HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-09 City Council (5)of Palo Alto
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:JUNE 9, 2003 CMR:303:03
SUBJECT:650 WAVERLEY STREET:
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD AT THE
OWNER, ROGER MCCARTHY, TO
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TO THE CITY
HISTORIC INVENTORY IN CATEGORY
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16.49 (HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE)
RECOMMENDATION FROMTHE
REQUEST OF THE
DESIGNATE A
OF PALO ALTO’S
2 PURSUANT TO
RECOMMENDATION
The Historic Resources Board (HRB) and staff recommend that the City Council want
the owner’s request to desi~aate the residential building located at 650 Waverley Street as
a significant building in Category 2 of the Historic Inventory.
BACKGROUND
The house at 650 Waverley Street was built in I902 by the important Palo Alto contractor
Gustav Laumeister who also furnished the plans. Both historically and architecturally the
house is one of the most significant early residential buildings surviving in the central
downtown area. During 1904-05, one of the tenants was Dr. J. C. Spencer who became
the first mayor of Palo Alto in 1909.
The building is a fine example of a distinctive house type in Palo Alto at the turn of the
twentieth century: the ~To-story square box overlaid with classical detailing (see
Attachment A). The richly eclectic street-facing fa,cade includes elements of both the
Colonial Revival style (the Roman Tuscan porch colunms, paneled soffits, fluted
pilasters, and three-lap siding) and the Prairie style (the strongly horizontal orientation of
the wide overhanging eaves, the wide low dormer, and the full-width projecting porch).
The use of leaded window glass on all three floors is unusually extensive. The house
maintains a high level of historic inte~ity throughout; most of the additions and
alterations appear to date from the early twentieth century.
CMR:303:03 Page 1 of 3
DISCUSSION
The recommendation to designate the building at 650 Waverley 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 integity, and appears
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance
under Criterion C (Design/Construction) as "an important early type--the two-story box"
(see Attachment B). The building is also eligible for the National Register under
Criterion A (Event) "as part of the initial development of residences in the original town
plan of Palo Alto and as an example of the fluid use of dwellings for more than one
family or for boarders or lodgers." 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 650 Waverley Street
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 May 21, 2003, the HRB reviewed the application to designate the residential building
at 650 Waverley 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 when they are
rehabilitated under the Secretary of the Interior’s "Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings." The incentives, set forth in Municipal
Code Section 18.49.060, are intended to make the rehabilitation of historic properties
economically feasible, and include a substantial floor area bonus. At the May 21, 2003
meeting, the HRB reviewed and approved the applicant’s proposed rehabilitation plan for
the house. The plan includes the restoration of missing original features, structural
improvements, numerous repairs, a new addition at the rear of the house, and a new
detached garage and upstairs study at the rear of the property.
CMR:303:03 Page 2 of 3
The HRB unanimously voted (5-0-0-2) to support the staff recommendation for
designation of 650 Waverley 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 Dames &
Moore’s historic survey evaluation of the building.
RESOURCE IMPACT
No impacts on City resources are expected to result from the recommended action.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Current Photo~aph of the Building at 650 Waverley Street.
Attachment B: Historic Resources Board Staff Report of May 21, 2003.
Attachment C: Verbatim Minutes of the HRB Meeting of May 21, 2003.
DENNIS BACKLUND
Historic Preservation Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:~
~/ STEVE EM’SLIE
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Assistant City Manager
Historic Resources Board
Roger L. McCarthy, P. E.
Montgomery Anderson, AIA
David Bubenik
CMR:303:03 Page 3 of 3
Attachment A
Attachment B
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
Date:May 21, 2003
To:Historic Resources Board
From:Dennis Bacldund,
Historic Preservation Planner
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
Subject:650 Waverley Street [03-HRB-04]: Application by Montgomery
Anderson of Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, in behalf of Roger
McCarthy, for Historic Resources Board review of a proposal to
designate a Colonial Revival two-story box-form residential building
constructed about 1902, and located in the downtown area, 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 650 Waverley Street as a sig-nificant building in
Category 2 consistent with the criteria for desig-nation 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 Historic Building
The house at 650 Waverley Street was initially constructed in 1902. A notice in the Palo
Alto Times of December 6, 1901 states that "Mrs. Harriet Woods of Chicago has
purchased a lot in Block 22 on Waverly street [sic], and will build a $4000 residence.
The plans were made by Gus Laumeister who will begin work at once" (see Attachment
s:\plan\plandiv~rb\staffreport\HRB staffrep. 650 Waverley designation Page 1
A). The City Directory of January 1903 lists Mrs. Woods as living at 650 Waverley
Street which indicates that construction was completed in 1902.
The house is a rectangular box-form building richly embellished with classical detailing.
There is an unusually extensive use of leaded glass; the street-facing dormer window, for
example, is intricately divided into 32 panes. The composition of architectural features
and fenestration is generally symmetrical on the street-facing fa,cade and on the left and
right elevations, and a prominent symmetrical pyramidal hip roof is the primary unifying
element of the house. The street-facing dormer preserves the symmetry of the roof by
duplicating the rooi~s slope and genera! proportions. The two-story fluted wall pilasters at
the corners of the street-facing faCade define a classical house type that is common in the
north Bay Area, especially in Berkeley, but much less common in Palo Alto. One of the
very few other examples in Palo Alto is the Historic Inventory house at 1795 Park
Boulevard which exhibits a box form with corner pilasters.
According to Dames and Moore, the Colonial Revival features of 650 Waverley Street
include "a symmetrical composition of the fa,cade, overhanging eaves with paneled
soffits, 3-1ap siding, and approximations of classical orders on the porch (including round
columns) and on the volume of the whole building (including fluted pilasters at the
corners of the building and a frieze under the eaves)" (see Attachment B). Staff also finds
elements of the Prairie style in the wide overhanging closed eaves, the horizontal
orientation of the street-facing dormer, and the full-width front porch desig-n.
Alteratio1~s
The Sanborn Insurance Maps reveal no significant changes to the front portion of the
house between the 1904 map and the map of 1945 (see Attachment C). The house
remains as built on the maps of 1904 and 1908, but by 1924 a two-story addition across
the rear is shown. Staff could not date this early addition vcith certainty, but a notice in
the Palo Alto 2Pimes of January 2, 1914 indicates that a new owner undertook an addition
in 1913 that cost $300.00. This may be the addition at the rear of the house, but that is
not certain because the house exhibits another addition that surprisingly does not appear
on the Sanborn maps up through 1962. This second addition is the prominent one-and-
two story three-sided bay located near the front of the house on the left elevation. An
early twentieth-century photo of the house (see Attachment D) shows that the bay is not
original to the house, but it does contain windows with early leaded glass. An aerial
photo taken over the 650 Waverley Street neighborhood between 1936 and 1940 appears
to show the bay. Therefore, the bay dates from the historic period of the house, and it
may have been included in the 1913 permit.
The 1949 Sanborn Map shows that a two-story dwelling unit with garage had been added
to the rear of the property. It does not appear in the aerial photo cited above, so the
dwelling unit was constructed sometime between 1936 and 1949. The hardware on some
s:’\plan\plandivkhrb\staffreportkHRB staffrep. 650 Waverley designation Page 2
of the doors, however, appears to date from the early twentieth century, and these doors
may have been removed from the original house during a remodeling and reused on the
new building. When the rear dwelling unit was constructed, an original one-story
structure at the rear south corner of the property--possibly a carriage house--was
demolished. Staff has concluded that the two-story dwelling unit is too utilitarian and
understated in character to be historically significant.
Very few impacts on the integrity of the historic house have occurred during the last 50
years. The principal alterations have occurred at the porch area and appear to be early
changes, including the addition of a second entry door that impacted the rectangular panel
at the center of the porch wall that originally contained a second small window matching
the existing window. It is remarkable that the original 100-year old porch railing has
survived intact although it is in need of repair. The railing above the porch that appears
in the historic photo has been removed and the tall second-floor window to the left over
the porch has been replaced by a pair of French doors. The doors appeared to staff to be
in place in the aerial photo of 1936-40.
Tlte Builder
The builder of 650 Waverley Street, Gustav Laumeister (1865- ! 955), was one of Palo
Alto’s most important contractors of the early twentieth century. A lifelong Bay Area
resident, he was born in Mission San Jose, and began his building career in Alameda.
Shortly thereafter he worked for Leland Stanford at the University, then began a
partnership with John McBain of Menlo Park, and finally opened his own business in
Palo Alto where he remained until his death (see Attachment E). He constructed some of
Palo Alto’s most notable buildings including Castilleja School’s Administration Building,
the Colonial Revival house at 221 Kingsley (the Fowler Mansion), and the major
Craftsman houses at 365 Lincoln and 950 University (see Attachment F). Currently 22 of
his buildings are listed on the City’s Historic Inventor?, (including the home of HRB
Board Member Makinen). Laumeister’s business advertisements in the early 1900’s state
that he would furnish plans to clients (perhaps from plan books), and in the case of 650
Waverley Street, the newspaper notice states that the plans "were made" by him. The fact
that Laumeister furnished plans may account for the fact that the great majority of the
Historic Inventory forms for his buildings do not list an architect, only Laumeister as
builder.
History of Use
The house at 650 Waverley Street was built in 1902 for Harriet Woods who came to Palo
Alto from Chicago. Staff was unable to locate materials indicating why she came to Palo
Alto, and if she was a widow. She lived at 650 Waverley with three other persons named
Woods who may have been daughters or other relatives. During 1904, Dr. J. C. Spencer,
who would become Palo Alto’s first mayor in 1909, lived at 650 Waverley with his wife
until construction was completed in 1905 on his permanent home at 367 Addison Avenue
s:\plan\plandiv~trb\staffreportLHRB staffrep. 650 Waverley designation Page 3
(the current Hewlett-Packard garage property). Dr. Spencer’s relationship with Mrs.
Woods is not known, and he and his wife may have been merely short-term renters. Mrs.
Woods is no longer listed at 650 Waverley Street in City Directories published after 1905.
Between 1906 and 1914 the house was vacant at times or occupied by boarders and
roomers. In 1914 the property was purchased by Abraham Ketman, who was retired from
the real estate profession, and he and members of his family occupied the house for at
least 35 years. Staff found no other information on the life and work of Mr. Ketman.
Mrs. Meta Ketman, a native of Germany, was listed in the City Directory as a housewife,
and her daughter, Mary, was listed as a student. By 1945 Mrs. Ketman had died at the
age of 88, and another daughter, Frances, who was a nurse, became the owner of the
house. Frances had been living there since 1940. She was unmarried and probably came
to live at 650 Waverley Street in order to provide nursing care for her elderly mother (see
Attachment G). Staff did not research the owners and residents of the house between
1948 and 1973 when the property was sold to Miramonte Mental Health Services (see
Attachment H).
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 650 Waverley Street was potentially eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion C (Design/Construction). In January 2000, 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
residences in the original town plan of Palo Alto and as an example of the fluid use of
dwellings for more than one family or for boarders or lodgers"), and Criterion C
(Design!Construction--representing an example of "an important early type--the two-story
box").
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
650 Waverley 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.
s:\plan\plandivkhrb\staffreportkHRB staffrep. 650 Waverley designation Page 4
Criteria for Designation and Definition of Historic Category 2
Chapter 16.49, Section 16.49.040 (b) provides general criteria that apply to all historic
desi~onations in Palo Alto. The criteria are:
!.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 corrmaon,
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.
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 goup 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 650 Waverley 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 I);
It represents a basically intact example of a once-typical form of residential building,
the classically decorated two-story box (Criteria 2 and 3);
Its history, represents the once common practice of providing lodging to boarders in
homes in the downtown area (Criterion 4);
Its building type, the two-story box, is of major local significance (Criterion 5);
s:\plan\plandiv~’trb\staffreport~-IRB staffrep. 650 Waverley designation Page 5
It retains its highly unified symmetrical design and its Classical Revival detailing
(Criterion 6).
The building at 650 Waverley Street is consistent with the definition of a Category 2
building in that it retains its basic integi~,, and appears eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places at the local level of significance under Criterion C
(Design/Construction).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Notice for the Construction of 650 Waverley Street, Palo Alto Times,
December 6, 1901.
Attachment B: Historic Survey Form for 650 Waverley Street by Dames & Moore.
Attachment C: Sanborn Insurance Maps, 1901, 1904, 1908, 1924, and 1945.
Attachment D: Historic Photo of 650 Waverley Street, ca. 1905-1910.
Attachment E: Bio~aphy of Gustav Laumeister from the Palo Alto CommuniO; Book.
Attachment F: Historic Inventory, Homes Built by Gustav Laumeister.
Attachment G: Obituaries of the Abraham Ketman Family.
Attachment H: Palo Alto Ci~, Director}, Listings for 650 Waverley Street compiled by
¯ the City’s Historic Survey Volunteers (listings for 1902-1903 are not included).
COURTESY COPIES
Roger L. McCarthy, P.E.
Exponent, Inc.
Montgomery Anderson, AIA, Principal
Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, Inc.
David Bubenik
PREPARED BY:
Dennis Backlund
Historic Preservation Planner
REVIEWED BY:
~ger
s:@an’~plandiv\hrb\staffi-epo~’,~H~ staffrep. 650 Waverley designation Page
aYage
Mk~e Eva KeY and Mi~
of Mayfield have opened
and b~rauty parlors in
buiJding. Th~e. young
vorably known hcr~ and
Irene Hogan
hair d rest-in g
the Stanford
ladit~ are re-
their parlors
are certain to be popular" ,and well
patronized. _ <
E. C. EI£ll andqami!-y of Menl6 Park
will leave for the Philippines -on the
16th. Mr. Hail was for many- years
.principal_o[ the MeMo Park ~hooL%
and goes to the-O~ien~--to teacS. Hewill. tm given a.r~<~ption on next Mon-
day evening by the Young Men’s
PALO ALTO HOT
............................ =_.__. WUH=--S_N-yD~RV pTo
BOARD BY THE DAY W~-EK OR
WHAT SIMFdNS SAYS.
TEAT he .h..~ ka~ely filled out h~
a.~--.-ortmeut of ~’a~erman Ide.at
Foun~in Pen~ They
over a hund~ dol~ worth of
t,oin~ ~ pick frem:
Tha~ he h~ t~ fin~ ~rtmeng
of S~nfo~’ view~ tha~ h~ ever
~nbmughl ~gelhcr ~nder one
~. A~i~Platino and platinum
prink~ am hand.too enough
.groom ~he walls of the fiam~ home.
Color ,-photgmphs, ~uv~ir
of views. S~nfo~ Me, am and
mMling
Thag he h~ m~blish~ ~ depa~
ment of pictu~ A ~ful ~
tion of subj~k~ ~vm you ghe c~im
of ~he~. ~eh~not~hedm~ of
grade ~ha~ will pay thi,r~y d.olld~.for
a two dollar picture and d~ not
m~r ~o i~. He only ~ pic}u~
~hag~a2, tomorrow and ~
~ am wor{h ~he money they ~g ;
That he k~ps ghe erratic
meg ~ml~ wa~r ~lor-and bind~g
pa~ ~elpful sug~ti0ns
Sta
Ramona
Does its
-Here In
Page 1 of 5 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 650 Waverley. St
PI,
P2.
Other Identifier: 650 Waverley 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 PaloAIt0, CA.Date 1991 T ; R~;w¼ of~¼ ofSec :
c. Address (}50 Waverley St City palo Alto Zip 94301
d.UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone ~;mE/~ mN
*e.Other Locationa] Data: {e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN 120 16 024
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
The following description addresses the building at 650 Waverley 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 building at 650 Waverley Street was built as a two-story dwelling with a 20-by-20-foot basement and no finished attic
space. It is a balloon or platform frame structure built on a concrete wall foundation and covered by a hip roof. The frame is
clad on the exterior in 3-lap siding. Fenestration consists of double-hung windows, one with a leaded transom, and paneled
See continuation sheet
*P3b Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 Sinql# f.#mily property
*P4. Resources Present: s Building ~ Structure u Object [] Site r~ District ~ Element of District D Other (isolates, etc.)
report and other sources, or enter "none",)
P5b.. Description of Photo:
(View, date, accession #)
650 Waverley St; view southwest:
09!13!£~L,,by,,,,B.,Vahey; roll BRV:76,,
her #29
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source:[] Historic
c~ Prehistoric [] Both
1902; City,,Directory
*PT. Owner and Address:
Miramonte Mental Health Services
206 S California Ave Palo Alto CA
94306
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
Michael Corbett. Dames & Moore
221 Main Street. Suite 600
San Francisco. CA 94105
*P9. Date Recorded:
January !1, 2000
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
Pll. Report Citation*: (Cite survey
Palo Alto Historic Survey Update (Corbett and Bradley for Dames & Moore, 2000)
*Attachments: ~- NONE [] Location Map ~ Sketch Map ~ Continuation Sheet ~ Building, Structure and Object Record
,--- Archaeological Record [] District Record ~ Linear Feature Record [] Milling Station Record [] Rock Art Record
-~ Artifact Record [] Photograph Record [] Other IList)
DPR 523A (1/95)1 WAVE650.F1 *Required information.
Page 2 of 5 Resource Identifier:650 Waverley St
Recorded by Michael Corbett *Date,,,,,January 11, 2000 ~ Continuation r~ Update
Description (continued)
doors. The central door on the front porch appears to be an early addition. French doors opening onto a deck above the porch
appear to be an early enlargement and alteration of an original window. Interior finishes include an earth floor in the basement
and pine floors upstairs. In 1949, there was a gas-burning, hot-air, gravity heating system, and there was one fireplace.
In plan, this house was built as a two-story, rectangular box with a one-story porch across the front and a projecting bay at the
rear, as shown on the 1904 Sanborn map. On the 1924 Sanborn map, the small rear bay was replaced by a two-story extension
of the house across the rear. The 1949 Sanborn map is not clearly printed but appears to show a bay window on the southeast
side of the house near the front, as is shown on the 1949 Assessment Record. The list of rooms on the Assessment Record
is unusual, with the ground floor consisting of five dens, one bath, and one kitchen, and the second floor consisting of four
dens, one bedroom, a bath, kitchen, and sleeping porch. Other handwritten notations include "Bath: 1-1952," "Reception Rm
Redwood Paneling," and "Occupancy: Dwelling & Real Estate Office." Altogether, these notes indicate a time of transition from
a residence to office use. Under the ownership of Miramonte Mental Health Services since 1973, the building is classified as
residential for "5 or more family units," as shown on the 1998 MetroScan printout. Internal alterations have been made to
accommodate these changes in use, but the exterior retains the general character it had when this was a single family house
before 1949. The arrangement of interior rooms is not known.
In appearance, this is a variation of a common Palo Alto building type -- the square box -- with an overlay of typical stylistic
details. In form, this house is a square or rectangular box with a hip roof, a central dormer with the same proportions, and a
full one-story porch across the front. Like many such boxy houses, this one is decorated with features of the Colonial Revival
style including a symmetrical composition of the facade, overhanging eaves with paneled soffits, 3-lap siding, and
approximations of classical orders on the porch (including round columns} and on the volume of the whole building (including
fluted pilasters at the corners of the building and a frieze under the eaves). A boxy house with as many rooms as this probably
had three main rooms along each side of the house from front to back and may have had a central corridor. The placement of
two front doors on the porch is an alteration and does not help in understanding the original plan.
DPR 523L (1/95) WAVE650.F1 *Required Information
Page 3 of 5 *NRHP Status Code 38
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 650 Waverley St
BI.Historic Name:
B2.Common Name:
B3.Original Use:B4. Present Use: Single family property
*BS.Architectural Style: Colonial Revival
*B6.Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
1902: Built (City Directory)
*BT.Moved? [] No [] Yes [] Unknown Date:Original Location:
*BS.Related Features:
B9a.
*B10.
Architect:b. Builder: unknown
Significance: Theme A: Development of Pale Alto; C: Two-story box ty!3e house Area Pale Alto
Period of Significance 1902-1948 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 building at 650 Waverley is located on a 50-by-lO5Y2-foot lot in Block 22 of the original plan of University Park of
1889. This was typically sized suburban lot for its day. The earliest Sanborn map to show this property, in 1904, showed a
two-story dwelling at the front and a one-story, wood structure behind the house in the south corner of the lot. Sometime
between 1924 and 1949, this structure was demolished, and a small rectangular two-story dwelling was built behind the main
house.
Structure: The Santa Clara County MetroScan dates the residence at 650 Waverley to 1904. It is in 1902 that the address was
first listed in the Pale Alto City Directory. In recent years, the Assessor’s documents record work done on renovating bathrooms
and the kitchen and a copy of a 1975 building permit for the replacement of a rear stairway and a weathered wall.
Use: When the Pale Alto City Directory first listed 650 Waverley in 1902-1903, Gustave Laumeister lived here. In 1902, it was
occupied by I. and M. Woods, who worked as clerk and bookkeeper, respectively. According to research in the PAHA property
files, Dr. John Campbell Spencer and his wife lone B. Spencer also lived here in 1904 -- however, no listing for Spencer could
be found to confirm this research in any directories of that period at the Pale Alto Public Library. An obituary published in the
Pale Alto Times on 5 July 1937 says that Dr. Spencer moved to Pale Alto from San Francisco in 1905.
See continuation sheet
B1 1.Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*B12.References:
B13.
See continuation sheet.
Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Michael Corbett
Date of Evaluation: Januarv 11. 2000
,(This space reserved for orificial comments)
(Sketch map with north arrow required)
DPR 523B (1/95) WAVE650.F1 *Required Information
Page 4.._~ of 5..L Resource Identifier: 650 Waverley St
Recorded by Michael Corbett/Steve Hard, y (h,i,~tor¥,) ,, *Date January 11, 2000 ~ Continuation ~ Update
Nistory (continued)
The City Directory of 1912-1913 listed three men at the address. Two of them, A. Foster, a laborer at the Palo Alto Gas
Company and Patrick, Hogan, a waiter at Larkin’s Caf~, were identified as roomers while George Gayton, a clerk at Larkin’s Cigar
Company, was identified as a boarder. By the City Directory of 1914, however, the whole house had been occupied by
Abraham and Meta Ketman and their children. According to the obituary of Mrs. Ketman published in the Palo Alto Times on
13 December 1945, the Ketmans arrived in Palo Alto in 1913. From 1914, Abraham Ketman was listed as having retired from
the real estate business. Of their five children, Frances Ketman, a nurse, continued to live with her parents and after her father’s
death in 1934, with her mother. Miss Ketman was identified in the City Directory as owner of the house in 1940, and after
her mother’s death in 1945, she was listed as the sole occupant. One of Mrs. Ketman’s sons, George F. Ketman, a carpenter,
died in this house the day before his mother’s funeral. He and his wife were living in this house temporarily while he built a new
house in Los Altos. In 1973, the property was sold to Miramonte Mental Health Services.
Evaluation
This house at 650 Waverley appears eligible for the NRHP under criteria A and C at the local level of significance. The period
of significance begins when it was built, about 1902, and continues to at least 1948, when the Ketmans were still here.
Under criterion A, the house is significant as part of the initial development of residences in the original town plan of Palo Alto
and as an example of the fluid use of dwellings for more than one family or for boarders or lodgers.
Under criterion C, this house is significant as an important early type -- the two-story box.
References
California Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Nominating Historical Resources to the Ca/ffornfa Register of Hfstorfc
Resources. Sacramento, CA. August 1997.
Palo Alto City Directory. 1904-1950.
Palo Alto Historic Survey Update. Property File.
Palo Alto Times. 5 July 1937, 13 December 1945.
Sanborn Map Company. Insurance Maps of Palo Alto. New York: 1904.
Sanborn Map Company. Insurance Maps of Pa/o 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, 1953, 1962, 1967.
Winslow, Ward and the Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto: Pato Alto Historical
Association, 1993.
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) WAVE650.F1 *Required Information
Page 5 of 5 ~Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorde;’)650 Waverley St
*Map Name: Palo Alto Plannin,q Dept. GIS *Scale: 1":80’*Date of Map: 1999
12o- 16-95 ~
650 Waverley St
120 - 16-024
£a]o Alto
i
li
Sanborn Map
650 Waverley
1904
/ \V
I ii
II
’:
il
I
N D...L-t 1 I, XIV H Sanborn Map
650 Waverley
1924
II
II
I!
Attachment D
Attachment E
300 PALO ALTO COMMUNITY BOOK
Radio Engineering Department, and Muriel, the wife of Michael Darling,
who resides on the Empire Ranch in Nevada.
One of the oldest residents of Palo Alto, and a most highly revered
pioneer citizen, is Gustav Laumeister who put up the flags for the original
auction sale of lots in Palo Alto in February, 1889, and he has been here
almost continuously for the past sixty-three years, having been an important
factor in the upbuilding of the community.
Mr. Laumeister was born in Mission San Jose on January 27, 1865, the
son of John A. and Frederica Christina Laumeister. He attended the Mission
San Jose school and the old Washington College at Irvington, which was a
particularly well known institution of his day. His father desired that he
enter the University of California but instead he began work in the building
trade in Alameda.
For several years Mr. Laumeister was with the Pacific Improvement
Company, and he also worked on buildings on Senator Stanford’s Stock
farm and the University. While still a young man he entered in the building
business with John McBain in Menlo Park, but he early commenced building
operations in Palo Alto on his own, and became the leading contractor in
Palo Alto of his day. In addition to erecting numerous homes in this area,
he also built many of the original business structures and other institutions,
including the Nevada Building, the Castilleja School buildings and he erected
the first hospital here.
Mr. Laumeister was for years one of Palo Alto’s most prominent real
estate developers. He spent many years developing his real estate holdings,
as well as the large acreage of his second wife. He added several subdivisions
to the city, including South Court and South Court Addition. He sold the
land on which Leland Manor is located to Palo Alto Properties, Inc. for
deve!opment.
In addition to his real estate and building operations in Palo Alto,
Mr. Laumeister erected many homes in Carmel, where he still spends a
considerable portion of his time. He owned a home there for many years.
Mr. Laumeister married (first) Miss Emma Loveland, formerly of Menlo
Park, who is deceased. One daughter was born of this union, Emma, the
widow of Ernest Hackell of New York, who was an internationally known
artist. There are two grandchildren: Ernest Haskell, Jr., and Josephine, the
wife of Edward Seward Stevens, and three grea~ grandchildren: Edward S.
Stevens, Jr., Diana Stevens, and Karen Stevens.
It; 1909, Mr. Laumeister married (second) Miss Mabel Seale, who passed
away in !946. She was the daughter of Thomas Seale, who at one time owned
practically all of the land on which Palo Alto now stands. The portion of
his land north of Embarcadero road was sold to Timothy Hopkins who founded
University Park, the original name of what is now Palo Alto.
BIOGRAPHICAL
Mr. Laumeister, until very recently, maintained membership in the
Menlo Country Club and the Monterey Peninsula Country Club. He still
is a member of the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, the Native Sons
of the Golden West, and the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks. He
holds a life membership with the Masons.
Although now well beyond the allotted three score and ten, Mr. Lau-
meister is well able to enjoy life with his daughter at his residence on Wash-
ington Avenue. He still takes great interest in following the development
of Palo Alto and finds his principal pleasure in seeing his friends and motoring.
George Fowler Morel1, president and majoritT owner of Peninsula
Newspapers Incorporated, which publishes the daily Palo Alto Times, Red-
wood City Tribune and Burlingame Advance and a number of weekly papers,
has made Palo Alto his home most of the years since 1904.
He was born at Fiddler’s Green, South Amherst, Massachusetts, Sep-
tember 24, 1886, the son of John Fowler More!l and Alice Goodrich Morell.
His father, born at Lenox, Massachusetts, in 1837, was principal of the
Lenox Academy and the editor of the Berkshire Gleaner. Both activities were
supplemented by his life-long occupation as a farmer.
The Morell family, of Huguenot ancestry, fled from France to Ger-
many to escape religious persecution following the massacre of St. Bartholo-
mew. In 1784 the family emigrated to America for the same reason, and
ultimately settled in Lenox. There the family home, a hill farm, was main-
tained for more than a hundred years. Mr. Morell’s paternal grandfather
served in the war of 1812 and his great-gran~tfather in the Revolution.
Mrs. Alice Morell, a resident of Palo Alto from 1904 until her death
in 1942, was born in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, in 1854. Her family, of
Welsh ancestry, came to America in 1630, settling in the lower Connecticut
Valley where they were active in the pioneer life of the colonies, taking part
in a number of military expeditions against the Indians before and during
the French and Indian Wars. Both of her grandfathers served in the Conti-
neural Army during the Revolution.
George Morell received his early schooling in South Amherst. The
family moved in 1899 to Flushing, Long Island, where he graduated from
high school in 1904. That same year, Mr. Morell came to Palo Alto and
entered Stanford University, where he took a pre-legal course intermittently
for six years. He paid his way during this period by working chiefly with pick
and shovel, but also variously as a teamster, ranch hand, placer miner, seaman,
chauffeur, sawmill hand and advertising solicitor.
Shortly after leaving Stanford in 19!0, Mr. Morell became advertising
manager of the Cooperative Land Company which was developing coloniza-
tion. projects in the San Joaquin Valley. Two years later he became manager
GUSTAV LAUMEISTER
Address
301 Addison
737 Bryant
1100 Bryant
1310 Bryant
235 Embarcadero
1035 Emerson
1101 Emerson
1111 Emerson
1129 Emerson
221 Kingsley
430 Kingsley
308 Lincoln
318 Lincoln
365 Lincoln
401 Lowell
t 001 Ramona
1103 Ramona
1115 Ramona
1139 Ramona
851 Universit3~
950 University
970 University
HISTORICINWENTORY HOMES
BUILT BY
GUSTAV LAUMEISTER
Construction Date
1901
!903
1902
1910
1906
1904
1903
1903
1908
1902
1902
1902
1901
1903
1908
1908
1901
1903
1903
1903
1908
1909
Attachment F
Category Number
3
4
4
3
2
3
3
4
4
2
3
3
4
2
4
3
3
2
2
4
4
2
Attachment G
den~ of Palo AI~o ~[nee 191~, died
~oda~ a~.~he ~me o~ her daugh-
ter Miss ~anees ~. NeWman650 Waverley s~ree~, ~ollo~[ng
]week’s illness. Mrs. ~e~m~n,
1 native of German~, was 88 years/ old.
~ She was the ~dow of the late
Abram Ketman.
~Miss ~ances Ke~man, wlth
l whoin she made her home, she
~s.survlved by the to!lowing chin
,dren: " George F. Ketmant Pa!o Alto: Anthony J, Ke~man,
’~Menlo Park; Harry A. Ketman,
San Jose, and Mrs. Mary S. Por-
ter, Salinas.
George F’. Ke÷man
dies on eve
too+her’s uner !
George Francis Ketman died
suddenly last night on the eve
of his mother,s iuneral. He was~stricken at.the Ketmah Iamily
’home, 650 Naverley street, after
a day’s work on the house he was
~bufld~ng at Los Altos.
He and his wife had come here
abou~ four months ago and were~
making thmr home wlth
mother, Mrs. Meta S. Ketman,~
t and sister Miss Frances Ketman
while their own residence was~
being built. He was known to
have a bad hea~t condition, but’:
his death was unexpected.
Funeral services ~or. tile senior
Mrs. Ketman, who diad Thurs-
day, ~ere~-, -held this mornh]g at
I the Roller and Hapgood chapel.
i Plans for t~e son have not been
completed.
George Francis Ketman is
su~ived by his wife, Liltian;
]children, Miss Bernice Ke~man
of San Bernardino and Cpl. John
~. ~ettpan, ~. S. ArmY; two sis-
~ers, Fiances L. N~tman of Palo
!Alto and Mrs. Mary S. Por~er
of Salinas, and a brother, An-
thony ft. Ketman of Menlo Park.
Attachment H
Address:650 Waverly
Gre~ Ntbk.:
Metroscan:
Year
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912-1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
PAT Date Bid&Type Arch~ect
8/21/52 House
t904
OCCU a.~_~
Spencer, Dr. JC
Spencer, Miss Marth2
_S.p_e_q £&[ ~ .Mi s s .Alice
No Dir avail.
Duncan, Miss Louise
Duncan, Miss Louise
Duncan, Miss Louise
Gruwell, L. E.
No Dir avail.
Searched every page,
Searched every page,
Foster, A
Gayton, George
Gyton, George
Hogan, Patrick J.
Ketman, Abraham
Ketman, Abraham
Ketman, Abraham
Ketman, Abraham
Ketman, Abraham
Ketman, Abraham
Ketman, Abraham
Ketman, Abraham
Ketman, Abraham
Ketman, Abraham
Ketman, Abraham
Occupation. . .Ob_itu ary~?
~~an, PA’S 1st Mayor Y
Y
N
Student N
Student N
Student N
Student N
nobody listed
nobody listed
laborer PA Gas Co N
Clerk, Larkin’s Cigar Co.N
Clerk, Larkin’s Cigar Co.N
Waiter, Larkin’s Caf~N
Retired (Real EsL)N
Retired (Real Est.)N
Retired (Real Est.)N
Retired (Real Est.)N
Retired (Real Est.)N
Retired (Real EsL)N
Retired (Real Est.)N
Retired (Real Est.)N
Retired (Real Est.)N
Retired (Real Est.)N
Retired (Real Est.)N
Ketman, Frances L. Nurse
Ketman, Meta S Mrs. NL
N
Y
Ketman, Abraham
Ketman, M S Mrs.
Retired (Real Est.)
NL
N
N
N
Ketman, Frances (o) Nurse
Ketman, Frances (o) Nurse
Builder Ow~]er. Oter fnfo.
Phillip Dart Frances Repman
Notes
This family listed in 1904 dir. That volunteer compiled
Woods, I Clerk
Woods, M Mis Bookkeeper
Woods, P Miss Student
rooms
boards
boards (listed twice)
rooms
Attachment C
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
Wednesday, May 21, 2003
REGULAR MEETING- 8:00 AM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, First Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
650 Waverley Street [03-HRB-04]: Application by Montgomery Anderson of Cody
Anderson Wasney Architects, on behalf of Roger McCarthy, for Historic Resources
Board review of a proposal to designate a Colonial Revival, two-story, box residential
building constructed about 1902, and located in the downtown area, to the City of Pa!o
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).
Chair Bunnenberg: To begin this we will open the public hearing. Let’s look first at the Staff
recommendation.
Staff Backlund: Thank you very much, Chair Bunnenberg. What we propose to do on this
particular Staff Report is to walk you through it because of the short review time that you were
provided. The report indicates, if you concur, that the findings for a designation to Category 2
are very strongly there. In the Staff opinion this was one of the strongest group of findings that
we have come forward with on any designation that we recall.
The property is important at various levels. The subject heading for 650 Waverley Street that
Chair Bunnenberg read into the record was, as required, a reproduction of the newspaper notice.
However, several people have been working on this property since that notice went out several
weeks ago, and more information has come in. For instance, we will see that the phrase "about
1902" is now obsolete, and there are copious additions to the findings that now can be made
based on the excellent research of several Board Members. And Staff had the opportunity to
make several trips to the library on behalf of this property to find further information. We tried
to distill down and include information that the Board Members’ research has brought forward.
Regarding the year that it was constructed, we now know that the property is definitely over a
hundred years oId. This is a rather rare case where the Dames & Moore form, although reaching
Page 1 of 9
very strong findings for the National Register eligibility that would match up closely with our
Category 2 criteria, had lapses in the information. There were some incorrect statements, and
major omissions that were surprising because it mined out that the information was available at
the time of their research. However, the date of the completion of their form indicates that it was
completed just before the survey was due, and we suspect that the pressures of the deadline to
meet their contract did have an impact on their research.
Most of the essential information corrected is a matter of omissions because we have found in
The Palo .4lto Times notice of 1901, and comparing that with the City Directory of 1902, that the
property was definitely initially constructed in 1902, probably initially constructed in January of
that year. And already by the end of the year the first resident was definitely living there, so
completion had been reached for the construction.
And Dames & Moore is very correct in stating that the box form of the residence is the key
factor in the National Register eligibility under architecture, and that becomes important for us
this morning because our ordinance, being rather an old document at this point in time, is
somewhat outdated in giving all of the emphasis to architectural criteria. The criteria that is
given in another part of that [Ordinance] chapter for persons and events appears to be there
mainly to see if a property is generally worth considering under architectural criteria. So
architecture is it, and this house does possess the findings under architecture because Dames &
Moore points out that this box form of residence is actually very characteristic of the turn of the
century rather than more complex forms, particularly in the city of Palo Alto.
The basic forna is Colonial Revival, as Dames & Moore said, with a certain classical overlay.
For those who have been touring in the city of Berkeley, you’ll recall that homes there with the
corner pilasters in a strong classical form and classically embellished columns, sometimes almost
Corinthian in their ornateness, is very common near the downtown area of Berkeley. There are
many homes like this. But in Palo Alto, the homes are generally of a simpler form, and we noted
that 1795 Park Boulevard, that is also eligible for the National Register and on our Inventory, is
very similar to 650 Waverley in its classical presentation. And both these residences are rather
rare in Palo Alto in presenting that kind of full range of a classical overlay onto Colonial
Revival. It’s much more common that our Colonial Revival is either rather orthodox or
combined with a shingle or a Craftsman approach, rather than the classical. It’s one of the
reasons that the Squire House, as Board Member Mario has often pointed out, is really unique in
Palo Alto, a full-blown Classical Revival. But in Berkeley you see various examples of it, and
otherwise in the North Bay.
Staff found, in addition to Dames & Moore’s findings, that there are Prairie-style overtones to
this house. There are wide overhanging eaves; the roof dormer, the way that the porch is
designed, has a very strong horizontal component like certain Inventory houses of ours, like 737
Bryant which has strong Prairie overtones, also built by Laumeister within a few months of 650
Waverley.
Under Category 2 a big concern is the level of alterations; that’s a critical factor in deciding
whether something will be Category 1 or 2, a "significant building," or if it’s going to be
"contributing" in Category 3 and 4. And we began with the statement that the Sanborn maps
reveal no significant changes to the front portion of the house. However, those are footprint
maps. Looking at the elevations, what do we see? We find something quite similar. Alterations
are there in the front, but for the most part they are very, very early ones. Dames & Moore noted
that, and we visited the site, and there just simply aren’t contemporary alterations on the exterior
of this home, so that it has a very high level of integrity that would meet the Category 2 finding.
And in addition, the applicant is proposing to reverse those changes that have occurred on the
Page 2 of 9
porch to bring it to greater conformity with 1902, including the restoration of the remarkable
porch railing. The porch railing, because there’ s a lot of space between the members of the
railing, might not be approvable under building codes of today. But under the State Historical
Building Code and the grandfathering rules, it can be retained as long as you restore the original
element that was approved under another administration. And Chair Burmenberg is holding up
an 11 x 17 [historic photograph] blowup of the property, which is the second house in, with the
row of columns there on the right of the photograph.
One of the great curiosities of this house is the fact that it has a pronounced, complex projecting
bay structure on the left elevation. That is definitely not there in the early 20th century
photograph. The finish of the photograph, the original one in the library, suggested to us the date
of the photograph was around the 1905 period, and that addition is not there. What is remarkable
is that the Sanborn maps that are usually so faithful in updating later changes, and are the source
for our dating alterations, continues to show a square house even up to the 1962 Sanborn maps,
which the City provides in a volume that was too large to photograph for you. It is still a square
house in the ~60s, but this addition is obviously an early one; it has antique leaded glass
windows. There is the possibility that the windows were taken off the original wall of the house
and brought forward and put on the wal! of the bay, but the entire structure looks like early
construction. And in addition, I am going to pass around an aerial photograph--the version we
used in making the Staff Report is the original in the library which is more clear than this. The
aerial photograph was taken right over 650 Waverley, and under magnification of the original it
appeared to us that the bay structure is visible in this photograph. We can date the photograph
because the old train station, torn down in 1940, is still there at the end of University Avenue.
And the Swain’s Music Building that was completed in January of ’36 is also very visible in this
photo across from the Varsity Theater. So we were able to date this photograph to the last half of
the ~30s, and that bay structure appears to us to be there. So I wilt give this photograph to Board
Member Bernstein to pass around to you. You’ll see 650 Waverley near Casa Real in the lower
left-hand corner, and when the Board is finished with the photograph, we’ll bring it back to the
pedestal here for members of the public to look at. The research to uncover this photograph
involved the review of literally hundreds and hundreds of photographs in the City Archives, and
this was the only aerial one that was taken anywhere near 650 Waverley Street.
In the Staff Report we noted that a further alteration to the property is the provision of this
second dwelling unit in the back. And when we reach Item #2 we wil! see that that is proposed
for demolition, so we needed to evaluate the significance of that structure because our ordinance
refers to ~historic buildings and sites." So we evaluated this site structure, and we concluded that
that dwelling unit is generally too utilitarian and understated in character to possess the kind of
significance that would make it eligible for the California Register or to meet the criteria of our
ordinance. And, therefore, if it was removed it would not be a significant impact on this
property.
The unit, which has a garage below and an apartment above, is not visible in this pre-1940
photograph, so it must have gone up somewhere around 1940 or afterwards. If you visited out
there, you will see the early 20th century hardware on some of the doors, and all Staffcould do is
to speculate that when the original house was altered, perhaps to put on that rear addition, that in
the custom of the day of saving everything, they may have saved some doors in the basement and
reused them on this new unit because the other elements are distinctly more modern than these
doors are, and we do have the evidence of the photograph that the structure is not early. And
when they put it there, they did demolish a structure in the rear of the property, which is the rear
southwest portion of the property. And as we reach Item #2 w-e will find that the applicant is
proposing to put a structure there where there had been one originally. And that was possibly a
Page 3 of 9
carriage house and was removed in order to get this second dwelling there at the rear of the
property.
Probably the most significant alteration to the property we found with the help of the early 20th
century photograph was the removal of the porch railing of the historic house that occurs on the
second floor. Dames & Moore was not aware of the appearance of that early railing, or whether
there even had been one there, so they don’t take up the subject. And they could not have known
because the photograph that we discovered came to light only through an exhaustive search, and
it was found to be in an incorrect file where you normally would never look for a photograph of
this address. And we conveyed the photograph to the applicant, and as we’ll see in Item #2, the
applicant is proposing to replicate that railing on the basis of the photo~aphic evidence, which
basis meets the Secretary’s Standards for a restoration.
We then took up the subject of the builder, Gustav Laumeister. The evidence that he built the
house is so certain and clear in the record that it is another curiosity that Dames & Moore
considered that the builder of the property was unknown. The builder is definitely ~known; there
are clear notices in the 1901 paper that when the house was built that he is the one that would
build it, and moreover it states that he made the plans.
Now newspaper notices compiled by reporters under deadlines can sometimes include phrases
that are not exactly accurate. We placed a ~eater emphasis on the advertisements of Laumeister
himself that occur in the City Directory and other places that he furnishes plans to the clients for
whom he is going to build a project. And at the turn of the century, as we know, there were plan
books available. The ones that have been more readily available because of republication are
those for Craftsman structures, but there were plan books for all kinds of styles. And these plan
books included countless designs that we would regard as of nearly flawless proportions and a
very high level of design that you would expect custom from an architect.
So we suspect that those plan books are the source that Laumeister used to provide plans for his
clients. But we still have the phrase that he "made the plans" for this house. We do "know that
some builders did design buildings that they built, and it is a worthy subject, of research to see if
in the correspondence of Laumeister that still might be extant, or correspondence of others, or
other records, whether he may have designed houses himself. This would be of special interest
to one of the members of the Board, Board Member Makinen, because the year after 650
Waverley Street, Gustav Laumeister designed the home of Board Member Makinen in the box
form, Colonial Revival, classical overlay style that we see at 650 Waverley Street. And so it ~vill
be of interest to us in further research to see if Laumeister actually drew plans.
We went through the entire Historic Inventory and we noticed that almost all of the Laumeister
buildings, including major landmarks, do not list an architect, while the listing of an architect is
very common in the Inventory. But almost none of his buildings list an architect. And so we
speculated the reason for that is that he provided the plans routinely for his clients, and may even
have done the designs himself.
We gave a short biography, in an attachment, of Gustav Laumeister. Despite his name he is a
Bay Area native from Mission San Jose. He lived all his life here, and did his whole career here.
You’ll be familiar with Washington Avenue down in the Seale addition, and that’s where his
final home was where he died at the age of ninety in 1955.
We gave you a list of the 22 Historic Inventory properties that he did design. There is one
additional Inventory listing at 1329 Waverley, but it was demolished in the 1980s as a one-story
bungalow- to be replaced by a two-story set of town houses.
Page 4 of 9
We then took advantage of information brought forward by board members to compile a short
history of the use of the property. It was built for Mrs. Harriet Woods of Chicago, and this is a
subject that is worthy of more research because there is no obituary for Mrs. Woods. We could
not trace information regarding her. She may have been a widow. If so, this would be a very
common kind of profile for the use of a building in Palo Alto, where a widow with children
comes into Palo Alto, builds a house perhaps with an inheritance, but then takes in boarders and
renters to help support the property once it is built. And she did take in roomers and boarders, it
does appear.
And she was only residing there for two or three years, and while she was there, in 1904, she
took in an early tenant, and that was Dr. J.C. Spencer, who five years later became the first
mayor of Palo Alto in 1909, which was the first year of our city charter-mayor-city council form
of government. Before that there was the head of a board of trustees overseeing the city, and Mr.
Hutchinson was the first one in the early century. But the first mayor was Dr. J.C. Spencer, and
before he held that office he was residing at 650 Waverley. So we raised the question why a
physician, who always had his own home thereafter, would be renting. And so we went into the
records for the home he moved into at 367 Addison, which is still there, and is the house next to
the Hewlett-Packard garage on the property, and found that it was completed the following year.
Dr. Spencer may have been acquainted with Mrs. Woods, or he and his wife may have been
responding to an advertisement for "temporary quarters" very near the house that he was
constructing and moved into the following year on Addison, where he remained for the rest of
his life until he died in the 1930s.
And the Dames & Moore form also says that Laumeister lived there and the City Dh’ectory notes
that. It is conceivable that this is true if Laumeister was building a home nearby, and he did
occupy several nearby homes over the course of his life on Lowell and other locations. But also
we have learned that the City Directory, while largely accurate, does need to be read critically
because there are inconsistencies and errors perhaps resulting from the tight deadlines on a
detailed publication that has to come out every year. So it may mean that he is just associated
with the property as the builder. But it is conceivable that he did rent there for a short time right
after it was built, and perhaps his client, Mrs. Woods, encouraged that for income while Mr.
Laumeister was waiting for a residence to be completed that he was probably building himself.
The property then passed into the hands of several roomers and boarders. Mrs. Woods may have
been retaining the ownership of the property; it’s not completely clear. But it’s likely that she
did because there’s no evidence to the contrary until 1913-14, and that’s when the long-term
resident of this house that is sometimes referred to as the Ketman House, arrived on the site, and
that is Abraham Ketman, who was an older man, retired from real estate. We don’t know his
birth year, but his wife was born, according to records, in 1857, and he was likely born in the
1850s as well. And they moved in by 1914. They apparently planned to be there for a long time
because they took out a permit in 1913 for $300 of alterations, which was a goodly sum at that
time for an addition. And it may be at that time that the addition on the rear was put in for extra
living space; the Ketmans did have grown children that lived there from time to time. And it
may also be when that projecting one- and two-story bay was included at the side of the house.
And the Ketmans remained there; the older Ketmans died by the ’40s, but they had an unmarried
daughter that apparently inherited the property, and she remained behind until around 1950, and
so the Ketman family was in residence there for 35 to 40 years.
Page 5 of 9
After 1950 we didn’t research the property; we’re getting into the modern period. But we did
note that in 1973 it was sold to Miramonte Mental Health Services, who held on to it until the
current owner purchased the property recently.
The Staff Report then sums up the Dames & Moore report that we’ve already discussed. Then
we give the basis for designation and the criteria and definition of the Categories in the
Ordinance that we have often reviewed together here on other properties, and we reached a
summary why we believe, and await your comment, that the property meets all of the criteria for
designation and closely corresponds to the definition of a Category 2 property. And therefore,
without reservation, Staff recommended a designation of Category 2 for this property, and we
will now look forward to your comments on this project. Thank you.
Chair Bunnenber~: Thank you, Dermis. Now let’s see, do we do an applicant presentation? If
so, we can move on to that unless we have questions of Dennis.
BM Haviland: Dennis, I understand this property is in the downtown CD district, and that the
reason that this application is proceeding is that the owners would like to qualify for a
development bonus that’s available in the downtown CD district for Category 1 and 2 buildings.
I just wanted to make sure that I understood some other things about this property in relationship
to the preservation ordinance once it was designated Category 1 and 2. My understanding is that
once it is a Category 1 or 2 it’s adherence to the Preservation Ordinance then is no longer
voluntary in the downtown CD district. Is that correct?
Staff Backlund: That is correct. Regardless of usage, anything designated in Category 1 or 2
can only be demolished by a special act of the City Council, usually under extreme safety hazard
findings.
BM Haviland: And any future changes must be approved by the Historic Resource Board? Is
that also correct? How about alterations?
Staff Bac~und: Yes, that is true. Because the property is applying for the historic preservation
bonus square footage, this is an incentive that was written in the Municipal Code specifically to
provide funding for restoring properties. Because they will be applying for that, a covenant will
be drafted by the City Attorney that will be perpetually binding on the property. And the
rationale is that the substantial preservation bonus and financial incentives are given because the
property retains integrity, and because it will enjoy the benefits of this bonus perpetually it must
retain the historic integrity perpetually by law.
BM Ha¥iland: Well, the covenant includes the intended use, which is single-family residence, or
is it possible that this could be converted to commercial use sometime in the future?
Staff Backlund: It could be converted to commercial use. The downtown CD zone has a list of
permitted uses, and single-family residency is one of them, and there are a lot of others. The use
is not considered a certain impact under historic standards, only the changes physically to the
property that a change of use might entail. And if that should become an issue, then the property
will remain under the covenants regardless of use.
BM Haviland: Ordinarily a change of use requires an upgrade in the building to the current
building code, and my understanding is that given that this would be given a Category 2
designation, it would automatically be eligible, in fact will be using the State Historical Building
Code, so that a change in use would not require an upgrade to the existing building.
Page 6 of 9
StaffBacklund: That is partially true. It seems a great deal of our building code regulations are
partially true; there are so many exceptions on a case-by-case basis. But the codes that this
property would be under, the codes and covenants, assure the maintenance of the integrity of the
property. And the purpose of the Historical Building Code is to allow access issues for
handicapped, structural seismic issues, life safety issues, to be faced in alternative ways that will
preserve the inte~ity of the property. And any alternative that would reasonably meet the
standards of safety and access and conserve the integrity of the property are required to be used.
The City cannot impose an impact on the integrity of the property while refusing to look at
alternatives. So the Historical Building Code is a law and upon designation must be used on this
property to the extent that the covenant indicates, and it will indicate quite a bit.
Chair Bunnenber~: Other Board Members questions of Dennis? To the applicants presentation:
Good morning, Montgomery Anderson.
_Applicant Montaomerv Anderson: Thank you for having me here this morning. My name is
Monty Anderson, and I’m principal of Cody Anderson Wasney Architects. On this particular
item, Item 1 on the agenda (I’m not going to speak to the rehabilitation plans that we’re bringing
forward; we’ll save that for Item 2), this process has been a very interesting one. I really have to
commend Staff for the amount of work that they’ve done with regards to this project, and
helping us find the material to develop what I think is a really good plan for this building. The
historic photo documentation, the information on Laumeister, basically Staff did our job for us
on this one and really dug in and found a lot of very good information about this house.
We’re Category 2 designation, which is considered a major building in the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, and 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. I think this building exemplifies and qualifies
for Category 2 status on several of these points.
I think Laumeister was obviously a very important builder/architect maybe, developing houses at
the turn of the century. I mean, what was going on in 1902 in Palo Alto? We had a burgeoning
university happening over here. We had a growing city on this side of the train tracks, people
moving into the area. The boarding house then became an important regional stylistic
development of housing that happened here. You see it here on Waverley Street. We’ve seen it
in projects we’ve worked on over on Kipling. So that style of development is really tied directly
into the development of Palo Alto.
Laumeister was an important person in that stylistic development. He also built this in a pretty
good example of Colonial Revival style: the timed pilasters on the corner, classical columns on
the porch. You can go to the Field Guide of~4merican Houses and you could probably pick out
this house in towns across the country. So we think stylistically it also qualifies. And through
the thankful research that Staff and, as I understand it, Board Members, participated in, I think a
really good case has been made here to consider this building as a Category 2 status.
It’s also important to us from the development standpoint (which I won’t go into), our actual
plans. But from our actual development standpoint, that would create an incentive mechanism
because this is located in the CD-C district, a powerful incentive mechanism to take this project
and rehabilitate it and conform any rehabilitation and future rehabilitation, and includes taking
away a lot of the demolition rights for a property owner on this.
Page
But there’s a substantial benefit on the other side. The preservation bonus creates the incentive
mechanism that makes this project work. And as I’ll show- you in our rehabilitation plan there
are several obstacles, I think, that are in the way of somebody coming forward and making a
successful rehabilitation project on it. The context of this building has changed obviously
considerably from this early photograph of wonderful little houses. And that context does not
exist there anymore, at least on two sides of this property, and that’s a big challenge. And I’ll go
into more of that with the second part of this application.
So in short, I hope you support our application for a Category 2 designation. I think it’ll be a
powerful incentive mechanism to make this project work.
Chair Bunnenberg: Thank you very much. Do we have questions of the applicant? Martin.
BM Bernstein: I don’t have a question, but a comment ifI may. It’s fun to see the photo~aph
of the pilaster base. It’s the same exact profile of that on Villa Rotunda by Palladio 500 years
ago. That was fun.
I also now actually have a comment and motion. And I would like to move that we accept
Staff’ s recommendation, make this Category 2, based on the very fine and extensive report that
Dennis Backlund presented to us.
Chair Bunnenberg: I have a question of Staff. We need to take public comment before We move
into that, but thank you very much Martin because we will ask the public if they have comment
and thank you, Monty, for your report. All right. We wil! now ask for public comment. Do we
have anyone who wishes? Any cards? Do you want to have any closing comments, Monty?
An’d by the way I would like at this point to acknowledge and enjoy the presence of Jim Burch,
our Council representative. Thank you very much for being here because I feel like this is a
significant property, and we’re so glad you’re here. At this point we’ll close the public hearing.
We have a motion. We do not have a second.
BM Makinen: I’ll second it.
Chair Burmenberg: We have the motion and the seconding, so that we can move to the maker of
the motion. Did you have more comments that you wished?
BM Bernstein: I refer to the comments made by Dennis Backlund to support why I believe the
motion is correct.
Chair Bunnenberg: Does the seconder wish to speak?
BM Makinen: There was some discussion in the material here about donners, additional
donners. I guess we didn’t hear any’thing regarding that.
BM Bernstein: I think that issue is regarding our next agenda item, not this agenda item.
BM Murden: I think this is a wonderful house. I definitely think it’s a Category 2 house, and
I’m really looking forward to seeing it refurbished and rehabilitated, which is the next section.
Laumeister, as everybody has pointed out, is such a well-known builder in Palo Alto, and this
house has some wonderful detailing on it, I think. I think it’s well-deserving of the Category 2.
BM Makinen: Just one more comment. There are strong similarities between this house and the
house that I live in. I do have the same pilasters on the corners, fluted pilasters. The porch is
Page 8 of 9
very similar to it, so it’s clearly a sibling of the 650 Waverley house, the house I live in. I would
support any effort to preserve this builder’s product.
Chair Bunnenber~: And your house was 1903. So that’s a wonderful kind of connection. And
my only comment would be it’s a pure miracle that this house has survived. As you saw next
door, there was a wonderful, wonderful structure, and it is gone to condominiums, and there are
two small one-story buildings on the other side, and I feel very, very lucky that these, one way or
another, managed to survive to this point.
Are we ready at this point to get to the vote? We have a motion to designate this structure at 650
Waverley as a Category 2 historic structure under the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the
City. All those in favor say "aye."
Al__.!l: Aye.
Chair Bunnenber~: All those opposed? And let’s see, we have Board Member Mario absent and
Board Member Kohler, so we do have a majority, and we didn’t have anyone who was unable to
vote.
Historic Resources Board Action: BM Bernstein, seconded by BM Kohler, moved that the
Board recommend that the house at 650 Waverley 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.
Vote: 5-0-0-2 (Mario and Kohler absent)
Page