Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-22 City Council (23)TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment DATE:April 22, 1997 ¯ CMR:206:97 SUBJECT:Appeal by the owners of 1171 Fife of the decision on an Historic Merit Evaluation. The Director’s designee determined that the single family residence is a Contributing Residence, while the appellants believe it to be a Structure Without Historic Merit. This report forwards to Council an appeal of an Historic Merit Evaluation at 1171 Fife Street. On February 26, 1997, the Historic Resources Board recommended that the subject pre-1940 residential structure be designated a Contributing Residence, pursuant to Chapter 16.50 of the Palo .Alto Municipal Code. The recommendation was approved by the Director’s designee on February 28, 1997, and an appeal by Tim Knight and Yen-Chu Huang was filed on March 7, 1997. The appellants have filed for a variety of reasons described in their letter of appeal dated March 5, 1997 (Attachment 2); primarily because they object to the classification of any Minimal Traditional residence as historically meritorious, they do not believe that modest working-class structures can be considered noteworthy or remarkable, and they fred the entire Fife Avenue neighborhood tobe historically insignificant. RECOMMENDATIONS . Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Director to designate the residence at 1171 Fife a Contributing Residence, based on findings (Attachment 1). POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are several policy implications related to the designation of Contributing Residence. The Contributing Residence designation classifies the residence as a structure of historic significance. The five criteria for evaluating the significance of historical resources and the definition of Contributing and Landmark structures were adopted by Council in Resolution CMR:206:97 Page 1 of 9 7631. These criteria, defmitions and other policy implications are summarized in the "Background" section of this report. _BACKGROUND A property is deemed to be historically significant if 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. 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. 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 past. 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 that 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 crattsmanship. It has yielded, or has potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of Palo Alto, the Bay Area, the state or nation. Property that is designated as historic will be categorized as Landmark or Contributor according to the following definitions: Landmark Properties: Landmark properties are exceptional or major buildings, groups of buildings, structuxes, 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 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 important events or activities in the city, region, state or nation. The Landmark may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained. Contributing: Contributing properties are buildings, groups of buildings, structures, objects or sites that relate to and support the historic character of a CMR:206:97 Page 2 of 9 neighboring grouping or district because of historical or cultural importance or in scale, materials, proportions, setting or other factor. 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. Under the Interim Historic Regulations, Chapter 16.50, Landmark residences may not be demolished except under very extreme circumstances, and alterations of those residences are subject to the binding review of the HRB and Director of Planning and Community Environment, appealable to the City Council. Contributing residences may be demolished, but.the replacement structure is then subject to the Compatibility Standards, administered by staff. Under the Interim Regulations, the Contributing Residence designation serves three primary policy purposes. The first policy purpose served with the Contributing Residence designation is that Compatibility Standards are mandatory for replacement residences. The Council has directed that historically meritorious residences are important to the character, quality and image of Palo Alto, and as Contributing Residences are demolished or substantially altered, they are to be replaced with residences that contribute equivalently to the character and quality.of traditional neighborhoods. The second is educational. When the structure is added to the interim inventory, the inventory form and report provides the homeowner and community the benefit of heightened awareness about the historic merit of the structure. This can have the effect of causing applicants to reconsider their plans for modification once they learn about the historic value they would otherwise not have understood. Staffhas already observed this outcome of the program. The third purpose is as a data source. While the Council has elected to allow demolition of contributing structures, the inventory is a tool for ’documenting and monitoring what historically meritorious residences are potentially at risk of being lost in the community. If demolition and replacement activity proceed at current rates, there may or may not come a time when the policy makers fred a need to take measures to further encourage protection of historically meritorious structures. The interim inventory, the permanent inventory, and record of demolition permits will provide a factual basis for making informed public policy decisions regarding the need or lack of need for public intervention in the future. Under the criteria and definitions of historic significance, and. determination, staff recommended,, the HRBconcurred and the Director’s designee approved a designation of Contributing Residence for the residential structure at 1171 Fife. It should be noted that CMR:206:97 Page 3 of 9 some additional information in the following analysis was added from research conducted on the property since the HRB action, particularly that which related to the original inhabitants of the neighborhood and the subject residence. Basis for Determination The designation was based on a finding that the residence satisfies Criterion 4 for determining historic significance. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction that is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city. The structure was classified as a Minimal Traditional residence. The architectural description of the residence is contained in the staff report, dated February 26, 1997, page 1, Attachment 5. The Minimal Traditional architectural style came into existence in the context of the Depression, and represented a compromise with the many Eclectic styles that preceded it. While adopting the scale and massing of traditional Eclectic style residences, the Minimal style abandoned most decorative detailing in a step toward modernism. The modest scale and lack of overt decorative features that characterize this style also signal the broader context of Depression-era economy. The Minimal Traditional style is particularly associated with this portion of Fife Avenue. The 1000 and 1100 blocks of Fife Avenue developed as an Afi-iean American enclave within the larger context of Crescent Park. Early residents of these blocks included J.R. Harrison, a World War 1 veteran who was a charter member of the AME Zion Church, and with his wife co-organized the Santa Clara County branch of the NAACP. The original owner of 1171 Fife, Mr. Brown, was an African American citizen who joined this enclave in the 1930’s, initially occupying a small house at the rear of the property. The main residence at 1171 Fife was constructed in 1939 to house the growing Brown family, and reflects their increasingly prosperity. Mr. Brown was a carpenter and cabinetmaker, and is reported to have participated in construction of 1171 Fife, as well as the small residence on the rear of the property,and another house at 990 Addison. The B~owns occupied 1171 Fife for many years, before the son sold the property to the current owner. The Minimal Traditional style was a builder style that gave architectural expression to the blue collar version of a traditional residential environment in the late 1930’s. Staff and the HRB have concluded that it is important to encourage preservation of a complete cross- section of Palo Alto historic heritage, including residential architecture from neighborhoods of people with a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds. Staff and the HRB found that 1171 Fife best fits the category of Contributing Residence. The residence, in its scale and setting, supports the historic character of its neighborhood grouping and district. The scale and setting of Minimal Traditional residences related to CMR:206:97 Page 4 of 9 earlier period houses. In this context, 1171 Fife is an unusually good intact example, as described in the inventory form, and it is among several similar houses in the block that were constructed at the same time in this style. Jointly, they present an intact grouping of Minimal Traditional residences built by the prosperous blue collar residents of the period, and exhibit’mg historic neighborhood character from Palo Alto’s Depression period construction. Basis for At~t~ea, 1 The following summarizes the appeal of Tim Knight and Chi Huang and staff’s response to their appeal arguments.. Their letter is included as Attachment 2, and staffhas paraphrased and condensed their arguments in italics below. The Minimal Traditional style is extremely well-represented is very common and ordinary, therefore this architectural style is less worthy of historic designation. Staff finds that the Minimal Traditional style is not extremely well represented in Palo Alto. This style was constructed during the Depression (1938 through early 40’s). Housing was not broadly constructed during those years, and the style of housing that followed this modest construction period, the tract subdivision, quickly diverged into modem style architecture, like Eiehler and Ranch production housing types, dramatically modifying many of the scale and settirig elements of earlier period housing. While there are frequent examples of Minimal Traditional architecture in certain areas of Palo Alto, it is not extremely well-represented overall. The residence was constructed just months before the cut-off date and was intended for expansion. The fact that the residence was close to the cut-off date does not exempt it from the requirements. Only if it were found to be constructed after the cut-off date would it be exempt. The fact that it was built to be expanded is not relevant to its historic merit evaluation. o The residence was soM as a "fixer-upper". Again, this fact is not relevant to the historic merit evaluation determination. It is worth noting that a Contributing Residence designation does not prevent a homeowner from fixing up and even completely replacing the residence. Fife Street is comprised of eclectic working class houses, none of which are remarkable or noteworthy. CMR:206:97 Page 5 of 9 In staff’s judgement, the issue of whether a working class residence can be considered historically significant is at the core of this appeal. The Interim Historic Regulations include an update to the standards for historic designation to reflect national and state advances in the historic .preservation movement. Contributing properties are buildings, groups of buildings, structures, objects or sites that relate to and support the. historic character of a neighboring grouping or district became of historical or cultural importance or in scale, materials, proportions, setting or other factor. This definition does not require the residence to be of outstanding architectural merit. Scale and setting or "cultural significance" .are factors in .merit evaluation under the Interim Regulations. Based on the description of the historic contribution of this neighborhood, the scale and setting of the Minimal Traditional architectural style, described on page 4 in the earlier section of this report, staffis satisfied that 1171 Fife is a Contributing Residence. Staff and the HRB find that it is important to encourage preservation of a cross section of Palo Alto historic heritage, not only leisure class and white collar neighborhoods. Criterion 4 Must be Considered as a .Whole Criterion 4, as a whole, reads: "It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction that 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 crattsmanship." If all aspects of this criterion were required to be met, staffwould agree with the appellants. However, the word "or" is used in the sentence to indicate that. meeting any of the attributes, rather than all of the attributes, is the test. Stafffinds that the residence at 1171 Fife is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city. The front ofthe house is not visible to the street Whether the home faces to the side or front is not relevant to the classification. Many historically significant residences, including, for example the Juana Briones Hacienda, ¯ a National Landmark status residence, face to the side or are not visible from the street. 7.Designating the residence as contributing will not further the cause of health, safety, welfare and quality of life CMR:206:97 Page 6 of 9 This is not a finding required of the Merit Evaluation process, and the Council has previously found that the regulations accomplish this purpose. 8.¯Minimal Traditional style is not mentioned in the Architectural Style Manual referenced in the Compatibility Standards Because Minimal Traditional style is not referenced in the style manuals listed in the Compatibility Standards does not prevent a residence from being classified as such for purposes of Historic Merit Evaluation. The Compatibility Standards are intended to be used when replacing a residence, not when applying the Historic Merit Evaluation process. The fact that it is not listed supports staff’s assertion that Minimal Traditional is not an extremely common style in Palo Alto, however. ¯ As an aside, the Compatibility Standards have been revised to include additional style manuals, containing a broader range of architectural styles, as a result of the 4-month status report recently presented to the City Council. Minimal Traditional style will now be one which is referenced in the Compatibility Standards. Fife is a mix of styles, has no landmark structures, and is asa whole plain and insignificant While Fife Street does not contain designated structures under the City’s twenty-year- old Historic Inventory, staffdoes not agree that Fife Street is historically insignificant under the Interim Historic Regulations. As described on page 4 of this CMR, staff finds that Fife Street is an important component of Palo Alto history, representing a prosperous, blue collar African American enclave, built during the Depression era and continuing to be expressed in this intact 1930’s Minimal Traditional architectural grouping. 10.1171 Fife is not.as important for unity and character in the neighborhood Staff agrees with the appellants’ assertion that this structure is not the pivotal or ¯ defining element in the historic fabric of this neighborhood. Staffalso a~ees that the neighborhood is a eclectic mix and. that several of the structures have been entirely replaced with modem homes. Nevertheless, staff finds that 1171 Fife is a Contributing Residence, .and that these facts do not bear on the conclusion when the definition of Contributing Residence is applied. ALTERNATIVES The City Council has two alternatives to the staffrecommendation: CMR:206:97 Page 7 of 9 Uphold the appeal and fred the residence at 1171 Fife Street to be Without Historic Merit. 2.Determine the residence at 1171 Fife Street to be a Landmark Residence. Staff was unable to support a determination of Landmark Residence. Research into the history of the site did not identify noteworthy historic people, events, activities, or archaeologic resources associated with this residence. It was staff’s judgement that 1171 Fife is not an outstanding example of Minimal Traditional style, because even though it presents period architectural features characteristic of Palo Alto, all elements described are common to residences of this period and are not exceptional. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts associated with this project. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT There are no significant environmental impacts resulting from this project. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Depending on the outcome of the Merit Evaluation, the homeowner would be free to develop and submit plans for demolition or modification of the residence on the following basis 1.Structure Without Merit: Compliance.with R-1 Regulations required. Contributing Residence: Compliance also required to the staff administered Compatibility Review Standards, if the alteration meets the definition of demolition, meaning more than 50 percent of the exterior walls are demolished or any portion of the front facade. If the modifications fall beneath this threshold, compliance with the R-1 regulations only is required. Landmark Residence: Alterations must meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation per review by the Historic Resources Board recommending to the Director of Planning and Community Environment,. appealable to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS_ 1. Findings 2. Appeal letter from Tim Knight and Chi Huang, dated March 5, 1997 3. Minutes of the HRB meeting of February 26, 1997 4. Notice of the Decision of the Director 5. Staff Report, February 26, 1997 CMR:206:97 Page 8 of 9 6. Historic Merit Evaluation Application Form 7. Style Manual description of Minimal Traditional. CC:Tim Knight and Chi Huang Historic Resources Board PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Manager CMR:206:97 Page 9 of 9 ~ ~ ATTACHMENT 1 FINDINGS The residence satisfies Criterion 4 for determining historic significance. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction that is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city. The structure is particularly representative of a Minimal Traditional architectural style residence. The style is important to the City because it came into existence in the context of the Depression, housed a neighborhood of prosperous working class families, and represented a compromise with the many Eclectic styles that proceeded it. While adopting the scale and massing of traditional Eclectic style residences, the Minimal Traditional style abandoned most decorative detailing in a step toward modernism. The residence fits the category of Contributing Residence. The residence in its scale and setting supports the historic character of its neighborhood grouping and district. The scale and setting of Minimal Traditional residences related to earlier period homes. In this context, 1171 Fife is an unusually good intact example, as described in the inventory form (included as part of Attachment 5), and it is among several similar houses in the block that were constructed at the same time in this style. Jointly, they present an intact grouping of Minimal Traditional residences, built by prosperous, blue collar African American residents of the period, and exhibiting historic neighborhood character l~om Palo Alto’s Depression period construction. ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO Office of the City Clerk ~,I~R 0 7 7997 APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Con~munR7 EnvironmentTo be fil~ in dupli~te ,ame of Appellant ~ k/(/ 61~7--"~ ’~-~’X/’ /’)Lt/Ati~/’C-~" ¯ Address. ¯ |1"~ ~ ~"~’ .~ 2~.~.~-~.. (~ it~Street City LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No. Street Address Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) Property Owner’s .Address, S’treet City -ZIP Date Approved.Denied Remarks and/or ConditiOns: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: 2.Labels ~.~’0,~., ,--~’)~By: 3.Appeal Appiication Forms ~By: 4..Letter ,/By: 5.Fee ;~toO .~o ~By: 12/89 From: Date: Re: Keane~h Schreiber Director, Dept. of Planning City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Pale Alto CA 94301 Tim Knight and Chi Huang 1171 Fife Avenue Pale Alto, CA 94301 March 5, 1997 Appeal of I-Iistodc Resource Board Decision (Appfication 97-HRB-21) Summary We own a small house in the Boyce Addition neighborhood of Pale Alto whose construction was completed in 1939, which qualifies it for pre-1940 merit evaluation by the HRB. The board designated Our house as "Conlributing," and we strongly disagree with their assessment and feel it should be deemed as having "No Merit." Our goal is to expand-not demolish--the house, which includes a change to the front facade that will make the house more fitting with the attractive homes near us. We do not intend to eliminate a single square foot of the original house, but simply expand it in a more appealing style. The current style of our house, Minimal Traditional, is extremely well represented in Pale Alto and the Bay Area, as it was an extremely plain and common style of the 1940s. Despite our well-constructed argument given to the Historic Reso~ Board on February 26, 1997, a narrow vote of 4-3 was cast in favor of deeming this a Contributing structure. We submit this appeal with the hope our reasons will be better understood and appr~x:J,~ed. General Facts about 1171 Fife Avenue This house was completed just months before the 1940 cut=off date over which the HRB has authority. When the Brown family began building on this land in 1938, they first built a large shed in the back (whiCh they lived in for over a year and later became a cabinet making shop) and then proceeded to construct a house to live in permanently. Fred Brown, the original owner of the property, had long planned to expand the house, including fundamentally changing the front walls in order to move the entrance from the side to the front. The house itself was marketed by the Realtors as a tear-town. Some of the language used to describe the property when it was sold included "excellent for developers", "fL~er-up", and "(buy it for the) value of the land" 1" 1 Li "n i , early 1991). The street itself, Fife Avenue, is an eclectic row of modest working-class houses, none of them remarkable or noteworthy in any way. .The Minimal Traditional Style The style of the house, Minimal Traditional, is spread throughout Pale Alto and the Bay Area, and indeed the whole country. It was a popular design in the 1940s. The Field Guide to American Houses describes this style as "...one of by far the most common modern styles built since 1940" (page 477). -"one of by far the most common"=everyday, ordinary, not special -"modern styles"=not historic, but modern -"since 1940"=a style post-dating the period that HRB is trying to preserve tn addition, the ~ describes this style as being "...built in great numbers in the years immediately preceding and following World War II; they commonly dominate the large tract housing developments of the period." (page 478). Clearly this points to a pedestrian, ordinary, common style that was turned out in droves. There is no precious resource to conserve here. Rationale offered to conclusion that 1171 Fife is Contributing Historical Structure The core argument provided for designating 1171 Fife as Contributing is given in one sentence: "Fife. satisfies Criterion 4, as the design of this residence employs period architectural themes which are characteristic of.modestly-scaled residences of the 1930s." (Historic Resources Staff Report, page 2, lines 1-2) " The paraphrased means of inclusion of Criterion 4 is, at best, unintentiona.ll, y deceptive. The complete text of Criterion 4, which must be considered as a whole (otherwise, it would have been broken into separate, independent criteria) is as follows (with some introductory text): A property would be deemed to be historically signO~cant ~..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. (Standards for Historic Designation draft, City of Palo Alto) This criterion demands a house meet this multi-faceted requirement as a whole in order to quality. 1171 Fife Avenue under no circumstances meets these ren_uirements. Indeed. it probablydoes not meet a Further, ordinance 4381, Section 1A states: "The protection, enhancements, pexpetuation, and use of structures, districts, and neighborhoods of historical and arehit~tural significance within the city of Pale Alto are of great cultural, aesthetic, and economic benefit to the City and all of its residents." Cerlainly so, but 1171 Fife Avenue is of neither historical nor architectural si~ifieance by any stretch of the imagination. Because the front of the house is not even visible from the street, the house is not only modest but positively nondescript. From the street, its minimal traditional characteristics cannot be distinguished from the ranch-style homes in the neighboring areas. Lastly, ordinance 4381, Section 2 states: "The purpose of this chapter is to protect the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of the residents of the City." The desi~ation of this nondescript stmct~ does nothing to further these causes, and in fact serves as an impediment to meaningful improvement to this residence and, subsequently, the immediate neighborhood as a whole, which is sorely in need for improvement in appemznce. 2 Preserving 1171 Fife is Irrelevant to the HRB Charter ¯The ’Minimal Traditional’ style in not mentioned anywhere in the 50-1~ge Single F~nily Residenti~d The ’Minimal Traditional’ style in not m~ntioned anywhere in the 101-page ~ The boardis report statesl "...the Minimal style abandoned most decorative detailing in a step toward Modernism. However, the scale and setting of Minimal Traditional residences related to earlier period houses." (I-Iistorie Resources Staff Report, page 2, lines 9-11). This statement shows that the board is aware that Mint’rn~ Traditional is understood to be a modem---and not historically important--style, through the use of backpedaling ("..xelated to earlier period houses.") Obviously all styles have some basis in their forebears, but a vague reference to the fact that Minimal Traditional was somehow inspired by earlier designs does not make it one of those earlier, perhaps more important,~styles. By contrast, the words and phrases used to describe older homes that this board is trying to protect, in the words of the beard’s ~own literature, include "distinctive character", "sense of unity and distinctiveness", "careful attention to scale, balance, proportion, detail, and craftsmanship." Fife Avenue comprises houses of a variety of modem styles, including minimal traditional, ranch, and more modem styles. The residence at 1171 Fife Avenue fails to contribute to the unity of the street, faces sideways on its lot, and by definition of its Minimal Traditional style, lacks distinct detailing or. craftsmanship. Flawed Logic in Board’s Decision Pale Alto wants to protect "Structures that embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style period, method of construction, or architectural development."(Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Pale Alto., p 48). The entirety of Fife Avenue doesn’t have a single residence listed on the Master List of Struetm~s on Local Inventory (Forest Avenue, the closest street parallel to Fife, has no fewer than 13 residences on that list). Fife as a whole is utterly plain and historically insignificant. Most of the arguments offered to deem this a ’Contributing’ are circular, ipsofacto statements. For instance, "Fife satisfies Criterion 4, as the design of this residence employs period architectural themes which are characteristic of modestly-sealed residences of the 1930s." (Staff Report from Historic Resources Board, Item No. II.4) Of ~P.!!~ is employs period architectural themes. By definition, ~ house will fall into an architectural category, and it will also take on the characteristics of the time it was construct~dl. " ." ~ and ~ are also included in.the same section of the Field Guide to American JJD.II~, and the ~ could probably be applied to those units to designate them as being historically siguifieant. The absurdity of the board’s conjecture is transparent. A "Contributing" building is def’med as:a "good example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, material, proportion or other factors". 1171 Fife is an anomaly on the street because it faces sideways. Also because the house is oriented facing the driveway, it is not feasible to put in a walkway to the front of the house, which is typical of most houses, including the others in our neighborhood. (Sadly, the driveway is the walkway.) Further, ~ll houses have ~ kind of style and some kind of relation to the character of their neighborhood. Historical residences are like art to most people---they can’t define it academically~p.llt ".I seriously doubt a single individual in our neighborhood--and by no means a majority--would agree that 1171 Fife merits Contributing Structure status by any stretch of the imagination. o However, the ~ criterion for selection--which has ~ been applied here---is not circular. Only when it is loosely paravhrased in an income, as has been done here, does the valid argument’s otherwise logic fall away. Comments from the Historical Resources Board Meeting A few key comments from the February 26th HRB meeting also shed fight on the board’s attitude: One member who supported the ’Contributing’ status admitted that the Minimal Traditional design was a "very weak" design. He noted, however, that our house was a good example of this weak design. Why efforts should be made to preserve even a good example of a common, and in the beard’s own words, ’’very weak" design is hard to understand. A different member, this one supporting "No Merit" designation, commented that not only was the Minimal Traditional design unremarkable, but also pointed out the detracting fact our house was ~ (in other words, the enlrance is literally on the side of the house, hidden from the street). The Chair of the HRB characterized Fife Avenue as being "under siege," a term one would think more apt for Bosnia or Zaire. What she apparently was attempting to express was that some homeowners Wer~ actually trying to improve their properties, an effort which an overzealous preservafionist might be inclined to impede. The truth is that there is very tittle in the way of changes or improvements happening on Fife Avenue, but those that have happened so far have improved the appearance of the neighborhood, as well as the individual house, substantially. We offer one last way of looking at this problem to better understand our point of view: Imagine for a moment that the local and state governments instituted a program whereby owners of historically significant property, particularly those built before 1940, were to receive exceptionally attractive property tax rates. The governments would be flooded with applications. People would ~ their houses to be considered historic. There is no argument we could make, if we were in the position of desiring any kind of historical designation, that would convince any government that our house had any kind of historic merit. If we had to prove this place was historically Contributing, you would laugh us out of City Hall, and we would be denied any such benefit. Our goal is to ultimately build an attractive, very "Pale Alto" looking house, matching the English Cottage style of the older homes on Lincoln Avenue, our nearest cross street, and adhering to the ample guidelines and regulations that the City has already furnished. We ~trongly befieve that 1171 Fife Avenue should be deemed as having No Historical Merit. We urge the City Council to overturn this decision and. assign our house the No Merit designation that it deserves. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully Submittal, ~/ TimKni~ht ~ " ~ ..... 4 ~PEEDY TEL No.415-621-1597 Mar 7,97 15:40 No.O04 P.02 ATTACHMENT 3 Historic Resources )loard Minutes A. Roll Call Board M~rnbe~ Present: Mm’io, Murdel~, Backhmd, Kohbr, Willis, Berasteit~, S~ffmembe~g present; ].,~ic ~n~ct planner l~¢scnt: 3 utly CiW Co.oil Liaison pr~nt: Whaler - Oral Communications: II, Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions: MOTION: BM.Murdon moved th~t~ Agcitda ]ten~ I.I. bc BM Mario s~ondcd ~hc motion. VOTE: 7-0-0-0 1.750 Melville: Application for llisloric Merit E~,ahl~ltion of a singk’+ family r~sidcnce cotmtructed prior to 1940 in the: R- 1 Zone District (l,’il¢ 97-HRB-] 6.~ " Slaff presented an inibrmational rcporl Ihat described Ihc .rcquostcd action of historic mort1, dtmigna.tion from tht~ born’d, provided an ardtittx:tora.l description of thv residence, and twaluatc<l it!s historic significance under the: crik:ria contait~ed in tlt+~: interim ordinanct~. ’][’lie key recommendation from Staff was that a historic dcsig~!,ti on o1" CON’!’RIBt J’rlNG RESIDENCE be ass!breed ~o lhc residenc~, ’BM ] hcklund rCZlUV’st~d add~tio~al dcsoripfion of lho a|tcralions. Judy co~ffim~ flBt large plalc glass window on thv Pa’kinson Street facade appeared to be a ~nodvrn incompallbl¢ altcratio~t. BM Mafio hxdica~ that th+e houso did not sc~m to h~vc mt, ch rcdecmiag value, and did not aPl~ar to b~ a Contributing Rcsidcnt:c. .. SPEEDY TEL No.415-621-1597 Mar 7,97 15:40 No.O04 P.05 BM Murdc’n disclosed that she had met. with the owner and ,~l×>kcn wills her tnicfly during hot site visit to tho house. BM Backlund indicated that the color ot’th¢ house distrac, ls from i~s contributing qualifies. MOTION: BM Marie moved that the house b¢ dcsi~;natod a Structure Without Histori¢ M~’it due to th~ degre~ of alteralion it has ~xp~rienec~l, which has reduced iL,3 integrity below tho oontributing levt:l. BM Murden seconded the motion. BM Bemgein indicated that the house, though allerod, still has vnough Craftsman features to be a Contributing R©sidoncc. VOTE: 3-4-04] (Baoklund, Kohler, Willis, Benistoin against) MOTION: Clmir Willis moved.to desiguate 750 Melville a Contributing Residence based on the recommendations of the Staff Retxwt. BM 13einstein seconded the moti VOTE: 4-3-0-0 (Made, Murdol~, Anderson against) Motion carries. 2. 364 King,~Ag~: Application for llistori¢ Merit Evaluation of a single family rosidenoe construoted prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District Q:ilo 97qlR.B-18.) Staff presented an infi~m~ation~l report that described the requested action ofhistoric 0¢si~ation fi~m the board, provMe~ an arohilootural desoription of &o resMone¢, and o~uatod its historic si~i~oaneo raider the criteria ~mtainod in the inlorim ordinance. key rooommondafion from staff,s that a hisloric desip, nation of CONTR~O ]~S~ENCE be asfigned to lhe ~sidon~. Dlacu~ion: BM Marie asked if the oolumns are Original. Judy responded that they may be period; the whim paint oolor is v¢~ dis~ting. I.~le indica~ that the old Preso~ation Ordinanoo and the Interim Historic Ordinan~ bo~ in cff~; the most res~’ictivo ~mditioa appl~ between the two ordinates. Therefore, rely applioation to demolish fl~e hou~ would ¢om¢ r~ns¢ would be adv~so~. 13M ~rson obso~¢d ~at the desi~ of the cottage was not st~ongly Craflsm~. BM Bae~uM quostion~ the ~riod of~h¢ Ih.mt window at .lady resl~nded that ~is was an in~mpatible alteration with an divided 1ires, Public comment~ Public Comment was re.ceived f!om Mr..Michael Campht.’ll, owner. Mr. Campbell indioat~ agreement ~qflt BM Anderson that the few archit~tural olomonLs on ~o house do i~ot make it a style. Windows at~ an ad hoe Combination. In the 1960s, 1he ~rch ~s ~buill, lhe front faead~ alterS, and sash replaced, tle re~mmcnds a desi~ation of No llisloric MefiL The house is leo small, at 800 square f~t, to raise a. Family. He needs to enlarge aml extend it cot~siderab~y, l)osigm review ofhls plans isnot SPEEDY TEL No.415-621-1597 Mar 7,97 15~40 No.O0~ P.04 and wuuld be a waste o1" time. Discnsslolt: BM Baeklund indicated xhat the entire structure is evaluated and is considered important, not just the facade, though the Porch alterations are of conont. Chaff Willis refewneed the social history asst, eiated with ,he properly, us described in the Profe~sorvilie Tour Pamphlet and the old Inventory Forms. She referenced lhv commmml quality of the grouping of three structures, and noted lhal they gain significance by this setting. Additionally, histori~ significance is gabled by t].~ Prolbssorville lo~at.ion. MOTION: BM Marie move~l that in light of the old lnvenloiy Forms’ roforoncms to sot~ial history, the property b~ designated a Historio ]..,andmark Rc~siden~. (:hair Willis seconded tlac motion. BM Anderson asked for ~larif!cattion of rite practigal dil’Ferencv betwctm the designation of Con~ibuthtg Residence under the hitefim llistofic Ordnance, and the desi~mion of Imndm~k under the ~fld P~se~ation Ordinanct:, L~Io ros~nd~ flint under the ]ttmdm Ilis, oric OMiaancc, I andmark.s demolished and the direotion p~ovid~ by the l:[Rl.i l.lt design rcviGw iS binding. Under old Pres,~afion Ordinan~, flxo ~ie of fl~c HRI$ Is advisory. BM Marie obsc~cd tha.t the nitrations evident in the sm~ct.ure could bc reverse restoration). BM B~in ask~ if setting could b~ a Msis for a designation of~MmaA Historic R~sidonc¢. BM Marie wiflxdr~¢ her motion to allow Iht: public hoaring,o reopen. Chair Willis reopened tile public h~ring, Resum~l Public Hearing: Public Comment was received for Michael Campbell, Mr. Campbell indiea.ted distress at the idea of a hisi0ric I ,andlllark Residenet: dusignation, As a practical matter, he and his .sixmst~ intend to improve the propel’ty, The cottage is not suitable, and he does intend to demolish it. ll’desit.;nated a l,andmark, they will be forced to soil the property and mow. R~umM Discussion: MOTION: BM Bemstein moved that txmsideration of the matter’be continued to the Meting of March, 1997 to allow for review andconsideration of the sociM hislx~rle tff tht~ site as it applies to a potential Landmark designalio~l. Chair Willis serenaded the motion. VOTE: 7-0-0-0 3. 79 I~.Z2.~.X.~W.~ Applivation.fo,’] listorie Mt~rit l~.valuation oi’a single family ,SPEEDY TEL No.415-621-1597 Mar 7,97 15:40 No.O04 P.05 ~tru~t~ prior to 1940 hx the R-1 Zone District (Fik~ 97-~ ITS)_-!9,) S~affpi’esentcd art informaticmal report that described the rt~qtmsted action of historic re©tit designation from theboard, provided an architectural description of the residence, and evaluated its historic sigmifieanoe under the ~ritoria comained in th~ interim ordinance. key recommendation fixnn staffwas that a hisloric desig~mtion ofNO 11.IS’I’ORIC ME..R]’I" be az.sisned to the residence. BM B~rnst~in indicated ~on~cm a~ being asked to vole blindly, ~thout having had m~ op~:~ to ~e Ihc property. BM Ko~er ask~ why the malter ~s being dealt wi.fl~ urgetaly, ¯ L~lo indited ~hat Council had requested thin Merit Sor~ning be dealt ~fl~ urgently, yet t~ lan~go of the Interim Historic Ordina!~oo requires a ptdflic hearing. At the time of the four mon~ ewaluafion, ~is requirement may be removed; m~nwhil¢, the public .hearing is requir~l. MOTION: Chair Willis mow to designa~ 779.I,aPara .a S~rtlelurc Without lfis~fie M~it bas~ on lhe re~mmendations of the Slaff Re!.x)rt. BM Murden seconded ~e motion. BM Bornstein indicated tha, he-would abstain from the vote, duo u~ not having had the opportunity to evalua.~ the struotur~. VOTE: 6-0-1-0 (Bernstoin abstaining) 4. 1.171 Fife Ave.~.: Application ~r Historic Merit Evaluation 0fa single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone Distric.t (File 97,H1£8-2 Staff presented an informational report (:lint described Iho request~ action of talstorie merit designation from the board, pr(wided mxarchitec.tural descriptiun of the rosidenee, and evaluated its historic significance trader the erilc|’ia conlained in Iho interim ordinance. key recommendation from staff was that a historic designalion of CON°I’RJBIYI’ING RESIDENCE be assigned to the residence. BM Backlunt! inquired of sra~ff whether bay windows o~¢ur as a tk’aturo oflh¢ Minimal Traditional style. .. Judy reslx)nded ",fffirmativcly. BM Andorstm inquired whether this style is known in Pale Alto. Judy responded that the style occurs frequently in l)alo Allo, and ~,~s reviewed and accepted in a previous instance by the board: 431 Pepper Street. Chair Willis observed that Fife Avenue was originally established as a workingman’s residential street, where a style of this son would have beo~ especially appropriate. Public comment: Public Comment was received from Mr. 7~m Knight, owner: . Mr. Knight indicated surprise at the proposexl ~k:signalion of Contribuling Residenc~. }~1~ hoped to. co,wince the l~ard that the No Historic Merit would be more appropriate. Tho. houst~ was completed just before 1940 - the shed that e×islx~,d in the rear housed the origi~ml ,SPEEDY TEL No.415-621-1597 Mar 7,97 15:40 No.O04 P.06 owners - th~ Brown l~amily- brfom fl~e hou~ was ~ompl~ted..it is his opinion that lhe bay window was a later addition. ’ll~e house was markeled 1o him as a tear down property.. The architectural style of Minixnal Traditional is a drab uainW, rcstiag slyly. The s~e~l ilself ig a ghet~ in the larger Crescent Park n~ighbofl~ood. The house is not historic, but rather pedestrian; it is not a resource worth ~oting. ’ll~is d~signat.ion will impede his ability to improw the properly. BM Ba~klund indicated that th~ physical condition of the property is not con~id~ in making a historic dcsi~atien. ~so, under 1he dosignuti0n (?0nlributing R~sid~ncc, ~tctlsiw altcratious ~ lmnnitt~..Regarding lhc Minimal ’l’~adifional styl~, fl~is is a ~yl~ ~at is defined ~mfionally as ~oto-Mod~rn, but a period s~ylo that is ~thin fl~ considered historic h~ Pale ~to under fl~c lnlcrim I.lis~ Ordinance. It is a weak but if ~c slxuvtum i~dfis.in~t, u. d~ignafion 0r (~ont.ribuling Rcsidon~ is appro~alc. MOTION: BM Audcrson moved that 1 ] 71 Fitb be designated a Struetur~ Without Historic McHt duc to lhc inhcrcat w~t~ss of the Minimal T~adifional styl~. BM Made s~nd~ the rootlets. BM Marie conm~ontcd that .Ihc sideways l)la~m~l~ effigy house on ~c lot makes it ~iculady weak, as i~ lucks much era slr~l-facing facadc. Chair Willis obse~cd that this ~t has always bvt~n inletsling, told it is mffo~unate ~a~ the s~cial ~sto~ of this s~t is not bc~cr dcv~lo~d. VO’I~: 3-4-0-0 (Kohlcr, Willis, B~mstoin, [la.ckh,nd against) MOTION: BM Backluad moved 1o dcsignat~ 1171 I;ife a Contributing Residence based on the recormnendations of the staff report. BM Kohlcr seoond~J th~ motion. ~/O’~..,: 4-3...0-0 (Anderson, Marie, Murden ugai~ts!) 5, ~!_5_.(dl~fl!J~l,’. Application lbr Historic Merit 1i, wduafion of u single family r~id~c~ constructed prior to 1940 in the R-I Zone Distrie!_0~ile.97-1tRB-23.). Staff" prosent©d an iaformatioaal report lhat desedbtxl fl~¢ r~lucstcd acti on of historic morit designation from the board, pr~widcd an arehit~tural deseripllon oflhc, r~sidenee, and evaluated its historic significan~ under fl~c t;ril~l]a c,(.mtai~ied in fl~e interim ordinance. Th~ kt,3, r~ommertdatian from staff was Ihat a historic designation el’NO HISTORIC MERIT. be assigned to the r~idenee. BM Kohler asked whether the massing oflhe house, had been changed. Judy r~ponded affirmativdy. . BM Kohlet r~slXmded that the house: wa,~ difficult to evaluat~ due to tile degr¢~ of alteration it had experienced. MOTION’: Chair Willis ~novcd to continue considt;ration of the ilem until the mct~ting of March 5, 1997, and to ~’¢XlUe.St additional evaluation by staffregarding whether the strael~re may tn fact be a, Contributlng Residence.. llM Marie ae~mded the motion. H~TORIC RF~SOUR(:~.kq BOARD Mt~F~’rING of OZ/~6, 1999 SPEEDY TEL N0.415-621-1597 Mar ~,97 15i40 No.O04 P.O? VOTH: 7dO-04) L UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Universi~ Avenue Fences: Discussion of draft letter lo the City Council regarding fence design along University Avenue, BM Marie excused herself due to possible conflict of interest. Chair Willis indicated that.she had attended a Crcscem Park ncighborh<×~d association mee~g, and felt that the final ordinance should inclnd¢ some int~mivcs for the homeowners who maintain extensive ~0unds in a way that benefits the cnti~ city. V~io~ bo~d m~bc~ made suggesgons t~r r~vising the loller, which were a~t~. BM Bac~und ~ked whether ~he Pluming Division rcvie~ fence desi~. Lyfle res~nd~ that ~is is not the~ase ~b~ce Permit Sl~amlining went into effect. BM Anderson ~k~ what ~nforcement measures are in ¢lI~ct to ensue the fences are ~si~ to m~t the ordinance requircm~us for compatible aplmaran~. I.,~1¢ ~sl~ndod that an enforcement action would only occur if a neigh~r ~mplain~. Them is no ~dicafion that c~ntly-constructcO lbncing doc~ not comply ~lh ~c ordinan~. MOTION: BM Derastein moved that th~ amended letter I.~ fol~arded to Council. BM Murdon soconded the motion, VOTE: 6-0-14) (Mario not participating) NEW BUSINESS: Interim Historic Ordinance: Discussion of interim ! listoric Ordinance ulxlato, (;hair Willis reported that on April 7, Council will consider revisions to the ]ntodm Historte Orditmno~, mid the IIRB has the option of making recommendations on this mattt~r to Cotmcil, BM Kohler indicated that hc would like to see each board tnemb~r wrJt~ out suggestions. He has some i~, for example he is frustnttcd by the random al~flicatitm of(~m~tibility Signals, ~d ~nks ~e window inset r~luiremenl might be r~onside~d. He wh~er the ~ pr~ess has c&anged in ligh~ of the ~ew Compatibility Review process or r~ulted in an true.relive memo describing lheinterlhec between the ~0 processes. Lyric rcs~nd~ lhat ~o process has not changed, and there is no into~rotiv¢ memo describing a s~cial interface between file two proces~es~ . BM Marie agreed that Writing out suggestions is a good idea. She asked whether still come b~k to the IIRB for review. Lyric responded tlmt they do, but there has been a delay in applications for HIES as need for Merit Ev’dluation has preempted this process. SPEEDY TEL No.415-621-1597 Mar 7,97 15:40 No.O04 P.08 BM Bernstein asked whothur a Contributing or l.,a.~ldmark slruoturt~ is stili 01i8~1 for an ~, ~d whc~er th~ Mills A~I application i~ part of the ]NI’U~ }.HS’I’ORIC O~AN~. L~¢ co~cd that th~ ~E p~oss is o~n to Conlributin~ or ~ndmark stmct~rcs~ ~d stat~ ~at the Mills Ac$ pr~¢ss is not included in Ih~ IN’J’ERIM IHS’I’ORIC Chair Willis asked how the hil.crini Historic Ordinance migltt extend a blanket "Landmark designation over Professorvill¢. Lyric responded that a redefinition of the tcm~ 1 ~ndmark ~o include Ilistoric Districts would b¢ a way to accomplish this. Chair Willis urged board members to fax in lhcir written suggestions by Friday 9:00 am to the Planning Division fax number, for distribution ~o in the board packet. It was agreed that this item would be agcndizcd tbr discussion at the March 5, 1.997 -meeting, and agondi~x~d for action o~l the March 12, 1997 mecthig. 2. Coasideratio~t of schetluling spcg:ial meeti ags in M.arch. MOTION: BM Anderson moved that special meetings b~; ¢alend~od |br March 12 and March 26, 1997. r,,~mir Willis sccond~ the motion. VOTE: 5-0-2-0 (Kohlor, Murdmz absent) REPORTS ~[~’R()M OFFICIALS: Judy dislributod e, xcorpts from National Register Bulletins 15 and 16b. Bulletin 15 includes the National Register significance criloria, whid~ Judy noted was nearly id0ntical to the l~lguagc of the INTE, RIM HISTORIC OR])INANCI..:, and contains a discussion of how it is applied. Bulletin 16b describes the process of Multilfl¢ Listing, which is a vehicle for disousslng a collection of buildings that are united the, matioal~y and/or contextually, and are best undor~tood as a group of building,,~ oven !hou~,h they arc not adjacont to one another as would b~ the ease, ill a disu’iot st:tti.~g. An example might bo the ~’omaining agrieultmal structures within Pale Alto. Judy r¢commo~ded that the board consider i~troducing this stratol:.,,y for historic analysis inlo the I{FP for fl,c Updated Inventory. BOARD MEMBER QU!!~STIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEM~’,N~]’S: BM A|’~derson asked how ~ ~o~d wifl~ Substitulc Molions. Lyric c~mflnn~ that aclion on the Substitute Motion ln’tx:c~t~s action on fl:vinitial Motion. "~ow is a lh~t on the number of substitute Motions ~i~at may b~ put fo~rd; she will ~nfi~ but believes the limit u~ b~ ~o St~bsfitutc Motions. Adjoummont: 10:45 am Minutes prcpa~:~l by: Barbara Judy ATTACHMENT 4 ~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 IIo 4o 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 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: 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, 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 projee~ts 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 deeisi0n of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. If you wish to appeal this action, contact the Planning Division (329-244.1) 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 pri,or to, the public hearing. Prepared By: Approved By: Barbara Judy Nancy l~ad~iox Lytle, Chie~]~lanning Official Designee. of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Page I ATTACHMENT 5 Historic Resources Board TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Report Item No. II.4 Historic Resources Board Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program February 26, 1997 ~: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R- 1 Zone District (File No. 97- HAB.-21.) REOUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board is 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 Resideriee. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE to this structure. Architectural Description: Date of Initial Construction: 1938 This is a single-story, Minimal Traditional residence, with Moderne detailing, set on a deep lotin the neighborhood located south of University. The front facing gabled roof with louvered end vents is clad in wood shingles, and extend to cover the entry port at left facade. Exterior walls axe clad in smooth stucco, with lapped horizontal wood siding under the gable end of the main structure, and vertical wood siding with scalloped edges at secondary gable end above projecting window bay. Typical windows are divided lite wood casement sash with horizontal emphasis throughout the structure. There is a detached garage at the right rear of the lot, barely visible from the street. Street is eharaeterized by mature Plane trees; with several similar Minimal Traditional residences located nearby. Criteria for Historic Designation: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historie Resources, 1171 -Pagel Fife satisfies Criterion 4, as the design of this residence employs period architectural themes which are characteristic of modestly-scaled residences of the 1930s. Categorization: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Signiftcance of Historic Resources, 1171 Fife best fits the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE. Staff concluded that the residence, in its scale and setting, supports the historic character of its neighborhood grouping and district. The Minimal Traditional architectural style came into existence in the context of the Depression, and represented a compromise with the many Eclectic styles that preceded it. While adopting the scale and massing of a traditional Eclectic style residence, the Minimal style abandoned most decorative detailing in a step toward Modernism.~ Howe.ver, the scale and setting of Minimal Traditional residences related to earlier period houses. In this context, 1171 Fife is an unusually good intact example as it is among several similar houses on the block that were constructed at the same time in this style. Jointly, tlaey present an intact version of a Minimal Traditional architectural statement. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, standards for designating HISTORIC LANDMARK RESIDENCES are provided. Research into the history of the site did not identify noteworthy historic people, events, activities, or archeologieal resources associated with this residence. It is staffs judgment that 1171 Fife is not an outstanding example of the Spanish Eclectic style, because even though it presents period architectural features characteristic of Palo Alto, 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 HISTORIC LANDMARK RESIDENCE are not met. COURTESY COPY: Owner: Tim Knight and Yen-Chi Huang, 1171 Fife Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Prepared By: Reviewed By: Barbara Judy Naney~addox Lytle, Chie~Planning 1. A Field Guide to American Houses, Virginia & Lee McAlester, Alfred A. Knopf Ine, 1996 DMe Co.nty Santa Clara R _3 ~1/4 of ~t/4 o! Soo ..__.;I.M, Palo Alto z~p 94301 Zone ~, e. Ot~er LOcalkmaJ Dela: (e.g. parcel #, legal descrlpllon, ~lrecllons to resource, ~tallon, ~lllonal UTMs, etc. ~s ~koproprl~e) Assessor’s Parcel Number: 003-21-041 *P3a.Descriplion: (Describe resource nnd Its major olemenls, Include design, malaflals, condition, isllerallons, size. selling, end boundalles.) This is a single-story Traditional Minimalist residence, with Art Modeme detailing, set on a deep lot 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 ~’ear of the lot, barely visible from the street. Street is characterized by mature plane trees, with several similar Traditional Minimalist residences. r-i Building, Structure ~I (3~ Fl~cord D~~ D~~ *~ulmd Ihfom~t~on Applical;ion for ATTACHMENT 6 Historic R vi w Tel: ~418) ~29.2441 0 Applicant Request Interim Regulations for Residential Buildings:Other Historic Review: Historic Merit Screening Historic Merit Evaluation Historic Landmark Alteration Review ~ Compatibility Review [~ Compatibility Standards Exception Historic Property Survey ~ Non-residential Historic Review Downtown Contributing Residential Review Voluntary Review Non-residential Historic Designation or Re-designation Mills Act Contract O Fropcr’l;y Location Address of Subject Property : Zone District: ~." I Assessor’s Parcel Number :Historic Category(if applicable) :~__ 0 Req.uested Action Description of requested action: O Applicant ,NOTE: The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted Name:, ---7~ ’ t~t4’//"~’/~-’7"-" mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken. Address: ~te: ~ Zip: . Q ....:._... ,,-,..: ....NOTE: The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submittedrrop~Fuy uwn~r ~¯- ~~_ , . ,.L.~./I1 , mailinn list in order to be notified of.Meetings. Hearings or action taken.Name’Clv" 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 hereim this application(s) is subject to 100% recovery of planning costs, I understand that charges for staff t~e spent processing this application(s) will be based on the Poticy and Procedures document provided to me. I understand that my initial ~posit is an estimate of these charges and not a fee and I agree to abide by the billing policy stated. //’[ ~:~;~~I~~:i;~~: ~(~:~:g:~:~[9~::;::~ ~ =============================================================================================== .............. :::::::::::::::::::::: ATTACHMENT 7 FIELD GUIDE TO VIRGINIA & LEE MCALESTEI