Loading...
09-28-22 Minutes - HPC DRAFT 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REPORT MEETING DATE: 10/26/2022 ITEM: 1 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 The Historic Preservation Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. This meeting This meeting is being conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with Town Council Policy 2-01 entitled Town Agenda Format and Rules and Town Resolution. In accordance with Town Policy and Resolution, the public may only view the meeting online and not in the Council Chamber. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:00 PM ROLL CALL Present: Chair Timothy Lundell, Vice Chair Barry Cheskin, Planning Commissioner Steve Raspe, and Committee Member Susan Burnett. Absent: Planning Commissioner Kylie Clark. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) 1. Approval of Minutes – August 24, 2022 MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Burnett to approve the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Vice Chair Barry Cheskin. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. PAGE 2 OF 6 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 16665 Magneson Loop Request for Review PHST-22-0018 Consider a Request to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic Resources Inventory for Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 523-06-023. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Alireza Dibazar PROJECT PLANNER: Ryan Safty Ryan Safty, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Opened Public Comment. Applicant presented the project. Alireza Dibazar - He and his wife bought the property early this month. They don’t have a plan yet, but want to change it, extend it, and make a newer building. They will do this based on the Town’s guidelines, compatibility with the neighborhood, and recommendations from the Committee. Research was done by the previous owner, Mr. Michael Clem. He believes that the existing building has been compromised. Photos show where the building has been changed based on differences in roofline, siding, and other characteristics. Mr. Clem used various libraries for the research. None of the previous owners lived there. Mr. Joseph Talen may have made the extension. Mr. Clem called it a “Ranch-alow” which is a combination style of ranch and bungalow. The structure doesn’t have the same distinct shape as the neighboring homes. The property was annexed into Los Gatos around 1987. Nothing special was noted for the past 35 years. Closed Public Comment Committee members discussed the matter. • The applicant can still change the house while on the Historic Inventory, but with a few more general guidelines. There needs to be good reasons to take it off the inventory. In 1991, architectural historian Anne Bloomfield recommended adding 8 more groups to the 5 existing districts. One was called the Magneson Recognition group. Nine homes were described as contributors. One home, called the Magneson cottage, was designed by Berkeley architect William Yellen. It was an example of Hansel and Gretel architecture. The Historic Inventory is based on different criteria. Criteria of building type. There are lots of homes in Los Gatos designed as California Cottage. The style is single-story California Cottage. The builder, Mr. Magneson, was the property developer PAGE 3 OF 6 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 of this subdivision and was on the title of this property. He contributed to the community. This house has already shown some significance. This was one of the first developments in Los Gatos. The character of the neighborhood evokes a time and place. We are losing these pockets. There must be strong evidence to remove a property. Being on the inventory doesn’t prevent working on the house. There isn’t enough evidence for removal. • We are reluctant to remove anything from the inventory, but it meets the criteria for removal. • The photographs show a mixed jumble of styles. There is not enough guidance for an architect to come back with historical plan. • If a property is taken off the inventory, any subsequent proposal must still follow the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines. • The Committee has been tasked with five factors to consider. The applicant has shown the property wasn’t a part of Town until 1987. There is no distinct style. It’s a mix of styles. • The street has a flavor to it. It wasn’t part of the town when overlay zones were created. • We desire to keep properties on the inventory; but we are bound to apply the rules as they exist. • What type of review will it undergo if it is taken off the historic inventory? • Staff: The Town relies on the Residential Design Guidelines. The Town’s Consulting Architect will consider if it is compatible with the neighborhood. If it is the first 2nd story house, the project is generally forwarded to the Planning Commission. • If we leave it on the inventory, it goes through a design review, so why take it off the inventory? • Staff: There are less restrictions and more flexibility to build if it’s not on the inventory. There is more flexibility to rebuild if the house is in disrepair, and more flexibility to rebuild where there is damage over time. Even if they wanted to keep the original style, the material may have degraded. The primary differences are changes in demolition requirement and review by HPC versus another deciding body. In either case, the Residential Design Guidelines will be applied. • The Committee encourages the applicant to keep in mind the nature of the neighborhood. • Because there are strong feelings among the neighbors, it would be a good idea to work with the neighbors when the applicant has a design. MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Raspe to Remove a Pre-1941 Property from the Historic Resources Inventory for Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 16665 Magneson Loop. Seconded by Vice Chair Barry Cheskin. VOTE: Motion passed (3-1) Burnett opposed. PAGE 4 OF 6 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 Appeal rights were recited. 3. 114 Wilder Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-22-030 Variance Application V-22-002 Forward a Recommendation to the Community Development Director on a Request for Demolition of an Existing Non-Contributing Single-Family Residence and Construction of a New Single-Family Residence to Exceed the Floor Area Ratio Standards, and a Variance to the Front Yard Setback Requirements and the Parking Requirements on Property Located in the Almond Grove Historic District and Zoned R-1D:LHP. APN 510-17-072. PROPERTY OWNER: Alvaro Anzoategui APPLICANT: David Kuoppamaki PROJECT PLANNER: Jocelyn Shoopman Jocelyn Shoopman, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Committee asked questions of Staff. Opened Public Comment. Applicant presented the project. David Kuoppamaki, Applicant/Designer - David apologized for missing the prior meeting. Based on that meeting David provided responses to the massing, the garage door finish color, the front bricks, and guardrails. Provided photos of houses in the Almond Grove District with similar traits. Here to go over design for fine tuning. Available for questions. Committee members asked questions of the applicant. David Kuoppamaki, Applicant/Designer - They are working with staff to identify comparisons in the neighborhood. There are no garages in the front in this neighborhood. Most of the garages in the neighborhood are in the back or alleyways. But for this lot the back area was sold and is now a commercial parking lot. The lot is too small to add a two-car garage in the front. Many other homes have a larger FAR. They need to verify what was included in those FAR calculations. The house does fit in the front setback, but the front porch does not. Other homes have a similar situation. - The owners were hoping to use whitewashed brick. But if that is not acceptable they can use normal brick or shingle siding. They can use normal brick to soften the feeling of the garage door. The garage door will match the front door. PAGE 5 OF 6 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 - They will consider a garage door style that looks more traditional. - To reduce the massing, they are using a plate height of 5 ft 1 inch instead of the normal 8 ft. The building would be 1.5 versus 2 stories high. There will be a trellis over the garage to soften the look. Staff: We have identified one home in the immediate neighborhood that exceeds the FAR. There are an additional six more outside the immediate area that exceed the FAR. Staff: Can add specific modifications to the motion and it will not need to return to HPC. Or it can be continued to another meeting for further review. Closed Public Comment. Committee members discussed the matter. • The chimney and garage door design fits with the neighborhood. • Need to see the comparison of sizing to other houses in the area. • The tandem parking makes sense since there is no parking in the back. • Need to see the square footage of comparable homes. • The front facing massing still needs to be addressed. • An entire façade of brick doesn’t seem consistent with the neighborhood. • Whitewash brick is a modern look and not consistent with the historic neighborhood. • Consider a less modern garage door, stylistically. • The item could continue to another meeting with more information or changes. MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Raspe to continue the matter for the property located at 114 Wilder Avenue. Wherein the applicant is seeking a Recommendation to the Community Development Director on a Request for Demolition of an Existing Non-Contributing Single-Family Residence and Construction of a New Single-Family Residence to Exceed the Floor Area Ratio Standards, and a Variance to the Front Yard Setback Requirements and the Parking Requirements until a the next regularly scheduled future HPC meeting date. Included is the recommendation that the applicant incorporate the committee’s comments regarding exterior brick finish, front facing massing, and garage door finishes. Seconded by Member Burnett. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS (Up to three minutes may be allotted to each speaker on any of the following items.) None. PAGE 6 OF 6 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:57 p.m. This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the September 28, 2022 meeting as approved by the Historic Preservation Committee. Jennifer Armer, AICP, Planning Manager