Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-10 City Council (5)ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Historic Inventory Form for 445 Colorado Avenue, 1978, rev. 1985. Attachment B: Historic Inventory Photo of 445 Colorado Avenue, 1978. Attachment C: Photo of 445 Colorado Avenue, September 11,2002. COURTESY COPIES s:\plan\plandiv\hrb\staffreport\HRB staffrep. template Page 3 ') 445 Colorado NO TE: 'TIM fol/owing (Iftlms 74·19) Nfl for .tructura only. 14. Primary exterior building m~ial: a. Stone 0 b. Brick 0 c. Stuc:c:o I!J d. Adobe 0 e. Wood 0 ,.f. Other 0 ________________ _ 15. Is the structure: a. On its original site?' :(] b. Moved? D. c. Unknown? D Ui. Year of initial construction, 191# This date~: a .. F-=tuaI 0 b. E~ima~ ~lst director,y listing 17. Architect (if known): _________________________________ _ 1B. Builder (if known): ;'" --.-_______ --.;. _____ ~--......;~--------------- 19. Related features: B. Barn 0 b. Carriage house 0 c. Outhouse 0 d.Shed(s)·O e. Formal garden(s)' 0 f.Windmill '0 g. Watertower/tankhouse 0 h. Other D __ ------------~-i. None Ii] SIGNIFICANCE 20. Briefly state historicai and/or architectural importance (include.dates, .ewrits, and persons associated with the site whiln known): A fine fusion of Craftsman and Mission Revival motifs, held together by.carefu1 attention to ba1ance~ The first owner appe~rs to have been CharlesL. ,Goet2 and Mrs. Harriet L.'Goetz, widow of A.L. Goetz. After a brief period of .short-ter.m occupana,Y, 1933-36, the OCC1,lp~ts forthirty-sev.en years were Percy B •. and Esther Gibbs;. Gibbs wae a post-. IIl6n and Boy Scout leader. The present owners acquireclthe house -in 1975. 21. Main theme of the hIstoric resource: (Check only one): B. Arc:hitec1;u.re liJ b. Arts & Leisure 0 c. Economic/lndu~rial 0 d. Exploration!Settlernent .0 e. Government 0 f. Military.O g. Religion 0 h. Social/Educati~n 0 22. So~rces: List books, document7, surveys,. perso~1 interviews, and their elates: P .A. City Directo;ries; P .A. Tl.l11es, 5/13/40, 1/23/54; l.nterv~ew 1985, Mrs Guy Pluchon 23. Date form prepared: 197B, 1985 By (nam~): Karmen Newman; Historic liesources Board'; P .A. Hist. Address: 250 Hamilton Ave . City Palo Alto.t Ca 94301 ZIP: Assn. Phone: Organization: (State Use Only) I APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Approval of minutes of Historic Resources Board meeting of May 5, 2004. Historic Resources Board Action: Boardmember Makinen moved, seconded by Boardmember Murden, to approve the minutes of May 5, 2004 as presented by staff. Vote: 6-0-0-1 (Boardmember Bernstein absent) NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearing . L 323 University Avenue [04-HRB-05]: Application by Hayes Group Architecture & Interiors in behalf of Melanie Barry Properties, owner, for Historic Resources Board review and recommendation to the City Council regarding a proposal to reclassify a Spanish Colonial Revival commercial building designed by Birge Clark in 1925 from Category 3 on the City's Historic Inventory to Category 2, as provided in Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 (Historic Preservation Ordinance). Ms. Beth Bunnenberg, Chair: At this point we will open the public hearing and we'll move to staff recommendations. Planner Backlund: Thank you very much Chair Bunnenberg and members of the Board. The first thing I would like to say is regarding the handouts that you received, particularly the revised staff report, I used sticky notes on that so that it could be removed and you could retain this revised version as your permanent version and simply recycle the one that was distributed to you in the packet, noting that the changes in the revisions are extremely minor and are not substantive to.this proposal for designation, but we did want to have the information corrected. And on page 2, you notice where there is a little flag saying "revised," that is the sentence next to the sticky that was revised, because we consulted a photograph again at the end of the day and needed to revise some old notes that we had that the staircase at the back of the interior is from the historic period and in fact, we learned even later last night that it is original to the building. Also, the balcony landing of the staircase inside, that is the rear mezzanine area, is historic. The staff report had said that the stairway as well had been added later, and that is not the case. The reason that we made these changes is that this staff report will be an attachment to the City Manager's report for the designation to the City Council, and we wanted to provide the Council with accurate information. The other change that is not noted in a sticky note is very minor, but it does give a correction, which is the date of the fayade that we see there now at the lower level of the fayade, the shop front area. We received late yesterday a splendid submission by Chair Bunnenberg ofthe Board that we have duplicated for you and was at your place this morning. The last sheet in that stapled group shows that the application for that fayade was not 1967. The staff was relying on the city directory listing, but those directories for 1967 can extend back further, and you never really know how much, so we used the date of the directory. But now, thanks to that 8-112 x 11 page #4 ofthe stapled set, we know that they applied for the shop remodel at the end of '65. And in pale letters below that, in one of those boxes, it says that the work was completed in February of '66. So we also revised Whitson's opening in '66 rather than '67. We did not discover the grand opening ad, but obviously if their fayade was completed in February of that year, they did not open a year later. So those dates that say '67 have all been revised to 1966. And also we consulted late yesterday with a proprietor at Medallion Carpets who indicated that it was not Page 2 of 12 1980, but rather 1979 that they opened. Again, we were relying on the city directory. So Whitson's closed in '79 and was at that location for 12 years. So what we are requesting the Board to do, since we had distributed the other version of the staff report to the libraries and maybe copied by other people, yet this must go to the Council as a revised version. We consulted with Planning management who indicated that when the Board makes their motion, whatever it is on this proposal, if you could include in your motion that the Board adopts the revised staff report, then it will become official, even though another version was distributed. So with those things said, the staff report is a presentation that I won't go all through, because a designation takes off from the Municipal Code and could involve other matters in the future as far as development regulation. It then becomes a legal matter so there's always extensive copying from the Municipal Code and commenting on it. Our real task today is to decide whether this building could be reclassified to a Category 2. All buildings in general on the Inventory gain a certain amount in significancejust because decades have passed and in retrospect they become more important. But they also may have undergone alterations or maybe they had a lot of alteration even when it was designated, so we still have to decide whether it is a significant building or a contributing building. The staff report recommends that the Board recommend to the Council reclassifying the building for reasons that we gave that were not developed in the Historic Inventory report; primarily that the building -while a Spanish Colonial Revival, kind of strained through the California fantasy mentality ofthe '20s -is not only that. The buildings on Ramona Street are derived fairly directly from buildings in Andalusian Spain in country towns -the whitewashed towns or the white towns as they call them there -and that is a plainer, more rusticated architecture. This one is more urbane and classical and formal than Clark generally did in his Spanish buildings afterwards. But as the staff report pointed out, his building of just a few months earlier, the last commercial building in his pre-Spanish style, was the Roos Brothers building, and we also know about 611 Emerson Street where Vivre Health Studios is. We know [the latter] from previous applications, and that [that building] as well as the Roos Brothers building, does have classical pilasters and other classical detailing in the general Main Street mode of that time. And this building [323 University] combines the classical features, of Clark's earlier period and the Spanish Colonial approach that he was developing and will rapidly move into a more rusticated version a few months after this building. So this building is the only transitional building between those two periods of Clark's career, and that sort of analysis had not been delved into at length in the Historic Inventory form. We believe that is significant. Any building that represents a trend in architecture or a trend in the career of an important architect, where it is the only example that shows a certain phase, becomes sig~ificant, at least in the staff recommendation, ipso facto because of that. So that's the primary reason for our recommendation, also finding that the second floor, as we see in old photographs, is 100% intact from the time it was built, and it's rather elaborate. The shop front has been changed, but the Dames and Moore survey showed that if it happens at the crown of a building, its roof and its upper stories, where the ornamentation tends to be, that is more significant than the ground level sometimes is. The submission of Chair Bunnenberg yesterday to us, however, has this wonderful drawing, and we provided copies of this submission, a number of them on the table, for the public. It shows how elaborate the ground floor was. Really only the Gallery House on Ramona Street has such a rather elaborate vestibule type of entry as this had. It's not there now, the current shop front was designed to display draperies. It's in a more residential, modernist mode. It's got nice little arches at the windows to Page 3 of 12 echo the arches above. It could be much worse than it is. So it's not radically incompatible. It is simply modern. RathJer than go through the staff report, which you have covered, any further than those recommendations that I just made, I wanted to enter into the public record a part of an article submitted by Chair Bunnenberg describing the building that shows the philosophy at the time that these special buildings were constructed. It's a philosophy quite different than one sees in much of architecture today and indicates reasons why certain old buildings really need to be preserved. It is on the first sheet of the stapled set entitled, "New Note Struck in Crandall Store." It says that it has touched a new note in Palo Alto store design. The quote is, "Beauty has been the primary object in both the buildings and the furnishings, and the result is a work of art rather than a commercial structure. The white plastered front, thrown. into contrast by the black ornamental iron grills and brightened by strong touches of color in windows and roof, form a picturesque spot on the n{)rth side of the avenue between Bryant and Waverley Street. Further down, the building is of the Mediterranean type of architecture showing marked Spanish influence. The upper portion with its low arcade spanning across behind the decorative iron balustrade and surmounted by the sloping tile roof, has a distinct feeling of the streets and patios of old Spain. This feeling is further carried out by the gay touches of deep ~armen and cerulean blue in the cornice. In many modern stores, the necessities of the show windows have obtruded themselves at the expense ofthe architectural unity. But in this case, plaster pilasters extend down on 'either side, and the entire front is thrown back into a deep vestibule that has given ample display space without weakening the architectural composition. The floor ofthe vestibule has been paved with red hand-made tile that has been enlivened with occasional touches of multi-colored tile. All woodwork in the vestibule is of dark mahogany, and both ofthe doors are covered with iron grills." These details of the original structure are talking about a building as a work of art to the degree that it is beyond the needs of a commercial structure, and it is not called a commercial structure. A couple of years later Clark designed those stores on either side of the Varsity Theater, and the Palo Alto Times headline was "New Art Stores," (not meaning the merchandise but the architecture) opened on University Avenue. These old buildings designed by an architect of Clark's talent were considered, when they were built, special works of art. Therefore, it becomes a weighty matter if anything such is demolished. It would be like demolishing a painting or a piece of sculpture. Therefore, where possible, one looks for the restoration of these buildings to recover the original art concepts. This building is still preserving much of that character and that is also a reason for our recommendation. Thank you very much. Chair Bunnenberg: Are there questions from the Board to staff at this point? Then we will move on to the applicant's presentation. Welcome this morning. Mr. Ken Hayes, Architect: Good morning Chair Bunnenberg, members of the Board. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. My, what a wonderful descriptive article of Clark's architecture on University Avenue that you found; that's wonderful. I haven't seen articles like that recently. 1'd like to thank Dennis for his assistance and staff assistance in the preparation of the application, and the research that was done and some of his direction. We actually went to the Stanford archives and have the blueprints of the original drawings on file. On one of those pages right there is a Xerox of the elevation page. My presentation is fairly short as Dennis covered much. Essentially, the owner of the restored property located at 323 University Avenue requests your review and recommendation to Council for reclassification, upgrade of323 University Avenue, listed on Palo Alto's historic building inventory from a Category 3, contributing building, to a G:ategory 2, a major building. Noted architect Birge Clark designed the original structure in 1925, and the University Avenue fayade Page 4 of 12 has remained intact as Dennis said, except for the lower store front infill which, with intensive research and collaboration with staff, we believe most likely occurred in 1967, but it sounds like 1966 is more accurate. The initial historic classification of this property was over 20 years ago and since that time works by Mr.-Clark have increased in significance. This building has become one of the rare survivors of Clark's earlier work, a transitional work, and is the first known commercial structure by Clark ' in the Spanish Colonial Revival style which became his most important signature style, I believe, that defines the character of the downtown, especially the Ramona Street area. In addition to Clark's significance with the building, the building was also built for Burton Crandall, a member of one of Palo Alto's pioneering families, and that fact has also increased in significance I think over the last 20 years. In summary, we believe that upgrading the classification of this building to a Category 2 major building would reflect its true historic value to the community and to the downtown, and we look forward to your comments and your positive recommendation to Council for this reclassification. I'd be happy to answer any questions, but Dennis is probably most familiar. Thank you. Chair Bunnenberg: Are there questions from the Board? Board Member Susan Haviland:_ What are the owner's plans for the building, and does he intend to use TDRs? Ken Hayes: I don't know if he intends on using TDRs, but they are considering a restoration and redevelopment for the property. This is the first step in a process, and anything that we do, obviously we'll come back for your review. Board Member Makinen: I have a question on the ironwork on the balcony, the upper floor. It looks lIke it's probably not the original, but it's really not clear from the quality of the reproductions. . Ken Hayes: It's not uncommon when dealing with craftsmen, that what's shown on the drawing would not be accurately depicted in the field. Things like that could change over time. If you look at the blueprints -you're talking about the upper railing? Board Member Makinen: Yes. Ken Hayes: I believe that's how it is today.- Chair Bunnenberg: I had the question because it looks like it's gold at this point, either that or the late afternoon sun does strange things to it. Has it been painted? Ken Hayes: It may have been painted. Chair Bunnenberg: It has been painted. That helps. I would defer to other Board members' opinions, but from my looking at it, it seemed that it's the same. Planner Backlund: If! could offer a comment I think may clarify the balcony. One thing the blueprint has done is to highlight the design of the balcony in a way that makes the iron members look wider than they actually are. The balcony is more delicate than in the drawing. If you look at the applicant's submission on the last page where he has the color photos, and then you look at the larger photo ofthe fayade on the left, right in the middle of the store, the middle part of the balcony, you will see the carved bottoms of these pilasters in the dead center. In right above that Page 5 of 12 you can dimly see these swirls in the ironwork. And then if you go back to the blueprints, it is the same swirls in the same location. For those reasons, we surmised that this balcony is original. Chair Bunnenberg: Are there other questions? We'll check and see whether we have any public comment unless you have any additional information at this point. Ken Hayes: I'm finished. Chair Bunnenberg: I see no public cards. However, I will leave the public hearing open in case further questions come up. Now we're ready at this point for discussion, recommendation by the Board. I would like to add two footnotes. One is that the article describes that decorative iron balustrade as being made by Herman Bleibler, who is the local craftsman who did all, as far as I know and as far as Birge Clark's sons know, of the ironwork on Birge Clark buildings. The second was just to remind you that Burton Crandall was an extremely well-known photographer of architectural subjects. We looked a lot at his photographs of the Norris house. Photographs by Burton Crandall were published in nationally distributed magazines so that he was known for a very long time as the dean of photographers in Palo Alto. So that is a distinguished connection for Burton Crandall. We'll move at this point to see if the Board has comments and recommendations. Board Member Kohler: I guess the only comment I would have -would this qualify as a Category 1 rather than Category 2? I guess they're asking for #2, but what would deem it not to be #1? Board Member Murden: I was wondering if we could ask the applicant that question .. Board Member Kohler: My thought would be that when you look at the drawing of the original building, in a sense half ofthe fayade has been modified and changed. In that sense that's probably why it would not creep into the Category 1 because it's not really intact. In fact, if you measured it out, probably 45% of the fayade has been revised and modified with a storefront window system. That would be my reason why. I would probably have a hard time categorizing it as # 1 because of that. But #2 is very simple, very easy for me. Maybe Dennis can enlighten us on that. Planner Backlund: I think what can answer the question is the language of a Category 1 building, which are called "exceptional buildings" in the ordinance. An exceptional building has had either no exterior modifications, or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character. A documented-based restoration could bring this building into a higher Category, but currently we believe that it best fits Category 2. Chair Bunnenberg: Other points of discussion? I think that one point that I would want to bring to the Board's attention is that because down the road there may be some legal implications, perhaps we need to be very careful in the specificity ofthe kinds of things that we see as really important on this building. I don't know whether that's completely necessary at this point, but maybe we need to think about those. Planner Backlund: One option for the Board's motion is if the Board does recommend that this building be reclassified, it is with the understanding-or provision that all of the features in the top half of the building would need to be preserved in the future or repaired and restored in order to maintain that designation. Page 6 of 12 Board Member Haviland: I think it might extend further than that because there are these existing pilasters that come down to the ground floor. I think Beth brings up this very interesting point, and this was the reason I asked the question about TDRs and the use ofTDRs, is we seem to be seeing some cases where TDRs have been extracted from a site, and then the follow-up on the source site has not been exactly what we expected. So there's a bit more scrutiny now in terms of what's going to happen to the subject property. And if we're splitting hai.rs, that's the reason behind it. It's informational and it's not been released to the public, but the subject property under discussion today is the one on University Avenue. Chair Burinenberg: So it does speak to caution and hoping to build this in at the beginning of a project so that it's clear that these are parts of the building that we see, that this fa<;ade is a very, very important one and that in looking at it again, we would be looking for plans that protect those historic features. Board Member Haviland: Can I ask you a question, Dennis. In the future, ifTDRs were going to be taken from the site and used elsewhere, they would be in conjunction with a rehabilitation plan for the building. Is that a necessary component of the TDR program? Planner Backlund: Yes it is. A rehabilitation plan for the building must be submitted before bonus square footage can be granted. When that is done it's with the provision that in the municipal code -it's in the zoning code actually -that a rehabilitation plan is simply a treatment of a building that meets the secretary's standards in the opinion of the Board. In short, it is highly discretionary; where there is less and less definition of a term, there is more and more discretion to the Board on what constitutes an adequate rehabilitation which is proper. Because historic buildings can differ radically from one another, they really need a motion to be created on a case-by-case basis. Board Member Haviland: But in any case, that rehabilitation plan would come before the Board and is a wholly separate matter from this designation, this Category 2. Planner Backlund: Yes. The current proposal for reclassification is regarding how the building looks now without any change. As a Category 2 building, even ifthere was no rehabilitation plan submitted, just to say that theoretically, any remodel to this building would be subject to discretionary ARB review with referral to the HRB. But because the ARB review is alway~ discretionary, it would involve the California Environm'ental Quality Act which invokes the Secretary's Standards. So in the downtown area, there would be a substantial authority given to the Board to apply the standards to any project, not just a TDR project, and then the demolition of the building would be permanently prohibited except on special safety hazard and such findings from the City Council. But a rehabilitation plan would be a totally separate application and is at your discretion with what assistance that we can provide in a starf report. Chair Bunnenberg: We have had some other applications that coupled the two requests, but this one is just the first step. Planner Backlund: That is correct. Chair Bunnenberg: Further questions? Board Member Haviland: I'll make it a theoretical question. If a property is designated Category 1 or 2 and the motion says that the historical significance of the building is in such and such and such features, that presumably would protect those features in the future, because historic significance is based on them? Would that be correct? Page 7 of 12 Planner Backlund: That would be correct. It'd be entirely appropriate in your motion if you would like to develop the motion in conjunction with surveying the photograph of the front fac;ade, beginning at the roof and naming any aIJ.d all elements that you see in the photograph as character-defining, which would mean that if those were removed or adversely altered, then against the Board's motion, the building would lose the basis for the category that would allow certain kinds of development to be proposed in the future. So it would help to close the circle and define things. Board Member Haviland: My concern there would be that we'd be limiting ourselves to something that is perhaps overlooked in a 30-minute discussion or meeting and that say five years from now, would be determined to be quite significant but we hadn't mentioned it. Planner Backlund: Then you could word the motion that the character-defining features ... Board Member Haviland: .. .include but are not limited to, something like that? Planner Backlund: Yes. Board Member Haviland: Thank you. Planner Backlund: We should begin to craft a motion. Board Member Haviland: I'm going to need help from the whole Board here. I move that the Board approve the staff recommendation ... Chair Bunnenberg: The revised ... Board Member Haviland: The revised staff recommendation -thank you; that's what I meant by needing the whole board -... the revised staff recommendation that 323 University Avenue be reclassified as a Category 2 building on the Palo Alto historic inventory. The Board finds that the following features are essential to its historic significance. These are 1. The arcaded windows at the second floor; 2. The flanking pilasters at both the first and second floor; 3. The tile roof; 4. The ornamental ironwork at the second floor. Are there any other particular features we want to call out in this motion? Board Member Makinen: Did you mention our tile work? Is there remaining tile work? Is there an interest here? . Board Member Haviland: Is there remaining tile work? Chair Bunnenberg: Let's ask the applicant on that. I don't believe so. We might check on that. Thank you. Ken Hayes: I believe that when the storefront work was done in '66, the tile work that was on the base of the building and in the ground plane was eliminated. Chair Bunnenberg: Thank you very much. And Susan, we were talking about the essential features "are, but not limited to ... " Board Member Haviland: I will add that later. Page 8 of 12 Chair Bunnenberg: Good. Board Member Haviland: I want to do the list first. Board Member Makinen: I guess going along with the ironwork, the original ironwork was not painted. Do we want to have the ironwork restored to the original condition? I would think that would be appropriate. Board Member Makinen: Ironwork, typically, because of the [inaudible]. Ken Hayes: I'm pretty sure that it was painted out. Board Member Haviland: I don't see anything in the materials we've received that indicate one way or another how the ironwork was treated. Does the applicant have any information? Ken Hayes: Just what I learned this morning in the article in the Times Tribune where it described black railings contrasted against the white fa<;ade. Board Member Haviland: But that could have been a natural finish of the wrought iron, but it could also have been painted. I believe we're specifically precluded from -perhaps not -issues of color. Chair Bunnenberg: Downtown? Board Member Haviland: Dennis? Planner Backlund: The motion for a reclassification would not include a direction that certain things need to be done or it would delay it going to the Councilor maybe prevent it. So it's looking at what is there now. But what is there now-is the wrought iron balcony that could be included in your motion for no change to the wrought iron balcony. Board Member Haviland: We'll accept that we might support a change if it was brought to us. Planner Backlund: I'm sorry -no removal of the wrought iron. Board Member Haviland: But what I'm doing, I have my list going here on this part of the motion, and Ijust mentioned the wrought iron railing at the second floor, and it looks like that's all we need to do at this point. We don't need to say that it be restored to any condition. Board Member Makinen: We could make a recommendation. It doesn't have to be a requirement. Chair Bunnenberg: But that might be more appropriate with the rehabilitation plans. Do we want to make any discussion of the detailing just under the roof? Board Member Haviland: Add to the list 5. The eave detailing at the roof. Chair Bunnenberg: And you put in the original windows. Page 9 of 12 Board Member Murden: I'm not clear either as to the mezzanine in the rear. It says "the existing extension ofthe rear mezzanine along the side." Is that something that should be noted, or is that all interior? Board Member Haviland: That is interior, and I don't know whether our purview is on interior features. Planner Backlund: The Municipal Code restricts the rehabilitation recommendations and character-defining features for designation to the exterior of the building, even if there are character-defining elements on the interior. Interior elements could be discussed with advisories at the time of a rehab plan but could not in the terms of the ordinance be made mandatory unless the Council chose to apply that designation which in rare cases like the Varsity Theater, they have. Chair Bunnenberg: And our report states that the rear of the building is unremarkable, so we don't want to include anything on that, is that correct with the Board? . Board Member Haviland: Is the rear of the building visible? It's off from a public way, just from the alley. Planner Backlund: It is visible from the alley where pedestrians do go up and down. The critical matter always is, is whether the rear fac;ade contains elements that are not only old, which they may be, but are also character defining to the building in its style and significance. It is a utilitarian fac;ade without decoration or characteristic arches or any treatment like that, and it also has been altered as the staff report indicated, to provide a large band of windows to light a conference room after 1980. Board Member Haviland: In a sense though, if we wanted to be very strict about it, the nature of this kind of building is a decorated store front, and this contrast between the utilitarian back and the more artistic front is in fact, a characteristic of the building. There have been other cases where a utilitarian fac;ade - I can't remember the address -but the new Apple store is also in a Birge Clark commercial building. We reviewed that and we mandated that the fac;ade along Kipling remain as Birge Clark had designed it, which was very, very utilitarian. So it's not on the basis ofthe fact that it's utilitarian and it's not in the Mediterranean style that I wouldn't recommend including it in the motion, although if 9ther Board members would like that, I'm happy to do it. It's simply that this i·s on an alley, it's not really a part of the public realm, so I'm contented at this point to leave it out of the motion. But the motion will have a provision that other elements could be discovered in the future. So I'm simply going to not mention it in the motion if that is okay with the rest of the Board members. Board Member Makinen: That's okay with me, but I was going back to your shopping list. Did you include the tile work of the roof? Board Member Haviland: I included the tile roof, but the tile at the base and the tile floor seems to have been removed. The roof is included. Chair Bunnenberg: Any other additions to that shopping list? Board Member Murden: I wondered if before we started the shopping list, if you could include- before we start itemizing in the shopping list -the tile roof and the entire upper fac;ade of the building "which includes but is not limited to ... " and then list. Page 10 of 12 Board Member Haviland: The reason I didn't do it that way is because of the pilasters coming down on either side. So I don't know ... Board Member Murden: And then include "and the pilasters on the first floor ... ?" Board Member Haviland: Certainly. Let's try it this way: Board Member Murden: The entire -I guess you'd call it the upper fa<;ade, second floor fa<;ade? I'm not quite sure how you'd word that. The tile roof, the entire upper floor fa<;ade which includes but is not limited to ... and then the items that Susan listed, "and the pilasters on the first floor." "At the side of the first floor .. ;?" It seems to me that the whole second floor fa<;ade is historic, and I would not like to see that changed, this is what I'm getting at. And you're listing the items which would presumably be retained as character defining. Board Member Haviland: I'm listing the specific items that make the second floor fa<;ade historic. But you bring up a good point. So let's try it this way: "The Board finds the following features essential to the historic integrity of the building: 1. The entire upper story fa<;ade including the tile roof; 2. The eave detail at the roof; . 3. The arcaded windows; 4. The ornamental iron railing; 5. At the first floor, the flanking pilasters and the lintel. This list is not intended to be exhaustive and on a future examination, further features may be determined to be contributing to the historic integrity of the building." Board Member Murden: I would second that motion. Chair Bunnenberg: Discussion? Seeing no further discussion, we will move to asking the question. All those in favor ofthis motion as stated, including the fact that this is on the revised· staff report will signify by saying "aye." [Five say aye] Chair Bunnenberg: All those opposed [None] Chair Bunnenberg: So we have six and one member not voting. One member conflicted. So we'll pass this ... Board Member Haviland: I just want to ask a question. That was a long and convoluted motion, and I just want to mak~ sure that the applicant has understood it. Ken Hayes: Yes. Board Member Haviland: Thank you. Chair Bunnenberg: Thank you very much. And thank you for coming. We really appreciate your coming and your presentation. Thank you very much. Page 11 of 12 Historic Resources Board Action: Board Member Haviland, seconded by Board Member Murden, moved the staff recommendation that the Historic Resources Board recommend that the City Council reclassify the property located at 323 University Avenue as a significant building in Category 2 consistent with the definition of Historic Category 2 in Section 16,49.020(b) of the Municipal Code. The HRB motion identified character-defining features of the building to be included in the Category 2 designation including, but not limited to (1) the entire upper story fac;ade including the tile roof, (2) the eave detail at the roof, (3) the arcaded windows, (4) the ornamental iron railing, (5) at the first floor, the flanking pilasters and the lintel, and (6) additional character-defining features that may be identified by qualified opinion in the future. Vote: 6-0-0-1 (Bernstein absent) OTHER BUSINESS. 2. Discussion of implementation of the City Auditor's recommendations for the City's Development Review Process. Item #2 is continued to the next regular HRB meeting on June 16,2004. BOARD ITEMS. 3. Board recommendation on an appeal by Palo Alto Stanford Heritage of a staff action regarding a proposed two-car garage that would replace a circa 1900 barn on the Category 2 Greer property at 51 Encina Avenue located in the CS Community Service Zone District. Item #3 is dropped. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS. STATUS REPORTS ON HISTORIC PROJECTS/SITES. CORRESPONDENCE. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. * Historic Resources Board representative at City Council meetings: Project Meeting date Representative Agenda changes, additions and deletions. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Questions. If interested parties have any questions regarding the above applications, please contact the Planning Division at (650) 329-2441. The files relating to these items are available for inspection weekdays between the hours of 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM and 1 :00 PM to 4:00 PM and staff reports will be available for inspection on 2:00 PM the Friday proceeding the hearing. ADA. Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who would like information on the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (voice) or (650)328-1199 (TDD) Page 12 of 12