Loading...
Item 6 - Staff Report and Attachments 1 to 8 PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP Senior 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: 08/23/2023 ITEM NO: 6 DATE: August 18, 2023 TO: Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Construction of Exterior Alterations (Front Door Replacement) to an Existing Contributing Single-Family Residence Located in the University-Edelen Historic District on Property Zoned R-1D:LHP. Located at 327 University Avenue. APN 529-04-060. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Minor Development in a Historic District Application HS-23-022. Property Owners/Applicants: Johan Back and Vibha Rao. Project Planner: Sean Mullin. RECOMMENDATION: Consider a request for approval for construction of exterior alterations (front door replacement) to an existing contributing single-family residence located in the University- Edelen Historic District on property zoned R-1D:LHP located at 327 University Avenue. PROPERTY DETAILS: 1. Date primary structure was built: 1990 per County Assessor’s Database; 1890s per Anne Bloomfield Survey 2. Town of Los Gatos Preliminary Historic Status Code: “C”, Contributor to Town’s historic feeling but has had some alterations 3. Does property have an LHP Overlay? Yes 4. Is structure in a historic district? Yes, University-Edelen Historic District 5. If yes, is it a contributor? Yes 6. Findings required? No 7. Considerations required? Yes PAGE 2 OF 4 SUBJECT: 327 University Avenue/HS-23-022 DATE: August 18, 2023 \\TLG-File\data\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2023\08-23-23\Item 06 - 327 University Avenue\Staff Report.327 University Avenue.docx BACKGROUND: The original residence at 327 University Avenue was constructed in the 1890s and was significantly damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. On April 12, 1990, the Los Gatos Earthquake Restoration Committee approved a request to demolish the damaged original residence and construct a new residence on condition that the new residence include floor area, setbacks, and exterior details identical to the original residence (Attachment 1). Building permits for the replacement residence were issued in June 1990. Town records indicate that construction was completed in March 1991. As a result, the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Database lists a construction date of 1990 for the existing residence. The 1990 Anne Bloomfield Survey indicates a build date of 1890s (Attachment 2). Notes on the survey sheet show that the evaluation was completed just prior to the 1989 earthquake. An image of the damaged residence was added to the survey sheet with a date of October 26, 1989. The front door is not clearly visible in the images included in the Bloomfield Survey. While the existing residence at 327 University Avenue was constructed in 1990, it was done so under Town review with direction to replicate the original 1890s residence. The reconstruction of the original residence depicts the form, features, and detailing of the original residence and results in a replica that remains a contributor to the University-Edelen Historic District. Town records show that alterations to the residence were approved by the Historic Preservation Committee in 2012 and completed in 2014 that included changing the entry to the front porch from the right side to the front, changing the porch balusters, installing a window on the right side of the front porch, and constructing a decorative picket fence along the front sidewalk (Attachment 3). The images included with the 2012 report include the front door proposed for replacement with this application. In 2022, the Committee reviewed and approved a proposal for exterior alterations that were part of an interior remodel resulting in changes to window and door locations and proportions. DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting approval for replacement of the existing front door, which was recently damaged (Attachment 4). The existing door includes an oval window set within a large panel with two additional smaller panels underneath (Attachment 5). The applicant proposes to replace the existing door with one that includes a vertically oriented rectangular window with a single rectangular panel underneath (Attachment 4). The applicant indicates in their letter that the door will be painted a similar burgundy color as the exiting door and that the style of the proposed door would be more consistent with the residence and neighborhood (Attachment 6). PAGE 3 OF 4 SUBJECT: 327 University Avenue/HS-23-022 DATE: August 18, 2023 \\TLG-File\data\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2023\08-23-23\Item 06 - 327 University Avenue\Staff Report.327 University Avenue.docx DISCUSSION (continued): The existing front door does not represent a door traditional to the Queen Anne style. Attachment 7 includes excerpts from “A Field Guide to American Houses,” showing examples of Queen Anne homes. While the examples shown are not focused on the front doors of homes, the doors are visible in many of the images and show that the front doors consistently utilize rectangular window shapes. The proposed front door is more consistent with the provided examples of Queen Anne homes. The Town’s Residential Design Guidelines identifies doors as a character-defining feature and a protected element subject to review by the Committee (Attachment 8). Section 4.8.3 provides guidance for doors on historic homes. 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. CONCLUSION: The applicant requests approval for replacement of the existing front door on an existing contributing single-family residence located in the University-Edelen Historic District. Should the Committee find merit in the request, the project would be completed with a Building Permit and would not return to the Committee. PAGE 4 OF 4 SUBJECT: 327 University Avenue/HS-23-022 DATE: August 18, 2023 \\TLG-File\data\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Reports and Attachments\2023\08-23-23\Item 06 - 327 University Avenue\Staff Report.327 University Avenue.docx ATTACHMENTS: 1. 1990 Los Gatos Earthquake Restoration Committee documents 2. 1990 Anne Bloomfield Survey 3. 2012 Historic Preservation Committee documents 4. Letter from Applicant 5. Existing front door 6. Examples of doors in the neighborhood 7. Examples of Queen Anne homes 8. Pages from Residential Design Guidelines This Page Intentionally Left Blank ue: d/nne !Bfoom{ielJ ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 141 Sl 922·1 063 2229 WEBSTER STREET SAN FRANCISCO. CA 941 1 5 ARCHITECTURAL/CULTURAL SURVEY }iov.se. w~ deMo\\&~ LOS GATOS RESEARCH ().f-~ ~~ ea.f ~<f-' A£~--~. PARCEL MAP INFORMATION Parcel # 5 2-1' 01-0 ~t:J Lot shape: ( Rectangle~ L___ Rectangle Lot size : --- It V'~ P. \\ c.o.. v..>c.s cc~-t<-\A.C.,~ ; v" { \-'s f\c.. .. c. e... front ft. x //2.. ft. deep with small rear jog__ Other ___________ _ Location: N S_ E W /side of ___ V ____________ St Ave /Other ______ _ distance to cross st: !5Jr;..o ft . N S E W from ---------'----------- at NE_ NW SE SW corner of ----------------------- HISTORIC INFORMATION ON PARCEL MAP Old tract or subdivision name '!( ~ {;_~h t?~~J? Old Block # ___ Old lot # _ _...7 ___ ___ FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION (handwritten in red) Preliminary rating v Estimated age I '590 , Style __ ..,...--'6=.;..-_) _A ___________________ _ Alterations w I ~'~J ow '?...,. r O c ' .•d-;.., COUNTY ASSESSOR--PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS (paste on copy) EFFective date. ___ _ OWNERSHIP SHOWN ON MAPS Source Name Source Date Source Page Location of property, or Lot Owner Name Old :tract/block/lot Size ------1891 Blk Book 1908 Survey 1944 MISCELLANEOUS National Register listed date ____________ _ County Inventory 1979 _______ ~--------- Town of Los Gatos: Designation __ Recognition __ istrict Name UA,v./E:/chn ; Butler/Junior League -------------------Gebhard: page#. illustration page# Butler/Junior League ------- PHOTOS: Roll/frame #Qt?l-cg A OcJ//~ s-:.. ~/' :/~ ATTACHMENT 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ATTACHMENT 3 Envelope ID - 6dbbcb35-623e-4011-8c69-cf3179f39e49 ATTACHMENT 4 Envelope ID - 6dbbcb35-623e-4011-8c69-cf3179f39e49 Existing Front Door Envelope ID - 6dbbcb35-623e-4011-8c69-cf3179f39e49 Proposed Front Door This Page Intentionally Left Blank ATTACHMENT 5 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ATTACHMENT 6 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 350 I VICTORIAN HOUSES \ QueenAnnemore common on Stick, Italianate, or Second Empire houses). Towers placed at a frontfacade corner are most often Queen Anne, whereas those embraced within an L or cen­tered on the front facade are equally common in several other styles. OTHER DETAILS-Door and window surrounds tend to be simple in Queen Annehouses. Window sashes usually have only a single pane of glass; a frequent elaborationhas a single large clear pane surrounded by additional small rectangular panes on one or more sides. These small panes are often of colored glass. Some later examples have curved glass in tower windows. Doors commonly have delicate incised decorative detail­ing and a single large pane of glass set into the upper portion. Gables are commonlydecorated with patterned shingles or more elaborate motifs. Occurrence This was the dominant style of domestic building during the period from about 1880until 1900; it persisted with decreasing popularity through the first decade of this cen­tury. In the heavily populated northeastern states the style is somewhat less commonthan elsewhere. There, except for resort areas, it is usually more restrained in decora­tive detailing and is more often executed in masonry. Moving southward and westwardthe style increases steadily in dominance and ebullience; California and the resurgent,cotton-rich states of the New South have some of the most fanciful examples. Comments The style was named and popularized by a group of 19th-century English architects ledby Richard Norman Shaw. The name is rather inappropriate, for the historical prec­edents used by Shaw and his followers had little to do with Queen Anne or the formalRenaissance architecture that was dominant during her reign (1702-1714). Instead, theyborrowed most heavily from the late Medieval models of the preceding Elizabethan andJacobean eras. The half-timbered and patterned masonry American subtypes are mos1closely related to this work of Shaw and his colleagues in England. The spindlework andfree classic subtypes are indigenous interpretations.The half-timbered Watts Sherman House, built at Newport, Rhode Island, in 187.f·is generally considered to be the first American example of the style. A few high-sc�'l examples followed in the 1870s, and by 1880 the style was being spread throughout thcountry by a host of pattern books (many selling plans for their illustrated designs) andby the leading architecture magazine, American Architect and Building News (through illustrated examples, but with faint textual praise).9 Despite having been introduced by architects and illustrated in AABN, the Qm: nAnne style was not widely favored by architects, who preferred the contemporam:o Shingle and experimentation with early Eclectic styles. Instead, the style owed irs popu larity to the public's enthusiastic embrace and the pattern books and mail-order hou d. ·1 d nerwoplans that allowed them to build a Queen Anne house. The expan mg r�1 roa , .1 expedited this process by making pre-cut architectural details conveniently a,ai ati, ' [oll'II throughout much of the nation. Hudson Holly's 1878 Modern Dwe ings m Country was likely the first pattern book specifically to promote Queen Anne style.SPINDLEWORK: HIPPED ROOF WITH LOWER CROSS GABLES I. Bilo xi, Mississippi; ca. ,900. A very simple example. Additional corner­ bracket detailing was probably once pres�nt above the cutaway bay window, but JS now missing (see the corner brackets still present on Figures 2 and 3). The low roof pitch indicates a late construction dare. 2. Santa Clara, California; late 19th cenrury. Note the gable-on-hip roof (also present in Figures rand 3); these were most common on one-and one­ and-one-half-story examples. 3. Cripple Creek, Colorado; 1896. Miller House. This one-and-one-half-story example has unusually fine derailing. 4. Clement, North Carolina, vicinity; ca. 1912. Autry House. The symmetrical pl�cemenc of the two gables is unusual, as JS the steep roof pitch in such a late example. Queen Anne I 351 ATTACHMENT 7 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Residential Design Guidelines 41 Town of Los Gatos HISTORIC RESOURCES4 4.3 APPROVAL PROCESS FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE ALTERATIONS Applicants of historic properties are only charged fees applicable to non-historic properties. There are no additional fees applied to applications for historic properties. Applicants are encouraged to first consult with Community Development planners prior to the formal submittal of a building permit or a development application to ensure the work proposed meets Town Code requirements and policies. Minor repair If minor repair work is proposed and the materials will be re- placed in kind, only a building permit will be required. Minor exterior Changes The following process is for sites that are within an historic district or have a Landmark Designation. Minor exterior changes include: •Residential first floor addition (excluding additions not vis- ible from the street that do not exceed 15% of the existing floor area of the house [excluding cellars] or 400 sq. ft. of the gross floor area, whichever is less). •Residential addition less than 100 square feet to an existing second story which is visible from the street(s) in the im- mediate neighborhood. •Residential accessory structure 450 square feet or less which is visible from the street(s) in the immediate neighborhood or Victory Lane. •Residential exterior modification. Application: An application for Minor Development in an Historic District is re- quired. Review: Town staff will review the application to ensure it meets Town Code. The application will then be scheduled for review by the Historic Preservation Committee. Action: The Historic Preservation Committee will consider the matter at a public meeting and can either approve, deny or continue the matter. There is a ten day appeal period on all final actions taken by the Committee. Ap- peals will be considered by the Planning Commission. Minor residential developMent The following process is for any historic structure. Minor residential development for historic properties include: •New second story. •Second story additions exceeding 100 square feet. •Accessory structure exceeding 450 square feet. •Reduction of side or rear yard setbacks for accessory struc- tures that are visible from the street or Victory Lane. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES Rather than focusing on specific historic architectural styles, these guidelines address character-defining features because actual historic build- ings hardly ever conform exactly to styles, and each structure should be respected and treated on its own merits. Before planning alterations to a historic building, look at it carefully and analyze what contributes to its character. You will probably find some or all of the following, and more: •Siting, height, and setbacks •Materials •Ornamentation •Roof shape and coverings •Projections: dormers, bay win- dows, porches, stairs •Indentations, porches, side jogs •Windows: size, proportions, meth- od of opening, sash materials, trim •Porches: size, relation to main roof shape and design of posts, design of railing, height above ground. •Entry: relation to main house wall, door design, trim •Stairs: location, direction, design of railing, materials •Chimney: height, location, mate- rials brick work or stone work: color, size, and texture of units; profile, color and composition of mortar •Foundation or basement: differ- ence (if any) in treatment from main house walls •Garage and its relation to the house ATTACHMENT 8 Residential Design Guidelines46 Town of Los Gatos HISTORIC RESOURCES4 4.6 PRE-1941 STRUCTURES Pre-1941 structures have the potential to be historically significant, but not all will necessarily be classified as historic. Applications for removal, remodeling, or additions to structures constructed prior to 1941 will be reviewed by staff to determine their historic merit and contribution to the surrounding neighborhood. An initial evaluation will be made utilizing the 1991 Historical Resources Survey Project for Los Gatos. Staff may, at the discretion of the Community Development Director, refer a project application to the Historic Preservation Committee for its input and recommendations. Demolition of structures deemed to have special merit or con- tribution to the surrounding neighborhood may not be permitted. Proposed changes to existing structures will be carefully reviewed to ensure their compatibility with the original structure and the surrounding area. 4.7 PROTECTED EXTERIOR ELEMENTS •The protected exterior elements of a structure include all elements on all of a building’s elevations and roof. •Protected exterior elements are defined to include, but are not limited to, those elements outlined in the sidebar to the left. •Other exterior elements of a particular building may be protected as determined by the Deciding Body. PROTECTED EXTERIOR ELEMENTS SUBJECT TO REVIEW All elements on the building’s facades and roof, including but not limited to: •doors •windows •glass •porches •posts •railings •stairways •cupolas •gables •bay windows •widows’ walks •arbors/pergolas •siding •chimneys •towers •turrets •trim •mouldings •corbels •plaster features •rock walls •picket fences •shingles •roof lines •eaves and overhangs •colors •gingerbread •shingle siding •tiles •wrought iron and other decora- tive materials Examples of some character-defining elements Residential Design Guidelines48 Town of Los Gatos HISTORIC RESOURCES4 •New materials should identically match original materials in shape, size, dimension, texture and pattern. Metal used as flashing, screening, gutters, and utility services and other traditional elements are acceptable. •Composite, synthetic, metal, vinyl, plastic or fabricated/ imitation wood products, painted brick or imitation used brick will generally not be approved. However, some ex- ceptions may be made on a case-by-case basis when the decision making body determines that the replacement is consistent with the appearance of the original material, and that a lay person would be unlikely to discern the difference. The burden of proof will reside with the applicant. Mate- rial samples, photographs and specific locations where the material may be seen in use will all assist in the evaluation of alternative materials. •The decision making body may approve an acceptable alter- native to the original building material if use of the original material is not feasible due to unreasonable cost and com- mercial availability, or health and safety considerations. 4.8.3 Doors •Original doors should be retained and restored. •New replacement doors for Victorians should not be flush, but of raised or flat panel design. •Front doors generally should be painted, not stained. Not applicable to Mission Revival/Mediterranean style structures. •Screened doors should be real wood framed of simple de- sign unless patterns can be shown to fit the existing style. 4.8.4 Windows and Glass in doors •Original windows, glass and window decorations should be retained and restored. •Replacement of only the deteriorated portions of the win- dows is recommended rather than the replacement of the entire window. •New or replacement windows should be wood-sashed and muntined if applicable. •Sills, lintels, frames, sashes, muntins, and all decorations should be identically replaced. •All elements of new windows should be identical in size, shape, proportion, and dimensions as the original windows of the building, or consistent with traditional sizes, propor- tions and dimensions of buildings of the same architectural style, design and era. •Windows should be constructed of real glass, and window Simulated divided lite windows may be considered on a case-by- case basis True divided lite windows are encouraged when appropriate to the original structure Original doors and windows should be retained and repaired This Page Intentionally Left Blank