Loading...
Exhibit 8 - Supplemental Information Provided by Applicant’s Architect55 Ellenwood Ave. January 8th, 2025 Appeal of HPC Ruling to Planning Commission EXHIBIT 8 FINDINGS: Related to a request for a determination that a pre-1941 structure (55 Ellenwood) has no historic significance or architectural merit: 1. The structure is not associated with 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. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance. The Property + HPC Comments 55 Ellenwood “Appearance + style hasn’t changed.” - HPC “Original structure as I remember it, and I’ve lived here for 50 years!” - HPC “Still has the feeling even though it’s been added to from when I moved here 45 years ago.” - HPC Source: Google Maps Satellite “Still looks historic.” - HPC Evidence of an underlying desire of HPC to not listen to fact. FALSE FALSE FALSE 1928 (Before Lot Split)1944 (After Lot Split) 51 Ellenwood Is Born (Neighbor) 55 Ellenwood Sanborn Maps Sanborn maps from 1928 and 1944 show significant changes to the property by 1998, including major remodels that altered its original character. Permit 1994 Permit 1998 Other Notable Dates: Extensive research at the Los Gatos Public Library revealed no mention of this property in historical newspapers, articles, notable real estate listings, or public records. The absence of such documentation strongly suggests the property lacks significant historical importance. FINDING #1, #4 1. The structure is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the Town.✓ ✓4. The structure does not yield information to Town history. House Index Research found no evidence linking this property to any historical significance. FINDING #1, #4 1. The structure is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the Town.✓ ✓4. The structure does not yield information to Town history. Museums of Los Gatos Historic Homes Tour List Of People Recorded As Associated With 55 Ellenwood: 1.1934 – 1945 Stanley A R and Flowers C H 2.1968 – 1986 Sydney and Roberts Dunton 3.1968 – 1986 First National Bank and Palo Alto Financial Corporation 4.1968 – 1986 Leigh & Merry Belden 5.1986 Andris Holms 6.1992 Andris and Leslie 7.2002 Andris and Leslie Trust 8.2012 Leslie Holms Trust 9.2019 The Jain Family Revocable Trust with Vishal Jain and Pooja Goel as Trustees FINDING #2 ✓2. No Significant persons are associated with the site. District Non-contributing 1950 55 Ellenwood FINDING #3 ✓3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master; The Anne Bloomfield Survey documents the home, built in the 1950s, received preliminary rating of “N”, due to major renovations by 1989. No distinctive architectural features were identified, and no construction changes are recorded in city archives through 1994. This undermines its historic integrity and diminishes its eligibility for historic designation. “N” 1989 New Windows at new Master Bedroom – nonhistorical typology. New Windows at new Master Bedroom – nonhistorical typology New exposed 2x6 rafters visible from public sidewalk + trellis and lattice 1994 Approved Permitted Work / Addition FINDING #3, #5 ✓3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master. 100% NEW ADDITION 100% NEW ADDITION 100% NEW ADDITION 100% NEW ADDITION Non original window typology 5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance.✓ Before 1994 Construction 300% Window Size Increase at New Addition ✓5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance. “Still looks historic.” - HPC “Appearance + style hasn’t changed.” - HPCFINDING #3, #5 After 1994 Construction FALSE FALSE 3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master.✓ New Windows at Master Bedroom FINDING #3, #5 ✓5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance. 2019 Image ORIGINAL Different exposed rafter tail detail not matching original No evidence of original vs current fenestration pattern NEW ADDITION (1994)1998 ADDITION 3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master.✓ Contemporary grand arched window at new living room addition Contemporary veneer stone chimney Contemporary windows at new game room addition ✓3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master. 1998 New Addition FINDING #3 100% NEW ADDITION100% NEW ADDITION 1998 Approved Permit “Original structure as I remember it, and I’ve lived here for 50 years!” - HPC 2019 Image FALSE 1998 New Addition 1998 Proposed North Elevation (Approved)2024 Image Contemporary fenestration configuration + type Contemporary swinging windows above modern door panels FINDING #3, #5 ✓3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master. “Appearance + style hasn’t changed.” - HPC FALSE 100% NEW ADDITION 100% NEW ADDITION 5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance.✓ Current Photo of Existing House (2024) FINDING #3, #5 ✓3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction or representation of work of a master; ✓5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance. ORIGINAL STRUCTURE NEW ADDITION (1994)NEW ADDITION (1998) 55 Ellenwood Ave. (Before 1994 Renovation) FINDING #5 “Original structure as I remember it, and I’ve lived here for 50 years!” - HPC “Appearance + style hasn’t changed.” - HPC FALSE FALSE Existing Property Picture From Redfin Real Estate Listing (2019) FINDING #5 NEW ADDITION (1994)NEW ADDITION (1998)ORIGINAL STRUCTURE Approved Permits (1994) Existing Area of total demolition Original Footprint 1994 Footprint Existing 100% Original House Footprint Per San Born Map 1928 +1944 FINDING #5 Outline of residence as reflected in 1994 Building Permit Technical demolition of area 50% affected at “front facade” 50% Original Front Facade 50% Technical Demolition at Front Facade 50% 50% ✓5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance. Staff Comment: “Based upon available information, the property has likely incurred a technical demo.” 50% 50% TRUE Approved Permits - (1998) FINDING #5 ➢Technical demolition of area 60% and 70% affected at “front facade” 40% Original Front 60% Technical Demo at Front “Staff leans towards interpretation that prior permitted work already involved a technical demo” ✓5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance. Original New Area of total demolition 25% 35%40% New 30% Original Front Facade 70% Technical Demolition at Front Facade 70% > 25% max demolition @ FRONT TRUE 35% 15% 25% 15% Area of total demolition Original House Remain Area of Total Demolition Approved Permits (1994, 1998) FINDING #5 1994 Addition 1998 Addition “Staff leans towards interpretation that prior permitted work already involved a technical demo” “Still has the feeling even though it’s been added to from when I moved here 45 years ago.” - HPC “Appearance + style hasn’t changed.” - HPC “Still looks historic.” - HPC ✓5. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance. “Original structure as I remember it, and I’ve lived here for 50 years!” - HPC TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FINDINGS: Related to a request for a determination that a pre-1941 structure (55 Ellenwood) has no historic significance or architectural merit: 1. The structure is not associated with 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. The integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance.