HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-19 City Council (5)TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:MAY 19, 2003 CMR:278:03
SUBJECT:425 TASSO STREET: RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD AT THE REQUEST OF THE
OWNER, 425 TASSO INVESTORS, LLC, TODESIGNATE A
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TO THE CITY OFPALO ALTO’S
HISTORIC INVENTORY IN CATEGORY 2PURSUANT TO
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16.49 (tIISTORIC PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE)
RECOMMENDATION
The Historic Resources Board (HRB) and staff recommend that the City Council grant
the owner’s request to designate the residential building located at 425 Tasso Street as a
significant building in Category 2 of the Historic Inventory.
BACKGROUND
The building located at 425 Tasso Street is a two-story Queen Anne gable front and wing
house, constructed in 1905. It is a simple vernacular building that achieves architectural
distinction through a dramatic juxtaposition of three strong simple forms: the narrow
front-facing gabled box with its soaring roof enhanced by wide overhanging eaves and
paneled soffits, the equally strong rear gabled wing, and the prominent enclosed side
porch. The simple wall treatment of the house is enriched by carefully placed accents:
the street-facing three-sided bay window with ornamental transom, the classical square
columns at the porch, and the south-facing vent dormer which adds a surprising degree of
power to the overall design. These three large form elements and the enhancing
ornamental accents comprise the character-defining features of the building. The
architect of the house has not been determined.
The house maintains a high level of historic integrity despite two adverse changes that
have occurred within the last 50 years: an incompatible front entry structure was added
that negatively impacts the unified character of the original design of the house; and most
of the historic double-hung windows on the second floor were replaced by new double-
CMR: 278:03 Page 1 of 3
hung windows that are less graceful than the originals. These alterations are reversible,
however.
DISCUSSION
The staff recommendation to designate the building at 425 Tasso Street to the Historic
Inventory in Category 2 is consistent with the evaluation of the City’s historic survey
consultant, Dames & Moore, that the building retains its basic integrity, and appears
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance
under Criterion C (Design!Construction) as "a distinctive example of a two-story house
evidently built as a boarding house [whose] distinctive appearance is due to its prominent
form of narrow gabled boxes and its simplicity of embellishment" (see Attachment B).
The building is also eligible for the National Register under Criterion A (Event) as a
representative of "the initial development of single family houses in Palo Alto and the
practlce of providing lodging to students." Staff recommends that Attachment B to this
report be adopted by the City Council as the basis of the designation.
Regulatory consequences to this property if the Council chooses to accept the Board’s
recommendation include:
Upon designation in Category 2, demolition of the building at 425 Tasso Street, and
located in the downtown CD zone, would be prohibited unless certain conditions were
met as set forth in PAMC 16.49.060.
Upon designation in Category 2, review of proposed alterations or additions to the
building by the Historic Resources Board would be required as provided in PAMC
16.49.050 (1)(B).
Upon designation in Category 2, the building would be subject to maintenance
regulations for historic structures as set forth in PAMC 16.49.080 and the
enforcement provisions set forth in 16.49.090.
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
On March 19, .2003, the HRB reviewed the application to designate the residential
building at 425 Tasso Street to the City’s Historic Inventory (see Attachment C). The
applicant’s architect, Montgomery Anderson, informed the Board that the building will be
used as a single-family home, and that the purpose of the designation application is to
qualify the building for certain historic preservation incentives provided in the Municipal
Code for Category 1 and 2 buildings in the downtown CD zone which are rehabilitated
under the Secretary’s Standards. The incentives, found in Municipal Code Section
18.49.060 and Chapter 18.87, are intended to provide funding [’or the rehabilitation of
historic properties. The incentives include a floor area bonus, parking exemptions, and
participation in the Transfer of Development Rights program. At its March 19, 2003
meeting, the HRB reviewed and approved the applicant’s proposed rehabilitation plan for
CMR: 278:03 Page 2 of 3
the house, which includes structural improvements, numerous repairs, and reversal of the
two adverse alterations discussed above.
The HRB unanimously voted (6-0-0-1) to support the staff recommendation for
designation of 425 Tasso Street as a Category 2 historic building and to forward the
Board’s recommendation to the City Council. The Board’s recommendation was based on
consideration of the definitions of the Historic Categories and the criteria for designation
found in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49, and on consideration of the Dames &
Moore historic survey evaluation of the building.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Current Photograph of the Building at 425 Tasso Street.
Attachment B: Historic Resources Board Staff Report of March 19, 2003.
Attachment C: Verbatim Minutes of the HRB Meeting of March 19, 2003.
DENNIS BACKLUND
Historic Preservation Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
EMSLiE
¯ Director of Planning and Community
Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL :~,
EI~IILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
Historic Resources Board
Roxy Rapp, P.O. Box 1672, Palo Alto, CA 94302
Joseph F Martignetti, Jr., AIA, PE, Principal, Ventana Property Services,
695 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 200
David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
CMR: 278:03 Page 3 of 3
Attachment A
Attachment B
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
Date:March 19, 2003
To:Historic Resources Board
From:
Subject:
Dennis Backlund,
Historic Preservation Planner
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
425 Tasso Street [03-HRB-01]: Application by Joseph F. Martignetti,
Jr. of 425 Tasso Investors, LLC, for Historic Resources Board review of
a proposal to designate a Queen Anne residential building constructed in
1905 to the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Buildings Inventory, and Board
recommendation to the City Council of a Historic Category number for
the building as provided in Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 (Historic
Preservation Ordinance).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board recommend that the City Council
designate the property located at 425 Tasso Street as a significant building in Category 2
consistent with the criteria for designation of historic structures in Municipal Code
Section 16.49.040(b), the definition of Historic Category 2 in Section 16.49.020(b), and
consistent with the finding of the City’s historic survey consultant, Dames & Moore, that
the building retains its historic integity and appears eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under Criteria A (Events) and C (Design/Construction) at the local level
of significance.
THE HISTORIC PROPERTY
The Builder
According to Dames and Moore the house located at 425 Tasso Street between University
and Lytton Avenues was likely built by George W. Mosher (1863-1939), one of the most
important residential builders in Palo Alto at the turn of the 20th century. (The architect
s:\plan\plandivhhrb\staffreport~IRB staffi’ep.template Page 1
of the house is unknown.) Between 1893 and 1908 G.W. Mosher built several houses
that are listed on the City’s Historic Inventory in Categories 1 and 2:345 Lincoln Avenue
(the "water tower" house), 119 Bryant Street (the Thoits house), 535 Bryant Street (the
Bixby house), 334 Kingsley Avenue, 900 University Avenue (the Squire House), 200
Homer Avenue (the former Cashel Brothers Plumbing Shop), and 575 Hawthorne
Avenue. Mosher also built the recently rehabilitated Historic Inventory house at 270
Channing Avenue.
The Historic Building
The dominant character-defining feature of the house is its dramatic juxtaposition of three
strong simple forms: (1) the steeply pitched front-facing gable which is powerfully
enhanced by wide overhanging eaves and eave returns with paneled soffits, (2) the rear
gabled wing that repeats the steep roof form and wide overhanging eaves of the front-
facing gable, and (3) the substantial one-story enclosed porch that fills the space formed
by the "L" of the primary gable and its wing. The effect of the juxtaposition of these
three large forms is increased by carefully placed accents: the three-sided street-facing
bay with ornamental transom on the first floor, the square classical columns of the
enclosed porch, and the Vent dormer high over the enclosed porch which, from the
pedestrian point of view, projects its own steep gable and wide eaves into the sky. All
these elements work together to create a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts.
Alterations
The house has undergone two principal changes, neither of which can be positively dated.
During the last several years the historic double hung windows on the second floor were
replaced by new double-hung windows with thick center bars that look different than the
historic windows on the first floor. Also, at an undetermined time an incompatible front
entry structure was added that negatively impacts the highly unified character of the
original design of the house. However, these changes were in place when Dames and
Moore evaluated the property in 1999 and determined that 425 Tasso Street is eligible for
the National Register.
History of Use
The Dames and Moore report on the property concludes that the house was evidently built
to serve as a boarding house. The first owner, Mrs. Jennie Kent, was a widow who lived
in the house with her mother who was also a widow. Dames and Moore notes that "a
number of large houses were built at this time by widows who planned to make a living
by taking in boarders." City directories indicate that Mrs. Kent lived in the house from
about 1906 until the 1940s during which time several relatives and other people including
students also lived there.
s:\plan\plandiv~arb\staffreportg-IRB staffrep, template Page 2
BASIS OF DESIGNATION
Historic Evaluation by Dames & Moore
In 1997, the San Francisco consulting firm of Dames & Moore undertook a formal
historic survey of Palo Alto. In January 1999, Dames & Moore made a preliminary
finding that 425 Tasso Street was potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion C (Design!Construction). In December 1999, after further
research, the text of the final DPR 523A Form for the building was completed, with a
determination that the building appears eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places under both Criterion A (Events--representing "the initial development of single
family houses in Palo Alto and the practice of providing lodging to students"), and
Criterion C (Design/Construction--representing "an example of the work of the important
early builder G.W. Mosher, and.., a distinctive example of a two-story house evidently
built as a boarding house").
Although Dames & Moore’s DPR 523A Form reflects the entire range of scholarly
approaches to a historic property required by the survey standards of the State Office of
Historic Preservation, the section most closely related to the designation application
before the Historic Resources Board is the Evaluation that contains the determination that
425 Tasso Street is architecturally significant at the National Register level (see
Attachment A). This would qualify the building for a Category 2 designation because, as
shown below, the definition of a Category 2 building contained in MC Chapter 16.49
requires major architectural significance.
Criteria for Designation and Definition of Historie Category 2
Chapter 16.49, Section 16.49.040 (b) provides general criteria that apply to all historic
designations in Palo Alto. The criteria are:
1.The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important
events in the city, state or nation;
2.The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of
life important to the city, state or nation;
3. The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common,
but is now rare;
4. The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common,
but is now rare;
5.The architect or building was important;
6.The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to
architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.
s:\plan\plandiv~hrb\staffreport~IRB staffrep, template Page 3
Chapter 16.49, Section 16.49.020 (b) (definitions of the Categories) establishes the level
of importance of properties that meet the general criteria for designation. The focus of
the definitions of the Categories is on architectural significance. Category 2 structures are
defined as follows:
"Category 2: ’Major building’ means any building or group of buildings of major
regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding
example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture in the
state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the
original character is retained."
SUMMARY
Based on an analysis of the criteria for designation and the definition of Historic Category
2 found in MC Chapter 16.49, and a consideration of the Dames & Moore Historic
Evaluation, staff concludes that 425 Tasso Street meets all the criteria for designation,
and best fits the definition of a Category 2 building in that:
o It represents the initial development of single family houses in Palo Alto (Criterion 1);
It represents a basically intact example of a once-typical form of residential building,
the gable front and wing house with Queen Anne detailing (Criteria 2 and 3);
Its history represents the once common practice of providing lodging to students and
other boarders in homes in the downtown area (Criterion 4);
o Its probable builder, George W. Mosher, is of major local significance (Criterion 5);
o It retains its highly unified design and its Queen Anne detailing (Criterion 6).
The building is consistent with the definition of a Category 2 building in that it retains its
basic integrity, and appears eligible for the National Register of Historic Places at the
local level of significance under Criterion C (Design!Construction).
ATTACHMENT
Attachment A: Historic Survey for 425 Tasso Street by Dames & Moore.
COURTESY COPIES
Roxy Rapp
P.O. Box 1672
Palo Alto CA 94302
s:\ptan\plandivkhrb\staffreport~IRB staffrep, template Page 4
Joseph F. Martignetti, Jr., AIA, P.E., Principal
Ventana Property Services
695 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 200
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Montgomery Anderson, AIA, Principal
Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, Inc.
941 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
David Bubenik
420 Homer Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
PREPARED BY: "~)~~
Dennis Backlund.
Historic Pres~~ ~ Planner
REVIEWED B~ ~
Advance Planning l~lJ~ager
s:\ptan\plandiv~arb\staffreport~HRB staffrep, template Page 5
Attachment A
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
RIMARY RECORD
Page 1 of 5
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer
*Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder)
3S
425 Tasso St
Date
P1.
P2.
Other Identifier: 425 Tasso St
Location: [] Not for Publication [] Unrestricted *a: County Santa Clara
and (P2c,P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Palo Alto, CA Date 1991 T ; R ; __Y4 of__Y~ of Sec ¯B.M.
c. Address 425 Tasso St City Palo Alto Zip 94301
d.UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone __;mE/~ mN
*e.Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN 120 03 026
"~P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
The following description addresses the building in terms of its structure, plan, and appearance. The structure and plan are
described using three sources of information (1949 Assessment Record prepared by the Tax Assessor, Sanborn maps, and
current survey information -- photographs, Field Notes form, and site visits from 1998 and 1999). The description of the
structure and plan is presented for two phases in the building’s history. The building is presented as it was built, or as it was
at the earliest time warranted by the information available. Second the building is presented as it has changed, up to the present
(1999).
The house at 425 Tasso is a two-story, stud-frame house with a ten by 16 foot basement and an accessible attic. By 1949,
its foundation was concrete block walls, although possibly not original. The frame is clad on the exterior in V-groove siding with
shingles in the gables. Inside, there are pine floors in the main house and an earth floor in the basement, and the walls are
plastered. In 1949, there was no heating system, but there was one fireplace and chimney.
See continuation sheet
*P3b Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 Sinqle family prooertv
*P4. Resources Present: ~ Building ~ Structure r~ Object ~ Site r~ District D Element of District .~ Other (isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo:
(View, date, accession #)
425 Tasso St: view northeast;
09/20/99: bv B. Vahev; roll BRV-84.
neq #3
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source:[] Historic
r~ Prehistoric ~ Both
1905; Palo Alto Times
*PT. Owner and Address:
Rosalind Chi
425 Tasso St Palo Alto CA 94301
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
Michael Corbett. Dames & Moore
221 Main Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94105
*P9. Date Recorded:
December 16, 1999
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
Pll. Report Citation*: (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter "none".) Palo Alto Historic Survey Uodate !Corbett and Bradley for Dames & Moore. 2000)
*Attachments: ~ NONE N Location Map D Sketch Map ~; Continuation Sheet N Building, Structure and Object Recorcl
= Archaeological Record = District Record D Linear Feature Record ~ Milling Station Record ~ Rock Art Record
= Artifact Record [] Photograph Record [] Other (List)
DPR 523A (1/95)/ TASS425.F1 *Required information.
Page 2~ of 5 Resource Identifier: 425 Tasso St
Recorded by Michael Corbet~*Date December 16, 1999 [] Continuation r~ Update
Description (continued)
In plan, this house is a rectangular box with a large gabled wing projecting from the southeast side. In addition, there is a bay
window on the ground floor of the street facade and a one-story porch, now enclosed, between this projecting wing and the
front of the house. The entrance to the house is through the porch in the middle of the southwest side. In 1949, the Tax
Assessor recorded a living room, dining room, half bath, kitchen, service porch, and sun porch on the ground floor. On the
second floor were three bedrooms and a bath.
In appearance, the character of this house is dominated by it~ distinctive form -- a two-story narrow gabled box with a
projecting side wing and a one-story side porch. Decorative details are confined to the paneled soffits, shingled gables, and the
classical order of columns on the porch -- these are loosely associated with the Queen Anne style.
DPR 523L (1/95) TASS425.F1 ~Requlred Information
Page 3 of 5 *NRHP Status Code 3S
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 425 Tasso St
B1.
B2.
B3.
*B5.
*B6.
Historic Name:
Common Name:
Original Use:B4. Present Use: Sinqle family property
Architectural Style: Queen Anne
Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
1905: Built (Palo Alto Times)
*B7.Moved? [] No [] Yes [3 Unknown Date:Original Location:
*BS.Related Features:
B9a.
*B10.
Architect: b. Builder: G.W. Mosher
Significance: Theme A: Pattern of development in Palo Alto, C: work of G.W. Mosher, an important early builder, and
boardinc! house Area Palo Alto
Period of Significance 1906-1950 Property Type Residential Applicable Criteria A and C
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
History
Site: The parcel at 425 Tasso appears on the Map of the City of Pa/o Alto ca. 1916 with its current boundaries. The parcel at
425 Tasso originally occupied a large lot that was developed with two standard houses along the street and a small house at
the rear. Today (1999), the lot is comprised of two standard 25 by 112.50 foot lots (nos. 62 and 63) of Block 37’s original
subdivision.
Structure: The Palo Alto Times reported on 5 January 1906 the construction during the preceding year of a new residence at
425 Tasso for J.P. Kent. The Palo Alto City Directory first listed the address in 1907 with Mrs. Jennie P. Kent and Mrs. W.M.
Porter occupants. The Palo Alto Times of 17 July 1903 identified the builder of 435 Tasso as G.W. Mosher. According to the
Sanborn map of 1924, 425 and 435 Tasso shared a single lot at that time, so it is possible that Mr. Mosher built 425 as well.
The Assessor’s documents show no evidence of any addition or alteration.
Use: The Palo Alto City Directory first listed the house at 425 Tasso in 1907 at which time it was occupied by Mrs. Jennie Kent,
who had had the house built, and by Mrs. Wilhelmina Porter, who is identified by the U.S, Census of 1920 as Mrs. Kent’s
mother. The same census identifies both women as widows. A number of large houses were built at this time by widows who
See continuation sheet
B11.Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*B12.References:
B13.
See continuation sheet.
Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Michael Corbett
Date of Evaluation: December 16, 1999
(Tkis space reserved for official comments)
(Sketch map with north arrow required)
DPR 523B(1/95)TASS425.F1 *Required Information
Page 4__~__ of 5 Resource Identifier: 425 Tasso St
Recorded by Michael Corbett/Steve Hardy (history) *Date December 16, 1 999 ~ Continuation ~3 Update
History (continued)
planned to make a living by taking in boarders. The City Directory of 1908 lists two Misses Case, students, who were probably
just such boarders. It also says that Mrs. Kent was working as a dressmaker, but the directories from 1916 to 1931 show that
she kept a shop at 318 University that dealt in "wearing apparel for ladies, corsets, hosiery, art goods, lingerie, etc." From 1932
to 1 941, Mrs. Kent was listed working at hemstitching. The City Directory of 1914-1915 first lists Miss Clara L. Barnes, a
dental assistant, residing at this address. Miss Barnes was listed here, irregularly, as late as 1948. She was not listed in the
City Directory of 1920-1921, for instance, but the U.S. Census of that year shows that she was there. The same census lists
Mrs. W. Porter’s sonand Mrs. Kent’s brother, Charles H. Porter, living in his mother’s and sister’s house together with his wife
and two children. The total number of occupants in that year was eight. Mrs. Kent died at a local rest home in 1954.
Evaluation
This house appears eligible for the NRHP under criteria A and C at the local level of significance for the period 1906 to 1950.
Under criterion A, this house represents the initial development of single family houses in Palo Alto and the practice of providing
lodging to students.
Under criterion C, it is an example of the work of the important early builder, G.W. Mosher, and it is a distinctive example of
a two-story house evidently built as a boarding house. Its distinctive appearance is due to its prominent form of narrow gabled
boxes and its simplicity of embellishment.
References
California Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Nominating Historical Resources to the California Register of Historic
Resources. Sacramento, CA. August 1997.
Map of the City of Palo Alto. ca. 1 916.
Palo Alto City Directory. 1907-1950.
Palo Alto Historic Survey Update. Property File.
Palo Alto Times. 21 March 1902, 17 July 1903, 5 January 1906, 4 March 1954.
Sanborn Map Company. Insurance Maps of Palo Alto. New York: 1924.
Sanborn Map Company. Insurance Maps of Palo Alto. New York: 1924; revisions to 1949.
Santa Clara County. Tax Assessor. Assessment Record. 1949, 1962, 1967.
United States Census. 1920.
United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation.
DPR 523L (1/95) TASS425,F1 *Required Information
Page ~5 of 5~ *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ,425 Tasso St
*Map Name: Palo Alto Planninq Dept. GIS *Scale: 1":80’ *Date of Map:,,.]999
120-10-34
120-10-35
120-10-36
2-10.37
.;.-.. .. .....-; .. -; .
Pa lo AI to
Attachment C
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
REGULAR MEETING - 8.’25 AM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, First Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ROLL CALL:
Board members:
.i~[artin Bernstein, Chair
Beth Bzmnenberg, Vice-Chair
Roger Kohler
34ichael ~[akinen
Carol Murden
Mildred Mario - absent
Susan Ha~,iland
City Council Liaison:
Jim Burch - absent
Staff."
Julie Caporgno,
Advance Plann#~g Manager
Dennis Backlund,
Historic Preser~,ation Planner
Diana Tamale, Staff Secretary
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as
follows:
Announce agenda item
Open public hearing
Staff recommendation
Applicant presentation - Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board
Historic Resources Board questions of the applicant/staff
Public comment - Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3)
minutes depending on large number of speakers per item.
Applicant closing comments- Three (3) minutes
Close public hearing
Motions/recommendations by the Board
Final vote
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. None.
Page 1 of 18
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The
additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
NEW BUSINESS
agenda may have
Public Hearings
425 Tasso Street [03-HRB-01]: Application by Joseph F. Martignetti, Jr. of 425 Tasso
Investors, LLC, for Historic Resources Board review of a proposal to designate a Queen
Anne residential building constructed in 1905 to the City of Palo Alto’s Historic
Buildings Inventory, and Board recommendation to the City Council of a Historic
Category number for the building as provided in Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 (Historic
Preservation Ordinance).
Mr. Dennis Backlund. Historic Preservation Planner: Thank you, Chair Bernstein and Members
of the Board. The project before us has been rather extensively studied by a professional historic
survey team that the City engaged for a citywide survey from 1997 until the year 2000. In late
1999 the survey team’s study of this property was complete. This property was included on a list
of approximately 170 properties throughout the City out of 6,000 that they studied that would be
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. As the sm-vey team had their methodology
certified by the State Office of Historic Preservation and because the qualifications of their firm
meet standards for consultants set by the Secretary of the Interior we can regard it as official that
this property is eligible for the National Register for the reasons that were given in the
Evaluation section near the end of the survey report that is Attachment A to the Staff Report.
This property was constructed in 1905. We ~know that because the City Directories indicate
residency close to that date and the directories will cover parts of the previous year. So it was
determined to be 1905. The style was approached very carefully by the firm of Dames & Moore.
If [a property] is not a textbook example of a style then they tend to describe the property by its
physical features and then to say whether it also includes some elements that are associated with
certain styles rather than saying this is a Colonial Revival residence or a Queen Anne. So they
determined this is a somewhat vernacular structure with Queen Anne elements. As the Staff
looked at it we offered an interpretation of the property’s design that we submitted to the Board
(including the Board architects) for evaluation as you discuss to see whether this interpretation
by Staff looks to be appropriate. That interpretation was that the property has a very strong
presence as well as age, a sense of presence to an unusual degree that makes it stand out from
similar types of properties, and, therefore, it is eligible for the National Register as an
outstanding example of the arrangement of massing which we described as a juxtaposition of
three large principal elements that are so joined as to enhance the effect of each other: that was
the large front-facing gable, the side-facing gabled wing at the rear, and the large porch structure
of one story high that is nestled into the L-pattern of these t~vo massing elements.
Then Staff also believed that the position and treatment of the vent dormer on the roof, which
could have gone in other places, was very carefully chosen to be part of the design, and we
believed that that was indicated in the photograph in the National Register form from Dames &
Moore. The dormer has the same steep pitch and wide overhanging eaves that is not necessarily
seen in all dormers around town that matched the style of the rest of the house. It does not have
the eave returns but it does have those wide overhanging eaves and the vents also are located in a
good location to kind of form a unity of all parts of the house because the slats of the vent echo
the shadow patterns of the siding that is right underneath. Then also the slope, the pitch, and
Page 2 of 18
eaves of the donner echo that treatment that is on the roof gable of the wing at the rear as well as
the front gable so that all the elements of the house come together in a good sense of unity. So
we were quite sorry that we don’t know who the architect is. A lot of research was done on that
and so far the architect has not been located. I went through our Inventory trying to find similar
houses to see if we could offer you a speculation, and that we were unable to do. It didn’t look
like the approach of H. L. Upham that we had studied before because his approach was more
illusionistic and less straightforward than this design is. Certainly the building is a very notable
design so the various sections of the house that are original are well put together.
There is the question of alterations that the Board must evaluate when you are looking at the
recommended Category 2 for this property because Category 2 allows a small amount of
alteration provided that the overall original character of the property is not impacted. We
thought that was the case here. Of course we considered that Dames & Moore gave this an "as
is" National Register eligibility and therefore the windows on the second floor which are modem
ones are the same general type of windows [as the originals]. They have the wider framing that
you often find in double pane glass but they are the same general type of windows that we expect
to see on a residence of this kind. An alteration that is more serious because it changes the
massing of the house is being proposed for reversal and removal by the applicant and that is
where the front door is. The porch was enclosed which then didn’t allow access to the original
front door but it is a very old porch enclosure, you can see it from the antique glass, and also it is
typical that porches were enclosed most often during the 1920s throughout Palo Alto. So it is a
characteristic change that in and of itself is historic, but it required them to add a new" front door
element. This was done in a very perfunctory way. The house could have been possibly a rental
by that time and not a great deal of expense went into that element. It somewhat conflicts with
that very careful arrangement of three large forms that compose the house with the addition of
the vent donner to give a strong accent to those elements. This front porch element doesn’t do
anything to enhance the overall style of the house and, in fact, detracts from what we take to be
the original architect’s strategy. Therefore, while it possibly may have some age to it we did not
regard it as an element properly called historic because of the way that it worked against the
original strategy of architecture of this house. So the applicant is proposing to remove this to
retain, as is appropriate, the enclosure of the porch with the antique glass but to introduce a front
door element on the side in a massing strategy that does fold back into the original conception of
the house. Therefore Staff did recommend approval of that change.
So for all of these reasons we recommend that the project be approved by the Board for a
Category 2 designation as presented by the applicant. That is the Staff recommendation and we
turn now to the Board’s discretionary decision-making.
Chair Bemstein: Thank you, Dennis. Next we will hear from the applicant and then we can
have questions from the Board for either Staff or the applicant.
Mr. Montv Anderson. Codv. Anderson. Wasnev Architects: Good morning. With the project
that you have before you today we are asking you to consider two things. One is a Category 2
designation for this building with the facts for finding it a major building under the Palo Alto
Municipal Code which basically define it as an outstanding example of an architectural style or
stylistic development of architecture, which is consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code
"Category 2 Major Building" definition. That is further outlined in the Dames & Moore report in
the Staff Report which Dennis put together so thoroughly.
Page 3 of 18
The Category 2 status, I think, would help find a way to give what this building needs right now
which is sort of an infusion of care. Neglect remains probably its biggest threat. The Category 2
status would open it up to be considered for one of the only incentives that exists for a building
like this in the Palo Alto Municipal Code which is the Preservation Bonus. The Preservation
Bonus would be the incentive mechanism that would trigger the upgrades that we have outlined
in our rehabilitation plan. So we think that that’s worth considering.
It is important to note here too that often times with these incentives we are looking to use them
directly on the building and that always presents a bit of a conundrum in that how do you add
2,500 square feet to a building and protect the historic resource that you are trying to protect and
enhance? Is that the fire alarm?
Chair Bernstein: Let’s assume that that is real.
[ 15 minute fire alarm evacuation]
Chair Bernstein: Welcome. I think the applicant’s ten minutes are up now’. Please continue, Mr.
Anderson.
Mr. Anderson: I was talking about the incentive of the 2,500 square foot Preservation Bonus. In
the Municipal Code it exists as one of our only true historic incentives. In this case the incentive
would be the funding mechanism for the improvements that are listed in our rehabilitation plan.
It is also important to note that the intention of the 2,500 square-foot bonus is to put it into TDR,
Transfer Development Rights, not to use the 2,500 square feet on the site, on the building, but to
transfer it elsewhere to be used at a later date by the owners. That eliminates the conundrum that
we have as designers of trying to figure out how to put the massing of that incentive onto the
historic resource that we are trying to protect. So without needing to do that our moves are
rather simple on the building. It is in relatively good shape considering the age of the building
and the number of years of neglect that it has seen. The foundation is in okay shape. There is no
great problem with the movement that you see in a lot of the older buildings with shallower
foundations, settlement issues, things of that sort. There are a few wood-to-earth contact areas
especially around the porch that we would remedy with new foundation work. We would anchor
the building to the foundation, which currently it is not.
In replacement of the roof itself, which has multiple layers of roofing, I don’t think any roof has
ever come off of this building before because in the attic you can see the underside of the
shingles that were probably original. Wood shingles, yes. What we want to do when we tear that
roof off is basically cover the roof structure with pl?~vood to create a structural membrane out of
the roof system. Then we think beyond that there are a couple of hazards inside the building.
One is the unreinforced brick chinmey flue that runs from the partial basement up through the
structure and through the roof that carried the hot water and furnace flues. We want to take that
out. We would patch and repair the roof when that comes out but our intent would not be to
rebuild a new shaft in that location.
The existing unreinforced masonry chimney and fireplace along what I will call the north side of
the building has lots of signs of pulling away from the original structure. You can see that it has
been strapped back to the structure in an attempt to keep it from pulling away. Basically we
want to take this element out and rebuild it out of wood and in essentially the same shape in the
same place and then clad it with a brick veneer so that we maintain the look of the existing
chimney.
Page 4 of 18
Beyond that it gets a little simpler. We have shingles up in the gable ends; some of them show a
lot of signs of warping and cupping. We would replace what we needed to and we would retain
what wasn’t showing signs of damage. Same thing with the siding. There is a lot of work to be
done up along the eaves and the overhangs. There is a fair amount of rot that has occurred up
there. There is a fair amount of wood that is actually missing, and in some of the rear areas some
of the patchwork that has been done over time is not really done very well. When you look up in
the older part of the building everything is mitered at the comers and at the back of the building
where there has been patchwork. Everything is just sort of butt-jointed there and was not done
nearly as carefully.
Also done not nearly as carefully as many of the elements of the original building is the existing
entry porch and door that was added some time after the open porch was enclosed, we believe.
So the detailing of this and the materials inside that were used suggest that it was done at a much
later date and with much less skill than most of the main house was built with. Also, that
addition, I think, hides kind of a key element of the form of the building. When we remove it
you can probably maybe contrast this by looking at the cover picture on our rehabilitation and
maintenance outline that shows the existing building and you can see the entry porch and door.
Then on our rendering that Beth is holding up, if you remove that, what you actually expose is
that there is a bay window that matches the bay window on the front of the building that was
kind of a key feature. So the removal of that door sort of brings that back into the visual realm of
the building whereas right now the addition and entry door block that from view. So it would
also give us the ability to build proper steps and a landing to the entry. Right now you go up a
series of steps and then there is about an 18-inch landing just in front of the door and it is a very
awkward way of entering the building.
Gutters and downspouts are pretty much a mess throughout and our plan would be to replace
those. We would match existing profiles. Then in the end, when materials are being patched and
repaired, come back in and paint the building. While this sort of tall massing suggests a Queen
Anne influence on the building if you think of textbook Queen Anne with a lot of filigree and
ornament that decorates it, this building doesn’t have a lot of it but it does have a few interesting
details that I think the color scheme can help bring out and are lost in the kind of monochromatic
color scheme that we see on the building today. There is a piece of trim right underneath the
deep eaves that runs around and then drops down to become the head of the windows on the
second floor. We chose a contrasting trim color here to try and bring out that simple detail (but a
unique detail to the house nonetheless). The same thing with the entry porch: the colunms on
the entry porch make an attempt at ornamentation of the building and we think that through a
good use of color we can kind of bring that simple ornamentation out. So I think you have the
color and material board up there that we are proposing. I think the colors are a little bit nicer
than the photocopies render. The orange in the photocopy is a little strong but if you look at the
color board I think you see it is a nice sort of blending of colors. It is a little more brick-orange I
guess I would call it.
So, in summation, that is our project. We are hoping that you will endorse the Staff Report that
recommends a Category 2 designation for the building. We have put before you the repair and
maintenance outline that basically outlines what would be done to this structure if we are given a
Category 2 designation and were allowed to move forward with the preservation bonus. Then
these pieces would be enacted. I think, given the age and the shape of the building, it is exactly
what this building needs at this point in time. I am happy to answer any questions.
Page 5 of 18
Chair Bernstein: I have a couple of questions for Mr. Anderson. Does anybody else have
questions? Beth, go ahead.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: I had a couple of questions. One would be whether the applicant might
consider replacing at least the windows on that front fagade with wood frame windows?
Mr. Anderson: Yes, we would.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: I don’t know whether the rest of the Board would have additional
questions about that.
Mr. Anderson: I think there are three key windows there, Beth, the two in the front and the one
over the entry porch that have been changed out over time. If we were to change out those three
windows I think it would affect the two principle fagades that are in the public view.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: Very much so. Another question I had had was since this is located in
the Downtown Business District, what proposed use might be for it, and the direction I am going
is does this need to be handicapped accessible?
Mr. Anderson: No, the proposed use is residential right now and it is proposed to remain
residential. So there is no change of use in our application.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: All righ,t I think that’s it.
Chair Bernstein: Carol.
Board Member Murden: Are you planning to keep the pine floors inside? We don’t cover that
but I was just curious.
Mr. Anderson: Yes. Surprisingly I am working on several projects just like this on Kipling
Street and over on Waverley and this one on Tasso. Of all of those different buildings the
insides are in pretty bad shape in most of them. Water has been the main enemy. This building
has a lot of rot and decay out along the eaves on the outside, but the inside is surprisingly clean
suggesting that water hasn’t been coming in and attacking the building. The finishes are nice,
nice trims around the doors, hardwood floors. Our intent is really to kind of come in and do a
paint and freshen up on the inside but not a wholesale cleaning out of the building and stripping
out of those details.
Board Member Murden: Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Anybody else have questions? Susan.
Board Member Haviland: I just had a question I guess for Staff. How- important is the
attribution to G. W. Mosher in the designation of this building as a Category 2?
Mr. Backlund: One of the criteria in the Preservation Ordinance talks about the designer of the
building. We don’t know the architect so we have placed the building in that category. The
criteria for designation all need to be met to the extent that we can positively identify an item.
But if you cannot and the other criteria are met at a fully sufficient level that would be adequate.
Board Member Haviland: So the attribution to Mosher is not necessary?
Page 6 of 18
Mr. Backlund: The attribution to Mosher is not an item on which the entire qualification for
designation would hang. The argument for Mosher was given in the Dames & Moore survey
speculating that two houses built about the same time on one parcel was likely to have the same
builder.
Board Member Haviland: I understand. I just find that extremely tenuous that because Mosher
built the house next door, 1 and I notice a sort of creeping assurance in that there is a statement in
the Dames & Moore analysis that says that the house was possibly built by Mosher and then that
kind of proceeds to it was built by Mosher. The only evidence that it was possibly built by
Mosher is that it is next door to a house that was built by Mosher. I am not sure that I am willing
to support the attribution. It is certainly possible but it is just as likely it was built by somebody
else. So I am just trying to find out how" important it is in the designation of this as a Category 2,
which I would support.
Mr. Backlund: In the Preservation Ordinance they do have the criteria for designation of any
property and that includes the Category 3s and 4s. The Ordinance is not fairly clear whether
every single one of those needs to be met because if they all were I think that we would have a
lot Category 4s that would really need to be up~aded. Category 3 and 4 allow" so much
alteration that there is question whether it even retains its historic character. Then you go to the
criteria for designation and it is more thorough and it looks like every-~hing needs to meet that.
What Staff tried to do with these two parts of the Ordinance, one part that defines the categories
entirely in architectural terms and the criteria for designation that takes up a number of other
matters, is to conclude that at some level the criteria of designation need to be substantially met.
Once they are it is an historic resource but at what level is it an historic resource? That is where
the Categories take over and they work on architectural principles. So if we were brought
forward a property from Dames & Moore that was not eligible for a register from the standpoint
of architecture but rather from the standpoint of, for example, a famous person this would not
correspond to the Categories so we would have to make an independent judgment under the
Categories. In this case [the property] was eligible for the National Register under architecture
for what we see regardless of who designed it, and therefore we felt very safe in making that
recommendation.
Board Member Haviland: Right. That was my understanding.
Mr. Anderson: May I add something to this?
Board Member Haviland: Certainly, Monty.
Mr. Anderson: If you look at the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
Building Structure and Object Record (I am afraid it doesn’t have a page number) but this is the
form that was filled out by Dames & Moore: while the Staff Report leaves it a little bit open as
to whether G. W. Mosher built the house, this record at least seems to state definitively that it
was. There is a statement under"History," I believe, it is page two of the Resource Form, in the
middle cf the second paragraph there you read that the Palo Alto Times of 17 July 1903
identified the builder of 435 Tasso as G. W. Mosher.
Board Member Haviland: But that is 435, that is the building next door. Then Dames & Moore
go on to say so it is possible that Mr. Mosher built 425 as well.
Page 7 of 18
Mr. Anderson: You are correct.
Board Member Haviland: It is just that I think part of what this Board tries to do is deal with the
history of Palo Alto. I can understand wanting to attribute the house to a prominent builder, but I
think it is important that we be fairly strict about things like that. My understanding is whether it
was built by Mosher or not is really not important to the Category designation. It is the quality
of the architecture, which we judge by making an evaluation ourselves. I realize I am being a
little nit-picky here, but I think that it is important for us to be clear.
Mr. Anderson: I think that is a valid point.
Board Member Haviland: I have no problem with it being possibly attributed to Mosher but to
say it was definitively built by him I think might be a mistake.
Mr. Backlund: IfI could make a suggestion. If you look at the Staff Report for Item Two at the
bottom of the page for criterion five the language is, "The architect or building was importam."
The Board might wish to say that they would request a revision to the Staff presentation to
reference "building" rather than "builder" or "architect." The Staff Report did offer reasons why
Staff believed the building was important.
Board Member Haviland: Yes, and you detailed those very eloquentl? in your presentation.
Mr. Backtund: Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Thanks. Any other questions for the applicant or Staff?. Carol, do you have a
question for Monty while he is up here?
Board Member Murden: No.
Chair Bernstein: Okay. Just two things, Monty. One is on the fireplace on the north side; when
you replicate that, will it be the same shape with the sloped portion there?
Mr. Anderson: Our intention is to try and replicate that as close as we possibly can. The one
part I am not quite sure how we will do, because what we want to build back is basically a
plywood box which we are going to clad, is whether there is a stair stepping that is natural when
you are laying masonry that you can do quite easily. I would probably opt to just simply shed
the element at that point and put a cover on it. I don’t know. We have been doing it with like a
copper cover and I don’t know if that is actually allowed in Palo Alto anymore; if not, we would
do probably a bronze-colored sheet metal cover on that particular portion but otherwise replicate
the form.
Chair Bernstein: My next question is, could you educate us and the public on Transfer
Development Rights? How does one value the monetary value of a Transfer Development
Right?
Mr. Anderson: Well, it is something that perhaps the owners of the building might be better able
to answer. Essentially, with most of the projects like this, and in the CD-C, that I have worked
on, if they are a commercial type development especially, and even new development in the CD-
C district, it is all about parking. It is very hard to make the parking work. So every time you
are trying to consider a use for an old building or something like that you are immediately up
against the parking requirements. As you may know the in-lieu parking fees in the City of Palo
Page 8 of 18
Alto, I believe, run around $52,000 fight now per space. A 2,500 square foot bonus represents, I
believe, ten parking spaces, four per thousand, so ten parking spaces is what that would represent
to a Downtown developer trying to get a project off of the ground. And also in the Transfer
Development Rights this 2,500 square feet can’t be transferred to another historic site. It has to
be transferred to a non-historic receiver site. So the 2,500 square feet would go to a project not
yet conceived at this point. Basically its value is the square footage, and that square footage
doesn’t have to be parked. So you can see that that’s a good incentive for a developer to come in
and do something like this. It actually represents a significant incentive for them.
Chair Bernstein: So in the marketplace it gets "known that here is 2,500 square feet and you
negotiate a market value for that?
Mr. Anderson: That’s right. There are a lot of projects that are looking for that because maybe
they are shy of what they need to achieve their full potential or whatever. As an architect who is
dealing with this a lot, I receive calls routinely from people who want to know if I know anybody
that has some TDR that they want to sell: "we need 1,000 square feet to make our project work
and we are looking for it". So it really can be sort of bandied about almost like a commodity.
Chair Bernstein: Then finally on those receiver sites they still need to respond to ordinances
such as FAR?
Mr. Anderson: Absolutely. Their own development of those properties still has to run through
all the regular ordinance process and review process that is established for any development in
the City. So even though we are granting this to go off to a project maybe not yet known or that
may end up as 2,500 square feet in a lump sum new- project, or you may find it contributing to
five projects Downtown in smaller chunks. It is hard to say but the one thing that is there as a
safeguard under the Municipal Ordinance is that whatever the project it is, it has to go through
the process. If it is non-historic it will go to the ARB and it still must meet the normal zoning
ordinances. Although with regards to FAR I believe the 2,500 square feet allows a higher FAR
requirement up to a maximum of three to one I believe. I am not entirely sure on that but I
believe it could effect FAR. That is the big incentive. There is not a project that I have worked
on in the Downtown that the immediate problem with the project is not parking and what you are
going to do. The moment you tally up your square footage you instantly figure out, what does
that mean parking-wise and how are we going to deal with that?
Chair Bernstein: All right. Any other questions for Staff or applicant? Carol.
Board Member Murden: I am going back to what Susan was asking about before with the
criteria for historic designation in Palo Alto’s ordinance. My understanding was always that all
six of these criteria, which are listed on page three, don’t have to be met for a property to be
designated historic. There are many properties that might not meet some of them. Is that
correct?
Mr. Backlund: I will have to check on that. I don’t recall that there is a phrase in the Code that
says that they all have to be met. I think usually with criteria there might be something missing,
and then if there were you would be looking for maybe a higher level of compliance in one of the
other ones so to evaluate it in a discretionary manner. I think in response to Board Member
Havitand’s observations that if Criterion Five were changed to "important building" and simply
omit "builder" or "architect," I think I would say in this case that all six criteria are definitely
met.
Page 9 o£ ~_8
Board Member Murden: Yes, I would agree with that. I had always thought that. My question
was to clarify my own thinking if some of the criteria could not be met, and sometimes it is just
not possible to do that depending on the building. That answers my question.
Mr. Backlund: Yes, I believe that is correct. We will, however, check on that and clarify that for
the next meeting. Thank you.
Board Member Murden: Thank you. My other question was in reference to the TDR and I think
you are the person to ask rather than Monty. If the TDR were granted on this project does that
mean that that extra square footage must be used in a TDR? Could the building be sold in five
years and if the TDR had not been used could the bonus be used on this building in the future if
it was not used as a TDR?
Mr. Backlund: The bonus can always be used on the building that it is granted to. However, the
application of the bonus would need to meet the Secretary Standards so that the building would
preserve the designation that was the origin of its getting the bonus. The larger the amount of
square footage that is used on a building the more careful the review under the Standards would
need to be to make sure that the addition does not overwhelm the original structure. In this case
the proposal is to transfer the square footage. That is one of the ideal goals of the program. If
you transfer away the development rights then what you have done is to preserve the massing of
the building in its original form in perpetuity because there is no longer a development right. But
there is as we mention in the Staff Report two steps in this process following a Category 1 or 2
designation in the Downtown area. Number one, you are granted the square footage and then
you decide if you want to use it onsite or transfer it. If you want to transfer it then you go to the
Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance for all the provisions of how you do that. You are
not required to; it is one of your two options.
Board Member Murden: Thank you. It was a procedural question. Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: I have a question actually picking up on what Board Member Murden just
asked. On the letter we have in our packet from Monty Anderson it does say here that it is
important to note that the bonus would be transferred off-site to a non-historic receiver site and
would not be used in any additional square footage of the particular building. Is the applicant
proposing that that would be binding as we forward anything to the City Council?
Mr. Anderson: I think we would rather just opt for what our options are under the Municipal
Code. If for some reason there wasn’t a market for it and the owner wanted to come back and
reconsider it on the property for some reason I would imagine that flexibility would be desirable.
Mr. Backlund: If I could clarify. They could decide afterwards. The way the Ordinance is set
up you have to have a Board-approved rehabilitation plan in order to acquire the bonus. That is
the subject of the Board’s review. Does their rehabilitation plan appear to meet the Secretary
Standards and satisfy the Municipal Code as a plan that gets the bonus? Then that can be used
on site or transferred. The owner can disclose that they are strongly considering a transfer so we
provided information to the Board on that. But the real subject is: should this be designated
Category 2 and if so, does the rehabilitation plan meet the Secretary Standards in your judgment?
Chair Bernstein: Thanks. Roger.
Page i0 of 18
Board Member Kohler: Yes, I just think we can’t ask some binding kind of comment like that.
think that is covered by the fact that it still becomes a Category 2 building, which requires all
kinds of reviews. So it has a built-in check system so I don’t think that is something we need to
worry about.
Chair Bernstein: Beth.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: I have an additional question. I am looking at the old Sanborn Map
that indicated some good bit of space behind this building and at one point there was in fact
another smaller building that was called a residence, and it was 435-and-a-half. Now, the
backyard did not look very large to me. Can you tell me a little bit about the space that is
available behind that building currently?
Mr. Anderson: Well, I don’t have the exact dimensions, Beth, from the back of the building to
the rear property line. What I do know is that a great deal of that depth is not rendered
developable because it is a residence within a CD-C District. It still must conform with the R-1
guidelines, which include a 20-foot rear setback, side setbacks and daylight planes. If you were
to come forward and actually try to develop and use the 2,500 square feet you immediately have
some restrictions that you don’t have in other parts of the CD-C "*here it is a retail or office use,
and basically there is a zero lot line requirement and no daylight plane requirement that we
would have to meet. So being a residential project within the CD-C Districts still means that
there is an R-1 overlay that gets put over the property. Unless you seek to change the
designation or seek a change of use, which is a bigger issue, there are also built-in restrictions on
the site. So I would estimate that maybe there is 50 feet behind the building to the rear property
line of which you would take away .20 and maybe there is 30 feet of developable area back there
between the setbacks.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: As far as I can see, whatever that building was is now- gone.
Mr. Anderson: Right. The driveway leads all the way to the back and there are remnants of
some sort of foundation of a structure dotting the backyard. Whether it was a detached garage or
carriage house I am not sure.
Chair Bernstein: Monty, I thought for a CD-C Zone if it is a residential use, when I inquired
about that I thought it was RM-15 which is multiple residential zoning, not R-1.
Mr. Anderson: I am just going through this right now with City Staffon a property at 650
Waverley, which is in the CD-C but it is residential. This was their determination on that
particular project that came from City Staff.
Chair Bernstein: All right. Anybody else? I would like to bring it back to the Board for
comments, motion and/or discussion. Anybody? Michael.
Board Member Makinen: I feel comfortable in making a motion that we accept the proposal as a
Category 2 historic property.
Chair Bernstein: Okay. Any second to the motion?
Board Member Kohler: Second.
Page Ii of 18
Chair Bernstein: It has been moved by Board Member Makinen and seconded by Board
Member Kohler to accept the recommendation from Staff to categorize 425 Tasso as Category 2
on the Historic Inventory. Any other discussion before bringing this to a vote? Carol.
Board Member Murden: I agree that it is certainly eligible for Category 2 designation for
reasons given in the Staff Report.
Chair Bernstein: Okay. Anybody else? Susan.
Board Member Haviland: Yes, I also agree although I would like to amend the Staff Report to
say that it is due to the importance and quality of the architecture and if there is an attribution to
G. W. Moser that it be made just a possible, that he may have possibly been the builder.
Chair Bernstein: Is that acceptable to the maker and the seconder of the motion? Okay great.
Let’s vote. Al! in favor of the motion signal by saying aye. (ayes) Opposed? That passes
unanimously with six Board Members present. Thank you.
Historic Resources Board Action: BM Makinen, seconded by BM Kohler, moved that the
Board recommend that the house at 425 Tasso Street be designated by the City Council as a
Category 2 building on the City’s Historic Inventory on the basis of the staff report’s
recommendations regarding the importance of the architecture. The motion included the Board’s
conclusion that G. W. Mosher’s status as the builder is speculative.
Vote: 6-0-0-1 (Mario absent)