Staff Report with Attachments 1 to 7.321 Bachman Ave
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REPORT
MEETING DATE: 08/27/2025 ITEM NO: 6
DATE: August 22, 2025
TO: Historic Preservation Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Preliminary Review to Construct an Addition with
Reduced Setbacks to an Existing Noncontributing Single-Family Residence
Located in the Almond Grove Historic District on Nonconforming Property
Zoned R-1D:LHP. Located at 321 Bachman Avenue. APN 510-17-100. Exempt
Pursuant to CEQA Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Request for Review
Application PHST-25-016. Property Owner: Stanley and Jean Melax.
Applicant: Jennifer Kretschmer, AIA. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider a request for preliminary review to construct an addition with reduced setbacks to an
existing noncontributing single-family residence located in the Almond Grove Historic District
on nonconforming property zoned R-1D:LHP, located at 321 Bachman Avenue.
PROPERTY DETAILS:
1. Date primary structure was built: 1949 per County Assessor’s Database
2. Bloomfield Preliminary Rating: New, probably built since 1950
3. Does property have an LHP Overlay? Yes
4. Is structure in a historic district? Almond Grove Historic District
5. If yes, is it a contributor? No
6. Findings required? No
7. Considerations required? Yes
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the south side of Bachman Avenue between Massol and Tait
Avenues, just west of the alley. The County Assessor reports that the residence was constructed
in 1949. The Anne Bloomfield survey notes the structure as new, probably built since 1950.
(Attachment 1).
PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBJECT: 321 Bachman Avenue/PHST-25-016 DATE: August 22, 2025
The residence is present on the 1944 and 1956 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (Attachment 2).
The footprint of the residence remains consistent between the two dates. Additions and other
modifications have been constructed since 1956, as noted below.
As provided in Attachment 3, Town records include the following permitted work:
• 1974: Replacement of windows with a sliding door leading to a new patio deck at the
rear of the residence;
• 1981: Reconstruction of the garage roof to accommodate solar collectors;
• 1987: Reroof;
• 1991: Add skylights;
• 1995: Demolish portions of the residence (467 sf) and garage (198 sf) and construct a
new bedroom addition (300 sf) at the left rear of the residence; and
• 2017: Reroof.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant provided a Letter of Justification for the proposed project (Attachment 3). The
applicant is requesting preliminary review of a proposal to add an attached single-car garage at
the rear of the property, opening up to the alley (Attachment 7). A new covered porch
supported with square columns would be added to the front elevation, along with a new bay
extension with a fiberglass window with wood trim. Another new porch with square columns
would be constructed on the left elevation. The applicant indicates that the additions and new
detailing are intended to make the residence look more Victorian in style, consistent with other
nearby homes (Attachment 4).
The Letter of Justification (Attachment 4) discusses future plans to incorporate an accessory
dwelling unit (ADU) above the new attached garage, shown in light-line in the development
plans (Attachment 7). Any future ADU would be processed ministerially, consistent with State
law. Staff notes that the ADU is not the subject of this application and shall not be used as the
basis for any feedback provided to the applicant.
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:
PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBJECT: 321 Bachman Avenue/PHST-25-016 DATE: August 22, 2025
_ 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.
B. Residential Design Guidelines
Section 3.9 of the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines offers recommendations for
construction of additions to existing residences (Attachment 6).
CONCLUSION:
The applicant is requesting preliminary feedback from the Committee on a proposal to
construct an addition with reduced setbacks to an existing noncontributing single-family
residence located in the Almond Grove Historic District on nonconforming property zoned R-
1D:LHP, located at 321 Bachman Avenue. Due to the proposed reduced setbacks on the
nonconforming property, the project requires Architecture and Site approval. The formal
application would be forwarded to the Committee for a recommendation to the deciding body.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Anne Bloomfield Survey
2. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Exhibit
3. Town Permit Records
4. Letter of Justification
5. Photos of Existing Residence
6. Section 3.9, Residential Design Guidelines
7. Development Plans
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
1944
321 Bachman Ave
ATTACHMENT 2
1956
321 Bachman Ave
ATTACHMENT 3
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Homeowner’s Statement
(Includes justification statement and historical research details)
To whom it may concern,
We moved to Los Gatos in 2010 and lived many years in a townhouse in the Vasona Terrace
complex. Our kids went to Los Gatos schools. When they grew up and moved out, we moved to
the Almond Grove neighborhood, to 321 Bachman Avenue in September 2024. We love this
quiet historic neighborhood!
Our plan for the home is to add an attached single car garage in the back of the property
opening to the alley, add an ADU above the garage if possible, and add more
historically-inspired elements to the front and side of the house to allow it to fit in better with the
other historic homes nearby. We feel that turning the large front window into an (above ground)
bay window and adding covered porches to the front and side would accomplish this task.
Adding a garage in the back of the house off the alley would allow us to park and charge our
electric car and free up a space on the street, as well as provide much needed storage space
for this small house. We plan to have the garage, porches, and bay window fit aesthetically with
the existing house and add elements to make it look more Victorian style like other houses
nearby.
We would also like to move our laundry area from the kitchen to the new garage, since the
kitchen is small we would rather use the washer/dryer space for kitchen storage instead.
If the ADU is not approved, we would like to make the garage as tall as possible to allow for us
to have as much attic / loft storage space as possible. The garage will be in the back of the
house away from the front street and the garage of our next door neighbor’s house (to the west,
at 240 Massol Avenue) is already taller than our house so we hope a garage of the maximum
allowable height will be acceptable (see photo of the neighbor's garage later in this document).
If the ADU is not approved, we would also like to have a full bathroom in the garage as well, for
convenience.
The house already has some areas that extend into the easements, but we do not plan to build
further into those areas, except for the garage itself. This property is small and non-standard
and we plan to apply to get approval to have the garage built closer than 5 feet from the south
property line in order to get as much garage space as is allowed. We have noticed other
garages and structures for houses backing on to the same alley that are already quite
close to their property lines (3 feet or less), so we hope a 3 or 4 feet easement would be
an acceptable distance. For example:
-231 Tate Avenue has a ‘cottage’ structure next to the alley that looks to be right up
against the property line, the fence on the south side is only about a foot from the
structure. The cottage was built around 1965 (source: 2005 historic tour brochure).
ATTACHMENT 4
-225 and 223 Tate Avenue have garages opening to the alley that are only about 3 ft from
their fences on the right (south).
-217 Tate Avenue has a carport opening to the alley that is only about 3 ft from their fence
on the right (south)
-The garage for our immediate neighbor’s house (240 Massol) appears to be between
about 4ft from our fence at one end but only about 2 ft from our fence at the other.
We logged into the computer in the lobby of the LG planning office and looked at what was on
file for our own house as well as properties nearby. Details are on later pages in this document
but here are the highlights:
-1996 Architectural plans for our own house showed that it used to have a garage
with a ‘bedroom/loft’ above the garage. This was demolished in 1996 and replaced
with a new bedroom and bathroom attached to the main house. We have obtained
approval from the architect from 1996 (who is still in business) and attached copies of
the plans to this application.
-We also found architectural diagrams on file for 312 Bachman (across the street) and
240 Massol (next door), but neither of the diagrams showed easement lines (only
property lines). The plans for 240 Massol especially do seem to confirm that the garage
is very close to the fence between our two properties and is likely nonconforming (see
later pages for details)
We did some research at the Los Gatos library as well. Details are in later pages in this
document but here are the highlights:
-Our house was built in 1939, based on the 1941 Tax Assessment Survey (the
survey says the house was 2 years old at the time). This differs from what the real
estate listing says (1949).
-We think our house used to be part of the property at 240 Massol Avenue, based on the
‘Remodeling’ section of a 1971 survey where the owner said “back property split up
and sold to closest property owners”, but it doesn’t give a year. (source: Historic
Property Research Collection)
We have spoken to our immediate neighbours at 307 Bachman (immediate neighbor to the left
(east), across the alley), 240 Massol (immediate neighbor to the right (west)), and 232 Massol
(immediate neighbor behind us, backing onto the same alley, we share a fence), and they don’t
have any issues with us building an attached garage.
Please see the rest of the pages in this document for pictures of nearby houses and more
details on the research we did.
Thank you for your time considering our application. Let us know if you have any questions.
Stanley and Jean Melax
321 Bachman Avenue, Los Gatos CA
Photos of nearby structures:
The garage for our immediate neighbor to the right (240 Massol) is about 4 ft from our shared
fence at one end, but only about 2 ft away from our shared fence at the other end:
The garage at 240 Massol (next door neighbor) is taller than our house:
View of the alley, standing next to our house, looking South. Note the first structure, a ‘cottage’
at the back of 231 Tate, is very close to the alley, so probably very close to the property line.
The ‘cottage’ at the back of 231 Tate is within a foot of the fence on the right side:
The garage at the back of 225 Tate is about 3 feet from the fence to its right:
The garage at the back of 223 Tate is about 3 feet from the fence to its right:
The carport at the back of 217 Tate is about 3 feet from the fence to its right:
321 Bachman Avenue Research Notes (more details)
We purchased the house from Patricia Ann McCaffrey on 9/25/2024
For quick reference, these are the properties nearby:
1.328 Bachman (across the street)
2.320 Bachman (across the street)
3.312 Bachman (across the street)
4.308 Bachman (across the street)
5.300 Bachman (across the street)
6.307 Bachman (immediate neighbor to the left (east), across the alley)
7.240 Massol (immediate neighbor to the right (west))
8.232 Massol (immediate neighbor behind us, backing onto the same alley, we share a
fence)
9.231 Tate (nearby, backs on to the same alley)
10.225 Tate (nearby, backs on to the same alley)
11.303 Bachman (two houses to the left (east)
LG Planning department computer 7/25/2025
321 Bachman: there are 1996 architectural diagrams in the microfiche folder showing a
new primary bedroom and a bathroom were added, and that an existing garage with a
“bedroom / loft” above it was demolished. The architect (Gary Kohlsaat,
garyk@kohlsaatarch.com) gave permission for me to have copies of the plans (received
8/4/2025 and are included with this application).
LG Planning department computer 8/1/2025
-#1: has permit applications on file but no architectural plans
-#3: lots of architectural plans to add a basement, etc, but none showed property lines
-#6: no architectural diagrams or plans; 2018 permit to refurbish cottage, new front door,
5 new windows; secondary dwelling unit approved in 1985 but no plans on file
-#7: 103 pages of microfiche, ran out of time to review them all but there was a 1974
architectural diagram that might be relevant but the scans were very faint.
-#10: ran out of time to research fully
-#11: building permit on file for 1951 but no architectural plans on file
-Nothing major on file for the other neighbors
LG Library 8/3/2025
We planned to look at the Sanborn Maps on file at the LG library but the ‘history room’ was not
open the day we did the research (only open Tuesdays from 11:30-1:30 according to the sign on
the door)
Project Bellringer: only #1 was included on the list in the binder, but a newspaper article from
1976 says #9 was a “Bellringer house” too.
Historic Property Research Collection:
-#1: Sometime between 1934 and 1945 added a small porch off the dining room, and
front porch was screened in with climbing roses and honeysuckle, ‘garage had been in
lower backyard’, built estimated “1885 A.K”.
-#7: ~1880 A.K., under ‘Remodeling’ section of 1971 survey says “back property
split up and sold to closest property owners” but doesn’t give a year. Also says “33
ft additional in back area” and “garage used for office”.
-#9: a 2005 historic tour brochure says “about 1965, Douglas and Marjorie Rose
purchased the property and built a cottage on the back of the lot that they rented out in
addition to the house. That cottage is not open for viewing”, 1976 newspaper article says
it is a Bellringer house, has a phantom front door that once opened to Tate but now front
door is elsewhere
-#10: has a folder but nothing relevant to our project
-No other houses above has folders in the collection
Anne Bloomfield's Survey of 1991: none of the nearby houses are included, nothing on
Bachman or Massol, a few on Tate but only up to #30 Tate.
1941 Tax Assessment Survey (note these show dimensions of buildings but not their
relationship to property lines):
-321 Bachman: says the house was 2 years old in 1941, a scan is included in this
application
-#1: 45 years old
-#2: 17 years old
-#3: 40 years old
-#4: 40 yo
-#5: 10 yo
-#6: not included
-#7: 30 years old, worth $1700
-#8: not included
-#9: 40 years old
-#10: not included
Planning department computer 8/4/2025:
LFTown / planning / address files / Bachman Ave / 321 / microfiche folder:
-Nothing under any of the other folders
-Home occupation permit 5/26/88 for Joyce Bahnsen
-97 scanned pages. Filled out form to request these documents on 8/4/2025.
-Page 71 and 82: exhibit C PLAT to accompany the lot line adjustment Feb 1996
(page 82) and Sep 1996 (page 71). Filled out form to request these documents on
8/4/2025.
FTown / building / address / Bachman Ave / 321 folder (requested and received copies of all on
8/4/2025):
-permits folder has 3 folders:
-B17-0257 - permit for new roof - 4/21/2017
-E18-135 - permit for add three circuit to allow the remaining knob and tube that is
in use to be abandon, alter 19 lights, switches and outlets 10/05/2018
-M18-102 - permit to install condenser 7/12/2018
-Plans folder has one folder B21-0233: plans for chimney repair 3/21/17
-Microfiche folder has 49 pages including the architectural diagrams
240 Massol
-Has plans approved 1/20/15 is for removing a brick fireplace and window, adding a
breakfast nook, etc but the plans also show the existing garage
-On the 2015 plans, the only thing that looks nonconforming to easements is the garage.
There is no scale marking on the plans but it is 3/16” away from the fence when viewed
at 50%
-“The Poncetta Residence”
-Architect: Flury Bryant design group
312 Bachman
-Page 94 of microfiche has an architectural plan. The only thing that might be
non-conforming is the extended garage (I think, its hard to read as the focus of the
diagrams was the main house only)
-17 May 2004, approved 6/21/2004
-“Hubbard Santangeli Residence”
-Architect E. Gary Schloh
LG library, 8/4/2025:
Polk directories (shows residents of 321 Bachman):
1939, 1940: 321 Bachman is not listed
1941: Biermann C F
1943, 1944, 1945: Kleiner Rudolph
1947: Countryman J. L.
1949-50, 1954, 1956, 1958: Fetsch Carrie Mrs
1952: no pink street guide section
1955: no Los Gatos in guide
1960, 1962, 1964: Young Doris Mrs
1965: Vandeberg Bessie E Mrs
1967: “vacant”
1968: Smyth Ethelyn H Mrs
1969: “no return”
1970, 1971, 1972, 1974: Hamner Eldo Mrs (spelled Hammer in 1970)
1974 was last Polk Directory on file, telephone directories after that don’t have street look-up
.,.,,,..
ATTACHMENT 5
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 6
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
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank