Item 2 - Staff Report and Attachments 1 to 5
PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Associate Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE REPORT
MEETING DATE: 07/28/2021 ITEM NO: 2
DATE: July 23, 2021
TO: Historic Preservation Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Forward a Recommendation to the Community Development Director on a
Request for Construction of a Second-story Addition to a Contributing Single-
family Residence to Exceed Floor Area Ratio Standards and Construction of an
Accessory Structure with Reduced Side and Rear Setbacks in the University-
Edelen Historic District on Property Zoned R-1D:LHP Located at 202 University
Avenue. APN 529-04-001. Architecture and Site Application S-21-019.
Property Owner: Tyler and Kristine Shewey. Applicant: Jay Plett, Architect.
Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
RECOMMENDATION:
Forward a recommendation to the Community Development Director on a request for
construction of a second-story addition to a contributing single-family residence to exceed floor
area ratio (FAR) standards and construction of an accessory structure with reduced side and
rear setbacks in the University-Edelen Historic District on property zoned R-1D:LHP located at
202 University Avenue.
PROPERTY DETAILS:
1. Date primary structure was built: 1898 (effective year built 1930) per County Assessor’s
Database; 1870s per Bloomfield Survey
2. Town of Los Gatos Historic Status Code: +, historic and intact, worthy of special note
3. Does property have an LHP Overlay? Yes
4. Is structure in a historic district? Yes, University-Edelen
5. If yes, is it a contributor? Yes
6. Findings required? No
7. Considerations required? Yes
PAGE 2 OF 4 SUBJECT: 202 University Avenue/S-21-019 DATE: July 23, 2021
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2021\07-28-21\Item 2 - 202 University Ave\Staff Report.202 University
Avenue.docx
BACKGROUND:
On April 28, 2021, the HPC conducted a preliminary review of the request and expressed
concerns about the scale of the addition, and recommended that the applicant consider:
• Reducing the massing, stepping back the second-story addition, and lowering the roof
height while ensuring consistency with the architecture;
• Exploring a site plan that is less crowded; and
• Incorporating landscaping to soften the site.
DISCUSSION:
An Architecture and Site application for the proposed project was submitted to the Town on
June 30, 2021. The Development Plans provided with the application are consistent with those
considered by the HPC on April 28, 2021. The applicant has responded to the
recommendations of the HPC by:
• Lowering the roof height to reduce the maximum height of the residence by one foot,
six inches, to 28 feet, six inches;
• Providing examples showing how the proposed project is consistent with the Italianate
architectural style; and
• Eliminating the previously proposed attached carport on the south elevation of the
proposed detached garage.
As was previously presented, the applicant proposes to demolish the exterior walls at the rear
elevation and portions of walls on the front elevation facing University Avenue and the north
side elevation (Attachment 5). A four-foot addition to the first floor would be constructed at
the rear of the residence and a new covered deck is proposed off the north side elevation
above a new lightwell. The existing roof would be removed to allow for the construction of a
new second-story addition to the existing one-story residence. The height of the proposed
residence with the second-story addition would be 28 feet, six inches. The new second story is
proposed to continue the architecture of the existing residence utilizing consistent forms,
materials, and details. A new second-story porch is proposed on the front elevation, which
would create a covered porch at the front entry. The existing crawl space would be improved
to create below-grade living space. New light wells located on the north side of the residence
would provide secondary egress from the new living space.
The applicant is requesting approval to exceed the FAR standards for the property by
approximately 329 square feet. The Town Code allows for an FAR greater than what is allowed
when determined to be consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines and compatible with
the lot coverage, setbacks, and FAR of development on surrounding properties. The applicant
PAGE 3 OF 4 SUBJECT: 202 University Avenue/S-21-019 DATE: July 23, 2021
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2021\07-28-21\Item 2 - 202 University Ave\Staff Report.202 University
Avenue.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
has provided a Letter of Justification (Attachments 1) and streetscapes (Attachment 5, Sheets
NP-1 and NP-2A-1.1) showing how the design of the proposed residence would fit into the
immediate neighborhood. When making their recommendation, the HPC should consider
whether the proposed design of the residence with an FAR exceeding standards is compatible
with the neighborhood and consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines.
The proposed site plan also includes a new detached garage with reduced setbacks, and an
improved driveway (Attachment 5, Sheet A-1). A portion of existing paved area between the
residence and the proposed garage would be removed to provide yard space. The proposed
garage would match the residence in form, materials, and details. The applicant is requesting
reduced side and rear setbacks of three feet, where five feet is required. The Town Code allows
for reduced side and rear setbacks for detached accessory structures to no less than three feet
with approval of a discretionary application. The applicant has provided a Neighborhood Plan
showing how the reduced setbacks for the proposed detached garage are compatible with
other properties in the immediate neighborhood (Attachment 5, Sheets NP-1 and NP-2A-1.1).
When making their recommendation, the HPC should consider whether the proposed reduced
setbacks for the detached garage are compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with
the Residential Design Guidelines.
CONCLUSION:
Should the Committee find merit in the proposed project, it should make the following findings
and considerations and make a recommendation of approval to the Community Development
Director.
FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS:
A. Findings
Sec. 29.40.075. Floor area ratio.
In evaluating a request to exceed FAR standards, the deciding body shall consider whether:
1. The design theme, sense of scale, exterior materials, and details of the proposed project
area consistent with the provisions of:
a. Any applicable landmark and historic preservation overlay zone, and
b. The adopted residential development standards.
2. The lot coverage, setbacks, and FAR of the proposed project are compatible with the
development on surrounding lots.
PAGE 4 OF 4 SUBJECT: 202 University Avenue/S-21-019 DATE: July 23, 2021
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2021\07-28-21\Item 2 - 202 University Ave\Staff Report.202 University
Avenue.docx
FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS (continued):
B. Considerations
Sec. 29.80.290. Standards for review.
In evaluating applications, the deciding body shall consider the architectural style, design,
arrangement, texture, materials and color, and any other pertinent factors. Applications
shall not be granted unless:
In Historic Districts, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the exterior
architectural characteristics or other features of the property which is the subject of
the application, nor adversely affect its relationship, in terms of harmony and
appropriateness, with its surroundings, including neighboring structures, nor
adversely affect the character, or the historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or
value of the district.
C. Residential Design Guidelines
Section 4.9 of the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines offers recommendations for
additions to historic resources through reference to Section 3.9 (Attachment 2).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter of Justification
2. 1990 Bloomfield Survey
3. Sanborn Map Exhibit
4. Section 3.9, Residential Design Guidelines
5. Development Plans
1
MODIFICATIONS PER INITIAL HPC MEETING
THE BUILDING HEIGHT HAS BEEN LOWERED TO 28'-6”, THE
CARPORT HAS BEEN ELIMINATED, THUS LIMITING SIZE OF A
POSSIBLE FUTURE ADU, REDUCING THE OVERALL MASS OF THE
PROJECT.
AS A RESULT, THE VIEW SHED TO THE HILLS FROM 72 MILES
AND 210 UNIVERSITY WILL BE PRESERVED.
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
THE EXISTING STRUCTURE COULD BEST BE CHARACTERIZED AS
A SIMPLE BOX FORM FOLK / ITALIANATE VICTORIAN. THE
PROPOSED ADDITION RESPECTS THE SIMPLICITY and
CHARACTER OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
THE ADDITION and NEW GARAGE STRUCTURE HAVE BEEN
DESIGNED and PLACED ON THE SITE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR
THE VIEW SHEDS OF THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS AT 72 MILES
and 210 UNIVERSITY. THE VIEW SHEDS HAVE BEEN CLEARLY
ILLUSTRATED ON THE SITE/FLOOR PLAN SHEET A-1 and THE
BUILDING ELEVATIONS, SHEET A-2.
THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL ADD 4 FEET TO THE REAR OF
THE EXISTING HOME and THEN A SECOND STOREY ADDITION WILL
BE ADDED DIRECTLY ON TOP. THE RESULT WILL BE A FORM
THAT RISES STRAIGHT UP FROM THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE
ATTACHMENT 1
2
CONSISTENT WITH THE TWO STOREY DESIGN CHARACTERISTIC
OF THE ITALIANATE STYLE.
45 BROADWAY 121 EDELEN
FIELD GUIDE TO AMERICAN FIELD GUIDE TO AMERICAN
HOUSES PAGE 225, PHOTO 6 HOUSES PAGE 221, PHOTO 2
3
THE RHYTHM OF THE THREE DOUBLE WINDOWS HAS BEEN
PRESERVED ALONG THE MILES AV. ELEVATION.
THE FRONT BAY WINDOW ELEMENT HAS BEEN PRESERVED.
THE ORIGINAL SIMPLE ROOF FORM HAS BEEN RETAINED ON THE
ADDITION. THE 2ND FLOOR PORCH IS CHARACTERISTIC OF ITS
ITALIANATE STYLE. MANY SUCH EXAMPLES CAN BE FOUND
AROUND THE TOWN - 121 EDELEN IS A NEARBY EXAMPLE.
SIMPLE DETAILING IS PROPOSED TO MATCH THAT OF THE
EXISTING HOUSE IN THE PORCH POSTS and WINDOW TRIM. THE
EXISTING CORBELS WILL BE RETAINED and DUPLICATED THEN
PLACED AS SHOWN ON THE ELEVATIONS.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT/COMPATIBILITY
THE MASS and SCALE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS
COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER ORIGINAL HOMES AND RECENT
ADDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD – REFER TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPARISON PLAN SHEET NP-1. THE FLOOR
AREA EXCEEDS THE FAR, BUT IS SMALLER and COMPATIBLE
WITH OTHER ORIGINAL HOMES, NEW HOMES, and ADDITIONS
WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT POSSESS GREATER FLOOR
AREA's AND FAR's.
209 UNIVERSITY – GREATER FL AREA and FAR
201 UNIVERSITY – GREATER FL AREA and FAR
72 MILES – GREATER FAR
4
THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
HOMES OF THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD and THE ITALIANATE
STYLE.
REFERENCE SHEET NP-1 FOR ILLUSTRATED HEIGHT
COMPARISONS.
S U M M A R Y
THE ADDITION HAS BEEN THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED WITH
THOROUGH CONSIDERATION FOR IT'S HISTORIC CHARACTER,
CONTEXT, COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN
MASS/FLOOR AREA, THE TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES and HPC
CONSULTATION.
1895
202 University Avenue
ATTACHMENT 3
1904
202 University Avenue
1908
202 University Avenue
1928
202 University Avenue
1956
202 University Avenue
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Residential Design Guidelines 33
Town of Los Gatos
BUILDING DESIGN3
3.8.3 Use traditional detailing
•Treat openings in walls as though they were constructed of
the traditional material for the style. For example, be sure to
provide substantial wall space above arches in stucco and
stone walls. Traditionally, wall space above the arch would
have been necessary to structurally span the opening, and
to make the space too small is inconsistent with the archi-
tectural style.
•Openings in walls faced with stone, real or synthetic, should
have defined lintels above the opening except in Mission or
Spanish Eclectic styles. Lintels may be stone, brick or wood
as suits the style of the house.
•Treat synthetic materials as though they were authentic.
For example, select synthetic stone patterns that place the
individual stones in a horizontal plane as they would have
been in a load bearing masonry wall.
•Select roof materials that are consistent with the traditional
architectural style (e.g., avoid concrete roof tiles on a Crafts-
man Style house.)
3.8.4 Materials changes
•Make materials and color changes at inside corners rather
than outside corners to avoid a pasted on look.
3.9 ADDITIONS/ACCESSORY BUILDINGS/SECONDARY
UNITS
•Site additions in the least conspicuous place. In many cases
this is a rear or side elevation - only rarely is it a rooftop.
•The existing built forms, components and materials should
be reinforced. Heights and proportions of additions and
alterations should be consistent with and continue the
original architectural style and design.
•Additions should be subordinate, and compatible in scale
and proportion to the historically significant portions of
the existing structure.
•When an addition or remodel requires the use of newly
constructed exterior elements, they should be identical in
size, dimension, shape and location as the original, and
Use stone or wood lintels over
openings in stone walls
Additions, accessory buildings and secondary
units should match the form, architectural
style, and details of the original house
ATTACHMENT 4
Residential Design Guidelines34
Town of Los Gatos
BUILDING DESIGN3
should utilize the same materials as the existing protected
exterior elements.
• When an addition necessitates the removal of architectural
materials, such as siding, windows, doors, and decorative
elements, they should be carefully removed and reused in
the addition where possible.
• The introduction of window and door openings not char-
acteristic in proportion, scale, or style with the original
architecture is strongly discouraged (e.g., sliding windows or
doors in a structure characterized by double hung windows
and swinging doors).
• The character of any addition or alteration should be in
keeping with and subordinate to the integrity of the original
structure.
• The amount of foundation exposed on the addition should
match that of the original building.
• Do not add roof top additions where the roof is of historic
significance.
• Second floor additions are discouraged in neighborhoods
with largely one story homes. If horizontal expansion of
the house is not possible, consider incorporating a second
floor addition within the roof form as shown in the example
to the left.
• Second floor additions which are not embedded within the
roof form should be located to the rear of the structure.
• The height and proportion of an addition or a second story
should not dominate the original structure.
• Deck additions should be placed to the rear of the struc-
ture only, and should be subordinate in terms of scale and
detailing.
• New outbuildings, such as garages, should be clearly subor-
dinate to the main structure in massing, and should utilize
forms, materials and details which are similar to the main
structure.
• Garages should generally be located to the rear of the lot
behind the rear wall of the residence. One car wide access
driveways should be utilized.
Original structure
Addition incorporated into the roof
successfully adds space while respecting the
integrity of the existing house and the scale of
the neighborhood
Placing a two story addition to the rear can
minimize its impact on the historic resource
and the scale of the neighborhood
"# $%&'$ ()*"
+) &$ ,%&%% 3!4 4 !4 56 5 673 3!4 4 !4 56 5 673
%(( )
4 5 9:"
" ; 4!7;' ! %%!-%*<*%%=4> 94!%%=4> 94!! 4 /?
!@@4
'0 .(@944 "? /"'A!@ .(B4B A!@! =4> 94!! =4> 94!=A"0
C 4 9 =69 @> !69 @> ! 59 ; 92! =9) 2" B 64 =9:> 4> 4!>!% " 9 ;! : %)$62 !6 92 5:! 3! 7* >;943B!3 4!3 4!79 4:D4! ! 3 7"
" ; 4!7; ?9!B!= E
A0 59E%$.,F$-* -% ') 5= 4; !4 5= 4; !4 G!B ?
!@=4=! "?0A!@4 5;B 4!>= @454 474"# $""%& $"" '( )$
$( %%$( %% G!B 9!#% )9 ; 9 ? /
'A$ "
'
!@ ?"0'A$ =!4!9 ; 9
!@ 0
'A!@ 0
'A$ G!B@944 ? /
'A$ 9 @944 "'A$9=4H >@944 "?0"'
$6! 5 ?"/'
!@99;B$%* ?
AA'
!@%%A'
$-%*<*"
'
$+*
"'
$ATTACHMENT 5
!"# $ !% &' %" () *" + # &'','
-" &' ." + . $" &'&' ,
"
*
& "&'','
','
','
0/
"< 0/
"<&'&'-;>(<),& &-;>(<),& &-.;>(<),& &-;>(<),& &
"
"
!
"
%
"
!
"
"
"
"
",*
*
+;<=>(<.;<=>(<-;<=>(<$;<=>(<%;<!=>(<$*
!%*
"
,"$;<=>(<-;<=>(<%;<!=>(</01 02 /01 02-;<=>(<
-
"
"
.
"
+
"
.
"
$
"
& " %;<=>(< %;<?=>(<-;<=>(<;<=>(<?;<.=>(<.;<=>(<!%*
-;<=>(<$;<=>(<$*
"
"
%;<!=>(<-;<=>(<
!
"
# $
$ %&
'$ %'(
#$$")*# +, - &
'$ %'(
*# +, - )$'(
*# +, - )$'(
#$$")*# +, - "+"#)$
$
$#
-+, -
$#
-+, -$!%$
#*,#,,
"
"
'
-
" -;
" -;
" -;
+,"7 3 8 06 09043 :," %
"
"
-.;<=>(<-;<=>(< +;<=>(< !
"
-;<=>(<
"
"
%
"
"
"
"
",*
*
-;<=>(<.;<=>(< !
"
%;<!=>(<
"
"
"
", *
*
%;<!=>(<
" -% ! >(2% <! >(<
! "
# $ %
# &' (
) ! $ % %*%
+ $ %
,
)
,
" $ %$ % *
-& - &(- &$ $ % %*%
%*%
%*%
$ %$ %@3. &
(* **--
-& - &%
!"
./0/120A
./0/120"
8/3206325B29@ #8/320
)@3.20B
#./0/1205
./0/120
,./0/120/
)./0/1206325B322 B29
,./0/1202A@B5/C//.560/DB8./0/12034/.522/9C//.5634/.522"
8/320B8/9C//.5634/.5.2
./0/120B8/9B
#./0/12060/DB88/32095
./0/12060/DB85213.944
"./0/120
) -+$"
+) &$ ,)-.(.)-.(.)*/ 012 " 012 +$$$#% )/ 012 " 012 +$3 $ )$$#% )3 $ ! / 012 " 012 +$/ 012 " 012 +$
4 5 67"
" 8 4!98'%%!* + , - ! ../ 0 - ! 0 1 1 ,+ 0 - ! + 2 ( ' - ! + 2 $' - !
4 5 67"
" 8 4!98'3 ! +4 ! %%!- ((5 6"$ !
$
$
%
$
$
$
&
'
$
&
'
(
$
&
(
$
$% $
$%
(
%
$
$% $
$% $
$%
(
%
(
$
$
&
(
&
)
*
$
(
&
)
*
$
$% $
$
$
$
$
$% $
$
(
$
$%
$
&
$
&
'
)
*
(
$
&
'
)
*
(
(
$
&
%
$
&
%
(
&
%
)
'*
$
(
$
$% $
$% $
$% $
$% $
$% $
$%
(%
(%
(%
(%
(%
!
"#
$
4 5 67"
" 8 4!98'%%3! 3+ ! "# C664 5C664 B 4 58 C664 4 5 44C66B 4 58 G 44C66B 4 58 6 C66 ?
'?6 5?" '"?2?I
I>6 5D !;6< !4 ><@C66! ,0 +2 7 , ! 0 1 ! + , ! ! 1 4 !
S 68°46'42" E 109.82' (109.82')(C)(S 65°35'47" E)(A) (110.00')(C)(S 21°10'00" W 61.20')(C)(S 21°10'00" W 55.00')(C)UNIVERSITY AVENUE (60')MILES AVENUE (50')1684081" = 8'GRAPHIC SCALE( IN FEET )202 UNIVERSITY AVE.LOS GATOS, CA 95030APN 510-04-001PROJ ENGR:DRAWN BY:SCALE:SURVEYED BY:CHECK BY:DATE:SHEET NO. JOB NO.OF XX SHEETSREVISIONS3BY12546DATEPH: 408.452.9300FAX: 408.837.7550TS CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.1776 TECHNOLOGY DRIVESAN JOSE, CA 9511007-08-2121-2081"=10'DKHTJSTJSC-1LEGENDlDESCRIPTIONEXISTINGPROPOSEDEXISTINGPROPOSEDDESCRIPTIONES TATOFCALIFORNIANO. 35527REENIGNELANOISSE
FORPDERETSIGERKYZCWEZS
.JECNERETEXP. 9-30-21
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank