renovation projects, both locally and nationally. Perhaps at a subsequent meeting you will have a design proposal that we can discuss, at which time our conversations may become more specific. Meanwhile, this letter sttmmafizes our general discussion in a manner that I hope will be helpful to you. You expressed.concern that review under the Standards would prevent you from realizing an improvement project at your residence. I pointed out that the Standards have been successfully applied to tens of thousands of projects across the nation, ranging from monuments to simple vernacular structures. I observed that by including the word "Rehabilitation" in the title, the Standards recognize that buildings grow and change over time. We discussed the emphasis in the Standards on identifying character-defining features of a historic property, as a basic tool for giving shape to a rehabilitation design. You offered that three intact Craftsman style interior spaces of the existing house seemed character-defining. I observed that the Historic Inventory Forms provide additional guidance regarding character-defining features of the property. The forms (both the 1979 version and the updated 1997 version) make reference to rustic elements such as the staggered wood shingles, the grouped windows, and the pyramidal shape of one portion of the dwelling. 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O.Box10250 Palo Alto, CA94303 415.329. 2441 415.329.2240Fax Letter to Michael P. Campbell and Marina Zago Meeting of March 19, 1997 - Rehabilitation of the Residence at 364 Kingsley Page 2 I reminded you that the local preservation ordinance does not regulate effects on interior spaces, but if you d.etermined it would be helpful to discuss these spaces to better explain your design, that would certainly be acceptable. We touched on each of the ten guidelines put forward in the Standards, but at your request focused on items nine and ten. These guidelines are: ¯ 9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. ¯ 10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Regarding item nine, you expressed concern that adding a second story mass over the entire footprint of the house would not be accepted I responded that in general the building and its environment should be studied to determine how new masses could best be integrated into the existing structure. I pointed out that the hoiase was desigtied in conjunction with two other adjacent houses and by looking at the entire group options for placing additions become apparent. For example, the adjacent residence at 374 Kingsley has a front wing that is integrated well into a pyramidal main mass that is similar to your residence. I pointed out that due to heavy foliage that is a character-defining feature of the property and due to the deep front setback of the house, construction of a front wing seemed a likely possibility for your rehabilitation approach. I also pointed out the possibility of expanding your existing rear wing, which is itself a later addition. I indicated that if sensitively designed, a new wing might be two stories high. I did not rule out adding a second story to the existing main pyramidal structure, but did comment that I would have to see this proposed design before I could comment on it in any detail. Regarding item ten, you expressed concerned that alterations that were not reversible would not be accepted I emphasized that alterations that are not reversible can be mitigated by restoring portions of the structure that have lost integrity. An example of an option for restoration would be the porch and front entry of your existing house, whichas you pointed out has been very insensitively altered in modem times. Another example of an option for restoration Letter to Michael P. Campbell and Marina Zago , Meeting of March 19, 1997 - Rehabilitation of the Residence at 364 Kingsley Page 3 would be the set of grouped sash at the right side of the house, which has also been insensitively altered. These are both small areas, where the materials to restore are readily available, and they are portions of the building that you have described as being unattractive. Restoration, though never mandatory under the Standards, can be part of achieving a balanced project where new and old elements work together and are compatible and attractive, thus enhancing the value.of the property and your enjoyment in living there. We reviewed the remaining eight guidelines contained in the Standards, and agreed that they did not pose difficulties for your rehabilitation project. You expressed concern that the Historic Resources Board would review your proposed design arbitrarily and capriciously. I responded that the Historic Resources Board is committed to making a success of the Interim Historic Ordinance. In my view, the board contains a range of opinions on preservation that resemble the range that exists in the community, and while lively debate may ensue when they consider an item, the board is not arbitrary but rather hewsto the letter of the ordinance and the standards of the community in making their decisions. You expressed concern about having an existing design that might be deemed unacceptable. As I have not seen your design, I was not able to comment on this particular concern. I hope this summary assists you in moving forward with your project. I enjoyed our meeting, and despite your.reservations about complying with the Standards, I am confident that a successful rehabilitation project can be realized at your residence and I look forward to working with you to that end. Very truly yours, Barbara A. Judy Preservation Architect for the Interim Historic Program CC:City Council June Fleming Ken Schreiber Nancy Lytle Ariel Calorme Rece~Lved: 3/26/g7 4:56PM; 1415364 9748 .> PLANNTNG; Page 6 MAR-26 9T 16:5~ ~OM:AC~ 141~-9748 T0:41~2921~ PRGE:~6 2/27/97 0~,~ of the M~yo[, City P~o Alto, Ca Dear Mr. Mayor: The purpose of this letter is to inform you and the City Council of developments this week regarding the treatment of the "Professorville" district under th~ interim ordinance 4381. To the chagrin of my wife and myself, it has come to light that the City Planning Department has probably misinterpreted the new regulation and that, in fact, the ~edrn ordinance desi~tnates all re~ences in the "Professor~ille" di~.triet to be ’i~dma~ Re.q_idenee.¢’ regardless of historical or architectura! merit. The Ptanning Department has been operating under an interpretation of the ordinance that autonmtically pl.a~ former "Category 1" 0aistorieally significant) and "Category 2" (arehitecmmlIy significant) residences in the new "Landmark Residence" category while requiring former "Category 3" (contributing) and Category 4 (non-contributing) residences to be subject to th~ merit screening process. This also appeared to be the understanding of the new ordinance by othe= at City Hall, including Historic Resources Board members, some City Council members and the general pub|ic. , However, the merit screening for our property, 364 Kingsley, was terminated ,a,,t this week’s HRBmeedng by city staff .citing municipal code section 16.50.020 (,) which state,q "Flistorie I.zmdmark Residence’ means any residential ’Significant Building’ as d~fined by Section 16,49.020,..." The problem is that the definition of "Significant buflding".tmd~r the old code includes "all struc~ within historic districts." Therefore; every single residence in the downtown area is a "Landmark." This jnchrd.es oldersubstandard contributing .,;tructures sqch a,~urs as well as contemporary_ strueturesand non-contributing structures! Needless to say, we feel as ff we are the victims of a drive~-by shooting. WeJmve worked for months with our architect (at a cost o~ $15.000) under ~e Plannin_~Deparmaent’s asSurance_that thebasic nature tithe laws in place at the, fim~ we__lmreh~ed th~ pxope~y were m~aingdgor ~on huttn~ strueture~. We isxe left with a beautiful design, fully compatible with the original structure and the rules for "Contributing" structures, which cannot be built under the rules for altering "Landmark" properties. This is a substantial financial and emotional blow to us; beside, s the n~onetary loss, we have put a year of our li,~es into felly restoring one ot" th~ auxiliary . structures on our property and into the design era s~nsitive rehabilitation which save,,q the enti~ original main structure on the site. ’ So th~ question at hand is: did the City Cotmeil knowin~y and willfully make "l~:~dmarks" of Category_ 3 gad 4 re~,idenc~s? My impresrdon is that this was not tim case since Planning Department Dixe, ctor Nancy Lyfle stated to rn~ pemonally ti~ she and her department were the official mouthpiece to the public for.intexpretatiom of the Council’s ordinances by the City Attomey. And, unfit yesterday, the official ~tanee ofthe Planning Departrtmnt was that former Category 3 and 4 houses were not "Landmarks." Furthermore, although never stated explicitly, comments received by me directly from soro.~ City Council members indicate that their understanding of the law was similar to that of the Planning D~partment. Given the situation, we would like to request that the Council revisit the interim ordinance to either correct an oversight or to alter that which was done intentionally. Toward tlmt end, I would like to Reoe~ve~: 3/26/97 4:54PM; 1415364 9748 .> PLANNING; Page MAR-~6 97 16:49 FROM:ACTE~ 141b-3~4-gT48 TO:41b-’3292154 PAGE:03 reiterate arguments from my ict’tcr to you last week as to why it is unfair for all "l:’rofcssorville" structures to be designated "Landmark Residences." The~ arc: 1) This policy would be devastating to homeowners who bought "Category 3 or 4" property in Professorville under the old rules. These properties were not Category l or Category 2 for good reasons, hnpcoving substandard properties, regardless of age is good for Pale Alto. And the older aproperty is, the less likely it will rnect the modem needs era family; hence rehabilitation needs morn beway, not less. 2) "Professorville" residents deserve equal treatment under the law. This should be so|f-evident, The "downtown district" is an arbiwary distinctionwhich should be voided now that all Pale Alto residenoes are under HRB control. 3) "Landmark" stature decreases the value of our property, The Planaing Deparm~nt cites "a study" that proves that "Landmark" status makes pcopecty values go up. I’m sure.this is true for large residences and truly mcdtofious houses. However, oommon sense tells us that the development rules for landmaxks can only depress the value of nOn-meritorious and substandard structures. 4) The Planning Department Is not equipped to deal with "Landmark" stature. This statement in my previous letter made the Planning Depaxtment bristle, but our experience this _w,~_k. proves point: they did not even know what is and is not aLandma~ [ can t wait to fred out how they want.to apply the Secretary of theInterior’s guidelines for historic rehabilitation to structures which rnects none of the criteria for historic status. - 5) The idea is absurd. Pmfessowilie has many types of houses but very few meet the criteria set forth for.. "Landmark" designation. It is necessary to ignore both the letter and the intent of ¯ those cdteaia in orde~ to assert ~at all Pmfessorville horae~ am "Landmarks," To these points made previously, I would tike to add two morn: 6") The design impact, and bureaucratic burden of amending a structure of landmark status is not trivial. Some members of the Planning Department mid the HRB have indicated that they think the rules.for landmat’k amendments are no big deal But they have only applied them in the past to structures which fit the bill. How wilt we, as homeowners, come m terms with the board on altering our stw, et-facing facade when that facade was removed entirely by the . previous owner? The opportunity is _tn’~t fo£ gettinff bogged down On every, minor de.sign point, needJ[essly coifing th~ homeowner time and money, 7) We do not want our house designed by the HRB. A largely overlooked impact of the new ordinance as it stands is that the HRB’s findings are binding on "Ceutriburing" and "Non-contributing" structures in "Pmfossorville." 2 ¯ R ec e .t, vecl .. 3/26/g7 4 = 55PId ; MAR-26 97 16:49 FROM:ACTERON 1415364 9748 _> PLANNING; page 5 1415364-9748 T0:4153292154 PAGE:85 Aesthe~i..e recommendations_fromthe_board, am_ nowla_w. My w~e and I have paid (and possibly now lost) a lot of money working out a design which is aesthetically to our liking. The HRB now has the power to alter that design on a whim. Iteratively pleasing the HRB on design, points will greatly increase our architectural’ fees. To close, we would like to again request that the City Counci! revisit the ordinates t~iating to the downtown district. Specifically, we believe that either: 1) The designation of downtown as an "historic district" should be removed, leaving all Palo Alto residents subject to the same laws; or, 2) Downtown homeowners should be subject to the same level of control that was in force at the time they bought their property; or, 3) The ordinance should be amended to match the original Planning Department Interpretation; i.e. that only Category I and 2 residences should be automatically made "Landmarks." From a purely philosophical standpoint, we i~lieve that option (1) above is the correct course of action. We can see no advantage to the community in the unequal administration of HRB lutes for Polo Altans. In fact, it seems both unhealthy and un-Art~d.ean to :’freeze" all downtown structures, leaving the unlucky few with the option Of living in inadequate strudtures (albeit beautified under the Landmark regulations) or leaving town. "Professorville" is a vital neighborhood with real people that have real needs; it is not the Williamsburg of the west coast. We will be attempting to Sl~-.ak with you and the other council members on this issue in the .co .ruingweek and will introduc~ ourselves at the public hearing section of the Council meeting on Monaay. W.e realiz~ that the Sand Hill projeet’is th~ Council’s top agenda item at tb.i.~ time, but.we hope that you will perhaps examine your own feelings on t.his subject and discmS the matter with the Council when time allows. Thank you for yo.ur consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Mieh=l P. Campbell & Marina Zago 364 Kingsley Ave Pale Alto, CA 94301 (415) 326-6823 Ron AndersonSandy F.aldns GaryFazzino Liz Kniss Jean McCown Dick Rosenbaum Micki Schneider Lanie Wheeler Nancy Lytle Robert Jenks, AIA 3 PRGE:~2 "Professorville" Fact Sheet ..Elt_c.tJ.: In the "Professorvi|ie Historic District" defined by the city, only about half of the houses were designated as "historic" under the old building permit law. Here is the actual breakdown of houses in Professorville: Total No.Contemporary OIder,Non-"Contributing";"L~mdmark" " of Houses Houses Historic Houses Houses Residences 215 40 57 96 22 Notes:1) 45% of the houses in "Professorville" are ~ historic residences! 2) Only 10% of "Professorville" homes are real Landmarks! Under the intetim regulation controlling the renovation of houses built i~fore 1940, all "Professorville" residences arc designated ~¶Landm~ark Res,i.denc~" Fact 3: Due to this new law, our aroperty Oght~ are_ _~one!, Everyone has lost the fight to modify flleir home in the way they see fit. Any changes to otw homes that require a permit are subject to the new demolition law ("I~molition’? for "Landmark Residences is defined as ~ alteration to the. exterior!) and the "Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Historic Structures." You can no longer:o Alter the exterior of your house in any way¯Add a 2nd story ¯Add a room to the front or the side¯Increase the size of your home¯Restore altered facades to their original style ~ As a "Landmark Residence" the Historic Resources Board has bi~ding authority.’ This means the HRB can tell us what we caa orcarmot do! Our homes are now_completely controlled hY the, ~tB! Fact 5: We think this situation stinks and we intend to chalage it! Bu_t we n~_ d_your_help! If you feel that "Professorville" homeowners should be subject to the same laws as all other Palo Altans, please do the following: ¯Sign our p~tition!¯Write the City Council and tell them what you think!¯Call Council members directly! Michael and Medea CampbeIt .364 Kingsley Ave 326-6823 Received: ¯ 3/~6/97 4:55PM; .1415364 8746 ~> PLANNING; Page 4 MAR-B6 ~T 16:49 FROM:ACTERON 141b-364-gT48 TO:4"I53BgBI54 PAGE:04 Problems with "Landmark" Status Together, the Stand’~ls for Relmbilitation for historic landmarks and the interim ordinance 4381 prohibit virtually all options for the rehabilitation of substandard properties. Consider the following two points. 1) The Standards for Relkabilitation st~e the following: Std 9: "New additions...shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features..." Std 10: "New additions.., shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property ... would be unimpaired." . Additions are not prohibited per se, but are inherently limited by the .qize of the original ,.,td..... Furthermore, Std 10 states ~xpltcitly that new additions should bestructure by ~ o removable without affecting the original straeture. The guidelines which accompany the standards strongly discou ,rage any exterior additions: "...it is emphasized in the guidelines that ... new additions should be avoided, if possible, and considered only, after it is determined that those needs cannot b~ met by alteringsecondary...spaees.. To meet the requirements of Stds 9 and 10 cited above, the. gttidelin~ recommend: "l-pealing the attached exterior addion =It the.,.r~.ar ... era his/erie - building: a~d limiting its size and scale i~.relationshipto, the hiRorie building,:’ 2) The interim regulation section 16.50,040 prohibits "demolitiod’ of Landmark residences, And, per section 16.50.020 (g), "’Historic Landmark Residence Demolition" means an act or process.., that destroys or razes in whole o_t in part a I-Iistodc Landmark Residence. . This regulation clearly states that any w_oi’k done to a Landmark R~idet~ce cmnot alter.any p_art of the exte~or of the residence, So what can one do to a Landmark Residence? Basically, one can add something (smaller than the original structure?) to the rear of the building withoat touching any part of the exisling structure, except at points where the new part is joined with the original. What can one no__qL~ to a Landmark Residence? ¯Add a second story ~Add stgnitieant living spae~ ("size, scale"-constraint) Add any room forward or to the side of the building. ¯ Restore a redesigned facade to its original style So whib it is technically correct to say "additions are possible" under the interim ordinance, it is, in fact disingenuous to make that statement. Most.upgrades and rehabilitation efforts involve some or all of tim types of additions mentioned above. Removing them all from the remodelh~g repetoim effectively prohibits meaningful changes to the structure. ~haracte~i~ a prnl~erty shall be avoided. as adding onjectural lcalu;’¢s or architectural ~lcmen~s (am other buildlnEs, ~ha|| not be u.dcrtaken, 15) Oistineiive feature;, finishe~, apd canstmclion te~l~iqucs o; examples o| er;|tsma~h|p that characterize a historic prop~ty shall be preserved. (6) Delel~Orated historic features shall be r~ai~ed rather than rapl~ctd. Where the sevedty of delefio~tion requir~ replacemea~ o~ a d~ti~ive missing featu~s alkali be substantiated b~ d~um~nta~, physical, or pi~gfizl evidence. .. (~ Chemi~ ot ph~ica] t~eztmen~ such as ~ndbl~lin~ that ca~S~ dama~ t~ ~to~ mat~t~ sh~l~ not be used, The suti~¢ ctczn;~ of Stut- ters, it zppmp~te, sh~ll be unde~ken using ~e ~cntleal mea~s ~ssib[~ ¯ u~S sha|1 bc undertaken.,’¯. (9).New addit~ns, e,,derior all~Jation& or ~lated new ¢onst~’,~ctlon ~hJtt not dcs~ay historic martials ~at ¢h~rade~¢ the proFeKy. ~e new wock the p~y ~nd i~ ~vimnmcnt. (tO) Hew addi/io~ and adjust ~r ~[~ed ~ ~t~ Shall ~ ~nde~aken i~ au~ a m~ner ~at if ~movcd in Ihe ~utu~, ~e ~ential ~o~~nd i~ of the h~tofic pmp¢~ aM its envi~ent woutd be .~mpai~d, ’ AS State~ in th~ .~ellnltior~. th~ u,.-m~t "rehsbili~al~on" assun~, t~t at I~st some ~pai~ orplterat~n~f ihe h~16fic build~nE will ~ n~ i~ o~.et to pmg~ for an ~e~t ~~ ~ ~, t~ ~im a~ a~eat~n must ~Ot donee or d~y ~t~a~ [~tur~ or ~n~ ~t ~ lmpmnt in d~ining I~ bu~in~s h~nc~. For ~mpb, ~ ~~( impm~dy appli~y ~or ;~tm}e ~n~t~t dm~ ~tion ~ hist~ ~g~n~. ~b ~ i~lude min E impm~ ~[~dng or ~or ~n~ ¢~ning ~ Ot~intr~u~ *~O~ -- ~ma~ h~ fab~ In at~t ~l of l~ si~at~, u~ of th~ ~te~b aM t~a~n~ will ~uit m a,pm~ t~t d~ ~t ~ t~e ~ams., the ~U~ ~ll ~il m m~ ~e ~a~-"": " . ¯"’" -"¯ " Te~l Guid~ce YubE~o~ , inf6rmalgan on appro~i~te prese~alion treatments, mcluamg e~.l"vauo~ anew. ~ ~u~u:s, .m-.~ ,-,~.; ......,. ¯¯ ......,. . , ..,. lance Di~i.~on,.~I’ech~cal Pt.e~,tvatl .on Services, P,O, Box 37127~ Washit~Eton~ D,C, 20013-7127,..’ .’ ¯. ’. . ¯ . . . "