Loading...
HPB Agenda Packet - 05-22-2019Historic Preservation Board REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, May 22, 2019 | 5:00 PM City Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 N First St., Campbell, California CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approval of Minutes of April 24, 2019 Meeting Minutes, 4/24/2019 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the Board on matters of community interest that are not listed on the agenda. In the interest of time, the Chair may limit speakers to three minutes. Please be aware that State law prohibits the Board from acting on non-agendized items, however, the Chair may refer matters to staff for follow-up. BOARD/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.360 E. Campbell Avenue – Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Public Hearing to consider the application of Pino Spanu for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019-89) to allow installation of a retractable awning on a Structure of Merit commonly known as the Second Bank of Campbell Building on property located at 360 E Campbell Avenue. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Staff Report NEW BUSINESS 3.Approval of Correspondence – GPAC Envision Campbell Letter (Voice Vote) Approval of formal correspondence from the HPB to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) on the importance of historic preservation in the new Campbell General Plan. Staff Report Historic Preservation Board Agenda for May 22, 2019 Pg. 2 4. Approval of Correspondence – Letter of Commendation/ Four Corners Properties (Voice Vote) Approval of formal correspondence from the HPB to Four Corners Properties commending the company for its work on the Cannery Project located at 300 Orchard City Drive.  Staff Report OLD BUSINESS 5. Kennedy Tract Surveys Continued discussion on surveyed Kennedy Tract (Catalpa properties).  Staff Memorandum ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Historic Preservation Board meeting of June 26, 2019, at 5:00 PM, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistance devices are available for meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation to participate in the meeting, please contact Corinne Shinn at the Community Development Department, at corinnes@cityofcampbell.com or (408) 866-2140. Historic Preservation Board REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, April 24, 2019 City Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 N First St., Campbell CALL TO ORDER The Historic Preservation Board meeting of April 24, 2019, was called to order at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Foulkes, and the following proceedings were had to wit. ROLL CALL HPB Members Present: Michael Foulkes, Chair Yvonne Kendall, Vice Chair Susan Blake Laura Taylor Moore Todd Walter HPB Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Naz Pouya, Assistant Planner Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approval of HPB Minutes of March 27, 2019 Motion: Upon motion of Board Member Walter, seconded by Board Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board minutes of the meeting of March 27, 2019, were approved as submitted. (3-0-0-2; Board Members Kendall and Moore abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (ITEMS NOT AGENDIZED) None BOARD/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS, UPDATES AND REQUESTS Planner Daniel Fama: •Provided an update on 360 E. Campbell Avenue. He advised that Director Kermoyan has suggested that Mr. Pino Spanu apply for a Historic Resource Item No. 1 Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 2 of 10 Alteration Permit for further consideration of his desire to have an awning at this location. This application will be considered by the Historic Preservation Board and then the Planning Commission. • Added that the brick for this building will be arriving in about a month. • Advised that he has asked to receive advance notice of delivery so he can be present. Board Member Blake: • Reported that she recently attended a historic grant writing program put on by Santa Clara County. She saw Mike Kotowski and Barbara Johnson at this training. Mike is working to secure grant funds for the Trolley Cars in San Jose. • Advised that the program has $5 million to allocate in grants to projects within the five districts of the county. We are in District 4. • Added that these grants are “reimbursement” grants. Cities must match any funds provided by grant. • Said that she had inquired if preparation of HRI surveys was a qualified activity for which to receive grant funding. She said that the County advised that the concentration and/or priority areas are those with currently untold stories and/or disadvantaged areas. She said that minority populations are not well represented. Board Member Kendall asked what about the history of packing plants in Campbell. Board Member Blake asked staff when the HPB might get the Update on the Mills Act Contracts. Planner Daniel Fama said he was not sure given his current work flow. Board Member Blake: • Said she hoped Mills Act could be discussed in the next few months. • Reported that the information Planner Daniel Fama provide from Richmond, California, was very interesting and she recommends that the Board consider adding such information to our own General Plan. • Suggested that subject be discussed at a future meeting. Planner Daniel Fama: • Suggested that members of HPB could approach the GPAC (General Plan Advisory Committee) as individuals within the community to make that suggestion and/or they could elect to agendize the issue on a future HPB agenda and subsequently transmit a letter on to the City Council to speak as one-voice of the HPB. PUBLIC HEARINGS None Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 3 of 10 NEW BUSINESS 2. 167 Alice Avenue – Review of Field Changes: Referral from the Community Development Director requesting that the Historic Preservation Board review field changes from an approved building permit on property located at 167 Alice Avenue. Board Member Kendall advised that she must recuse from participating in this item due to living within noticing distance proximity to this property. She left the dais and chamber for the duration of this item. Ms. Naz Pouya, Assistant Planner, provided the staff report as follows: • Advised that staff is looking for direction from the HPB in dealing with work done under a Building Permit. • Reported that the scope of work performed under this Building Permit exceeded what was approved for that permit on this historic property at 167 Alice Avenue. • Said that the approved scope of work included new and replacement windows and doors. The approval was based upon the provisions in place under the previous Historic Preservation Ordinance. This property was granted a Mills Act Contract last year (2018). • Advised that there were changes from the approved plans. The first was the foundation treatment, a protecting metal flashing, that was installed and then painted to help obscure it. The second deviation was the replacement of an existing garden window with a bay window. Third the roof replacement was not in the scope of work. Another window on the side of the house was three separate windows and is now one large window. • Said the question for HPB is do they find these modifications to be consistent. Does HPB have any suggestions? Does the HPB think that a Conditional Use Permit should be required? Sjur-Olah Bendiksen, Property Owner, 167 Alice Avenue: • Confirmed that his property was granted a Mills Act Contract last year. • Added that all proposed changes were on the plan submitted for the Mills Act. • Pointed out that foundation flashing was a part of the original house. He painted it but there is no landscaping in place yet so it’s still visible. • Said that as to the bay/garden window, the only missing component is a glass roof. • Said that he has an affidavit from his contractor. His contractor is here. • Said that he obtained a roof permit in March 2018 that included 10 squares or 1,000 square feet. • Stated that it was “sad we’re being picked on.” Planner Daniel Fama: • Responded that staff is not picking on these owners but rather has worked to accommodate them in such a way as to avoid their having to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 4 of 10 • Cautioned that accurate plans do matter. Construction must be done strictly to plan. If there are to be changes to approved plans they should be approved prior to the work actually being done. Board Member Blake: • Stated that it is important to be consistent with the architectural style and character of a historic home. • Said that she agrees with staff. • Said that what has been done is an improvement over what was there. The architect did a nice job duplicating the roof lines. • Advised that she is okay with what took place on this home. • Added that typically the HPB doesn’t get into roof color. Planner Daniel Fama said that the roof permit was for the garage. The re-roof of the house itself was not part of that permit. Board Member Walter agreed that the 10 squares of roofing were for the original permit for the garage. Board Member Moore concurred with Board Member Blake. Board Member Blake said this is a work in progress. The landscaping is not done yet. Board Member Walter: • Stated that he is fine with the modifications but it is important to property clean up the documenting paperwork. • Said that this home looks great. The bay window offers more charm and blends in with the home. • Added that he is glad they painted the flashing. Chair Foulkes: • Stated that the flashing looks terrible and is not historic. It should be pulled out. • Said that having a Mills Act holds a property owner up to a higher standard. There are just a few Mills Act Contracts in Campbell. • Admitted that it appears his colleagues don’t object to what’s been done. • Asked staff if a motion is required. Planner Daniel Fama replied staff just needed general guidance from the Board. 3. ADU Standards for Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) Properties: Request for the Historic Preservation Board to discuss potentially establishing special standards for Accessory Dwelling Units on HRI properties Daniel Fama provided the staff report as follows: Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 5 of 10 • Advised that a comprehensive update to the City’s ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) Ordinance has been in process for the last eighteen months or so. • Added that in the past the City has been very resistant to ADUs. • Reported that due to the existing housing crisis the winds have changed. • Stated that State laws are loosening the local jurisdictions’ rights to regulate ADUs. • Said that at the present time there are no provisions for historic properties and staff thinks that should be incorporated into the ADU Ordinance in some manner. It would be helpful for HPB to discuss this and offer feedback to be incorporated into the draft ADU Ordinance. • Advised that the Planning Commission recently conducted two study sessions to offer feedback to staff in order to accommodate the next revisions. • Said that some cities prohibit ADU’s outright on historic properties but the Board may want to consider types of standards. Using a portion of a house, mostly interior work, is the easiest option. • Added that not much design review is allowed. • Said that placement of ADU can be anywhere on a property subject to setbacks. Board Member Blake said that evaluating an historic house is focused on the streetscape and façade and how it is integrated into its neighborhood. Board Member Kendall: • Advised that her home is a Landmark home. • Added that no changes are allowed to the exterior of her house. • Stated that she doesn’t have sufficient room to have an ADU on her property. Planner Daniel Fama admitted that he is not exactly sure whether use of Mills Act dollars are appropriate being used for an addition. Board Member Blake agreed with the points made in the report. Planner Daniel Fama’s suggestions are good. Page 3 references a zoning exception. Board Member Moore said the purpose is to relax regulations. Planner Daniel Fama: • Reiterated that State law takes out public review. • Added that we must have standards that are objective and not subjective. • Suggested crafting firmer but objective standards for historic structures. Board Member Kendall referenced page 2 of 3 and pointed out that the first six listed points demonstrates that zoning exceptions go to the Planning Commission rather than to the Historic Preservation Board. Board Member Walter asked if zoning exceptions are included in the new Historic Preservation Ordinance. How does the HP Ordinance apply to ADU’s? Board Member Moore asked how many properties are eligible for ADU’s. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 6 of 10 Planner Daniel Fama said it is estimated that there are 2,000 properties eligible for an ADU. Board Member Moore pointed out that there are just 127 properties designated as historic. Planner Daniel Fama: • Stated that changes to State law are acting like a hammer on local oversight of ADU’s. • Adding that laws supporting ADU’s will trump the Historic Preservation Ordinance. • Suggested that if the Board wants a zoning exception process to allow them some flexibility they should modify this HP Ordinance to address ADU’s. Board Member Blake asked about design review. Planner Daniel Fama said there is no design review and no public hearing. The State is taking it away. Board Member Blake asked why even discuss this issue if that is the case. Planner Daniel Fama said that we can still create objective standards applicable across the board. Chair Foulkes said that attached versus detached ADU’s on an historic property is a critical issue. He asked staff if a barn is qualified for conversion into an ADU. Planner Daniel Fama said existing space within a dwelling and existing detached structures are eligible. Chair Foulkes: • Said that historic properties are often on a small lot. • Stated his preference for a detached ADU building rather adding onto an historic residence. • Added that he would support encroaching on a lot line setback to protect a historic structure. • Suggested pushing hard to not allow an attached ADU be added onto an historic structure but provide a clearer path for detached ADU’s. Board Member Kendall: • Pointed out that a barn has no structure on the inside. There are no interior walls, electrical or plumbing. • Concluded that as a result they are not as likely to be allowed to be converted. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said it doesn’t deal with what it needs in order to convert. The intent is to convert a structure and not to rebuild it altogether. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 7 of 10 • Cautioned that some structures are not reusable. • Added that it needs to be clear what it actually takes to convert a building since a totally new detached ADU must meet current development standards. • Added that an existing building located within setbacks could be converted but not rebuilt. Board Member Walter: • Said he is on the fence between attached and detached ADU’s. • Pointed out that some lots are so small that we won’t even see ADU’s located at the back. • Stated that he is in favor of ADU’s in the rear of a lot but not at the front. • Stressed the need for consistency. • Questioned whether an attached ADU and/or a detached ADU lends itself better. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that is a challenging question and there is not just one answer. • Added that no matter what is adopted someone will still not be able to do what they want in regards to an ADU. Chair Foulkes said that he finds detached ADU’s to be better. Planner Daniel Fama said that a homeowner can start out with an addition and later do a conversion of that space into an attached ADU. ADU’s are specifically supported under State law even if it’s not really fair. Board Member Walters: • Asked if ADU size is based on lot size. • Suggested perhaps requiring a detached ADU on a large lot but allowing for an attached ADU on a smaller lot. Board Member Blake: • Pointed out that a lot of historic houses are located at the front of a large and deep lot. • Said that those lots are more likely to determine a better option there. Board Member Moore reminded that the front façade is the critical part of a historic home. Planner Daniel Fama reminded that ADU’s sidestep normal review process. He added that attached versus detached is a size issue as an attached ADU can by right be half of the house size. Attached ADU’s can be up to 1,200 square feet. Board Member Moore said that a larger ADU is better than tearing down a building and putting in an apartment building. Board Member Kendall asked if a garage can be attached to ADU’s. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 8 of 10 Planner Daniel Fama said that the Planning Commission felt that size restrictions were unnecessary and instead felt that using the FAR standards to determine size would suffice. Board Member Blake asked staff if the Board has provided enough feedback. Planner Daniel Fama sought clarification that the HPB supports allowing attached ADU’s on historic structures. Board Member Kendall replied yes but at the back. Not upstairs on a one-story house. Planner Daniel Fama reiterated the support for attached ADU’s that are located at the back and not second story. Chair Foulkes said he was not in favor of attached ADU’s on historic structures. Board Member Blake asked at what PC meeting the ADU Ordinance would next be considered. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that will depend on when the Ordinance is drafted. • Reported that on May 7th Council will consider whether the scope of the ADU Ordinance to allow changes in one area should be allowed. • Advised that he must first complete the draft of the ADU Ordinance, allow time for the City Attorney to review the draft and then bring it back to the Planning Commission for public hearing. 4. National Historic Preservation Month Commemoration: Discussion on Historic Preservation Board activities for commemoration of National Historic Preservation Month. Planner Daniel Fama asked the Board if they have any ideas for Historic Preservation Month. Board Member Kendall: • Asked whether a “Did you know” trivia game might be developed on historical topics ranging from buildings, people and things within the community. • Suggested that the different trivia questions be posted onto NextDoor and incorporate supporting pictures. Board Member Blake referenced History Mystery. Planner Daniel Fama advised that the City has a Social Media Coordinator operating out of the Police Department who could be a useful resource in media outreach. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 9 of 10 Board Member Blake suggested spreading out the various trivia items. Board Member Walter suggested adding this trivia game to the walking tour app. Planner Daniel Fama said he would check in with PD. If okay, we can feed the Social Media Coordinator Letysia Garcia the HPB content she can post as appropriate. Board Member Kendall referenced famous unsolved murders. Board Member Blake: • Suggested as one project for HPB to commemorate Historic Preservation Month could be preparing a Letter of Commendation for the owners of 300 Orchard City Drive for their recent major renovation of that historic site. • Added that another good thing to highlight would be the 11 Historic Landmarks located in Campbell. • Reported that there is a Facebook page called Campbell Water Tower that covers issues of interest to the people who love Campbell. • Agreed that NextDoor is another outreach tool. • Suggested that the HPB coordinate a celebration of the re-opening of Pino’s restaurant at 360 E. Campbell Avenue when the historic building’s renovations are completed. Board Member Walter: • Suggested that the HPB conduct one of its meetings at Pino’s restaurant. • Said that letters of recognition could be written during the month of May. Perhaps thanking property owners for their work to retain their historic houses. • Commending On-Site, public kudos, displays, website and newspaper articles. OLD BUSINESS 5. Kennedy Tract Surveys: Discuss surveyed Kennedy Tract properties. Planner Daniel Fama gave the following staff report: • Advised that the current potentials spreadsheet list was translated into a Word document. • Added that he removed those properties that the HPB decided to remove from consideration at the last meeting. • Stated that Board Member Kendall has also reviewed the El Caminito properties. At this point, Planner Daniel Fama provided a visual tour of the homes under consideration on El Caminito Avenue, California Street and Cherry Lane as possible potential additions to the HRI. As a group, the members evaluated the streetscape frontage photographs using Google Earth. The options were: No, Maybe or No Change. The results are as follows: Historic Preservation Board Minutes for April 24, 2019 Page 10 of 10 El Caminito Consider for HRI California Street Consider for HR 61 No 418 No Change (Maybe) 77 No 322 No Change (Maybe) 121 No 294 No Change (Maybe) 133 No 151 No Cherry Lane Consider for HRI 156 No 79 No Change (Maybe) 207 Maybe 126 No Change (Maybe) 229 No 198 No Change (Maybe) Catalpa Lane At this point, the Board decided to review and consider the homes on Catalpa Lane at its next meeting on May 22nd. Planner Daniel Fama said he would try to have the permits for those properties available for the next meeting ADJOURNMENT The Historic Preservation Board meeting adjourned at 6:36 p.m. to the next Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting of May 22, 2019. PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ______________________________________ Michael Foulkes, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________________ Daniel Fama, HPB Staff Liaison Item No. 2 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Staff Report ∙ MAY 22, 2019 PLN2019-89 Spanu Public Hearing to consider the application of Pino Spanu for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019-89) to allow installation of a retractable awning on a Structure of Merit commonly known as the Second Bank of Campbell Building on property located at 360 E Campbell Avenue in the C-3 (Central Business District) Zoning District. (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Historic Preservation Board take one of the following actions: 1.Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), recommending that the Planning Commission deny a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019-89); OR 2.Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 2), recommending that the CommunityDevelopment Director approve a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019-89). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION As the Board is not the decision-making authority on this request, its action is not considered a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as defined by Public Resources Code § 21065. DISCUSSION Project Site: The project site is located at the southwest corner of Campbell and Central Avenues within the C-3 (Central Business District) Zoning District. The property is developed with the Second Bank of Campbell Building, a designated Structure of Merit constructed circa 1911 in an Italian Renaissance Revival style (reference Attachment 3 – DPR Form). Background: On July 25, 2017, the Planning Commission, upon recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board, approved a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76) to allow a minor addition, façade restoration, and seismic retrofit of the Second Bank of Campbell Building. Minor changes to the approved design and window material were also approved by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2019. Construction activity is still ongoing. Separate from the overall project, the proprietor of the restaurant housed within the building approached staff regarding adding a retractable awning and wall-mounted lighting and heating fixtures. The Community Development Director forwarded this request to the Board for an informal review to help guide his decision as to whether an awning "would not alter the character- defining features of the structure…" At its meeting March 27, 2019, the Board reviewed the awning request and expressed concern that installation could damage the building, overly conceal the easterly building façade, and interrupt the rhythm of the windows. Based on the Board's feedback, the Community Development Director denied the request for the awning. Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of May 22, 2019 Page 2 of 3 PLN2019-89 ~ 360 E. Campbell Avenue Following the Board meeting, staff met with the applicants to discuss next steps. Since there was continuing disagreement over the Community Development Director's decision, the Director indicated that the awning request could go back the Board as a Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Tier 1). If upon further review the Board is amendable to the awning, the Board could recommend approval of a Historic Resource Alteration Permit such that the Community Development Director would approve the awning as a "minor change" to the approved Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76).1 However, if the Board maintains concerns about the awning, it could recommend denial of the Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Tier 1), which in turn would require the request to be processed as a "major change" subject to the review and decision by the Planning Commission as a Modification to the Site and Architectural Review Permit. ANALYSIS Recommendation of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit requires the Board to find that the project complies with the Campbell Municipal Code and applicable design guidelines, and would not have a "significant impact" on the historic resource. Additionally, the project must comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards such that the decision-making body can affirmatively find: (a) The proposed action will preserve and retain the historic character of the historic resource and will be compatible with the existing historic features, size, massing, scale and proportion, and materials. (b) The proposed action will, to the greatest extent possible, avoid removal or significant alteration of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and spatial relationships that characterize the historic resource. (c) Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced to the greatest extent possible. (d) New additions will be differentiated from the historic resource and will be constructed such that the essential form and integrity of the historic resource shall be protected if the addition is removed in the future. To what extent the proposed awning would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the aforementioned finidings, is a matter for the Board to discuss and determine. The applicants have provided revised plans in response to the Board's previous comments that show installation of three separated awnings installed at the windows' midline (reference Attachment 4). The plans also show that installation can be accomplished through drilling into the grout joints, as supported by an engineer's calculation (reference Attachment 5), in order to protect the historic brickwork. Additionally, a PowerPoint presentation that includes revised photo-simulations of the awning system is provided as Attachment 6. The applicants will be in attendance to present to the Board and take questions. 1 Per CMC Sec. 21.56.060.C, a "minor change" is one that does not change the overall character of the proposed development" and would maintain consistency with the "all applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the spirit and intent of the original approval". Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of May 22, 2019 Page 3 of 3 PLN2019-89 ~ 360 E. Campbell Avenue Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution (denial) 2. Draft Resolution (approval) 3. DPR Form 4. Project Plans 5. Engineer's Calculations 6. PowerPoint Presentation Prepared by: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A TIER 1 HISTORIC RESOURCE ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALLOW INSTALLATION OF A RETRACTABLE AWNING SYSTEM, ON A STRUCTURE OF MERIT COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SECOND BANK OF CAMPBELL BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 360 E. CAMPBELL AVENUE IN THE C-3 (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) ZONING DISTRICT. FILE NO: PLN2019-89 After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Board Secretary, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. The Historic Preservation Board finds as follows with regards to file number PLN2019-89: 1.The project site is located at the southwest corner of Campbell and Central Avenues in Historic Downtown Campbell. 2.The project site is zoned C-3 (Central Business District) on the City of CampbellZoning Map. 3.The project site is designated Central Commercial on the City of Campbell General Plan Land Use diagram. 4.The project site is an approximately 1,500 square-foot commercial property developed with the Second Bank of Campbell Building, a designated Structure ofMerit constructed circa 1911 in an Italian Renaissance Revival style. 5.On July 25, 2017, the Planning Commission approved a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76) to allow a minor addition, façade restoration and seismic retrofit of the Second Bank of Campbell Building; and a Modification (PLN2016-99) to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (PLN2007-183) tomodify the interior configuration of an existing restaurant with approved general alcohol sales and late-night operational hours. 6.On March 12, 2019, the Planning Commission approved a Modification to a previously approved Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76), including a Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Tier 1), to allow a revised window and doordesign. 7.Subsequent to the Planning Commission's March 12, 2019, approval, the proprietor of the restaurant within the subject building, expressed a desire to install a retractable awning system on the subject building ("applicant"). 8.The Community Development Director forwarded this initial request to the HistoricPreservation Board informally to aid in his decision as to whether the awning system could be approved through the "expedited process" for changes would not alter the character-defining features of the structure of merit, pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.33.070.B.1.a(1). Attachment 1 Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 2 of 4 PLN2019-89 ~ 360 E. Campbell Ave. 9.The Historic Preservation Board reviewed this request at its meeting of March 27,2019. Based on the concerns raised by the Board, the Community Development Director subsequently denied the applicant's request to install an awning system. 10.Due to continuing disagreement on this decision, the Community Development Director determined that the request would return to the Board as a "Tier 1" Historic Resource Alteration Permit. 11.The proposed project, therefore, is installation of a retractable awning system that includes a separated awning over each of the three windows on the easterly building façade (Central Avenue side). 12.Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.33.070.B.2 (Discretionary Permit Applications) requires that discretionary development applications affecting a historicresource be reviewed in accordance with the standards for a "Tier 1" Historic Resource Alteration Permit, provided in Section 21.33.080 (Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Tier 1). 13.If the Board recommends approval of a Historic Resource Alteration Permit, the Community Development Director would approve the awning as a "minor change" tothe approved Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76). If the Board recommends denial, the awning would be considered a "major change," requiring a formal Modification to the Site and Architectural Review Permit to be considered by the Planning Commission. 14.The proposed awning system would overly conceal the easterly building façade andinterrupt the rhythm of the windows. 15.Pursuant to CMC Sec. 21.56.060.C, a "minor change" is one that does not change the overall character of the proposed development" and would maintain consistency with the "all applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the spirit and intent of the original approval," whereas a "major change" would not. 16.The proposed project is consistent with the C-3 (Central Business District) Design Standards with respect to building mass, building form and composition, storefront design, materials, colors, and finishes, and overall building quality. 17.The proposed project would be consistent with the following General Plan policies: Policy LUT-8.1:Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources: Preserve, rehabilitate or restore the City’s historic buildings, landmarks, districts and cultural resources and retain the architectural integrity of established building patterns within historic residential neighborhoods to preserve the cultural heritage of the community. Strategy LUT-8.1c: Adaptive Re-Use: Encourage adaptive reuse of and incorporation of the city’s historic buildings and structures for new development projects, when feasible. Strategy LUT-8.1h: Historic Preservation Incentives: Develop incentives to encourage preservation and restoration including allowing the use of appropriate historic Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 3 of 4 PLN2019-89 ~ 360 E. Campbell Ave. Building and Fire Codes and leniency on certain standard development requirements. Policy CNR-1.1: Historic Resource Preservation: Ensure that the City and its citizens preserve historic resources as much as possible. Policy D-4.1: Historic Preservation and Redevelopment Compatibility: The small town character of Downtown Campbell shall be maintained by encouraging the preservation of important historic resources, promoting the improvement of existing properties and businesses, and encouraging new development compatible in design with existing and newly approved development. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Historic Preservation Board further finds and concludes that: Historic Resource Alteration Permit – Tier 1 Findings (CMC Sec. 21.33.080): 1.The proposed action is inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter and theapplicable requirements of the Municipal Code; 2.The proposed action is inconsistent with the applicable design guidelines, including, but not limited to, the Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings; 3.The proposed action will have a significant impact on the aesthetic, architectural,cultural, or engineering interest or historical value of the historic resource or district; 4.The proposed action is inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, as follows: THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Preservation Board recommends that the Planning Commission deny a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019-89) for installation of the proposed awning system, for a Structure of Merit commonly known as the Second Bank of Campbell Building on property located at 360 E. Campbell Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of May, 2019, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Board Members: NOES: Board Members: ABSENT: Board Members: ABSTAIN: Board Members: APPROVED: Michael Foulkes, Chair ATTEST: Daniel Fama, Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TIER 1 HISTORIC RESOURCE ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALLOW INSTALLATION OF A RETRACTABLE AWNING SYSTEM AS A MINOR CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT (PLN2016-76), ON A STRUCTURE OF MERIT COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SECOND BANK OF CAMPBELL BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 360 E. CAMPBELL AVENUE IN THE C-3 (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) ZONING DISTRICT. FILE NO: PLN2019-89 After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Board Secretary, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. The Historic Preservation Board finds as follows with regards to file number PLN2019-89: 1.The project site is located at the southwest corner of Campbell and Central Avenuesin Historic Downtown Campbell. 2.The project site is zoned C-3 (Central Business District) on the City of Campbell Zoning Map. 3.The project site is designated Central Commercial on the City of Campbell General Plan Land Use diagram. 4.The project site is an approximately 1,500 square-foot commercial property developed with the Second Bank of Campbell Building, a designated Structure of Merit constructed circa 1911 in an Italian Renaissance Revival style. 5.On July 25, 2017, the Planning Commission approved a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76) to allow a minor addition, façade restoration andseismic retrofit of the Second Bank of Campbell Building; and a Modification (PLN2016-99) to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (PLN2007-183) to modify the interior configuration of an existing restaurant with approved general alcohol sales and late-night operational hours. 6.On March 12, 2019, the Planning Commission approved a Modification to apreviously approved Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76), including a Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Tier 1), to allow a revised window and door design. 7.Subsequent to the Planning Commission's March 12, 2019, approval, the proprietor of the restaurant within the subject building, expressed a desire to install a retractableawning system on the subject building ("applicant"). 8.The Community Development Director forwarded this initial request to the Historic Preservation Board informally to aid in his decision as to whether the awning system could be approved through the "expedited process" for changes would not alter the Attachment 2 Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 2 of 4 PLN2019-89 ~ 360 E. Campbell Ave. character-defining features of the structure of merit, pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.33.070.B.1.a(1). 9.The Historic Preservation Board reviewed this request at its meeting of March 27, 2019. Based on the concerns raised by the Board, the Community Development Director subsequently denied the applicant's request to install an awning system. 10.Due to continuing disagreement on this decision, the Community DevelopmentDirector determined that the request would return to the Board as a "Tier 1" Historic Resource Alteration Permit. 11.The proposed project, therefore, is installation of a retractable awning system that includes a separated awning over each of the three windows on the easterly building façade (Central Avenue side). 12.Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.33.070.B.2 (Discretionary Permit Applications) requires that discretionary development applications affecting a historic resource be reviewed in accordance with the standards for a "Tier 1" Historic Resource Alteration Permit, provided in Section 21.33.080 (Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Tier 1). 13.If the Board recommends approval of a Historic Resource Alteration Permit, the Community Development Director would approve the awning as a "minor change" to the approved Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76). If the Board recommends denial, the awning would be considered a "major change," requiring a formal Modification to the Site and Architectural Review Permit to be considered bythe Planning Commission. 14.The proposed awning system would not overly conceal the easterly building façade, or interrupt the rhythm of the windows. 15.Pursuant to CMC Sec. 21.56.060.C, a "minor change" is one that does not change the overall character of the proposed development" and would maintain consistencywith the "all applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the spirit and intent of the original approval," whereas a "major change" would not. 16.The proposed project is consistent with the C-3 (Central Business District) Design Standards with respect to building mass, building form and composition, storefront design, materials, colors, and finishes, and overall building quality. 17.The proposed project would be consistent with the following General Plan policies: Policy LUT-8.1:Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources: Preserve, rehabilitate or restore the City’s historic buildings, landmarks, districts and cultural resources and retain the architectural integrity of established building patterns within historic residential neighborhoods to preserve the cultural heritage of the community. Strategy LUT-8.1c: Adaptive Re-Use: Encourage adaptive reuse of and incorporation of the city’s historic buildings and structures for new development projects, when feasible. Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 3 of 4 PLN2019-89 ~ 360 E. Campbell Ave. Strategy LUT-8.1h: Historic Preservation Incentives: Develop incentives to encourage preservation and restoration including allowing the use of appropriate historic Building and Fire Codes and leniency on certain standard development requirements. Policy CNR-1.1: Historic Resource Preservation: Ensure that the City and its citizens preserve historic resources as much as possible. Policy D-4.1: Historic Preservation and Redevelopment Compatibility: The small town character of Downtown Campbell shall be maintained by encouraging the preservation of important historic resources, promoting the improvement of existing properties and businesses, and encouraging new development compatible in design with existing and newly approved development. 18.No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently presented will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Historic Preservation Board further finds and concludes that: Historic Resource Alteration Permit – Tier 1 Findings (CMC Sec. 21.33.080): 1.The proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the applicable requirements of the Municipal Code; 2.The proposed action is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, including, butnot limited to, the Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings; 3.The proposed action will not have a significant impact on the aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering interest or historical value of the historic resource or district; 4.The proposed action is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, as follows: a.The proposed action will preserve and retain the historic character of the historic resource and will be compatible with the existing historic features, size, massing, scale and proportion, and materials. b.The proposed action will, to the greatest extent possible, avoid removal or significant alteration of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and spatialrelationships that characterize the historic resource. c.Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced to the greatest extent possible. d.New additions will be differentiated from the historic resource and will be constructed such that the essential form and integrity of the historic resourceshall be protected if the addition is removed in the future. Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 4 of 4 PLN2019-89 ~ 360 E. Campbell Ave. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Preservation Board recommends that the Community Development Director approve a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019-89) and approve the installation of the proposed awning system as a minor change to the previously approved Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76), for a Structure of Merit commonly known as the Second Bank of Campbell Building on property located at 360 E. Campbell Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of May, 2019, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Board Members: NOES: Board Members: ABSENT: Board Members: ABSTAIN: Board Members: APPROVED: Michael Foulkes, Chair ATTEST: Daniel Fama, Secretary DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or #: Second Bank of Campbell Building P1. Other Identifier: Campbell Historic Resource *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County Santa Clara and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T; R ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; B.M. c. Address 360 E. Campbell Ave.City Campbell Zip 95008 d.UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone ,mE/ mN e.Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., asappropriate) APN: 412-07-030 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials,condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The Italian Renaissance Revival style Second Bank of Campbell building has a parapet roof with a wide, overhanging cornice supported by pairs of decorative brackets. The building is clad with white glazed brick that form a simple decorative frieze and frames the large arched windows with pilasters. The sills tri-part windows form a projected terra cotta belt course. The front entrance and windows have been remodeled. The building is in good condition and retains a high degree of historical integrity. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) 06- Commercial building*P4. Resources Present:  Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b.Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) Front Façade,07/12/07 *P6. Date Constructed/Age andSource:  Historic  Prehistoric  Both 1911 *P7. Owner and Address:Salvatore & Karen Blancato, trustee1 301 Eureka Canyon Rd. Corralitos, CA 95076 *P8. Recorded by: (Name,affiliation, and address) G. Laffey, Archives & Architecture 353 Surber DR. San Jose, CA 95123 *P9. Date Recorded: 9/1998 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Inventory Update *P11. Report Citation: (Citesurvey report and other sources, or enter "none.") 1977-78 Historic Resources Inventory, Jack Burns, Historical Advisor *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (List): State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date P5a.Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) Attachment 3 DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information *NRHP Status CodePage 2 of 2 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)B1.Historic Name: Mrs. Putnam’s Dry Good Store B2. Common Name: Mrs. Putnam’s Dry Good Store B3. Original Use: Clothing Store B4. Present Use: Commercial *B5. Architectural Style: Commercial Brick Building 1911 *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Built, 1911. First story front façade has been remodeled. *B7. Moved?  No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: Building at 354 E. Campbell was part of original construction. B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown*B10. Significance: Theme Architecture, Economic/Industrial Area Period of Significance Property TypeApplicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The second Bank of Campbell was built in 1911 and located on the southwest corner of E. Campbell Avenue and Central Avenue. While here the bank was merged with the Garden City Bank of San Jose and later merged with the American Trust Company. Since it ceased being a bank, there have been many tenant, including the Ford Motor Company which used it as a showroom; the Campbell Water Company offices; Jeffer’s Clothing Store; an acrobatic shop; and finally in 1978 the Western Lifetime Cookware. A store front was added (date unknown) however, the interior has retained the original woodwork, plaster and bank vault. With little restoration work required this architectural structure of merit is important in maintaining the visual character of the commercial row of Downtown Campbell. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: Dennis L. Wardell (March 2, 1982) Campbell Museum 75 N. Central B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: See P8 *Date of Evaluation: See P9 State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD (This space reserved for official comments.) Attachment 4 Attachment 5 5/13/2019 1 Outdoor Patio Project Fine Dining Italian Restaurant 360 East Campbell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 Present by: Business Owners: Giuseppe Spanu (Pino) & Hongyu Gui •Mount the retractable awnings will NOT damage the exterior building structure •Structural calculations  & drawings available upon request •Awning can be easily removed if the business owners vacate the building •Following slides from Quilici Engineers work Engaged Quilici Engineers for structural drawings  and calculations for outdoor awning connections Attachment 6 5/13/2019 2 5/13/2019 3 Selected Awning Vendor:  European Rolling Shutters (ERS) •ERS is San Francisco Bay Area Shading Expert since 1983 •Custom‐design, custom‐made •Offer different colors/pattern, Sunbrella‐brand fabric, and style, with premium materials imported from Europe •Products fabricated and assembled from start to finish in SanJose, CA •Following slides of sample retractable awnings from ERS 5/13/2019 4 Beaufort Sagebrush  (Frame Open) Beaufort Sagebrush  (Frame Closed) 5/13/2019 5 Beaufort Sagebrush  (View from Campbell Avenue) Beaufort Sagebrush  (Frame Closed, View from Campbell Avenue) 5/13/2019 6 Crest Birch (Frame Open) Crest Birch (Frame Closed) 5/13/2019 7 Nice Outdoor Patio Setting adds  Great Value to our business! •Italian Restaurant with 20‐year long term lease •Winning back business exposure •Make up the outdoor seat loss due to building restoration •Add European ambiance to the business Storefront prior to building restoration 5/13/2019 8 Storefront prior to building restoration Storefront prior to building restoration Item No. 3 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Staff Report ∙ MAY 22, 2019 City Approval of formal correspondence from the HPB to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) on the importance of historic preservation in the new Campbell General Plan. (Voice Vote) STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Historic Preservation Board take the following action: 1.Make a Motion, to approve transmittal of formal correspondence from the HPB to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) on the importance of historic preservation in thenew Campbell General Plan. DISCUSSION As discussed at the Board's April 24, 2019 meeting, staff has drafted a letter from the HPB to General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) on the importance of historic preservation in the new Campbell General Plan (reference Attachment 1). Attachments: 1.Draft Letter Prepared by: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department 70 North First Street • Campbell, CA 95008-1423 • TEL (408) 866-2140 • FAX (408) 866-5140 • E-MAIL planning@cityofcampbell.com May 22, 2019 General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) City of Campbell 70 N First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Dear GPAC Members, As you resume your discussions on the future of Campbell we urge you to also give consideration to the community's past. Remembrance of our history is vital for Campbell to maintain its cultural heritage in the years to come. If we make a concerted effort to highlight the importance of historic preservation in our new General Plan, we may yet succeed in passing on the stories and physical artifacts of our history to another generation. Specifically, the Board encourages the GPAC to explore ways to breathe life into Campbell's history through use of narrative and graphical interpretation. An excellent example may be found in the City of Richmond's 2030 General Plan, which incorporates a separate Element dedicated to historic preservation (http://bit.ly/HistoryRichmond). By providing a visually attractive and engaging history of Richmond's past, this General Plan provides a deep grounding for its adopted policies and goals, strengthening the bonds between past and present. Although the era of the Valley of Hearts Delight may be behind us, we must not forget our origins as The Orchard City. We thank you for your time and commitment to the Campbell community. Sincerely, _______________________________ D. Michael Foulkes, Chair _______________________________ Yvonne Kendall, Vice Chair _______________________________ Todd Walter, Board Member _______________________________ Laura Taylor Moore, Board Member _______________________________ Susan Blake, Board Member cc: City Council Planning Commission Brian Loventhal, City Manager Paul Kermoyan, Community Development Director Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Ben Ritchie, De Novo Planning Group Attachment 1 Item No. 4 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Staff Report ∙ MAY 22, 2019 City Approval of formal correspondence from the HPB to Four Corners Properties commending the company for its work on the Cannery Project located at 300 Orchard City Drive. (Voice Vote) STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Historic Preservation Board take the following action: 1.Make a Motion, to approve transmittal of formal correspondence from the HPB to Four Corners Properties commending the company for its work on the Cannery Project located at300 Orchard City Drive. DISCUSSION As discussed at the Board's April 24, 2019 meeting, Board Member Blake has drafted a letter from the HPB to Four Corners Properties commending the company for its work on the Cannery Project located at 300 Orchard City Drive (reference Attachment 1). Attachments: 1.Draft Letter Prepared by: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department 70 North First Street • Campbell, CA 95008-1423 • TEL (408) 866-2140 • FAX (408) 866-5140 • E-MAIL planning@cityofcampbell.com May 22, 2019 Four Corners Properties Jonel C. Porta, Director 339 S. San Antonio Road, Suite 28 Los Altos, CA 94002 Dear Ms. Porta, The City of Campbell Historic Preservation Board would like to commend you for the outstanding work your company has done in completing The Cannery project at 300 Orchard City Drive. The contemporary update of this historic resource is being done with attention to and protection of the remaining historic elements left from the original 1892-1909, George C. Hyde- Sunset Growers Cannery. We appreciate the restoration of the Hyde-era architectural features such as the clear story windows, and the brick walls with original iron anchor plates. Thank you for remounting the historic marker and for creating the historic murals in the main lobby. You are setting a fine example of adaptive reuse for historic buildings. Thank you, _______________________________ D. Michael Foulkes, Chair _______________________________ Yvonne Kendall, Vice Chair _______________________________ Todd Walter, Board Member _______________________________ Laura Taylor Moore, Board Member _______________________________ Susan Blake, Board Member Attachment 1 Item No. 5 To: Chair Foulkes and Board Members Date: May 24, 2019 From: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Subject: Kennedy Tract Survey Last year, the Historic Preservation Board took preliminary steps to identify potentially historically significant properties in the Kennedy Tract neighborhood. Individual Board Members were assigned individual streets to survey: Moore: Catalpa Lane Kendall: El Caminito Ave Walter: Cherry Lane Foulkes: Budd Avenue Blake: California Street At the April 24th meeting, the Board reviewed the El Caminito Avenue properties identified by Board Member Kendall. As noted in the Meeting Minutes, only one of these properties was selected by the Board for further review (207). The Kennedy Tract spreadsheet has been updated to reflect the removal of the other properties (reference Attachment 1). The Board also reviewed building permit records for properties on California Avenue and Cherry Lane that had been previously identified for further review and decided to make no changes. Lastly, staff performed a permit search on the Catalpa Lane properties, which have been noted in the spreadsheet. As discussed previously, the Board should be ready to discuss the merits of the properties under considerations at the Board meeting so that the list may be further winnowed down. Attachments 1.Revised Kennedy Tract Survey City of Campbell MEMORANDUM Planning Division Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo Notes 207 El Caminito Post-war Minimalist 1 Large steel casement window, shallow eaves, masonite siding 1948 350 California Maybe Post WW2 1 Symetrical, open design, distinctice windowpatterns, 2 huge Cedars in front yard, drive way on left side. 1947 418 California Maybe Post WW2 1 Almost a match with house above, note prominent diamond window, 2 huge cedars in front yard, driveway on left 1947 Addition and remodel (2019) – Underway Reroof (2003) Bathroom Addition (2001) 322 California Maybe Post WW2 1 Slight Variation of of above. Diamond window driveway on left 1947 ADU off detached rear garage (2012) Attachment 1 Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo Notes 294 California Maybe Post WW2 1 Unique corner lot. House has many orginal character defining features. Single story addition to back of garage on Catalpa 1948-49 Reroof (2009) Repair fireplace (2009) 41 Cherry Maybe Ranch / Bungalow 1 Asymmetry, porch, stucco finish and door location 1950 78 Cherry Maybe Ranch / Bungalow 1 Detached garage, door location, fireplace in front, steep roof pitch 1948 Major Addition (2002) Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo Notes 126 Cherry Maybe Ranch / Bungalow 1 Asymmetry, porch, prominent fireplace, prominent window at corner, detached garage, wood siding throughout, simple symmetrical windows on 1948 Repair Chimney (2015) Demo porch at rear (2016) New roof (2016) 198 Cherry Maybe Ranch / Bungalow 1 Asymmetry, prominent windows, detached garage, low roof pitch, no porch 1947 Repair chimney (2007) Bathroom Addition (2011) 235 Cherry Maybe Ranch / Bungalow 1 Asymmetry, small porch, small house and quaint, wood siding throughout, detached garage, metal awnings 1947 Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo Notes 70 Catalpa 1 1953 New Master Bath (2005) 79 Catalpa 1 1954 92 Catalpa 1 1952 Re-roof (2007) 105 Catalpa 1 1952 Re-roof (2002) Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo Notes 121 Catalpa 1 1952 135 Catalpa 1 1953 136 Catalpa 1 1952 Re-roof (2005) 149 Catalpa 1 1956 Re-roof (2016) Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo Notes 150 Catalpa 1 1952 Master Bedroom Addition and New Master Bathroom (2014) 177 Catalpa 1 1953 178 Catalpa 1 1950 191 Catalpa 1 1953 New Garage and Deck (2001) New Photo- Voltaic System (2015) Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo Notes 192 Catalpa 1 1951 Kitchen extension and patio room (2003) New photo- voltaic system (2017) 206 Catalpa 1 1952 Post-war Minimalist AKA G.I House: May include split-lvels, but generally small (12 sq ft or less), floor-to-ceiling picture window, 1 or 2 car garage (attached or detached), lack of roof overhangs, small front porch, stucco, steel casement windows or double-hung with multi-fixed panes, shallow composite roofs Ranch: Asymmetry, porch, stucco finish and door location, divided light windows, brick wainscot, glass block window, detached garage, fireplace in front