Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-28 Historic Resources Board Summary Minutes City of Palo Alto Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 28, 2025 Council Chambers and Hybrid 8:30 A.M. Call to Order / Roll Call The Historic Resources Board (HRB) of the City of Palo Alto met on August 28, 2025, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Present: Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz, Vice Chair Rohman, Board Member Pease, Board Member Ulinskas, Board Member Willis Absent: None. Public Comment There were no requests to speak. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions There were no changes planned. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer noted this was a special meeting as the regularly scheduled meeting was cancelled due to quorum issues. Mr. Switzer highlighted the upcoming Boards & Commissions Recognition Event. The required anti-harassment training is due on August 31. The HRB Workplan will go to Council on September 8 as a Council Consent Item, so there will be no presentation. PUBLIC COMMENT No requests to speak. Action Item 2. Public Hearing / Quasi-Judicial. 1950 Cowper Street. (25PLN-00128) Request for Major Historic Resource Board Review for the Rehabilitation of an Existing Category 1 Resource Including Removal of Non-Original Skylights, Roof Repair, Demolition of Exterior Walls of a Non-Historic Garage, Removal of Non-Original Fencing and Landings, New Exterior Windows and Doors, and City of Palo Alto Page 2 Replacement of Wood Framed Exterior Doors and Windows in Select Locations. CEQA Status: Exempt From CEQA Per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zone District: R-1 (Single-Family). Mr. Switzer presented on 1950 Cowper Street. The property was built in 1932 by Birge Clark for Lucie Stearn’s daughter, Ruth, in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. Copies of the original architectural plans were shown. A rear cloister was added in 1935. In 1942, a garden house was built under the guidance of Birge Clark. In 1972, a fence was added and in 1973, a carport. In 2000, a pool was added. The period of significance is 1932-1942. Typical features include one-story massing; indoor and outdoor relationship with an interior courtyard; textured stucco cladding; clay tiled roofing; original historic windows, doors, and openings including some replaced in-kind; and multi-lite steel sash casement windows, replaced in- kind in locations primarily on the front façade. Proposed changes include opening the non-historic garage, changing doors and windows, removing skylights and repairing with clay tile roofing, and installing steel frame folding doors in the existing opening on the west elevation. Renderings of all proposed changes were shown. The staff recommendation is to recommend to the Director of Planning and Development Services that the project conforms to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The HRB may also continue the project to a date certain with specific direction to staff and the applicant or recommend the project is not consistent with the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation and specify which standards are of concern. Board Member Ulinskas noted that the garage was being turned into an outdoor living space and asked how covered parking would be accommodated, clarifying there would be uncovered parking. Board Member Willis asked if there was a garage on the site originally. Mr. Switzer said the property has a large driveway and would not have an issue meeting the parking requirements. Mr. Switzer referenced D1.01 in the architectural plans, stating the existing parking court is to remain. The HRB could request parking stalls be clearly indicated at the building permit stage. Mr. Switzer confirmed there was a garage on the site originally but it had been converted and a carport was added. The work is centered on a non-historic addition of the property. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Danielle De Young, Project Manager from Marmel Radziner, briefly presented on the proposed changes to the 1950 Cowper Street property. The two main goals of the project are to bring the house closer to its original design and provide more access points to the interior courtyard. One of the proposed changes is to bring the street view back. Removing the exterior walls of the non-historic garage space allows for free flow into the courtyard space and landscape areas. The brick-paved driveway continues into the covered space. The outdoor living use is loose furniture that can be removed to allow vehicle parking. The applicants do not need the space for covered parking of their personal vehicles. Board Member Ulinskas said one of the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation is that alterations and modifications to a structure be distinct and of their time so as to not create a false sense of history. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Board Member Ulinskas opined the drawings and renderings of what the garage is being turned into look original to the house, specifically the same terracotta tile roof and an open structure similar to the original loggias the house had. Board Member Ulinskas wondered what measures have been taken to identify the altered area as distinct and of its time. Board Member Ulinskas asked if there were gutters given there were no indications of such on the renderings or drawings. Ms. De Young noted the garage space was built in 1972 in the same manner as the rest of the house. Ms. De Young felt opening and removing it from the enclosed structure removes it from the original footprint of the building. The existing structure is of the 1970s with creosote-soaked railroad tie structures, which gives a distinct era to the structure that will be visible from the exterior. Ms. De Young opined the roof, though not distinguishable from the rest of the house, creates balance. Ms. De Young clarified the existing half-round copper gutters around the entire roof will be maintained. Mr. Switzer referenced the rendering of the northern façade, pointing out the enclosed stucco siding and attached pavilion and that the garage would be represented as an open space. Mr. Switzer thought there was a strong case that the openness of the pavilion differentiates it from the existing structure. The level of detail required for an architectural plan set is less than that for a building permit plan set. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz thanked the applicant for removing the wall and restoring the sight lines. MOTION: Board Member Willis moved, seconded by Board Member Ulinskas, to recommend the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and to approve and endorse the plans submitted. VOTE: The motion passed 5-0-0. 3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 12, 2025 PUBLIC COMMENT No requests to speak. MOTION: Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved, seconded by Board Member Willis, to approve the meeting minutes from the June 12, 2025, meeting. VOTE: The motion passed 4-0-1, Vice Chair Rohman abstained. 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of July 10, 2025 PUBLIC COMMENT No requests to speak. Board Member Willis wanted the committee assignments referenced to be on the committee assignment sheet. Board Member Willis asked to join Goal 1. Vice Chair Rohman confirmed Board Member Willis had been added on Goal 3. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Mr. Switzer will add Board Member Willis to Workplan Goal 3, the inventory updates. Mr. Switzer said ad hoc committee assignments were at the discretion of the Chair. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz agreed to Board Member Willis joining Goal 1 if they can talk about it, although did not believe there was much to proceed with. MOTION: Vice Chair Rohman moved, seconded by Board Member Pease, to approve the meeting minutes from the July 10, 2025, meeting. VOTE: The motion passed 4-0-1, Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz abstained. Announcements Board Member Pease showed a PDF and provided an update to Workplan Goal 4, which would expand subterranean development rights to Category 1 & 2 residential properties. In return for qualified residential property owners joining the CPA Historic Register, they would be allowed to construct a basement that extends beyond the structure’s footprint or sell that benefit as a TDR to other residential property owners. Board Member Pease summarized the Commercial District Restoration incentives and said there were a lot of qualified buildings that people declined to list. Most objections were it would tie up their property and limit their property value over time. Salable subterranean rights would be limited to the size of the seller’s historic home’s original footprint. It would require changes to CPA specific plan and zoning requirements. There were hydrologic concerns and potential groundwater and de-watering issues. Board Member Ulinskas presented a case study of 440 Melville that demonstrated voluntarily listing the property on the historic register would allow for 3,884 sq ft of additional basement area that could be used by the owner or transferred to another property owner. The additional below-grade expansion would not impact the historic portion of the original home or the front of the property as visible from the public right-of-way. The owner taking advantage of this incentive could benefit the rear open space because the expanded basement area allows for parking to be located below ground, freeing up more open area for outdoor living. Along with expanded rights for basements, the lightwell would also be expanded to beyond 2% of the lot area. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz had recently met with the Mayor, Vice Mayor, and other chairs and expressed HRB interest in pursuing with Council additional work on incentives. Mr. Switzer said this would be a code change and there would need to be considerations of the text, zoning code, flood plain management, FEMA requirements, etc. Mr. Switzer believed the proposal could be molded to fit specific Palo Alto requirements. Board Member Willis asked what the receiver sites would be. Board Member Pease clarified receiver sites would be residential homes and asked if it would be appropriate to be more assertive about this idea. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Mr. Switzer said code changes would be a large ask of staff time but welcomed the Board to continue the efforts to have a well-planned agenda to advance when the time arises. Adjournment Adjourned at 9:22 a.m.