HomeMy WebLinkAbout0193.093!
-
G)'''',','' , , , , . .
''!::" ."."
Marcn I!, 1993
HOOORABlf CITY COUNe Il
Palo Alto. California
ExpansiQ~ of the Pr~fessorvji7e Historic Distrihl
Members of the Council:
Report in Brief
.",-. ___ Mi J"iIiW
12
This report and the attached report from the Historic Resources Board {HRB}
transmit the recommendatlcn from the HRB ta expand the area of the
Pr~fessorvil1e Historic District. Tne area recommended for the expansion is
indicated on the attached map.
Background
Tne Historic Resources Soard initiated discussion of expanding the
Professorv111e HistoriC District in late 1989, when it realized that the
historic homes near the e~istjng HistoriC District were threatened either wlth
demolition or substanthl remodeling that would modify the prevailing historic
cnaracter Qf this District and the surrounding nelg'nborhood. The Board also
realized that ~ile the original boundaries of the Historic District
delineated i relatively cohesiwe ~umber of hom~s in terms of age. historic
significance and archjte~tural character, the boundaries were qUite irregular
and~ as a result, they were difficult to describe and~ for the typica.l
caiz.en l difficult to comprehend.
As noted in the attached HRB report. the Board subsequently expended
extraordinary tl<De and resources in cc.nducting research on all homes wHhin 11
relatively large area surrounding the existing Historic District, in order to
determine appropriate boundaries for a District expansion. During this
period, the BOi!!"d held two wideTy noticed Study Sessions wit ... prope!"ty owners
in April and May of 1991. later~ in November 1992, the HRB held another
notited study sess;{ln "Hh property owners. This st'Jdy session ",'a.s fol JOlWed
by two noticed public hearings in mid-N<:lvember 1992 afld January 1993.
Ger.eral1y, most potentially-affected property oitflners were very supportive of
the expansion. In fact, several property c~.mers at the Ja.nuary 1993 public
CM~:193:93
L
-
________ ~,..,....-____ '_T","-_ -.... '_ ~'.
hearing requestp.d a larger al""u fcr the expansion.
in the trans~ittal to Council that it will car-~er
compl~tin9 this expansion and then (tablishi ~s
the remainder of the cal~hdaT year.
PUblic Noticing of CH'f Co~.iJ __ PubliC Ho>aring
Th~ Board noted then
such requests after
goais and priorities
and
A n!ltice of the c.ity CC'.uncil 's March 1S, 1993-public ~earing, showing the
bGundaries of the-existing historic district ilnd the proposed expanSlon,
a~peilred in the Palo Alto week1y on March 3, 1993_ I~ additio~, ccurt~sj
car~$ were mailed to all persons who appeared at the recent HRB study session
and two public hearings.
Effects of the District ExpansiQn
The attached HRB report nctes tl1,at the twa prir.cipa1 reg'Jlatory effects of the
expanded di~tr;ct wi11 ~e to:
1J Require design re'lliew by t,~e HRB of Exterior modifications of
structures ... "thin the District, with compliance being voluntary,
and
2) ReqiJire refer'ral of demciition ipp1ications of structures within
the District to the HKB, which could result in i delay of i
l'eQue'St~\i demoHti6n fOT 1 period 'Jf up to one year-~ dept""'!ing
up~~ final City Council action_
If the Citl Council approves the HRB's reco~ndation on Professorvi11e, the
expanded boundaries of this Historic OiStY1Ct will assure greater protecti~n
of this ne;9nt--orhGod~ wnich is conslder.ed a highly-valued COITirnU:1ity resource,
The expansion aisa wi11 result in greater clarity in defining a~d descYloing
the District's boundaries.
The Board noted Hat t"-is expanded ar~a wou1d affect only the Toeal d1 strict
des1gnation_ Subsequent work wiil be nec~ssary to app1y to th€ D2par~ment of
the InteriDr for Nation.l ~egistar recogn~tion of the ~xp~nded area. Hcwever,
the absence of Natl0nal Register status on th~ expanded are4 will not aff€ct
the previously-d'!sc.rii:led prOlr'iS1or.S of Palo Alto's Historic Presi!rvation
Ordinance on the properties in the expanded area.
S~b$eguent Actions
If the City Council apprOlieS-the HRB' s recalMl.I?I~~atio" on expanding
Professorville t Section 16.94.040 of the Historic Prese~vation Ordinance
requires the City to notif.., owners of properties in tne expanded area of the
Council action and of the r~9u1atians resulting from such designatic~.
CHR:193:93
p,'w;mr'Iprof~<.mt
3/11/93
P.ge 2
i , ,
"'
"~-.
-
SU!II!a "v .tn.d (on~J..lLsJ.QJ'l
Stiff believes the-HiStoric ReS{jurces Snrd has performe-d if! e:.:tracY'din.arny
t~orDugh !"esearch in this endeavor and supports the HRB reccrmrendaUon to
expand tne Proressor~il1e Histor;c Dfstrict.
Env'ronmental Assessmept
This recommended action does not constitute a project u~der th~ California
(rwironmer1hl Quality Act. and l10 environmental asst:'ssi't€nt is necessary.
R:2cQlTITJendat;on
Staff recommends City Council approval of the Historic Resources Bcard's
reconmendat:fon for expandi"; the Professonil1e Historic Di~trict.
ResPlZtfu"y submitted: J.ur"j~~t~ ;I;M.:tt/ /j;;;~<;'/.-jz ~RG[ IIft1 RHAN it
Assistant P annin9.}Jffltial
KENNETH R. SCHREIBE'
Oi rector of Pl ann1lig and
Community En~iron~ent ~\~~
1NAFlEHING
City Milnager
Attachments: I. HR8 Report of 3/11i93 to the City Council on Professorville
Expansion
2. Map of Professorville Histor~c Distrlct and Area Recommended
for [xpansl0n
3. Pa10 Alto Municipal (ode £xcerpt: Section 16.49.040(a){4),
(5) and (0)
4. Excerpt of HRB Minutes of January 20, 1993
5. SUlmlary Notes on HRB Noticed Publ ic Meetings on
Prof~ssorvil1 e Expansion of lli~/gg Study Sess;{)n ~ ll/18/92
Public Hearing, and 1/13/93 Public Hearing
cc: Historic Resources Board
CHR:193:93 3/11/93
Page 3
•
-
11 March ) 993
XonQrab:~ City council
city of Palo Alto
Profes6orville ",as created. as an historic district in 1979-80. The
only residential historic district in Palo Alto. Profcssorville is
a livi~g history of the city and the homes of many early stanford
professors. The existing district includes 111 properties and is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The Historic ReS0urces Board (HRBj first looked at possible district
expansion eVe"t' two years ago in response to conC'~rns about
prese.rving noteworthi' homes adjacent to the district. Expansion was
also seen as an opportunity to simplify and make !!tare discernable
the Qistrict boundarie5~ In addition l an expansion could allow
deserving residences in to the district due. in part, to less
stringent national district standards since creation of the original
district.
The HRB has Qone extensive research to develop criteria to evaluate
properties. Areas researched include: City of Palo Alto
Directories, Building Permit Information, Census Data, Newspaper
Articles of the period, and Directories ·Jf Stanford Professors.
From the data, the follow"ing criteria was developed:
1. Age aD_r;L~CQndi t; on
Homes built between 1890-19)0 with little 0= no exterior
alterations.
2. Histor.ic Signi f it;an_~
Home of a professor or an individual significant in early
Palo Alto. Also horr~es already listed on the Palo Jo.lto
Inventory of Historic structures.
3. lxchitectural Characte~
Use of historic materials: examples including cedar shingles l
clapboard siding, true divideQ lite wood sash ·",'indows. \0.'000.
trim.
Typical features including: prcminent front porches ~ith
columns, gabled roafs, detailed projecting roof eaves,
decorative beams.
Archit-ectllral styles which W'ere cornman to the area including:
brown shingle, Craftsman, California Bungalow", and some Spanish
Colonial Revival.
_________________ Cit.'\.' ()r Fal() Alto -----------------
-
4. Pi strict unif.ir;ill.9JJ.
Add to the district ~o as to cre~te a geometrically simpler
form, create more regular bol..1ndaries to aid in identifying
the edges of the district.
Using the alxlve criteria, the ERE! exa!1'lir.ed adjacent areas on "li.
side.s of the existing district. A study 1!Ire&, exter:>din'3' fror'l
Embarcadero Road to Channi11g Avenue and c:o'«per stree:t to Eroer~on,
.. as established upon .'hich the Board f s efforts ·were focused. '!"we
neighoorhcod study sessions in April and May cf 1991 provided p'.Jblic
input ~hich aided the P.P~ in refining the possible areas o!
expansion.
tn the best tradition of Palo ~.lto. the HRB has expended
considerable effort to insure a thorough process; after the
initial public comment, further research ~as undertaken. Using
data collected J along with the c13rified crit~riaJ the Board
developed a proposed district expansion 'Which received public inpllt.
in a November 1992 neighborhood study session. Two public hearinqs
followed which culminated in the ~ taking decisive action on
20 January 1993, recommending to Council 3 65\ expansion of the
current Professorvills Historic District~
Impacts on affected homeowners are as tollows:
Mandatory design review by MRS for extericr alteratians.
Compliance is v~luntary.
Application for demolition of structures would be referred
to the nRB for review and recommendation to council with a
possible moratorium on demolition for up to one year.
Review of alterations to ~ncn contributing ft residences would be
ba~ed on maintaining 6tyle and materials of the existing home, and
encouraging con$ist~ncy ~ith the existing streetscape~ The Board
is presently studying approaches to review of new homes in the
district nut has not yet d~v~loped a definit~ strategy.
After council actiol'!.~ th.e HRB \jill pursue nat.ional recognition
(expansion of the district on ttle Natior:.al Register of Historic
Placesl ~ In addition. input from neighbors and the existance of
numerous additional homes worthy of district inclusion, sugge~ts
that the Board look at a further expansion at a future date.
The Historic Resources Beard feels strongly th~~ this expansion ~il~
afford greater protection and give due recognition and historic
distrjct status to num~rous deserving homes, as well as facilitate
clearer recognition of the district. We request your support and
apprvval of this effort to preserve an important chapter in Palo
Alto's history.
~~l
Jim McFall
Historic Resources Board
L
I
L
• Surwundln~, a.rea
(r.cn dff~kJ!
L
o E:<:i~tin~
Pro feS50I'\"j 1: e
D Ar~ p roI""',eJ t>J h<!
-adJ~ to Pr()f,,~~on'lii",
,
\
i
c I
I
I
I
i
·1
"
ttl! I
-
BUu..Dll'J;G REGl1l..ATlONS 16A9.04Q
builcHng desigr.3tcd as signific.mI tbic:;where i.n U-.e
city.
(2) l.nform the .archire'cturz1 T!':view boJ..'l! of
the hi~lCriCa.1 and/or aJChi.~l!cru':"'41 sigr-.i n~a..~Ct 0 r
historic commercial ar:.d .'!l wtiple· family st.tt.cn·l~S
til. the dOWiUO'o1lll 'ite:1. aJ1d a..'y such Ix: i:l wngs des~
ign.ate~ as Mgnificaru. el.<;ewhere in the City WJ.t are
under review 't'I.!' the archi.ecrural review board.
St'hmi! recommendations to t.he archi[er.:clJ~ re
view board regarding propose.c! e)(leriiJr 2.lter.:.
tioru: of such historic S!l"1lcture.s.
{3) R.:commend w tile council the design[l
tion of addlt:onal b.:Uding.s and districts as ~js
lOne.
(4) R.es.urcn availabl!: information wd add
histDric.a! info:mation 10 t.~ iI':ventot)' sheets of
historic str\lctureSisites. Thls. invenlory i.s. main
tained in the d:partmeru of planning and ccmmu
nity envlronment
{5) Perform ruch other functions as may be
delegated from time to time 10 the historic re~
roun:es ooard by the dty COW'lcil.
(Ord. 4047 §1!·3. 1991: On!. 3876 II. 1989:
Om. :.;721 tl (pan). 1986)
16.49.Q40 OesignaHcm of historic struc
lures/sites.
(.;;) Procedure for dtsignation of histo ric
strui.':tures,!sltes or districts. Any individual or
group may propose designation as a historic
Stl"Ucrurc/site or district Such proposals shaD be
revic· ..... ed by U!C historic resourr..es board, w11kh
will make il5 recornrne;xl2.lion to the CC'Jl1Cil. Des
lp'.ation of a hisooric structure/site 0f 61strict must
be approved by tne city cou noL Tne procedure
for such desigI'1ation is as follows:
(1) An~' proPQsa! for designatio!1 shall be
til~,d \J,1t.'l the departml!m of pla.-vting and co;nmu
rut)' environme!"J and shall jnclu1e the following
cfza
(A) The address and assessor's parcel
number of the ~: te 0; ooum';arie.s of the proposed
disl.-icr;
(B) A c1cscription det,ullng the struc
ture/site or district'S special aesthetic, cult'Jral,
archll~t'iJ.ra1, 0; engineering ime~st or vaJue of a
hiSlDlic rmurc~
(0 A dr;scnption of tI:e hL~lcrical \'<i~ue
of It ,e $tnK. ~,..rre/site or 6isuict:
(D) A descripGon .)fthe current condiLio:1
of and: any l_\"1o .... -n Lhreats to the sa'uct'Jre/sire or
dlst.';;.."T".
!.E:I \Vh.,!: res!matinn. if aIIY, ..... .ould be
ncC'essiil)' lu return the SlruCt1..~,.'s!re or diqr:ct to
Its origin1I appc:ilrll~;
(F) Sketches, C:rawings, p!1Otograph.~ 0::
other-descriptive material:
(G) Other 's'Jpporting information.
(2) Each prcrosal shall be cl.)n.sidered b)'
the historic resources ooa~ ii~ a p1Jblic he~lIlrJg
.... 'lthlr'l S:ixty days cfthe n:ceipt of the proposal. L'1
any case where an applk.ation for 'lII pti1!lTling Of
building permi~ affecting the e~erior of a btJ uding
is pendmg concurrentl) .... 'm 2. proposal for des
ignation. the recommendation of the h[ston"c
reSQun::~s roam shall he m 3d:e withjn twenty days
of rece;pt of the propos.al.
(3) NOl.ic-e of the time, place and purrose
of the hearing: shall be gi'Jen at least twcl ... e days
prier 1.0 the date of the he3ring by puhlication at
kasi once in a newspaper of genera! circulation.
or by mail. to the: appl~cam. 10 the owner Dr OVo'n
ers 0 f the propeT'l)'. and to the owners: nf propel"')'
within three hundred fcct of the site.
(4) The hi~mric resources board shall rec
ommend 10 the city c.ound! app~1val, disapproval
or mooif]cacorj 0 r an appli cation for de.sigl1':;li on.
(5) Tne cit)' council may appro ... e, disap
pnwc or mOdify a recomme.rl{jation for d('slg
naLion and, in any case wM:re an aWl ication for a
planning 'Or building p€rmjt is pending concur
rcntJy with !he proposal for deslgn:;,ttD!l, such de
cisior. loohaI1 be made within Ll-Jirty d<lYHlf the re
commrndillion, if an)', of Ihe historic roe-source:;
beard,
(6) After approval of the deslplJ1ion of a
S!nlctLirc/silC Qr district., the city clerk sha1J 5Cnd 10
the o ..... ners of the pro~r1Y so designated, by
mal), a lctt.;:r ouLlininp:..'1c ba~is for s,lCh j\.'si~na
tion ar.d: 1he rt'£l;lltiollS ... hich resell fr')m such
de,~ignJtjon. Nolicc of !.his designJ,ion ~h;,;,n 3::50
16103 Re .... Ord. Supp. 6/91
> <~ >--~-
/?j~;Yr'
16.49.050 ::)cLO ALTO MUNClPAL CODE
-
be fil!."d in the buildlng dep<il1me."u aruj the deparl·
men.!. of planni.ng and commun.ity environment
rues.
('b) Criteria fs.r dcsignati.JrL The following
criJ.eria, BJong with Ch:: 'CiefU"ritiollS pf historic care·
genes and districtS in Section 16.49.020. shall be
used as critet1a for d~ignzti.n.g adr.l:itiooai his"LOri.c
stlUcrureS/sltes or c1istriCt5 10 t."'I.:' hisrmic inven~
tory:
(1) Tnc: stnlcture OT site 1s identified wiQ1
the lives of )"ojstori; people or "",ith imponanr:
events in the city. state or nation;
(2) The :>L'"Ucture or silt is partiC1Jl2..'"l!, n:p-
~ye of an arcll:tectural styie or way of life
important to the City, state or nation;
(3) The structure or site is an e.xa.rnplc of t
type Qf buildin~ which was once common. but is
now r.are;
(4) The suucture or site is COJlnected -with a
business or us( which was once CXlmn:lOn, bul [s
now rare;
(5) The an:hitea orbuilding was important;
(6) Tbe strucmre or site contains elements
mcms::ra.ting outstanding anentioo 10 a.."'Cb.itec-
I· . raJ design. detail, m':e:i>.4 or craftsmanship.
(Oro. 3721 ~I (pm), 1986)
t6.49.050 EIlerl,,' lotteralion of 'historic
slrucl ures.
(a) Re'Yle"o1!' process. Ail appliC3tiot'..s for a
building ~rmit for exterior alteration to any his
':'ric str'utture/Stte in the dO-"'lltcwn area or a
~:gnlficant bunding elsewhere in Lie city, nr
constnJction on iii paI"....tl w~ l:he:re lS CUlT(':nt!) ..
hiswrlc SD"Ucture in the downtown area ;Jr a sig
nificant building elsewhere in th, c"lty. or such
appliCAtion for c:onst!1.1.ction within a historic
dlstri.::t shall be ~~werl as foUol,lro'S:
(l} Review OOdi<:i,
(A) Pursuant to C'hapier 16.48. the archl·
tcClUral review boa.'"d shall rtview app!ications in
¥olving a."l)' rustoric strucrure/.:.itc in t.~ dO'oI.'n
lown area;md any significant structu:re/.site et~·
where In the clt;.-. other than single-famI1)! an'.!
duplex resid,=nces. The architeclu:-a.I review board
.s~lJll refer applicatiDflS to Ult' histonc resources
ooad for .a recommendation on L~ proposed
altcrati;:m of thr stnJcTLlre
(B) Th; hislOric resourcl!s l;)oara shall
review appHcations in .... oh'i.llg single-family and
duplex residencEs which lire historic st."uctures/
sites in the d.D",lrrnt(J\\o!l area or wl-Jch art signifi
cam buildlngs el::ewhere in tl'lc: ciry. Compliance
of the pm;:x:-n)i owner with the recommendations
shall be vclu.'1!Zry. nUl maMatory.
{C) The p1an.,ing naIf may review lTl6
approve minor exterior aJteratloru p.,wmam to
guiddines which the rusroric resources ooaro may
adcpL Minor exterior alteratrons are those altera
tions which the direC'wr of planning and commu
ni:y envirorunern <:r }1js,r'her designee determines
..... ill nO[ a.tj I;crsety affect the elUen or arc~tectural
c:haraCleri.:.::cs nor the historical or aesthetic value
of the ruston<: srrucrure, its ~ e o. surroundings,
(2) TIme limit Re.commendations of the
historic rtsCl!rces board or. 3lterations to a hiStOric
single-famiJy or duplex. residence shall be ren
dered will-tin thirty days of t.lte d'a!e of referral by
the ard'jtectural review bo.m:I or the chief building
officiaL Failure to provide a recommendati('lo
within the time limit shan cause an application for
.a rommerc:ia! Of mwdple ·family use to be retamed
to the architectuoal review board. and a singIe
faImly or duple"( application to be for ... ·arded to
the chief build=.ng official for consideration of
issuance of a building permit.
(0) StandardS of review. tn e'valuating a~pll
cations. tt'1e re .. ic:w bodies shalJ consider the at
ch:tectural style, design, arrangement, telttur-\!.
materi..l.ls an.:: color, iL.'1d any ot.'1er pertinent fac
toTS. Tne prime concern should be the exterior
appearance c f the building site.
0) On buildirl£(; not in a hi:::toric31 dIstrict,
the proposed altCJ.ltions should not adversely
affect the eXlerior architectural Characteristics nor
t..'1e historical or aesthetic vail.!e or the buildmg and
its. ;i te.
O} ~11 hisfOr1C districls, the proposed
llterations sh""Juld m){ adversely affect:
(A') Tr.e ex:erior arcnhccru:-<t1 character
istics our t.;'e hiSlOr 11. architectural or aesmetic
value MUle buildlnb dJ1d it .. ~ite; Of
16104 Rev. Om. Supp 6/9:
'.
I
-
•
-1 RHONA WiLLIAMS HOUSE
bo:ud c!iscussed t'rJe project and the t'o~nrs respDns;b~li~'
.as oir ... cQ. by (ouoe;!. Council minutes an:l th~_ Historic .esource~
Report ileed~ ~evei ...... ed by all members. rf'l.t;! ard should revie ....
and determine wh~ or not the 10 Stand' ~f Rehabiliulion ar:!
being met bY' the propos being 5ubm" . Building, 5ite ar.d
interiors sh{)uld be comidere e r-evie-w.
The board reque:sted a sit'" . eeting ,~the project architect
for c1ariflc;;:;on. _ '!}te ..... -:h[tect can onl)' n. on February 2nd.
A 4:00 PM ~mg on that date was suggested. ''''il and Marc wi!] fwt
be able .w--attend.
M ,Linda,and Monty wili form a sub committee to pro ... : ....
synopsis to the rest of the board.
=---------~~-~--~ -----~-----"'-
4. PROFESSORVILLE
6.
Monty Anderson reported Professorville-Expansion Phase I ",",'ill be
pursued as proposed. Phase I wouTd be talen to Council. A Pha.s,eIl
push would be agendized for the next meetil1g, Elizaberr. Kiddas
proposed t."'e Phase II expansion iNQuld ,give ~hose residents wbo came
fON'arc at the public hearing and expressed an interest in being
included l[1 the expans:on a way to do so ""'irh out having to reopen
'the hew-:ngs again at thh tlme. JIm McFall presented a re\'i~ed map
for the expansion for Phase l.
Motion: Approve expansion as shewIl on the map presented at the
lanuary 13,1993 public hearing wi'frl the exdusicn (,f 528 Lil'lCo~n.
Passed 5 ·0-1 ( Linda S~ott not participaiir.gj
Centeniliaf Commiltee:
·nda Scon reponed Ga.:1 Wooie)' liDlumeercd to gather the
inf ~on for L'1e Reso'ution to be requested of Council will
make a _ ~ass at il
John Baer voiu \ ed his SUtffs'
houses to be rccogm during
Board members shadd bn
pl.quo to be adopted by
or buildings.
time in re~ear '.g 100 year old
the centen : I
an' commer:dati(1lls for a officiar
be m01Jnlt'd on deser\'ing r.ome.s
It was also sugges.le e HRB contact the to see if there might bt:
interest in a c ined H RB/ARB awards prog.ra.1 or the centennial
year.
ommunications. ~one
November 12, 1992
HISTORIC RESOURCE BOARD
NOrtS CN
NOVEMBER 4. 19~'~SPEc!AL SIVOY SESSION
ON
PROFESSORYILLE PROPOSED EXPANSION
Board Memc.e!"s PresEnt; Monte Anders(il",
John Baer
Board MeriilJEfS Not Present:
Jim Mcrall (Chair)
Neil H~yc'en
elizabeth Kittas
Mark Marcii1ik
Board Member Not Pcrticipating: Linda Scott
Historic Resources Board (.HRB) Chair, Jim ~cFall, described tboe bacKgrlJund of
the proposed expansion. He stated that the Board nas been werking en t~is
it€m for over two years. Four criteria were developed by the Board and u~ed
in determining the boundary of the prop,)s~d exparlsior. areas. Th"t:: .. :-ire:
(l) age and condition of houses built betwEEr. 1890 and lS30j
(2) historic sigr,ifica.:1ce of these houses, i.e., who lived in
them;
{3) their architectural character; and~
(4) clarification (i.e .. , straightening) ~f the District's
BOIl'1dary.
1he HRB Chair then discu~5ed the publ ie review precess for the proposed
expansion inchding a NO'ilember 18, 1992 H~B pu~l!c hearing at 1):30 p.m. in the
c.ity Council Confer-enee Room. HRB deliberations and recomm·:,~datior.s would
OCCl.;r at meetings following the closing of the public hearing on November 18.
1992. The HRB wouTd transmit ih recommendation to the City Council in early
1992, at t~at time, the City Council would be eXDected to take final action on
the proposed expansion of t~e Pr(.fe~sorvi11e Historic District.
Discussion on tne propased expansion among members of the publ ic, the Board
Members present and staff focused on 1) the benefits tQ property o~~'ners of the:
expa~sion; 2) applicable regulations; 3) architectural characteristics used in
the criteria for determining the boundary of the expansion; 4) reasons for
reducing the size of the expansion area from the boundary discussed in tarlier
study sessions in 1991 wit~ property owner~; 5} review criteria for
modifications of non-contributing bu'ldlngs in a historic dlstrict; and 6)
reasons for the current boundary cutting tnr ough First PI-esbyteriaf"1 church
site.
c i
'I . i
i • J
I
I
i
1 .!
"I
j
,.-.."
......... ' o
Board ~embers ~nd staff stated benefits of being within a historic district
included prestige gf being wlthi~ a designated dlstrict. and whe~ structural
mojjficatlons are cor' ~p1ated by property OWrlers, possible cede exemption':;
allowed under th~ St~ 'istoric Buil~ing tod~. ~oss'b'e future benefits
cou1d incl-.ldoe m·')re e ive del ;ncat~cn of !he t'is~oric district throllgh
specf31 ~treet signagc ."'d lighting. Th3 applicable re9~1~ticns that would
apply tc all prDperty owners in an exp~nded distric! (as well as to those in
th~ exfsting d~strict} inc1lJr~ 1) mandate"ry design re":l;elii wher: modHicatiorls
to buildin~ exter1o~s are ~lanned (tomplian~e with HRS recc~end~ti~ns is
Yoluntary) and 2) mandat·::rj' HRB conside:--ation of demo1itic1 appl ic~tions whicn
could res~l~ in a max1mum of a on€ year delay i~ demo'it~on, d~p~ndjng upon
City Council ~cti~n. Architectural criteria used in determining tn~ proposed
ex:p~f'1sion area included hOllses with natural materi.=~:" e.g., wood shir.gles.
The Board reduced tr.e size of the proposed €-xpansi:ln area beh~'eer! its €arlie1"
deliberations irj 1991 alld H92 because many structures in the criginal
exp.ansion area did not meet the crHeria used by the Board in ~ermining the
current proposed expai1sion area. The Board sta .:<5 it was curn.'!',tly de'lelopfng
triterli rega~ding how it would review future bUilding facade modifications of
ro~-cQntributing structures tnat are located in historic districts e.g.,
Prcfesscr\lille. The district boundary throl.Jgh th.: Presbyterian Churen site
most likely re.;uHed from a gr<lpnics misinterpretation when the district was
originally.stablished.
The meeting ended at approximate1y 6:45 p.m. M€mbers of the public were urged
to brief their neighbors and attend the Noyember 18, 1992 pub1ic h~ar;ng.
p:\gt\t'lrb.r .. 't~
..
-,
"
--~-~--------
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
SUMMARY MINUTES O~
NOVEMBfB Ie, 199Z
PUBliC HEARING
ON
PRCPOSED PRDFESSORVlllE EXPANSION
November 25, 1992
Board Members Prfs~nt:
Baard Member Not Present:
Board Member Not Participating:
Staff:
Monte Anderson
John Baer
Neil Heyden
Mark MarCinik:
Jim l"lcFal1 (Chair)
Elizabeth Kittas
lind. Scott
George Zimmerman
MINUTES
Historic Resources Board (HRB) Chair Jim McFall summarized the r~aso~s fnr the
proPGsed expansicn including the need to clarify the boundaries. He dfscussed
the potential prestige of being within ProfessorvilTe. He also stated the two
regulatory provisions apPlying to pr~oert;es within a designated historic
district: 1) required design review by thE HRS of proposed external
modifications (compliance w1th HRB design re~iew is voiuntary) and 2) required
Beard recOlMlendiition to ttJe City Council on demolitiOrl api=)lications ... hich
c.ould r-2SUlt in a d'el;y of a dernolHlon for a max;;r:uril p-eriod of one year.
Chaiman McFal' then sum.'!1ari2.ed the public review precess fur this proposed
expansion of the Profess,)nlille Historic Dlstrict. It inc1uded an informa1
study session with potential1y effected property o",lr.ers on NO\lember 4, 1992.
He stated that after this pub1ic hearing fs closed at the cOrlclusion of this
meeting, the Board would continue deliberations at subsequent meetings. Most
likely it would forward its recommendatior:s to the: City Council sometime in January, 1993.
Chairman McFall then opened the public. hearing:.
Elsie BegTe, 1319 Bryant Street, expressed con':t!l'"n on limiting demolition.
She also wondered how a historic district status would affect a
T,onconforming unit on a property.
Bob Jenks, 355 Kingsley Avenue, ~5ked about the difference betw~en the area of
the earlier proPQsed expansion and the current expansion. He also asked
about the length of the HRB rEview process.
__ ..Je"'.>:\9 .. ".>Ih""b"'· .. ·ll;'"-",,'L7~~~~~~ __ City Dr Polin A Ito _~_~_~~_
--a, a
· .-.,.--->-..... ~~~".---"
o
Susan 6ea1l, lOSS C·y,.;per, req~je:,t€d Bt'ard ('""~sid~ratior. to modify the prcp-osed
expansion by iT1cLfjin·~ both sides o-! e 400 biock. of UncoTn Avenue,
her house at the Northeii!st corner 0; n-coln ,1l,.enuE' and Cowper Street
and the East side of the 1100 block Ccwp~r Stre~t.
Maba Majmundal", 450 Melville AvenuE, said they have a relathel.,ll new hot,e and
wondered how the HRB would treat newe-r homes when expansions W2re
de~ired by property owners.
Patl";Cl! \lilleIJIain, 530 Meh11Te .cverH.!B, \7tol!dered if inclusion in a hi:;toric
district would not make a property mare difncult to sell,
Elaine Meyer", 609 Kingsley, sa.id s,he wisr.Ed thE HR8 was expanding the district
on her side of th~ street.
Victor Ojakian, 526 Addisoil, said that while his howse was not in the propos€d
expansion areal he supported Ute e)(pansion and suggested the BDard focus
on the benefits of preservation and r.ot be to\) concerned about Economic
hardship.
Cnairman M-=Fall responded ~o the earlier questions and comm~nts by stating;
]} possible delay in demolitions is intend€d to sa~e significant
historic h"uses from demolition;
2) the BDard fa~ored the current s~aller expansion are~ because homes
ir. this area met criteria of
ii) age of structure,
b) structures had hi star; c 5 igni ficance in terms of their
eari ier res ,dents,
c) !;tructl.!res had arch; tectlJra.1 character. and
dJ the need f\lr boundary clarification,
3) normal lead time for Board design review is ejght dd.1s;
4) the curren! proposed expa~sion should include a n~mber of homes of
his:oric significance t~at were originally omitted from tne
d~,strict;
5) the Board is currently considering appropriate criteria for newer
homes but he-emphasized the Board wt)urd llil1 expect newer homes to
take on features of older homes; and
6) the Preservation Ordir..nce does "at address ncr,conforming uoits.
That is a zoning matte)".
There being rl;) further public co;nmer.t, Chairman McFall clos€c U,2 public
hearing. The Board said it would continue discussion of the proposed expansion
at the ri:gu'ar HRB meeting on December 2, ]992.
p;~~\h,b.;lIir.1117
.' lil:-'I UtU':i.
R;':~l)i. ii:\.·t~
bUll1l'
Soard Members Present:
HiSTORIC RESOURCES SOARD
SiJM~ARY MINUTES OF
JIJlUAR' 13, 1993
ON
PROPOSEO PROFES50RVILLE EXPA~51QN
Monte Anderson) Cha1r
.John B-ao:!r
Nell Heyder,
Elizabeth Kittas
Mark Mal""CiniK
J;m McFall
8oa~d Members Not Participating: l~nda Scott
Staff: Geo"r-ge Zimmerman
Historio.: Resources Boar-d (.L.fRB} Chair, M:o~te Anderson, summarizt!'d th~ criteria.
the HRB used in determining the propOSfd expansion of the ProfessorvilTe
Historic District. This criteria included (I} age and condition of houses
built between 1890 and 1930; 2) historic significance of these houses, i.e.,
who lived in tflem; 3J their arc.hHecturai cha-racter; and, 4} clarificatioii
{i.e., straightening) of the DistrictTs bOlJno"ary. Mr. Anderson said that this
public hearing ~as the third public m2eti~g on the proposed Professor~il'e
Historic District expansion.
H~ stated that this particular public hearing was intended to e~p1ain and hear
public c:ormJent on a n'.odification to the boundary of the expansion are-a that
would include pro~erties on the north slde of the 400 block of Linco'n. the
corner parcel at thE northeast ccr~er of lincoln and Co~~er and parcels on t~,e
east side of the 1100 b10ck c~f Co~·per. This s"",211 additicr') to the proposr..~~
e.xpansion an:a responded to a petitic,n submitted by Susan Beall at le55 (o",;ler
Street, Nancy Huber at 451 Lincoln Avenue and J~yce Pharriss at 436 lincoln
Avenue. The petition submitted by tnese property DIm-en cited the following
criteria for e.xtending the e~pa.nsion area: 1) historical characteristics,
2) visual qualities and 3) simplification of the boundaries so that the
~istrict expans'an~ if approved ~s requeited, would include properties on both
sides of lincoln Al,lenlJe and Cowper Street in this area .. "'lr. AnaF-son noted
that these criteria were consistent with the criteria used earlier by the
80crd in considering an expansion of the historic district. As a result, th'E'
Board wished to consider this relati~ely small addit50n area wit~in the area
being considered for the expansio~ of the Prcfesscrl,lille Historic District.
____________________________ CilY of P,d., A iI.n ____ _
-
E
. --~-".,-....... ~-~----
r-. . ,
Chairman Anderson the", o~er.ed the publ ir: hearing.
Robert Sd1illing, 3,c;~23 Autumn Drive, Redwood City. referred tr. his lett' of
JarlU.ar,)' 9~ 1993. Hi! asked the BO<lrd w~y his two prc~el·tiEs at 1036 and .fJ42
Cowper Street, that ~e ClJrre~t 1y ~'as 1 ~;;.s; ng. wue riot beiny cons iden:d' ir. th~
proposeJ expansion area. He referred to the histQric ~ualitie~ of th~se
houses, incltJding ear'y famiTy cccupar,ts whD contriblJted to this ni~tory of
Pillo Alto and Stanf:~(1 ~~li·,ersity.
Jean Ramacciottf, 959 Waverley Street, said that she would li~e t'ler house to
be on the city's ~istoric inJentory, but !he ccu'!d ~:Jt flnd h'lfG;Tat1on on the
early constructiGn of h!r house.
Will fam Frye, 536 L incJ1n Avenue, requested that :'i5 house be con5id~red for
the incl~sion irtc ?rof~ssorvil1e District.
Susan Spall. 1055 Cowper Street, thanked the aoard for considering her
petition and said she belie~ed the boundaries tnat the Board was currently
consldering ior the proposed District ex~ansion were indeed rational and
logical.
Cha i rmar. Anderson and other members of th~ Board responded to publ1 c comments
by stating:
1} that this proposed expansion of the Professorville Historlc
District could be considered a Phase r expansion which the Beard
had been working on for o~er three years;
2) that the Board would con~;der another phase of a Professarville
expansion at a later date; and
3J that interested property owners were urged to worK with the HRB by
dOing necessary research on their properties in order to get their
propertfes on the City's Historic Building frlventory as a first
step tow.::!rd later inclusion into U~ Professorvllle Historic
Dis-trict.
Chairman Anderson closed tne pub1ic hearing and noted that the HRB would tilke
action on the expansion of the Professorville HistoriC District at its ne~t
regular meeting on January 20, 1993. The tiRB then \oIIou1d transmit its
recomme~dation on the Historic District expansion to the City Ccunci1 for
fina1 action.
P:\lIrt8\MINOi13
•