Item 7 - Staff Report and Attachment 1 to 6
PREPARED BY: JOCELYN SHOOPMAN
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: 06/22/2022 ITEM NO: 7
DATE: June 17, 2022
TO: Historic Preservation Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Construction of an Addition to an Existing Single-
Family Residence Located in the Fairview Plaza Historic District on Property
Zoned R-1D:LHP. Located at 68 Fairview Plaza. APN 510-43-009. PROPERTY
OWNER: Jan and Irena Blom. APPLICANT: Jay Plett. PROJECT PLANNER:
Jocelyn Shoopman.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider a request for approval for construction of an addition to the rear of an existing single-
family residence located in the Fairview Plaza Historic District on property zoned R-1D:LHP
located at 68 Fairview Plaza.
PROPERTY DETAILS:
1. Date primary structure was built: 2018 per Building Permit B16-0912
2. Town of Los Gatos Preliminary Historic Status Code: N/A
3. Does property have an LHP Overlay? Yes
4. Is structure in a historic district? Yes, Fairview Plaza Historic District
5. If yes, is it a contributor? No
6. Findings required? No
7. Considerations required? Yes
BACKGROUND:
On October 28, 2015, the Historic Preservation Committee considered a request to demolish
the single-family residence based on its condition and determination by the Building Official
that the structure was uninhabitable. The staff report and attachments can be viewed in
Attachment 1 and the meeting minutes can be viewed in Attachment 2. The item was
continued to the November 19, 2015, meeting with direction to make the proposed home more
consistent with the immediate neighborhood. The November 19, 2015, staff report and
PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBJECT: 68 Fairview Plaza/S-22-007 DATE: June 17, 2022
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2022\06-22-22\Item 07 - 68 Fairview Plaza\Staff Report.68 Fairview Plaza.docx 6/15/2022 10:32 AM
BACKGROUND (continued):
attachments can be viewed in Attachment 3 and the meeting minutes can be viewed in
Attachment 4. The Committee recommended approval of the request.
On May 31, 2016, the Development Review Committee approved Architecture and Site
Application S-15-064 for the construction of a new single-family residence.
On January 26, 2018, Building Permit B16-0912 was issued for construction of the new single-
family residence. Construction was completed and Building Permit B16-0912 was finaled on
March 2, 2021.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant is requesting approval for construction of a 200-square foot addition to the rear
of the existing single-family residence (Attachments 5 and 6). Changes to the rear elevation
include the enclosure of an existing covered porch. The proposed materials include horizontal
wood siding, smooth stucco plaster, and wood trim for a new window and sliding door to match
the existing materials. No other exterior modifications are proposed to the home as part of the
application request.
Pursuant to the Town Code, a request for exterior alterations to a property within a Historic
District shall be reviewed by the Committee.
CONSIDERATIONS:
A. 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.
PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBJECT: 68 Fairview Plaza/S-22-007 DATE: June 17, 2022
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2022\06-22-22\Item 07 - 68 Fairview Plaza\Staff Report.68 Fairview Plaza.docx 6/15/2022 10:32 AM
CONCLUSION:
The applicant requests approval for construction of an addition to the rear of an existing single-
family residence located in the Fairview Plaza Historic District. The applicant proposes
materials to match the existing structure and no other exterior alterations to the remaining
elevations are proposed as part of this request. Should the Committee find merit in the
request, a recommendation would be forwarded to the Community Development Director and
the project would be completed with an Architecture and Site application and a Building
Permit. The project would not return to the Committee.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. October 28, 2015, Historic Preservation Committee Staff Report and Attachments
2. October 28, 2015, Historic Preservation Committee Meeting Minutes
3. November 19, 2015, Historic Preservation Committee Staff Report and Attachments
4. November 19, 2015, Historic Preservation Committee Meeting Minutes
5. Applicant’s Letter of Justification
6. Development Plans
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Required Findings
_X_As required by Section 29.10.09030(e)(2) of the Town Code for the demolition
of a single family residence (Preservation of historically or architecturally significant
buildings) and the Secretary of Interior Standards of any historic structure.
1. The building is not associated with any events that have made a significant
contribution to the Town.
2 . No significant persons are associated with the site.
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction
or representation of work of a master.
4. The structure does not yield information to Town history.
5. Structural integrity of the building.
Required 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:
X
3
Town Policy
On landmark sites, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the
exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the landmark (and,
where specified in the designating ordinance for a publicly owned
landmark, its major interior architectural features) nor adversely affect the
character of historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the
landmark and its site.
2 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 ofharmony 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.
For pre-1941 structures, the proposed work will neither adversely affect
the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the property
which is the subject of the application.
That the work proposed is compatible with the neighborhood.
d/nn£ !Bloom{ie£d
ARCB.Im<:~~liL~ SURVBY
RAMI! RBSBARCH
ARCHITECTURAL HISTOR'
14151 922 ·1 063
2229 WEBSTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 941 1 5
~ (~n~.~~W~9.~~i-thn,~cl --------------------------------~-~naa~u~tiU~whh~~~'~~~~~~A~-;~r--~~~~-~~~-~~-------------------------
! walevant datea: conatr¥ction birth • 4eath. ____ • otha:r, __________ _
1 . DtUC'l'OitY SZAJtCH (City Direetoriee, COWltY Dlreet.oriee, 'l'elephoM Book•, aociety direeto:riea, ate.)
Year Book lf-alf"la••i.fiad Haadifta Li a~i nd fr.ftnv ... ~~.... •••-1:, •• a h..-. uaa * for boldfa-l
t/11 1-.6'() r_ ~ . t.~ ,.-e;_ ' ("/·) t-.).1 J::;_c.~ ~ ~ «t !' ,rl 14 -v ~ "' !S -)..,· ,~ ~ $4 .:# ~ i:/ I
-7/ $1b ~.JJ> '§ e-4.-WI W'I~:J;, J..~ ~~,-L.c Ua..r-o ';::a-'....,..) /""
r--,rv .a
/qQ,;.,
lib.
'6~1
L&n ?{a. a, .,t.C-~ S/ 11 ~lf> I ""
&Jo .... s 4 rt:lt h. " ( v..;-.-J~ A l t:.-~JanJ e-r F) r -t:atlr \f; ~ a-\.1
'\ I ~C(;t rn m81'1, C~~ f!J/1: }._ (, ~~ ~-·ht-fS / tL, A ,.. n -i.{; "'-"' ~J ,
/initial! dttl
BIOGRAPHICAL ~. indexea a. otha:r alphabetical UatiftCJa •.
M:rk •x• Unfd .o:r 'I' (nothiftCJ foand) at each aource you try. Liet fs.ndtnCJII below.
Los Gatos Library : Californ~a History Center, De Anza College:
___ City directories (name & street index) ___ Biographical file
___ Historic Collection Index (green boxes) Photo collection
___ Thompson & West, 1876 (bio index)
___ Pen Pictures, 1888 (bio index)
Sunshine Fruit & Flowers, 1895 (bio
Guinn, 1904 (bio index)
Sawyer, 1922 (bio index)
index)
San Jose Historical Huseum:
___ Great Regis t ers (of voters)
Indexes s~~~6~Extended index to Bruntz
___ Blo index of hunroe Frazer,
___ Photo collection (2 boxes)
Photo collection
1~81 (Survey box)
Other sources:
Los Gatos Museum (Forbes Mill):
___ Death records by year
___ Funeral records (index cards to big
___ Photo collection
____ Indexes, California Historical (!uarterly
State Library Information Index (fiche)
State Library-S.F. Newspaper Index (") books_) __ _
III . LIST ALL REPER!IIC.!S PROM ABOVE . Find them . Copy 9ood .. te:rial a. attach. Or copy below if only
a few worda. Or explain why not relevant (aa, wrong ~raon).
13rv"'+-t., '7(-A-1= P!~ee. _f:,,.., d lj,,JerJ.t(/'J 1 ~LP v.-1g4 .. ~/1 '57 4r J'Y/t9 v-e.)~ ~~II\~~
<:1 w ~ h;tfeJ ri"' ace ide..,/. 5o.1. E£· ~~-G'A-..)..·,-, vd k r<-
L:7 Continued on Reverse
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR OCTOBER 28, 2015 , HELD IN THE
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 110 E MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Chair Len Pacheco.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Len Pacheco, Bob Cowan, Kathryn Janoff, Michael Kane, Tom O 'Donnell
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: J oel Paulson, Planning Manager
Marni Moseley, Associate Planner
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ITEMl
ITEM2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tom 0 'Donnell moved to approve the minutes of September 23, 20 15 and
September 30, 2015. The motion was seconded by B ob Cowan and approved
unanimous! y.
304 CHARLES STREET
Samir Sharma (property owner) was present and discussed the request to
demolish the existing pre-1941 structure.
Micha el Kan e stated that the HPC is onl y looking at the requested demolition.
Tom 0 'Donnell commented that the information provided shows that the items
could be corrected.
Micha el Kan e commented that the report says the concrete foundation is okay.
Bob Cowan co mmented that the architecture of the building is not worth saving.
Kathryn Janoff commented that the building doesn 't have architectural merit.
ATTACHMENT 2
Historic Preservation Committee
October 28, 2015
Page 2 of7
ITEM3
Len Pacheco commented that the existing house is a mutation of a mid-century
modem structure and that it doesn 't have arch itectural merit.
Len Pacheco moved to recommend approval of the demoliti o n bas ed on the
information presented to the HPC and made the required findings. The motion
was seconded by Tom 0 'Donnell and approved unanimously.
68 FAIRVIEW PLAZA
Jay Plett (architect) was present and discus sed the request to demolish the
existing structure and construct a new home in a historic district.
Len Pacheco asked ifthey should comment on the proposed setbacks.
Mami Moseley commented that they can look at the setbacks as they relate to the
context of the hi storic neighborhood.
Michae l Kan e asked if there was any feedback from the neighbors.
Jay Plett commented that they have not received any negative feedback.
Len Pacheco asked if the building had been red tagged .
Mami Moseley stated that it had not been red tagged, but that the Building
Official has determined it is uninhabitabl e.
Len Pacheco commented that he had looked at it multip le times and it is poor
shape.
Tom 0 'Donnell commented that the structural engineer states that ther e is nothing
they can do with it.
Jay Plett discussed the proposed home.
Len Pacheco commented that the roof is different and asked if the design is dri ven
by the floor plan.
Jay Plett stated the design is based on taking all things into account.
Mic ha el Kan e commented that it looks like a vast improvement for the
neighborhood.
Historic Preservation Committee
October 28, 2015
Page 3 of7
Tom 0 'Donnell commented that he agrees with Afichael Kane and is int erested in
Len Pacheco 's comments on the roof.
Len Pacheco commented that he would like to capture the fla vor of the design
elements, that he is uncomfortabl e with the roof pitch facing the street, a nd asked
if they wo uld co nsider the pitch in the front and a gable at the r ear.
Kath ryn Janoff commented that the chara cter of the structure was a littl e modem
and that it is a pretty plain craftsman .
B ob Cowan commented that the roof pitch should be higher.
Jay Plett commented that the proposal fits in with other craftsman's m the
neighborhood.
L en Pa checo commented that the existing home if folk Victorian and he didn't
want a replica, that it look s modern, and that it look s like a 2015 ranch house.
Bob Cowan commented that there are craftsman style homes in th e neighb orhood .
Jay Plett stated that he could raise the pitch of th e roof.
Len Pacheco commented that it may not be the ri ght design fo r the lot and aske d
if it could be a story and a half given what is in th e pl aza.
Jay Plett stated that raisin g the pitch to four and twel ve would rai se the height b y
approximately a foot and a half.
Len Pacheco commented that maybe it should be a different style with a raised
roof and a front porch a nd asked if a cross gable with dorm ers could be done.
Bob Cowan asked abo ut the iss u e of a seven foot att ic.
Mami Mose le y explained that if the attic is over seven feet in height th at th e area
gets counted as FAR down to five feet.
L en Pach eco commented th a t a vaulted ceiling could remove that co n cern.
Jay Ple tt stated that he could raise the roof pitch and add a wi ndow.
Kathryn Janoff asked if a sh ed roof with a dormer could be done and commented
that the fro nt elevation is too modern, more detail complex it y needs to be
Historic Preservation Committee
October 28, 2015
Pa ge 4 of7
ITEM4
provided, and that the porch columns were light weight and sho uld be re vised to
be more traditional craftsman columns.
Len Pach eco commented that the direction is to provide more verticality.
Kathryn Janoff commented that there is a need to provi de design element
improvement and asked ifthere was a window b ehind the po sts.
Ja y Ple tt stated that there was.
Bob Cowan commented that he was okay with the proposed setbacks.
Len Pacheco stated that he is okay with the propo sed setback s and that he would
like to see photographs of existing structures for design elements.
Tom 0 'Donnell moved to recommend approval of the demoliti on based on the
information pre se nted to the HPC and made the required findings. The moti on
was seconded by Bob Cowan and approved unanimou sly.
Tom 0 'Donn ell moved to continue the new home with direction to make the
propo sed home more consistent with other hom es in the ne ighborho od. The
motion was seconded by Kathryn Janoff and approved unanimous ly.
325 W. MAIN STREET
Mark De M attei and Brian Aced (applicants) wa s present and is requesting
approval of exterior modifications to a pre-1941 property in a hi storic district.
Kathryn Jan off asked why th e new de sign strays from the ex istin g de sign with
respect to the fro nt porch a nd roof.
Mark D e Mattei co mmented that thi s was what th e owner desired and that it is
consistent with the existing neighborhood .
Bob Cowan commented that this is a contributing structure and the architecture of
a contributing structure should be preserved.
L en Pach eco commented that the original structure has disapp eared , th at he is
concerned with the design , th at the original structure sh ould be cleaned up and the
additions and modificati ons should retain the indi vi dualit y, a nd he is not
comfortable with the proposal.
Historic Preservation Committee
October 28, 2015
Page 5 of7
ITEMS
Kathryn Janoff commented that she would like to see a version that keeps the
front elevation without the enclosed porch add on.
Mark De Mattei asked about a shed dormer.
Len Pacheco stated that the existing house is a folk Victorian.
Kathryn Janoff suggested looking at the Sanborn Maps to determine the
configuration of the original structure.
Len Pacheco suggested keeping the existing structure and connecting the addition
with a galley element. He commented that there are examples of this approach on
Masso! Avenue, Johnson Avenue, and Fairview Plaza, that sliding doors and
windows are not appropriate, and that the addition should be compatible with the
existing structure.
Bob Cowan commented that the deck is not deep enough to be functional and
asked if there would be a new foundation to raise it and provide more gravitas.
Mark De Mattei said yes.
Len Pacheco moved to continue the item to address the direction that was
provided. The motion was seconded by Micha e l Kane and approved
unanimously.
233 HARDING AVENUE
Steve Benzing (applicant) Hooman Bolandi (property owner) were present and are
requesting approval to remove a pre-1941 property from the Historic Resource
Inventory.
Kathryn Janoff commented that the map says 1928.
Len Pacheco commented that he visited the site and the house has been
remanufactured and has no architectural significance.
Bob Cowan commented that it looks like it was built after 1941.
Tom 0 'Donnell moved to approve the request and stated the home is not pre-1941
and that even if it was pre-1941 the findings could be made to remove it from the
Inventory. The motion was seconded by Michael Kane and approved unanimously.
Historic Preservation Committee
October 28, 2015
Page 6 of7
ITEM 6A 222 BELLA VISTA A VENUE
John Gi/dred and Yana Kushner (property owners) were present and are requesting input on the
stucco style.
Len Pacheco commented that the stucco could match the gate.
John Gildred asked about the window trim and grill details.
Kathryn Janoff commented that it should be consistent with what is there regarding the grill and
that she is okay with the stucco rounding into the window frames.
John Gi/dred asked about molded stone columns.
Kathryn Janoff commented that she was okay with molded stone.
ITEM 68 54 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD
Ray and Robin Clayton (property owners) were present and are requesting input on
modifications to exterior stairs and railings.
Len Pacheco asked if they have considered a metal fence, if the stairs need to have railings, and
if they had any examples of shingle style victorian homes with metal railings.
Ray Clayton commented that railings provide better ventilation.
Len Pacheco commented that the railings could be concrete and that he is not comfortable with
the New Orleans style proposed.
Bob Cowan commented that the Guidelines state that you should maintain wood railings and
stairs.
Tom 0 'Donnell commented that they have made a case for their proposal.
Len Pacheco commented that he is okay with brick stairs with a wall with ventilation or a low
brick wall with railing.
Kathryn Janoff commented that the brick needs to be old brick and that she is okay with or
without a side wall or railings and that the proposed railing is too decorative.
The item was continued to allow the applicant an opportunity to bring back a refined and
simplified design for consideration.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Phone: (408) 354-6874 Fax: (408) 354-7593
1. PROJECT DETAIL
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
PROJECT DATA SHEET
Project address: 68 Fairview Plaza
Project description : demolition and reconstruction of historic res idence within the Fairview Plaza
Historic District.
2. PROPERTY DETAIL
Date structure was built 191 0
Town of Los Gatos Historic Status Code
Does property have an LHP Overlay zone? YES
Is structure in a historic district? YES
If yes , what district? Fairview Plaza
If yes, is it a contributor? NO
Findings required? YES
If yes , see back page of this document.
Considerations required? Yes
If yes, see back page of this document.
Comments : The Applicant has incorporated the direction discussed by the HPC at the October 9
meeting , and is looking for a recommendation to the deciding body on the revised submittal.
IJU-U.BlT 3 1
"'
ATTACHMENT 3
Required Findings
_X_As required by Section 29.10.09030(e)(2) of the Town Code for the demolition
of a single family residence (Preservation of historically or architecturally significant
buildings) and the Secretary of Interior Standards of any historic structure.
1. The building is not associated with any events that have made a significant
contribution to the Town.
2 . No significant persons are associated with the site.
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction
or representation of work of a master.
4 . The structure does not yield information to Town history.
5. Structural integrity of the building.
Required 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 :
1
X
3
Town Policy
On landmark sites, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the
exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the landmark (and,
where specified in the designating ordinance for a publicly owned
landmark, its major interior architectural features) nor adversely affect the
character of historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the
landmark and its site.
2 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.
For pre-1941 structures, the proposed work will neither adversely affect
the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the property
which is the subject of the application.
__ That the work proposed is compatible with the neighborhood.
•·
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR NOVEMBER 19, 2015, HELD IN
THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 110 E MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Chair Len Pacheco.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Len Pacheco, Bob Cowan, Kathryn Janoff, Michael Kane, Tom O'Donnell
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Joel Paulson, Planning Manager
Mami Moseley, Associate Planner
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ITEM 1
ITEM2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Bob Cowan moved to approve the minutes of October 28, 2015. The motion was
seconded by Michael Kane and approved 4-0-1 with Tom O 'Donnell absent.
325 W. MAIN STREET
Mark De Mattei (applicant), Brian Aced (applicant), and Elisa Morgan (property
owner were present and are requesting approval of exterior modifications to a pre-
1941 property in a Historic District.
Micha el Kane commented that the revisions address a number of Kathryn Janoff's
comments from the last meeting.
Kathryn Janoff commented that it is an interesting concept, that the 1888 Sanborn
map shows this house and cottages , and that she likes what has been done to make
it look like two small cottages . The only concern I have is that it is not typical to
see four windows on a front fa9ade. Commented that the shed porch is consistent
with the original structure.
Mark De Mattei commented that the four windows work with the floor plan, that
they tried grouping two together, and that it is possible to group the windows.
Len Pacheco asked why there wasn't a door at the porch elevation.
ATTACHMENT 4
Historic Preservation Committee
November 19 ,2015
Page 2 of7
ITEM3
Mark De Mattei commented that they would like to add a rail and that a door
could be added.
Len Pacheco commented that two doors could be confusing and that paired
windows make more sense.
Kathryn Janoff asked if they had considered retaining the existing front entry.
Elisa Morgan commented that safety is a concern with the proposed bedroom
having a door on the front facade .
Kathryn Janoff commented that she is not okay with paired windows and that four
windows are better than a door or paired windows.
Bob Cowan commented that he liked the revised plan wi th the gable in front, that
the porch may not be deep enough, and that raising the building should be
considered.
Kathryn Janoff commented that the windows should have lugs.
Bob Cowan moved to approve the propo sal with the option to raise the building
by two to three feet at the discretion of the property owner. The motion was
seconded b y Michael Kane with the request that lu gs be added if they are on the
existing windows and approved 4-0-1 with Tom O'Donnell absent.
68 FAIRVIEW PLAZA (Heard out of order)
Jay Plett (architect) was present and discussed the request to demolish the
existing structure and construct a new home in a historic district.
Bob Cowan commented that the setback is consistent as detem1ined at the last
meeting.
Michael Kane commented that at the previous meeting Kathryn Janoff stated that
it wasn't Cra ft sman enough and asked ifthe revised plans addressed that.
Kathryn Janoff commented that the height increase is h elpfu l, that it doesn't
appear that enough additional detail has been added as requested at th e last
meeting.
Jay Plett stated that he can change the siding material.
Historic Preservation Committee
November 19,2015
Page 3 of7
ITEM4
Michael Kane commented that he likes the revisions, the neighborhood is eclectic,
and the proposed project is a great improvement.
Kathryn Janoff commented that the board and batten siding seems too modern and
likes the idea of changing the siding.
Jay Plett stated that he can change the siding material to shingles.
Kathryn Janoff commented shingles are more Craftsman.
Bob Cowan commented that he is okay with board and batten or shingle siding.
L en Pacheco stated that he prefers shingle siding.
Bob Cowan asked if shingle siding in the Wildland Urban Interface Area can be
done.
Jay Ple tt stated that it is tough, but can be done .
Len Pache co stated that he is okay with either siding option and likes the raised
roof.
Len Pacheco moved to recommend approval of the revised project with the
direction that either board and batten or shingle siding may be used. The motion
was seconded by Micha el Kane and approved unanimously.
529 MONTEREY A VENUE (Heard out of order)
B ess Wiersema (architect) was present and discussed the request to demolish the
existing structure and construct a new home in a historic district.
Kathryn Janoff commented that this area was built later than other areas in Town.
Bob Cowan commented that a home down the street was required to maintain its
historic status, that you could do a second story and maintain most of the home,
and that he is not convinced that the house should be torn down.
Kathryn Janoff commented that there is architectural merit in this house.
Michael Kane referenced the structural report that outlined the issues with the
house.
Historic Preservation Committee
November 19 , 2015
Page 4 of7
ITEMS
Len Pacheco commented that the house is in bad shape, but agreed that it should
not be removed from the inventory. Additionally, many of the homes on the
street are similar from a mass and scale perspective.
Please note that Tom O'Donnell arrived at 4:23P.M.
Bob Cowan commented that he is interested in retaining the architecture not the
boards and nails because the architecture is important.
Michael Kan e commented that he doesn't have the same appreciation for the
architecture.
Bob Cowan commented that the Guidelines speak to maintaining the architecture
and highlighting the historic structure to maintain the flavor of the existing
building. I am also okay with a second story.
Kathryn Janoff commented that Four Square architecture with a hipped roof is
important.
Len Pacheco commented that the house is an example of the type of home Built
in the Town in the thirties.
Kathryn Janoff commented that the home has architectural merit, is typical of Los
Gatos, and represents a certain era.
Len Pacheco commented that demolition may be challenging and suggested a
separate addition with a galley connection.
Kathryn Janoff asked if they considered a cellar.
Bess Wi ers ema stated that it is not good to have kids bedrooms in a cellar and that
she was willing to get additional information.
Len Pacheco mo ved to continue the matter at the ap plicant's requ est to provide
additional re search . The motion was seconded by Michael Kane and approved
unanimously.
256 BACHMAN A VENUE
Genevieve and Mitchell Wyman (property owners) were present and are
requesting approval of exterior modifications for a contributing single-family
residence in a Hi storic District.
Historic Preservation Committee
November 19 ,2015
Page5 of7
ITEM 6A
Michael Kane commented that he is okay with the proposal.
Kathryn Janoff commented that she is concerned about replacing the door with a
window because it is not consistent, suggested taking out the door and filling the
opening in , and that it is great that the property owners want to restore the siding.
Len Pacheco asked if new original siding could be placed over existing non-
original siding.
Mitchell Wyman stated that was not feasible.
Tom 0 'Donnell commented that he is okay with the proposal.
Kathryn Janoff moved to approve the modifications consistent with Option 2, to
allow the siding below the water table to be replaced when necessary, and to
remove the do or and to fill in the opening. The motion was seconded by Tom
0 'Donnell and approved 4-0-1 with Bob Cowan recused.
145 GLEN RIDGE A VENUE
Gary Kohlsaat (architect) and Scott McDonald (property owner) were present.
Len Pacheco provided an introduction of the request regarding windows with divided lites that
have been installed on the second floor.
Bob Cowan stated that he was in favor of one on one lites and that it looks nice with the divided
lites, that neo-classical with divided lites is appropriate, but some elements and additions make it
less neo-classical. He asked if this was the original proposal would the Committee supported it
and stated that he supports the divided lites.
Kathryn Janoff commented that the windows should be consistent on both floors , that the first
floor style drives the house, and that she is not supportive of the divided lites.
Tom 0 'Donnell commented that he agrees with Bob Cowan and leans in that direction
Michael Kane commented that he doesn 't feel compelled to require the windows to be changed,
that it wasn't done in defiance, and that he is comfortable with the divided lite s.
Len Pach eco commented that it is an eclectic design and a mix, but the strongest features are
neo-classical and referenced the Design Guidelines that require replacement to match existing.
Historic Preservation Committee
November 19 ,2015
Page 6 of7
Kathryn Jan off commented that the Guidelines apply to all pre-1941 homes.
Len Pacheco commented that the Highway 9 home has one over one not divided lites, that the
lites make it feel more de licate , it has a wedding cake feel with first floor strength and the upper
floor feels light with the lites , that he agrees with Kathryn Janoff, is not okay with the lites
because it de-masculinates the strength of the house, and it is too delicate for the boldness of the
house.
Gary Kohlsaat commented on the Highway 9 house and di scussed the differences b etween the
two homes.
Len Pacheco asked why the original design was done with one over one.
Kathryn Janoff commented that the windows of the house drive the house, that there should be a
consistent window treatment , and that she is sympatheti c to the D esign Guidelines that require
replacement to match existing.
Len Pacheco asked if the windows on the street facing elevation only could be changed to one
over one.
Gary Kohlsaat commented that some of the bedrooms have two windows which would present
an awkward situation .
Tom 0 'Do nnell commented that he struggles with this because it is done.
Bob Cowan commented that the sides are not visible from the street.
Len Pacheco commented that he is trying to find a compromise.
Scott McDonald commented that if you take them off the front then they should all be removed.
Len Pacheco res tated that he is trying to find a compromise.
Kathryn Janoff commented on having the grids in s ide the columns.
Scott McDonald commented that if he like s the look of the di vi ded lites .
Len Pacheco stated that he is trying to find a compromise within the framework of the
Guidelines.
Bob Cowan commented that cost is a minor i ssue and that it is more of a consistency of a look
and feel issue.
Historic Preservation Committee
November 19,2015
Page 7 of7
Tom 0 'Donnell commented that three members of the Committee seem to be okay with di v ided
lites and two members are not okay with the divided lites.
ITEM 6B SPECIAL MEETING DATE FOR DECEMBER
The Committee decided to have a Special Meeting on December 17 , 2015.
ITEM7 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjoumed at 5:45p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for December 17 , 2015 ,
at 4:00p.m.
Prepared by:
~~
/ Planning Manager
N:\DEV\H ISTOR IC PR£SER V A TION\HPC minutes\20 15\HPC minutes ll -19-15.docx
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
JA/FLEET
BLOM68 FAIRVIEW PLAZA LOS GATOS, CA 95030
To: LOS GATOS HPCRE: 68 FAIRVIEW PLAZA ADDITION
THIS IS A COMPLETE NEW HOME OF MY DESIGN AND BUILT / FINISHED IN 2021.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO ENCLOSE AN OPEN AREA TO REAR AND SIDE OF THE HOME. A GOOD PORTION OF IT WILL BE BELOW GRADE. THE ADDITION WILL OCCUR UNDER THE EXISTING HOME LEVEL ABOVE IT AND NOT BE VISABLE FROM THE STREET. ALL COLORS, MATERIALS, WINDOW AND DOORS SYSTEMS WILL MATCH THE EXISTING HOME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
JAY PLETT
ATTACHMENT 5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TREE PROTECTION MEASURES WILL BE INSTALLED AROUND
ALL PROTECTED TREES AS REQ'D BY SECTION 29.10.1005
PPLL
PPLL
PPLL
PPLL
PPLL
PPLL
PPLL
PPLL
PPLL
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
BA
EXISTINGEXISTING
HOUSEHOUSE
PROPOSEDPROPOSED
LOWER FLRLOWER FLR
ADDITIONADDITION
KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
STUDY
ENTRY
BATH
PORCH
FAIRVIEW PLAZAFAIRVIEW PLAZA
LINE OF (E) LOWERLINE OF (E) LOWER
LEVEL / CELLAR BELOWLEVEL / CELLAR BELOW
LINE OF (E)LINE OF (E)
LOWER LEVELLOWER LEVEL
DECK / ROOFDECK / ROOF
A/CA/C
ENTRY PORCHENTRY PORCH
8'-0"8'-0"
SYSBSYSB
10'- 6"10'- 6"
SYSBSYSB 20'- 0"20'- 0"RYSBRYSB20'- 6"20'- 6"NORTHNORTHIMPERVIOUS AREAIMPERVIOUS AREA
PROPOSED ADDITION
BELOW (E) STRUCTURE
1
1
B
A
2
ADDITION - NOT VISIBLE
FROM THE STREET
3 1
ADDITION - NOT VISIBLE
FROM THE STREET
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
OPEN AREA
3
(E) HOUSE
(E) HOUSE
(E)
HOUSE
(E)(E)(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
SHINGLE
SIDING UP
LEVEL TO
REMAIN
ADDITION
ADDITION
(N) DR.
(E) HOUSE
(E)(E)(E)(E)
(E)
(N) WDW
(E)
PLASTER TO MATCH (E) TEXTURE
& COLOR AT FILLED IN WALL AREA
4'-0"
(E) STONE
TO REMAIN
68 FAIRVIEW PLZ
APARTMENT BLDGAPARTMENT BLDG
62 FAIRVIEW PLAZA62 FAIRVIEW PLAZA
RESIDENCERESIDENCE
64 FAIRVIEW PLZ64 FAIRVIEW PLZ
RESIDENCERESIDENCE
72 FAIRVIEW PLZ72 FAIRVIEW PLZ
N 88o40’ E 50.00'S 01o20’ E 20.00'S 88o40’ W 10.00'S 01o20’ E 55.00'S 88o40’ W 35.00'S 01o20’ E 30.00'N 88o40’ W 25.00'N 01o20’ W 105.00'PAINTED 1x8 HORIZONTAL WOOD
SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING
PAINTED WOOD
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
PAINTED WOOD
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
A
A
1 3
1 3
3 1
04.20.22
BLOM68 FAIRVIEW PLAZAsite plan
1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH
a-1
SHEET INDEX SHEET INDEX
A-1 SITE PLAN / GENERAL INFO
A-1.1 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
a-1.2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A-2 AS BUILT / DEMO & PROPOSED plans
A-3 elevations / views
A-4 views of existing home
PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION
200 SF ADDITION ON LOWER LEVEL, NOT VISIBLE FROM STREET
OWNERS OWNERS
JAN & IRENA BLOM
68 FAIRVIEW PLAZA, LOS GATOS
PHONE 650.720.8990
SITE PARTICULARS SITE PARTICULARS
APN 510-43-009
ZONING R-1 8
AREA SUMMARY AREA SUMMARY
SITE AREA 5,050 SF
avg slope = 8.49%
FAR allowed = 0.350
ALLOWED FLOOR AREA 1,765.5 SF
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA EXISTINGPROPOSED FLOOR AREA EXISTING ADDADD total total
lower level flr area 488.5 SF 200 SF 685.5 sf
upper level flr area 1,277 sf 0 sf 1,277 sf
TOTAL (E) FLOOR area 1,765.5 sf
total added flr area 200 SF
total proposed floor area 1,965.5 sf
BASEMENT (E) area 731 sf
TOTAL PROPOSED LIVING 2,696.5 SF
IMPERVIOUS AREAIMPERVIOUS AREA NO CHANGE
IMPERVIOUS AREA:IMPERVIOUS AREA:EXISTING PROPOSED ADDED
HOUSE FOOTPRINT1,381 SF 2,188 SF 807 SF
REAR PATIO-392 SF 392 SF
DRIVEWAY/WALKWAYS 123 SF 454 Sf 331 sf
TOTAL1,504 SF 3,034 SF 1,530 sf
CUT / FILLCUT / FILL
REFERENCE CIVIL DRAWINGS
abreviation & SYMBOL legendabreviation & SYMBOL legend
(e) existing
(p) proposed
FYSB front yard set back
RYSB rear yard set back
SYSB side yard set back
g gas line
p property line
pp power pole
up underground elec line
s sewer line
w water line
l
site notes:site notes:
1. (n) downspouts to splash blocks to vegetated
areas to dissipate on site
2. town 'no cut' guitdelines shall be followed
3. LANDSCAPE FRONT YARD LIMIT TO 500 SF
fire sprinklers required per scc fire conditions of
approval for thE PRIOR project
ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION:ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION:VERIFY
APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBERS ARE IN
A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE
AND VISIBLE FROM THE STREET
FRONTING THE PROPERTY. THESE
NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST W/THEIR
BACKGROUND. ADDRESS NUMBERS
SHALL BE ARABIC NUMBERS OR
ALPHABETICAL LETTERS. NUMBERS
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES HIGH
W/A MINIMUM STROKE WIDTH OF 0.5
INCH. PER CFC SEC. 505.1
ATTACHMENT 6
04.20.22
BLOM68 FAIRVIEW PLAZA neighborhood plan
1" = 50'
a-1.1
FLOOR AREA / FAR COMPARISONS
ADDRESSLOT SIZE (SF) FLOOR AREA (SF) FAR HOUSE
56 fairVIEW plz 11,500 2,803(GREATER)0.244
64 fairVIEW plz 10,000 2,285(GREATER)0.229
72 fairVIEW plz 17,799 2,486(GREATER)0.140
78 fairVIEW plz 11,940 1,3200.111
80 fairVIEW plz 9,518 1,6450.173
81 fairVIEW plz 12,396 00.0
75 fairVIEW plz 11,430 4,000(GREATER)0.350(COMPRABLE)
63 fairVIEW plz 13,1973,689(GREATER)0.280
57 fairVIEW plz 7,5853,884(GREATER)0.512(greater)
67 fairVIEW plz 13,495 5,727(GREATER)0.424(greater)
62 fairVIEW plz 13,000 4,212(GREATER)0.324
PROJECT HOUSE
68 fairVIEW Ave 5,050 1,965.5(1,765.5 + 200)0.389
ANALYSIS - SMALLEST LOT IN NEIGHBORHOOD.
- NONCONFORMING IN DIMENSION AND AREA
- 5 NEIGHBOR HOMES HAVE GREATER AREA
- 1 NEIGHBOR HOME has a greater far
- THE ADDITION IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET
8181
PROPOSED
ADDITION
(E)
ADDRESS LOT SIZE (SF) FLOOR AREA (SF) FAR HOUSE
56 fairVIEW plz 11,500 2,698(GREATER) 0.244
64 fairVIEW plz 10,000 2,088(GREATER) 0.229
72 fairVIEW plz 17,799 2,486(GREATER) 0.140
78 fairVIEW plz 11,940 1,320 0.111
80 fairVIEW plz 9,518 1,645 0.173
81 fairVIEW plz 12,396 0 0.0
75 fairVIEW plz multi-family bldg, not comparable in terms of sf and/or far
63 fairVIEW plz 12,739 3,689(GREATER) 0.290
57 fairVIEW plz 7,585 3,884(GREATER) 0.512(greater)
67 fairVIEW plz multi-family bldg, not comparable in terms of sf and/or far
62 fairVIEW plz multi-family bldg, not comparable in terms of sf and/or far
PROJECT HOUSE
68 fairVIEW Ave 5,050 1,965.5 (1,765.5 + 200)0.389
PPLLPPLLPPLLPPLL
PPLL
PPLL
PPLL
PPLL
PPLL
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
BA
EXISTINGEXISTING
HOUSEHOUSE
PROPOSEDPROPOSED
LOWER FLRLOWER FLR
ADDITIONADDITION
KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
STUDY
ENTRY
BATH
PORCH
FAIRVIEW PLAZAFAIRVIEW PLAZA
LINE OF (E) LOWERLINE OF (E) LOWER
LEVEL / CELLAR BELOWLEVEL / CELLAR BELOW
LINE OF (E)LINE OF (E)
LOWER LEVELLOWER LEVEL
DECK / ROOFDECK / ROOF
A/CA/C
ENTRY PORCHENTRY PORCH
8'-0"8'-0"
SYSBSYSB
10'- 6"10'- 6"
SYSBSYSB20'- 0"20'- 0"RYSBRYSB20'- 6"20'- 6"NORTHNORTHIMPERVIOUS AREAIMPERVIOUS AREA
PROPOSED ADDITION
BELOW (E) STRUCTURE
1
1
B
A
2
ADDITION - NOT VISIBLE
FROM THE STREET
3 1
ADDITION - NOT VISIBLE
FROM THE STREET
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
OPEN AREA
3
(E) HOUSE
(E) HOUSE
(E)
HOUSE
(E)(E)(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
SHINGLE
SIDING UP
LEVEL TO
REMAIN
ADDITION
ADDITION
(N) DR.
(E) HOUSE
(E)(E)(E)(E)
(E)
(N) WDW
(E)
PLASTER TO MATCH (E) TEXTURE
& COLOR AT FILLED IN WALL AREA
4'-0"
(E) STONE
TO REMAIN
68 FAIRVIEW PLZ
APARTMENT BLDGAPARTMENT BLDG
62 FAIRVIEW PLAZA62 FAIRVIEW PLAZA
RESIDENCERESIDENCE64 FAIRVIEW PLZ64 FAIRVIEW PLZRESIDENCERESIDENCE72 FAIRVIEW PLZ72 FAIRVIEW PLZ
N 88
o40’ E 50.00'S 01o20’ E 20.00'
S 88
o40’ W 10.00'S 01o20’ E 55.00'
S 88o40’ W 35.00'S 01o20’ E 30.00'N 88o40’ W 25.00'N 01o20’ W 105.00'
PAINTED 1x8 HORIZONTAL WOOD
SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING
PAINTED WOOD
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
PAINTED WOOD
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
A
A
1 3
1 3
3 1
PPLLPPLLPPLLPPLL
PPLL
PPLL
PPLL
PPLL
PPLL
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
BA
EXISTINGEXISTING
HOUSEHOUSE
PROPOSEDPROPOSED
LOWER FLRLOWER FLR
ADDITIONADDITION
KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
STUDY
ENTRY
BATH
PORCH
FAIRVIEW PLAZAFAIRVIEW PLAZA
LINE OF (E) LOWERLINE OF (E) LOWER
LEVEL / CELLAR BELOWLEVEL / CELLAR BELOW
LINE OF (E)LINE OF (E)
LOWER LEVELLOWER LEVEL
DECK / ROOFDECK / ROOF
A/CA/C
ENTRY PORCHENTRY PORCH
8'-0"8'-0"
SYSBSYSB
10'- 6"10'- 6"
SYSBSYSB20'- 0"20'- 0"RYSBRYSB20'- 6"20'- 6"NORTHNORTHIMPERVIOUS AREAIMPERVIOUS AREA
PROPOSED ADDITION
BELOW (E) STRUCTURE
1
1
B
A
2
ADDITION - NOT VISIBLE
FROM THE STREET
3 1
ADDITION - NOT VISIBLE
FROM THE STREET
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
OPEN AREA
3
(E) HOUSE
(E) HOUSE
(E)
HOUSE
(E)(E)(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
SHINGLE
SIDING UP
LEVEL TO
REMAIN
ADDITION
ADDITION
(N) DR.
(E) HOUSE
(E)(E)(E)(E)
(E)
(N) WDW
(E)
PLASTER TO MATCH (E) TEXTURE
& COLOR AT FILLED IN WALL AREA
4'-0"
(E) STONE
TO REMAIN
68 FAIRVIEW PLZ
APARTMENT BLDGAPARTMENT BLDG
62 FAIRVIEW PLAZA62 FAIRVIEW PLAZA
RESIDENCERESIDENCE64 FAIRVIEW PLZ64 FAIRVIEW PLZRESIDENCERESIDENCE72 FAIRVIEW PLZ72 FAIRVIEW PLZ
N 88
o40’ E 50.00'S 01o20’ E 20.00'
S 88
o40’ W 10.00'S 01o20’ E 55.00'S 88o40’ W 35.00'S 01o20’ E 30.00'N 88o40’ W 25.00'N 01o20’ W 105.00'
PAINTED 1x8 HORIZONTAL WOOD
SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING
PAINTED WOOD
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
PAINTED WOOD
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
A
A
13
13
31
6' 0" +/- (E)17' - 0"21
1
B
A
MASTER BEDRM.
BEDRM. 2
MECH
BATH HALL
BEDRM. 3
DEN
M. BATH
GARAGE
REUSE (E)
SLIDING DR.
15'-10"
EXTERIOR WALL
TO BE DEMO'D
- NEW WALL
- (E) WALL TO
REMAIN
- (E) WALL TO
BE REMOVED
3
LINE OF (E) STRUCTURE ABOVE
200 SF ADDITION
UNDER (E) HOUSE
HATCHED
11'-6" +/- (E)
04.20.22
BLOM68 FAIRVIEW PLAZAa-2
lower level
1/4" = 1'-0"
(e) UPPer level
1/4" = 1'-0"AS BUILT / DEMO &
PROPOSED PLANS
PPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLL FINISHED FLOOR(E) EXTERIOR SLABBAEXISTINGEXISTINGHOUSEHOUSEPROPOSEDPROPOSEDLOWER FLRLOWER FLRADDITIONADDITION KITCHEN DINING LIVING STUDY ENTRY BATH PORCH FAIRVIEW PLAZAFAIRVIEW PLAZALINE OF (E) LOWERLINE OF (E) LOWERLEVEL / CELLAR BELOWLEVEL / CELLAR BELOWLINE OF (E)LINE OF (E)LOWER LEVELLOWER LEVELDECK / ROOFDECK / ROOFA/CA/CENTRY PORCHENTRY PORCH8'-0"8'-0"SYSBSYSB10'- 6"10'- 6"SYSBSYSB20'- 0"20'- 0"RYSBRYSB20'- 6"20'- 6"NORTHNORTHIMPERVIOUS AREAIMPERVIOUS AREA PROPOSED ADDITIONBELOW (E) STRUCTURE11BA2ADDITION - NOT VISIBLEFROM THE STREET 3 1 ADDITION - NOT VISIBLEFROM THE STREETFINISHED FLOOR(E) EXTERIOR SLABB
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
OPEN AREA
3(E) HOUSE(E) HOUSE(E)HOUSE (E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)SHINGLESIDING UPLEVEL TOREMAINADDITIONADDITION(N) DR.(E) HOUSE (E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(N) WDW(E)PLASTER TO MATCH (E) TEXTURE& COLOR AT FILLED IN WALL AREA 4'-0"(E) STONE TO REMAIN68 FAIRVIEW PLZAPARTMENT BLDGAPARTMENT BLDG62 FAIRVIEW PLAZA62 FAIRVIEW PLAZARESIDENCERESIDENCE64 FAIRVIEW PLZ64 FAIRVIEW PLZRESIDENCERESIDENCE72 FAIRVIEW PLZ72 FAIRVIEW PLZN 88o40’ E 50.00'S 01o20’ E 20.00'S 88o40’ W 10.00'S 01o20’ E 55.00'S 88o40’ W 35.00'S 01o20’ E 30.00'N 88o40’ W 25.00'N 01o20’ W 105.00'PAINTED 1x8 HORIZONTAL WOODSIDING TO MATCH EXISTING PAINTED WOODTRIM TO MATCHEXISTING PAINTED WOODTRIM TO MATCHEXISTINGA
A
1 3
1 3
3 1PPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLL
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
BAEXISTINGEXISTINGHOUSEHOUSEPROPOSEDPROPOSEDLOWER FLRLOWER FLRADDITIONADDITION KITCHEN DINING LIVING STUDY ENTRY BATH PORCH FAIRVIEW PLAZAFAIRVIEW PLAZALINE OF (E) LOWERLINE OF (E) LOWERLEVEL / CELLAR BELOWLEVEL / CELLAR BELOWLINE OF (E)LINE OF (E)LOWER LEVELLOWER LEVELDECK / ROOFDECK / ROOFA/CA/CENTRY PORCHENTRY PORCH8'-0"8'-0"SYSBSYSB10'- 6"10'- 6"SYSBSYSB20'- 0"20'- 0"RYSBRYSB20'- 6"20'- 6"NORTHNORTHIMPERVIOUS AREAIMPERVIOUS AREA PROPOSED ADDITIONBELOW (E) STRUCTURE11BA2ADDITION - NOT VISIBLEFROM THE STREET 3 1 ADDITION - NOT VISIBLEFROM THE STREET
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
OPEN AREA
3(E) HOUSE(E) HOUSE
(E)
HOUSE
(E)(E)(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
SHINGLE
SIDING UP
LEVEL TO
REMAIN
ADDITION
ADDITION
(N) DR.
(E) HOUSE (E)(E)(E)(E)
(E)
(N) WDW
(E)
PLASTER TO MATCH (E) TEXTURE
& COLOR AT FILLED IN WALL AREA
4'-0"
(E) STONE
TO REMAIN
68 FAIRVIEW PLZAPARTMENT BLDGAPARTMENT BLDG62 FAIRVIEW PLAZA62 FAIRVIEW PLAZARESIDENCERESIDENCE64 FAIRVIEW PLZ64 FAIRVIEW PLZRESIDENCERESIDENCE72 FAIRVIEW PLZ72 FAIRVIEW PLZN 88o40’ E 50.00'S 01o20’ E 20.00'S 88o40’ W 10.00'S 01o20’ E 55.00'S 88o40’ W 35.00'S 01o20’ E 30.00'N 88o40’ W 25.00'N 01o20’ W 105.00'PAINTED 1x8 HORIZONTAL WOOD
SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING
PAINTED WOOD
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
PAINTED WOOD
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
A
A
1 3
1 3
3 1PPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLL
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
BA
EXISTINGEXISTINGHOUSEHOUSEPROPOSEDPROPOSEDLOWER FLRLOWER FLRADDITIONADDITION KITCHEN DINING LIVING STUDY ENTRY BATH PORCH FAIRVIEW PLAZAFAIRVIEW PLAZALINE OF (E) LOWERLINE OF (E) LOWERLEVEL / CELLAR BELOWLEVEL / CELLAR BELOWLINE OF (E)LINE OF (E)LOWER LEVELLOWER LEVELDECK / ROOFDECK / ROOFA/CA/CENTRY PORCHENTRY PORCH8'-0"8'-0"SYSBSYSB10'- 6"10'- 6"SYSBSYSB20'- 0"20'- 0"RYSBRYSB20'- 6"20'- 6"NORTHNORTHIMPERVIOUS AREAIMPERVIOUS AREA PROPOSED ADDITIONBELOW (E) STRUCTURE11BA2
ADDITION - NOT VISIBLE
FROM THE STREET
3 1
ADDITION - NOT VISIBLE
FROM THE STREET
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
OPEN AREA
3
(E) HOUSE
(E) HOUSE
(E)
HOUSE
(E)(E)(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
SHINGLE
SIDING UP
LEVEL TO
REMAIN
ADDITION
ADDITION
(N) DR.
(E) HOUSE
(E)(E)(E)(E)
(E)
(N) WDW
(E)
PLASTER TO MATCH (E) TEXTURE
& COLOR AT FILLED IN WALL AREA
4'-0"
(E) STONE
TO REMAIN
68 FAIRVIEW PLZAPARTMENT BLDGAPARTMENT BLDG62 FAIRVIEW PLAZA62 FAIRVIEW PLAZARESIDENCERESIDENCE64 FAIRVIEW PLZ64 FAIRVIEW PLZRESIDENCERESIDENCE72 FAIRVIEW PLZ72 FAIRVIEW PLZN 88o40’ E 50.00'S 01o20’ E 20.00'S 88o40’ W 10.00'S 01o20’ E 55.00'S 88o40’ W 35.00'S 01o20’ E 30.00'N 88o40’ W 25.00'N 01o20’ W 105.00'PAINTED 1x8 HORIZONTAL WOOD
SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING
PAINTED WOOD
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
PAINTED WOOD
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
A
A
1 3
1 3
3 1
PPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLL
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
BA
EXISTINGEXISTINGHOUSEHOUSEPROPOSEDPROPOSEDLOWER FLRLOWER FLRADDITIONADDITION KITCHEN DINING LIVING STUDY ENTRY BATH PORCH FAIRVIEW PLAZAFAIRVIEW PLAZALINE OF (E) LOWERLINE OF (E) LOWERLEVEL / CELLAR BELOWLEVEL / CELLAR BELOWLINE OF (E)LINE OF (E)LOWER LEVELLOWER LEVELDECK / ROOFDECK / ROOFA/CA/C ENTRY PORCHENTRY PORCH8'-0"8'-0"SYSBSYSB10'- 6"10'- 6"SYSBSYSB 20'- 0"20'- 0"RYSBRYSB20'- 6"20'- 6"NORTHNORTHIMPERVIOUS AREAIMPERVIOUS AREA PROPOSED ADDITIONBELOW (E) STRUCTURE11BA2
ADDITION - NOT VISIBLE
FROM THE STREET
3 1
ADDITION - NOT VISIBLE
FROM THE STREET
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
OPEN AREA
3(E) HOUSE
(E) HOUSE
(E)
HOUSE
(E)(E)(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
SHINGLE
SIDING UP
LEVEL TO
REMAIN
ADDITION
ADDITION
(N) DR.
(E) HOUSE
(E)(E)(E)(E)
(E)
(N) WDW
(E)
PLASTER TO MATCH (E) TEXTURE
& COLOR AT FILLED IN WALL AREA
4'-0"
(E) STONE
TO REMAIN
68 FAIRVIEW PLZ APARTMENT BLDGAPARTMENT BLDG62 FAIRVIEW PLAZA62 FAIRVIEW PLAZARESIDENCERESIDENCE64 FAIRVIEW PLZ64 FAIRVIEW PLZRESIDENCERESIDENCE72 FAIRVIEW PLZ72 FAIRVIEW PLZ N 88o40’ E 50.00'S 01o20’ E 20.00'S 88o40’ W 10.00'S 01o20’ E 55.00'S 88o40’ W 35.00'S 01o20’ E 30.00'N 88o40’ W 25.00'N 01o20’ W 105.00'PAINTED 1x8 HORIZONTAL WOOD
SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING
PAINTED WOOD
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
PAINTED WOOD
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
A
A
1 3
1 3
3 1
PPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLLPPLL
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
BA
EXISTINGEXISTINGHOUSEHOUSEPROPOSEDPROPOSEDLOWER FLRLOWER FLRADDITIONADDITION KITCHEN DINING LIVING STUDY ENTRY BATH PORCH
FAIRVIEW PLAZAFAIRVIEW PLAZA
LINE OF (E) LOWERLINE OF (E) LOWERLEVEL / CELLAR BELOWLEVEL / CELLAR BELOWLINE OF (E)LINE OF (E)LOWER LEVELLOWER LEVELDECK / ROOFDECK / ROOFA/CA/CENTRY PORCHENTRY PORCH8'-0"8'-0"SYSBSYSB10'- 6"10'- 6"SYSBSYSB20'- 0"20'- 0"RYSBRYSB20'- 6"20'- 6"NORTHNORTHIMPERVIOUS AREAIMPERVIOUS AREA
PROPOSED ADDITIONBELOW (E) STRUCTURE11BA2
ADDITION - NOT VISIBLE
FROM THE STREET
3 1
ADDITION - NOT VISIBLE
FROM THE STREET
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
FINISHED FLOOR
(E) EXTERIOR SLAB
B
OPEN AREA
3
(E) HOUSE
(E) HOUSE
(E)
HOUSE
(E)(E)(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
SHINGLE
SIDING UP
LEVEL TO
REMAIN
ADDITION
ADDITION
(N) DR.
(E) HOUSE
(E)(E)(E)(E)
(E)
(N) WDW
(E)
PLASTER TO MATCH (E) TEXTURE
& COLOR AT FILLED IN WALL AREA
4'-0"
(E) STONE
TO REMAIN
68 FAIRVIEW PLZAPARTMENT BLDGAPARTMENT BLDG62 FAIRVIEW PLAZA62 FAIRVIEW PLAZARESIDENCERESIDENCE64 FAIRVIEW PLZ64 FAIRVIEW PLZRESIDENCERESIDENCE72 FAIRVIEW PLZ72 FAIRVIEW PLZN 88o40’ E 50.00'S 01o20’ E 20.00'S 88o40’ W 10.00'S 01o20’ E 55.00'S 88o40’ W 35.00'S 01o20’ E 30.00'N 88o40’ W 25.00'N 01o20’ W 105.00'PAINTED 1x8 HORIZONTAL WOOD
SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING
PAINTED WOOD
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
PAINTED WOOD
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
A
A
1 3
1 3
3 1
04.20.22
BLOM68 FAIRVIEW PLAZAa-3
REAR / S., PROPOSED
3/16" = 1'-0"
LEFT / E., PROPOSED
3/16" = 1'-0"
REAR / S., AS BUILT
1/8" = 1'-0"
LEFT / E., AS BUILT
1/8" = 1'-0"
REAR / S. view
LEFT / E. view
elevs & views
ST. FACING / N., PROPOSED
3/16" = 1'-0"
04.20.22
BLOM68 FAIRVIEW PLAZAa-4
front / north
views
rear-side / east
side / west rear / south
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank