INTRODUCTION:

The proposed restoration and remodel of the ranch-style house at 304 South Plymouth, as specified in this PROJECT PROPOSAL, is designed to be compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood, while maintaining the historical look and feel of the original structure.

The proposed development is intended to closely follow the guidelines found in the Windsor Square HPOZ Preservation Plan of July 2019, which recommends: 

“...that alterations are compatible with the historic streetscape and existing style of the building.  Most importantly, each project should respond to its surrounding context and help to create a seamless transition from architectural style to architectural style and from building type to building type.” 

The vast majority of the homes in this neighborhood are 2-story, in styles that present significant ‘stature’ and massing in their front-facing elevations. This PROJECT PROPOSAL puts forward a plan to add a 2nd story addition to the subject home, while maintaining the more modest lower and more horizontal look and feel of the original ‘ranch’ style home. 

The complete list of guidelines as specified on page 85, Section 8.2 Additions to Primary Structures (WINDSOR SQUARE HPOZ PRESERVATION PLAN) are re-stated verbatim and are address, point-by-point, in the section below entitled:  Findings and Justifications.

This proposed redevelopment is also designed to be in keeping with the two recent reference projects on 103 N Norton Ave and 267 S Windsor Blvd. which HPOZ staff and the board mentioned as example projects to follow.  For reference, see Appendix A and B at the end of this PROJECT PROPOSAL, which provides details of the precedent set by these recent examples.

Project Description:

Summary of Existing Conditions

The existing single-story structure is in a state of considerable disrepair,  and will require major restoration, repair and rehabilitation. 

It shows signs of significant dereliction from lack of proper maintenance, and appears to have been abandoned for some time.  Throughout the main structure there is termite and rot damage.  Significant mold and rot of structural members is evidenced at various portions of the walls (see details in link below).  

The following link is the plan and photographs of a preliminary analysis that document the structural and architectural issues of the current condition of the building.

Location:

The property is a corner lot on the South East corner of South Plymouth and 3rd Street, in the Windsor Square section of the Hancock Park neighborhood of Los Angeles. 

The north side of the property is adjacent to the larger busy and noisy 3rd Street, while the south of the property is more quiet and residential.  This strongly connects the subject property to the south side of the neighborhood.  3rd Street significantly divides the Windsor Square neighborhood to the north and the street is considered a secondary highway.  Many of the homes adjacent 3rd Street are flanked by high garden walls and tall vegetation in order to deal with the noise and pollution.  Likewise the north side of the subject property is similarly obscured by a high garden wall and tall vegetation.  

The lot is rectangular in shape, 101 feet by 180 feet. The currently existing development on the property consists of a one-story single family residence, a detached two-car garage, a driveway along the south side from Plymouth Blvd to the rear, and masonry perimeter walls along the side and rear yards. The property is open to Plymouth Blvd with various minor landscaping throughout. Natural features include canary island palms and a raised front yard.  

HPOZ Status:

The HPOZ Survey Report (dated: 03/18/2002 ) lists the house as contributing, and designates the historic architectural style as Ranch built in 1949.  

The survey notes do not specify any defining finishes or contributing design features of the building, but indicate that the roof had been replaced.  

A site inspection was performed on Sept 8 2020 by Architecture JHK.  The following architectural features were found:

• Tiled hip roofs (replaced with non-original metal roof material, not contributing)

• Stucco Finish

• Vertical Articulation of corner walls with stone veneer at front facade

• Painted over Stone Veneer

• Curved front bay window, with metal roof. 

• Metal framed windows, most notably the SW front-facing corner windows (crank)

• The existing north side of the house has no architecturally defining features and is primarily used for utility locations like the electric and gas meter and ac units.

More specifically, the home also appears to fall under the minimal traditional style or perhaps more accurately, as a later build it might be considered a hybrid of the Contemporary Ranch and Minimal Traditional style, which began post world war II and lasted until the early 1950s.  

Windsor Square HPOZ Preservation Plan describes the Minimal Traditional style as follows:

“Ranch features are sometimes found mixed with Minimal Traditional and contemporary styles.”, p. 44

“The Minimal Traditional style was a response to the Great Depression of the 1930s, conceived and developed by agencies and associations including the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the National Association of Real Estate Boards, and by manufacturers and modern community builders who promoted and financed the construction of efficient, mass produced, affordable houses.”, p 45

Also before the official establishment of the property as a historic building in the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, the building had undergone some alterations which do not reflect the original build and do not appear to represent the original architectural style.   For example, the change in roof material, which in the HPOZ survey notes as an alteration, would be considered an inappropriate and non-contributing feature, and the roof tends to be “a major character-defining feature” (p 78, Windsor Square Hpoz Preservation Plan).

The following is a list of the non-contributing elements, which the proposed project would remove:

Non-contributing Elements (street visible views from Plymouth and 3rd Street):

Large metal awning overhang above the front-facing curved bay window 

Glass block windows on south-facing elevation

Sliding Vinyl windows on side and read elevations

Wood French Doors and wood windows.

Coated metal roofing: simulated roof tiles

Canary palms

These non-contributing elements were likely added during the 1970’s or 80’s as they do not appear to fit the time period of the original construction (1949), some of which were already in place by the early 2000’s, as indicated in the photo from the HPOZ survey below. 

Style of Home in comparison to the neighborhood:

Windsor Square Historic Preservation Overlay Zone webpage, describes the neighborhood as:

(Blue type above links to web page quote)

Windsor Square was planned to be the most exclusive neighborhood in Southern California and the largest upper-class subdivision ever marketed in Los Angeles.

As such, the vast majority of the homes in this neighborhood are 2-story, in styles that present significant ‘stature’ and massing in their front-facing elevations.

As the existing single story, single-family residence on the subject property was built after WWII, where most of the homes in the neighborhood are pre-war, and 2 story, the subject property represents a marked departure from the surrounding historic Windsor Square neighborhood in the matter of size, stature, style and build quality, as well as period of significance. 

The subject house is, by design and its original construction, a more modest home, than the neighboring houses, in contrast to how the neighborhood was originally planned, and how most of the neighboring homes were originally constructed and have been maintained. And this PROJECT PROPOSAL puts forward a plan which will maintain that historical more modest feel. 

Description of the Scope of Work:

The scope of work is to rehabilitate, restore and remodel the existing one story Ranch Style home, adding an addition of a second floor, and a minor addition to the first floor.

Summary of floor area additions:

1st Floor Addition:     338 SF

2nd Floor Addition: +2467 SF

Total Added:   2,805 SF

Summary of Property Setbacks:

a. Frontyard

Existing building at 39.5’ maintained.

b. North Side Yard Setback facing 3rd Street: 

• 1st floor additions: 10’

• 2nd floor addition: 24’ 

c. South Side Yard Setback: 

1st floor is maintained at approximately 17 feet.

2nd floor at approximately 20 feet

Approximate Proposed Height: 25.33 feet

Approximate Proposed Lot Coverage: 27.83

The existing north side garden wall and tall trees will be maintained and enhanced so as to buffer the traffic noise and exhaust smog emanating from 3rd street.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS as precedent reference projects in the neighborhood:

As per recommendations from HPOZ board and staff, two recently-developed properties were followed as precedents when considering design options for the presently-proposed development of the subject property.

The comparable single-family residence at 103 N Norton Avenue, which is similar, although smaller, is also on a corner lot, with, originally, a similarly incongruous single-story ranch style home. This recent development at th103 N Norton Ave property involved the addition of a 2nd story, along with some additions at the first floor level facing street visible sides, N. Norton Ave and W 1st Street.

The design concepts of this precedent project at 103 N Norton Ave are followed by the preliminary design proposed in this application, especially in the manner in which the additions are positioned and massed on the first and second floors.  

Of note is that one significant difference of the precedent case study property at 103 N Norton Ave is that the lot size (8,295 SF), which is less than half the lot size of the subject property (18,180 SF), which naturally warrants a larger structure to be considered at the subject property. 

Another major difference of the case study property 103 N Norton Ave is that it is at the intersection of two relatively quiet and low-traffic residential streets.  Whereas, the subject property, on the other hand, abuts the busy and noisy 3rd Street which is considered a secondary highway that separates the neighborhood north of 3rd Street. 

The second house the HPOZ board considered relevant was at 267 S Windsor Blvd, especially with regard to the treatment of the curved bay window and overall exterior materials and color scheme.  

Findings/Justifications

The purpose of the presently-proposed remodel is to create a rehabilitated home that is compatible with the neighborhood, while preserving the historic look and feel of the original building and the district. 

The proposed development is intended to closely follow the guidelines found in the Windsor Square HPOZ Preservation Plan of July 2019, which recommends: 

“...that alterations are compatible with the historic streetscape and existing style of the building.  Most importantly, each project should respond to its surrounding context and help to create a seamless transition from architectural style to architectural style and from building type to building type.” 

Precedents set by the rehabilitation of 103 N Norton Ave and 267 S Windsor Blvd  (Appendix A and B) were followed per HPOZ Board and Planner recommendation. 

This 304 S Plymouth home will be rehabilitated in order to return the property to a “state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historical, architectural, and cultural values. Work on (this) historic structure or site will be proposed in a way that adapts it to modern life while respecting and preserving the historic character-defining elements that make the structure, site, or district important” pg 69.

This home was built in 1949 outside the Period of Significance.  A majority of the adjacent homes in the Windsor Square HPOZ were constructed prior to World War II.  This home is not compatible with the architecture of the neighborhood and is a complete departure from the upscale neighborhood which consists of 2 story higher-end homes.  

Windsor Square Historic Preservation Overlay Zone webpage, describes the neighborhood as:

Windsor Square was planned to be the most exclusive neighborhood in Southern California and the largest upper-class subdivision ever marketed in Los Angeles.

Given this, it is not surprising that the style of this particular home is not specifically discussed in the Windsor Square Preservation Guidelines.  With this in mind, the design guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation were considered to the greatest extent possible in order to maintain some historic aspects of this building while creating compatibility with the neighborhood.

Also, due to significant remodeling of the building in the year 2000, bedrooms that do not meet fire safety codes had to be corrected per Section 5.2 regarding Emergency or Hazardous conditions.

Historically the north wing facing 3rd Street with built-in electrical panels and 2-car garage was used as utility space.  Therefore, the north facing elevation has no architecturally defining features other than the wood frieze moulding under the eaves.  The windows are utilitarian in nature so as to not have any views of the exterior.  Also, a significant remodel to this home was undertaken in the year of 2000, especially to the north wing as indicated in the permit application 99014-20000-07112 where vinyl windows were added and the garage converted to a bedroom and a 42” high stucco low wall was added to the north side of the property.  The remodel altered the interior spaces to non-fire code compliant bedrooms.

Guidelines from the WINDSOR SQUARE HPOZ PRESERVATION PLAN:

Chapter 7, Residential Rehabilitation (page 69)

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation:

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.

The property will be used as it was historically as a single family residence.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved to the greatest extent possible.  The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterized the property will be avoided.  

The only planned removals are aspects that are not contributing like the roof material, vinyl windows and canary palms and other non-contributing vegetation.  Because of the significant permitted remodel undertaken in the year 2000, certain elements of spatial relationships that characterized the property no longer reflect the historic character (see below).

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

This property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Therefore the development will retain the simple features historically existing (see below). Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

There are no known changes to the property that have acquired historic significance. In fact, the permitted remodel in 2000 created changes to the property that have diminished any historic significance.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

Distinctive materials and features such as the stone veneer and stucco and frieze board and roof soffits will be preserved via rehabilitation and repair to the greatest extent possible.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced.  For example, a corner window and bay front facing curved windows will be repaired.  Should the deterioration be significant, the new feature will match old design, color, texture and where possible, material. There are no known missing features.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place to the greatest extent possible. If any such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken to protect and preserve those elements.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

The proposed rehabilitation and addition plan takes great pains to assure that new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property.

The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Specifically, the new work of the 2nd story addition will be differentiated by being set back from the 1st floor facade and generally differentiated with single hung windows and clerestory type of windows.  The low profile of the addition with hipped roof preserves the general sense of size, scale and proportion, and massing of the original structure to protect the integrity of the property as much as possible. 

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 

The proposed new addition and adjacent or related new construction have been designed in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment, as represented primarily by the front-facing facade, would be unimpaired to the greatest extent possible.

7.2 WINDOWS

The front-facing metal windows of this house are arguably the main remaining architectural features with historic value. Most of the other windows have been replaced during permitted remodeling over the years. The replacements are generally vinyl and wood which are clearly inconsistent with the existing historic windows.  Therefore, as indicated in the specific guidelines below, great care has been taken in the proposed designs to preserve the remaining  historic windows, and to replace all non-contributing (vinyl and wood) windows with metal windows that are more consistent with the historic windows. 

Guidelines:

1. Repair windows wherever possible instead of replacing them, preserving the materials, design, hardware, and surrounds.

Contributing windows will be repaired wherever possible instead of replacing them, preserving the materials, design, hardware, and surrounds. Noncontributing windows will be replaced by windows more in keeping with the historic nature of the structure (see below)

2. If windows are determined to be non-repairable, replacement windows should match the historic windows in size, shape, arrangement of panes, materials, hardware, method of construction, and profile. True divided- lite windows should be replaced with true divided-lite windows, and wood windows with wood windows. Historic windows were not dual glazed, and dual-glazing is not appropriate on street visible façades. The California State Historical Building Code allows new or replacement windows that do not meet today’s energy code requirements to be used. Laminated windows may be appropriate.

If contributing windows are determined to be non-repairable, replacement windows will match the historic windows in size, shape, arrangement of panes, materials, hardware, method of construction, and profile. True divided- lite windows will be replaced with true divided-lite windows. 

3. If a window sash needs replacement and the window frame is in good repair, it is appropriate to replace only the window sash.

If a window sash needs replacement and the window frame is in good repair, only the window sash will be replaced.  

4. If a historic window is missing entirely, and if its original design is known, replace it with a new window in the same design as the original. If the design is not known, the design of the new window should be compatible with the size of the opening, the style of the building, physical evidence on the house itself, and evidence derived from similar houses in the neighborhood. Historic windows were not dual glazed and are not appropriate on street visible façades. The California State Historical Building Code allows new or replacement windows that do not meet today’s energy code requirements to be used. Laminated windows may be appropriate.

Historic windows that are missing, where the design is not known, will be replaced with a new window compatible with the size of the opening, the style of the building, physical evidence on the house itself, and evidence derived from similar houses in the neighborhood.  

In-kind replacement windows visible to the front on the 1st floor will not be dual glazed.

5. The size and proportions of historic windows on a façade should be maintained, as should the pattern and location of windows on a façade. Filling in or altering the size of historic windows is inappropriate, especially on visible historic façades.

The size and proportions of historic windows will be maintained as much as possible. Filling in or altering the size of historic windows are consider only on the non-visible façades toward the rear where considerable alterations was already undertaken and therefore not visible historic façades. 

6. Adding new window openings to visible historic façades is generally inappropriate, especially on primary façades.

No new window openings are added to the primary historic façade facing Plymouth Blvd.  

This guideline is not applicable for the north and south sides of the house as those are no longer historic façades.  New window openings facing 3rd Street and south were added because:

1. Permitted remodeling in 2000 included windows which do not meet currently required fire safety code for egress. (see Section 5.2 General Exemptions item #1 regarding the correction of Emergency or Hazardous conditions)

2. Due to permitted construction in 2000 which significantly altered the 3rd Street/north-facing façade, it is not  a visible historic facade

3. Facade facing 3rd Street was used historically (and presently) for utility and mechanical space.

NOTE: the new openings have been designed to be in keeping with the look and feel of the historic building to the greatest extent possible. 

7. New windows on a street visible façade, when their addition is found to be appropriate, should match the pattern and scale of the existing windows on the historic façade.

New windows on a street visible façade, when their addition is found to be appropriate (see #6 above)  will match the pattern and scale of the existing windows on the historic façade while also slightly differentiated with single hung windows.  Casements will mimic the clerestory type of windows found on the side elevations.

8. Replacement of windows on the rear or side façades may vary in materials and method of construction from the historic windows, although the arrangement of panes, size, and shape should be similar.

Replacement of windows on the rear or side façades will vary in materials and method of construction from the historic windows, although the arrangement of panes, size, and shape will be similar.

9. New windows on non-visible façades should match the pattern and scale of the existing windows on that façade.

New windows on non-visible façades match the pattern and scale of the existing windows on that façade, to the extent that the existing windows are historic and/or compatible with historic, as opposed to the non-historic vinyl windows installed during permitted remodeling in 2000.

10. The materials and design of historic windows and their surrounds, including hardware, should be preserved.

The materials and design of historic windows and their surrounds, including hardware, will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 

11. The use of windows with false muntins on street visible façades is inappropriate. 

False muntins on street visible façades will not be used.

ADDITIONAL NOTES: 

The fenestration patterns of the proposed additions are designed to be consistent with the existing house, with window lite divisions to match or suggest a simplified version of the patterns of the existing windows of the front bay and corner windows of the historical house, with a slight simplification as a means to differentiate the additions from the original structure. 

The precedent set by case study of 103 N Norton Ave home was followed in window selection for this proposed rehabilitation and addition. It is noted that with the precedent home at 103 N. Norton, the street facing windows were changed in size and window divisions.

At the 304 S Plymouth Blvd subject property, many of the existing windows located at the sides and rear facade are non-contributing vinyl windows, which were added during permitted construction in 2000. Our presently proposed plan replaces these non-contributing vinyl windows with metal framed windows more in keeping with the original historic windows. 

The existing window on the front facade facing Plymouth Blvd will be repaired as necessary with single pane glazing.  To the extent possible all front-facing windows will be repaired.  If they can not be repaired, they will be replaced with in-kind, custom-build windows. New windows will be metal framed to match the existing front facing windows.  

Windows on the rear or side façades and 2nd floor will be aluminum to match the thin-framed existing front facing windows. The rear and side facing windows will be dual glazed and slightly differentiated from the originals with single hung windows and casements to also visually maintain a horizontal feel. New windows on the 2nd story addition facing Plymouth Blvd will have corner windows of similar style (differentiated by diminution) to the existing corner windows on the ground floor.  Following the example found on 103 N Norton Avenue, the new windows in the 2nd floor are not exact replicas of the existing windows but rather allude to the existing thin frames in horizontal accentuation and lite divisions, while showing minor differentiation. 

7.3 DOORS

While each guideline is specifically addressed below, for the most-part, the guidelines in this section are not applicable because there are no historic doors remaining on the structure(s) at this property.  New proposed doors will attempt to be in the general style of the original historic home as much as possible. 

Guidelines:

1. Where historic doors exist, the materials and design of historic doors and their surrounds should be preserved.

Due to significant remodeling, including permitted remodel in 2000, there are no existing historic doors or surrounds. 

2. The size, scale, and proportions of historic doors on a façade should be maintained.

The only relevant door is the non-contributing front door.  The historic door no longer exists.  The non-contributing front door will be replaced with a new front door and sidelites of a size, scale and proportions of what likely would have existed historically.

3. Filling in or altering the size of historic doors, especially on primary façades, is inappropriate.

This guideline is not applicable because there are no historic doors.

4. Adding new door openings to primary historic façades is inappropriate.

This guideline is not applicable because the historic front door is missing on the primary historic front façade. 

5. When replacement of doors on the primary façade is necessary, replacement doors should match the historic doors in size, shape, scale, glazing, materials, method of construction, and profile.

This guideline is not applicable as the replacement of the existing front door is a non-contributing door.  The new front door and side lites will match the presumed historic door in size, shape, scale, glazing, materials, method of construction, and profile.

6. Replacement doors on the secondary façades may vary in materials and method of construction from the historic doors, although the size, shape, and arrangement of any glazing should be similar.

This guideline is not applicable as there are no historic doors.  Replacement doors on the secondary façades will vary in materials and method of construction from the presumed historic doors, although the size, shape, and arrangement of any glazing will be similar. As there are no longer any historic doors existing, the size, shape and arrangement of glazing will be similar to presumed historic doors of the period and style typically found in the style of the historic house. 

7. New door openings on secondary façades, when their addition is found to be appropriate, should match the pattern and scale of the existing openings on the historic façade.

New door openings on secondary façades, when their addition is found to be appropriate (see above and below), will match the pattern and scale of the existing openings on the historic façade, except where a difference is intended to support the differentiation of the new addition. 

8. When original doors have been lost, and must be replaced, designs should be based on available historical evidence. If no such evidence exists, the design of replacement doors should be based on a combination of physical evidence (indications in the structure of the house itself) and evidence of similar doors on houses of the same architectural style in the HPOZ.

Since the original doors have been lost to permitted remodelling, the design for the replacement doors has been based on a combination of physical evidence as indicated in the structure of the house itself, as well as the example evidence of similar doors on houses of the same architectural style in the HPOZ (for example the reference projects at 103 N. Norton Ave. and 267 S Windsor Blvd.) 

9. Painting historic doors that were originally varnished or stained and are not currently painted is inappropriate.

This guideline is not applicable as there are no existing historic doors, and the existing non-contributing front door is painted. 

10. Original hardware, including visible hinges, door knockers, and latches or locks should not be removed. Repairing original hardware is preferable. If replacing hardware is necessary, hardware that is similar in design, materials, and scale should be used. The California State Historical Building Code allows locking mechanisms that do not meet current building codes to remain in use.

This guideline is not applicable as there is no original hardware. 

11. Single front doors with sidelights should not be replaced with double doors, unless consistent with the architectural style of the building or structure.

Single front doors with sidelights were not replaced with double doors.

12. Security doors on the primary façade that block the view of the main door are generally discouraged. Where found appropriate, security doors that match the size of the main door and are somewhat transparent may be permitted.

This guideline is not applicable as no security door is proposed for the primary façade. 

13. Screen doors on the visible and secondary façades are allowed, provided they are historically appropriate in material and design and do not overly obscure the view of any door.

This guideline is not applicable as no screen doors on the visible and secondary façades are proposed.

14. In the interest of energy savings, alternative methods of weather- proofing should be considered prior to consideration of the removal of an original door. Methods such as wall, attic, and roof insulation, or weather-stripping existing doors or window panes within doors, may provide energy savings without the removal of important historical features.

This guideline is not applicable as there are no original doors remaining. 

15. Alterations for disabled access should be done at a side or rear entrance whenever feasible, and should always be designed and built in the least intrusive manner possible using reversible construction techniques.

This guideline is not applicable as no alterations for disabled access will be done.

ADDITIONAL NOTES: 

Case Study Properties (Appendix A and B) 103 N Norton Ave and 267 S Windsor Blvd were followed per HPOZ Board recommendation in the matter of the entry door.   For example, the 103 N Norton Ave home completely changes out the front entry door and window with a single French door and wide sidelites of the same width in order to be compatible with the neighborhood.  The 267 S Windsor gives it’s door a new paint color.

For the subject property on 304 S Plymouth Blvd the existing front door is not the original historic door and is significantly damaged and will require replacement. 

The front entry door on the 304 S Plymouth Blvd will be removed and replaced with a new paneled front door with  matching sidelights similar to what may have historically existed.

7.4 ARCADES, PATIOS, PORCHES, & BALCONIES (GENERICALLY REFERRED TO AS PORCHES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION)

While there is some minor addition to the existing front porch, in order to help maintain the long, low horizontal shape of the traditional ranch design while adding a second story addition, there are no plans to remove, add, or enclose any porches, patios, etc in any of the street-visible locations of the property.

Guidelines:

1. Historic porches, especially on the front and side façades, should be preserved in place. The removal of such features is inappropriate.

This proposed rehabilitation and addition development fundamentally preserves the existing porch in place.

2. Decorative details that help to define a historic porch should be preserved. These include balusters, balustrades, columns, and brackets. The California State Historical Building Code allows balustrades and railings that do not meet current building code heights to remain if they do not pose a safety hazard.

While some columns will need to be replaced for structural reasons, the design will be similar to the greatest extent possible (see guideline #4 below)

3. If porch elements are damaged, they should be repaired in place where possible instead of being removed and replaced. 

This guideline does not apply because no porch elements are damaged to the extent that would require removal or replacement.

4. If elements of the porch, such as decorative brackets or columns, must be replaced, replacement elements should match the originals in design and materials.

While some columns will need to be replaced for structural reasons (see Architectural Plan Sheet A101), the design will be similar to the greatest extent possible with existing double steel posts.

5. Additions and alterations to porch elements should be compatible with the style and architectural details of the house. For instance, Greek classical columns or balustrades on a Spanish Colonial Revival porch, patio, or balcony would be inappropriate.

Additions and alterations to the front porch elements will be compatible with the style and architectural details of the house. For instance, the double steel post in stone veneer planters will be built in similar fashion to what exists now.  (see Architectural Plan Sheet A101)

6. When original details have been lost and must be replaced, such replacements should match the original details in design and materials as closely as practical. Where possible, designs should be based on historic photographic evidence. If no such evidence exists, the design of replacement details should be based on a combination of physical evidence (indications in the structure of the house itself) and evidence of similar elements on houses of the same architectural style in the HPOZ.

This guideline is not applicable, as based on available historical photographic evidence and site inspection, no original details of the porch are known to have been lost.

7. Additional porch elements should not be added if either they historically did not exist on the residence or were not historically found with the architectural style of the residence. For instance, the addition of decorative “gingerbread” brackets to a Craftsman-style porch is inappropriate.

This guideline is not applicable, as no additional porch elements are proposed that did not exist historically and are not historically found with the architectural style of the residence.

8. In many instances, historic porches did not include balustrades, and these should not be added unless there is evidence that a balustrade existed on a porch historically and if it is consistent with the architectural style of the residence.

This guideline is not applicable, as no balustrades are being added.

9. The addition of a porch or a deck on the street-facing façade that would not have existed on a house historically is not appropriate. Colonial Revival houses, for example, rarely had front porches.

This guideline is not applicable, as no addition of a porch or deck on the street-facing façade is proposed.

10. Enclosure of part or all of a historic porch on a street visible façade is inappropriate.

This guideline is not applicable, as no enclosure of a porch on the street visible façade is proposed.

11. Enclosure of a porch at the side or rear of the house, for instance a sleeping porch, may be appropriate if the porch form is preserved and the porch openings are fitted with windows using reversible construction techniques.

This guideline is not applicable, as no enclosure of a porch is proposed.

12. When possible,alterations for disabled access should be done at a side or rear entrance, and should always be designed and built in the least intrusive manner possible using reversible construction techniques.

This guideline is not applicable, as no alterations for disabled access are proposed at this time.

13. Addition of a handrail on the front steps of a house for safety or handicapped access reasons may be appropriate, if the handrail is very simply designed and consistent with the architectural style of the residence.

This guideline is not applicable, as no addition of a handrail is proposed. 

14. Arcades, gates, and similar openings should always be kept as voids and not be filled in. 

This guideline is not applicable, as no filling in of any arcades, gates or similar openings is proposed.

7.5 ROOFS

As indicated in the specific guidelines below, the proposed design is intended to preserve as much as possible the low-slung, horizontal nature of the ranch style of the historic home. Specifically, roof pitch, materials, size, orientation, eave depth and configuration, and decoration have all been carefully considered in maintaining the overall look and feel of the historic home. The location and design of chimneys, as well as decorative features such as dormers, vents, and finials have been left in place wherever possible. 

Guidelines:

1. Maintain and preserve the historic character-defining roof forms. For instance, a complex roof plan with many gables should not be simplified. Period revival details such as gable ends, parapets, spires, etc., should be preserved.

The low-slung and horizontal historic character-defining roof forms will be maintained and preserved.

2. Maintain and preserve the historic character-defining eave depth and configuration.

The historic character-defining eave depth and configuration will be maintained and preserved.

3. Roof and eave details, such as rafter tails, vents, corbels, built-in gutters, and other architectural features should be preserved. If these elements have deteriorated, they should be repaired in place if possible. If these elements cannot be repaired in place, match the originals in design, materials, and details.

There are no rafter tails and  built-in gutters. The frieze boards and roof soffits and vents will be preserved via rehabilitation and repair.

4. When original details have been lost and must be replaced, designs should be based on historic photographic evidence. If no such evidence exists, the design of replacement details should be based on a combination of physical evidence (indications in the structure of the house itself) and evidence of similar elements on houses of the same architectural style in the neighborhood.

This guideline is not applicable as no known original details have been lost.

5. Historic specialty roofing materials, such as tile, slate, gravel, or built-up shingles, should be preserved in place or replaced in-kind.

This guideline is not applicable as no historic specialty roofing materials exist.

6. When replacement of roof materials is necessary, replacement should be in-kind.

This guideline is not applicable as no original historic roofing materials exist.

7. When feasible, roof materials such as clay tiles should be removed and retained on site to allow for repairs to roof underlayment, and reinstalled placing original tiles toward the front of the building and patching in with matching new tiles toward the rear of the building.

This guideline is not applicable as no historic roofing materials exist.  The original roof material was replaced with metal simulated roof tiles.   Therefore all the existing metal roofing material will be removed and replaced with new asphalt shingles.  The roof structure may require repairs and restructuring for the load of the new material. 

8. Where still existing, historic, specialty roofing materials, such as tile, slate, built-up shingles, or shake, should be preserved in place or replaced in kind, when possible. If the structure originally had a wood roof, special care should be taken to make minimal repairs to wood shingle roofs rather than replace the roof outright. However, a wood roof is not required. The California State Historical Building Code allows for the replacement and retention of original materials provided no life safety hazard is created or continued.

This guideline is not applicable as no historic wood roofing materials exist.

9. Replacement roof materials, where in-kind replacement is not possible, should be substantially similar in appearance to those used originally (when viewed from a distance of the public sidewalk) and should convey a scale, texture, tint, and tone similar to those used originally. For instance, composite materials rarely match the texture and color of natural clay tiles

This guideline is not applicable as no historic roofing materials exist.

10. Light tinted asphalt shingle is generally inappropriate. Earth tones, such as rusty reds, greens, browns, and grays, are generally appropriate.

Proposed asphalt shingles will be dark charcoal, or similar.

11. Installation of solar panels and skylights should not be located in Street Visible Areas.

Installation of solar panels and skylights will not be located in Street Visible Areas.

12. Skylights not visible from the street should be designed and placed in such a way as to minimize their impact. Locations on the side and rear façades are preferred for skylights. Where skylights are found appropriate, they should be flat and relatively flush to the roof surface.

Skylights not visible from the street will be designed and placed in such a way as to minimize their impact. Location of skylights will be on the side and rear façades.  Skylights will be mounted flat and relatively flush to the roof surface.

13. Existing chimney massing, details, and finishes should be retained. If replacement is necessary (e.g. due to earthquake damage), the new chimney should match the original chimney in location, massing, form, and design. Modern spark arrestors or other similar devices should be hidden within the chimney to the best extent feasible.

Existing chimney massing, details, and finishes will be retained.

14. Existing roof dormers should not be removed on visible façades. New roof dormers should not be added to visible façades.

This guideline is not applicable because there are no existing roof dormers and no new roof dormers will be added to visible façades.

15. Rooftop additions should be designed so as to minimize their impact on visible roof forms. 

Rooftop additions will be designed so as to minimize their impact on visible roof form due to the low height and proportion and by stepping back the 2nd floor addition from the existing facades.

7.6 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS & BUILDING MATERIALS AND FINISHES

The proposed rehabilitation and addition plan maintains  and repairs the architectural details, building materials and finishes to the greatest extent possible, as indicated in the specific guidelines below:

Guidelines:

1. Original architectural details or features, and building materials, on street visible façades should be preserved and maintained. The removal of non-historic architectural features is encouraged.

Original architectural details or features, and building materials, on street visible façades will be preserved and maintained.

2. Deteriorated materials or features should be repaired in place, if possible. For instance, deteriorated wood details can be repaired with wood filler or epoxy in many cases.

Deteriorated materials or features will be repaired in place, if possible. 

3. Repairs through consolidation or “patching in” are preferred to replacement.

Repairs through consolidation or “patching in” will be considered prior to replacing in-kind.

4. When it is necessary to replace materials or features due to deterioration, replacements should significantly match the original in materials, scale, finish, details, profile, texture, and design as closely as possible.

When it is necessary to replace materials or features due to deterioration, replacements will significantly match the original in materials, scale, finish, details, profile, texture, and design as closely as possible.

5. Use of materials and finishes should be compatible with the historic style and period of the building or structure.

Use of materials and finishes will be compatible with the historic style and period of the building or structure.

6. When historic original details or features have been lost and must be replaced, reasonable efforts should be made to identify illustrative historical evidence of the original detail or feature; designs should be based on historic photographic or illustration-based evidence. If no such evidence exists or is not obtainable, the design of replacement details should be based on a combination of physical evidence (indications in the structure of the house itself) and evidence of similar elements on houses of the same architectural style in the neighborhood.

When historic original details or features have been lost and must be replaced, reasonable efforts will be made to identify illustrative historical evidence of the original detail or feature; designs will be based on historic photographic or illustration-based evidence. If no such evidence exists or is not obtainable, the design of replacement details will be based on a combination of physical evidence (indications in the structure of the house itself) and evidence of similar elements on houses of the same architectural style in the neighborhood.

7. While paint color on already-painted surfaces is exempt from review, original materials that were not originally painted or sealed, such as masonry or tile, should remain unpainted. Painting such materials is inappropriate.

Original materials that were not originally painted or sealed, such as masonry or tile, will remain unpainted. 

8. Original surface building materials, details, and/or features should not be covered with inappropriate materials such as stucco, vinyl siding, or other materials/finishes.

Original surface building materials, details, and/or features will not be covered with inappropriate materials such as stucco, vinyl siding, or other materials/finishes.

9. Architectural detail that did not originally appear on a structure should not be added to a structure. For example, precast concrete trims should not be added to a house.

Architectural detail that did not originally appear on a structure will not be added to a structure. 

10. Architectural details and features that are not appropriate to the architectural style of a building or structure should not be added. For example, Tudor Revival faux half-timbering should not be added to the façade of a Spanish Colonial Revival residence.

Architectural details and features that are not appropriate to the architectural style of a building or structure will not be added.

11. Decorative detail that is expressed through the pattern of materials used in the construction of the house, such as decorative shingles or masonry patterns, should be preserved or replaced in-kind. Covering or painting these details in a manner that obscures these patterns is inappropriate.

Decorative detail that is expressed through the pattern of materials used in the construction of the house, such as decorative shingles or masonry patterns, will be preserved or replaced in-kind. Covering or painting these details in a manner that obscures these patterns will not be done.

12. If resurfacing of a stucco surface is necessary, the surface applied should match the original in texture and finish. For example, Spanish Colonial Revival homes should have a hand troweled finish. Extremely smooth stucco finishes are inappropriate.

If resurfacing of a stucco surface is necessary, the surface applied will match the original in texture and finish. 

13. Painting or staining with patterns or fluorescent colors are generally inappropriate.

There will be no painting or staining with patterns or fluorescent colors.

14. Architectural details on new building additions should be consistent with the architectural style of the existing building or structure. 

Architectural details on new building additions will be consistent with the architectural style of the existing building or structure. There are minimal decorative features on the existing house.  In keeping with the simplified aesthetic of this home, the proposed additions are simple without added decor as in the existing house.

7.7 MECHANICALS

As indicated in the specific guidelines below, mechanical appurtenances, accessories, and equipment are be located outside of the Street Visible Areas, to the greatest extent feasible, noting that this property, historically locates most of the mechanicals such as power and other utility feeds and meters and other such equipment on the north elevation of the main structure, which in on the 3rd Street side, but not visible to the street as it is behind a solid stucco garden wall, which is itself largely screened by landscaping, in keeping with the recommendation from the Guidelines: “Even when mechanical equipment must be placed within a Street Visible Area, landscaping can help to conceal incompatible elements.”

Guidelines:

1. Satellite television dishes and other mechanical appurtenances should not be located within the Street Visible Area. Satellite dishes may be located on street visible façades only if they cannot be installed and function effectively elsewhere.

Satellite dishes will not be located on street visible façades unless if they cannot be installed and function effectively elsewhere.

2. Satellite television dishes and other mechanical appurtenances should be located in the rear yard, in a location not visible from the public right- of-way, whenever possible. Small dishes or other appurtenances (under two feet in diameter) may be located on lower rear roof surfaces, on rear yard accessory structures, on rear façades, or in the rear yard.

If possible, satellite television dishes and other mechanical appurtenances should be located in the rear yard, in a location not visible from the public right- of-way.

3. Mechanical appurtenances that are physically mounted on a historic structure must be attached using the least invasive method, without damaging significant architectural features.  

Any mechanical appurtenances that are physically mounted on a historic structure will be attached using the least invasive method, without damaging significant architectural features. 

4. Ground mounted mechanical apparatuses and equipment should be located outside of the Street Visible Area, whenever possible.  

Ground mounted mechanical apparatuses and equipment will be located outside of the Street Visible Area, whenever possible. 

5. Mechanical apparatus not mounted on the structure may be installed in areas visible from the public right-of-way if there is no other technically and economically feasible location, or if required by another City department, for installation and if appropriate landscape screening is proposed and installed as a part of the project.

If there is no other technically and economically feasible location, or if required for installation by another City department, mechanical apparatus not mounted on the structure may be installed in areas visible from the public right-of-way, in which case appropriate landscape screening will be proposed and installed as a part of the project.

6. Utilities should be placed underground wherever feasible.

Utilities will be placed underground wherever feasible.

7. Electrical masts, headers, and fuse boxes should be located at the rear of a structure where possible. 

Electrical masts, headers, and fuse boxes will be located at the rear of a structure where possible. Note: historical and presently, the main electrical box is on the north side of the structure. This will likely be maintained.

8.  Solar panels should be low in profile, and should not overhang or structurally alter existing rooflines. Solar panels should be located in non-visible areas or in the least visible location. 

Solar panels will be low in profile, and will not overhang or structurally alter existing rooflines. Solar panels will be located in non-visible areas or in the least visible location. 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Historically the north elevation facing 3rd Street was the location of utility meters and electrical panels from the year 1949 to now. The AC was permitted at the front corner location of Plymouth Blvd and 3rd Street as indicated in 1980’s permit records.  

The utility meters, electrical panels and AC will be relocated on the north facing elevation away from front facing views, tucked behind the existing north low wall and existing tall vegetation.   The north elevation, although considered street visible, is the least visible location to adjacent neighbors.

Solar panels will be located to the rear of the new 2nd floor roof addition facing south.

Guidelines from the WINDSOR SQUARE HPOZ PRESERVATION PLAN:

Chapter 8, ADDITIONS TO PRIMARY STRUCTURES (page 85)

COLOR KEY:

Blue type represents verbatim wording from the guidelines.

Black type represents the Findings/Justification for this proposed design.

While additions to primary structures may be appropriate, special care should be taken to ensure that the addition does not disrupt the prevailing architectural character of the district or of the structure itself. Great care should also be taken with additions so as not to communicate a false sense of history within the district with respect to the size and arrangement of structures. 

The proposed additions seek to be compatible with both the neighborhood and not disrupt the prevailing architectural character of the district which is composed predominantly of 2-story homes, most of which present significant mass at the front-facing elevation for an up-scale effect.  

While the proposed additions create a 2nd-story like the other homes in the neighborhood, the design also maintains, as much as possible, the more-modest, lower, more horizontal look and feel of contemporary ranch style architectural character of the historic original house.

1. Additions to the primary residential structure should be located outside of the Street Visible Area, whenever possible.

The proposed additions to the primary residential structure are located outside of the Street Visible Area, whenever possible. The proposed second-floor addition will of course be visible from the street, but it is set back from the street visible sides, and as much as possible the larger mass is toward the rear away from the front street view. 

NOTE: The proposed additions are intended to closely follow the manner in which the additions were placed at the front and side elevations of the precedent development at property on 103 N Norton Ave, which faced the streets Norton Ave and 1st Street respectively.

2. Additions should be subordinate in scale and volume to the existing house. Additions that involve more than a 50% increase in the Building Coverage are generally inappropriate.

The proposed additions are set back from and subordinate in scale and volume to the existing house, and only total to a 1.5% increase in Building Coverage. 

3. Additions should be compatible in scale with the overall block lot coverage. Additions that involve more than a 5% increase to the block average lot coverage may be inappropriate.

The proposed additions to the subject property is only a 1.5% increase in lot coverage and will not involve more than a 5% increase in the block average lot coverage. Therefore, the proposed additions are compatible in scale with the overall block lot coverage. 

For example: The adjacent property to the rear of the subject property is developed to 33.5% lot coverage compared to the subject property will propose only 291.5% building coverage. Also the adjacent neighboring house to the south is 26% lot coverage. Comparatively, the proposed subject development is in keeping with the lot coverage of the other homes.

4. The depth of the front and side yards should be preserved.

With the proposed additions, the depth of the front-facing West yard will be preserved at the historical 39.5 feet’. The depth of the South side yard and the East rear yard have also been preserved. The north side yard is mostly preserved, as the proposed addition is only 47 inches. This is in order to help with the setback of the 2nd floor addition above and in maintaining the 3-staged planes from the front-facing façade to significantly help preserve the overall historic and characteristic horizontal style of the traditional ranch style home, and also to provide for the safety requirement of code compliant egress windows.

The north will have an additions with a 10' side yard setback. This is in keeping with the similar side yard addition on the ground floor of the reference development at 103 N Norton Ave. 

NOTE: this northern side is the location least impactful, as there are no neighboring homes on this side, where the property abuts 3rd Street.  For comparison, the adjacent rear neighboring property (to the East on 3rd Street) only has a North side yard setback of only 6’ compared to the subject property where we are proposing a 11’ side yard setback on the North (3rd Street) side at the 1st floor, and a set back of 24’ at the 2nd floor. 

Hidden behind a tall garden wall and dense landscaping, and as the location of the utility meters and panels, the North side of the house does not have much in the way of architecturally defining features, and the bedrooms do not have code compliant functioning, fire safety egress windows.   

The proposed  north side 1st floor addition has several design purposes:

• Maintain the  architecturally defining feature of the front-facing façade, where the transition of the existing front-facing ranch style to the north plane of the building helps maintain the long, low, horizontal style of the original structure.

• Help establish an appropriately proportioned side set-back for the proposed 2nd story addition on the north side, with proper code-compliant egress windows.

• Aide in retaining the traditional L-shaped configuration typically found in Ranch style house plans. 

• Help maintain the deep overhang at the front porch entry with the existing ranch style, with stone veneer planters and steel posts.  It will also be more consistent with the historical design: “Early Modern Minimal Traditional styles are characterized by small entry porch with simple pillars or columns” p. 45  

• Provides a major contribution to preserving  the 3 planes of articulation in the Northwest corner, as seen from the front on Plymouth Blvd, which are intended to help preserve the overall horizontal style of the traditional historic ranch-style home as the 2nd story addition is added.  

5. Additions, including second story additions to primary structures, should be compatible in size, scale, and massing with the original building or structure, and should harmonize in scale and massing with the existing historic structures in the surrounding blocks.

The proposed 1st floor and second floor addition are compatible in size, scale, and massing with the original building. The first floor addition is very minor, and the second floor addition is set back, and therefore, diminutive in size, scale and massing to the original existing structure.  

The proposed additions harmonize in scale and massing with the existing  historic structures in the surrounding blocks, by virtue of being of similar or lesser in size, scale, and massing, and only 25.16’ in height, as compared to the neighborhood context average height of 29’.  

For reference, the proposed additions would bring the subject property development to only 27.83% building coverage and only 25.16’ high, as compared to the adjacent property to the rear (East) of the subject property which is developed to 33.5% lot coverage and is 28.5’ high. And the adjacent neighboring house to the South is 31.5’ high. 

NOTE:  Because the subject property is to the north its nearest affected neighbor, and because the driveway on the southside provides an extra large side yard setback (as well as the driveway of the next property to the South being adjacent, adding to the distance between the neighboring homes), the proposed additional massing of a second story will not negatively impact sunlight of the adjacent properties. In fact, the proposed additional 2nd floor addition mass would be beneficial as a buffer to 3rd street traffic noise, pollution, as well as have the least detrimental impact to the neighborhood.

6. Additions that will be larger than their neighbors should be subordinate to the original main structure, with the greater part of the mass located away from the main façade to minimize the bulk of the perceived

structure. To the extent possible, two-story additions to one-story buildings should be located outside the Street Visible Area.

The proposed additions will be smaller than the neighbors AND are also subordinate to the original main structure, with the greater part of the mass located away from the main façade to minimize the bulk of the perceived structure. 

For example, the proposed building will only be about 25.16’ high in comparison to the directly adjacent buildings at 28.5’, 31.5’, and 27.5, respectively.  Also the majority of the massing on the 1st floor level is existing, and the proposed additions only adds about 280 SF to the 1st level to the north with the greater part of the mass located away from the main front façade.  The north 1st floor addition and 2nd floor addition is subordinate to the original main structure and minimizes the bulk of the perceived structure, while maintaining the modest low and horizontal feel that is associated with the ranch style design. 

Additionally, to the extent possible, the proposed  second-story additions are located mainly back and outside of the Street Visible Area. (Plymouth Blvd and 3rd Street)

7. Additions should be located at the rear of the structure, away from the street-facing architectural façade.

The proposed additions are located toward the rear, and set back away from the street-facing architectural façade.  

8. Additions that outwardly break the plane(s) established by the existing roofline or side façades of the structure are inappropriate.

To the extent possible, the proposed additions do not outwardly break the plane(s) established by the existing roofline.  The minor additions on the ground floor at the North side, as well as the second floor addition, both follow the precedent of the recent additions to the reference property at 103 N. Norton. 

9. Additions that extend the existing side façades rearward, without a break in plain, are discouraged. Additions should be stepped-in from the side façade and be lower in height than the primary structure.

The proposed additions do not extend the existing side façades rearward. 

Even though the second floor addition does not extend the existing side façades rearward, in keeping with the spirit of this guideline, the proposed 2nd floor addition on the longer, North-facing side is broken in plane with a recess and a dormer projection at the rear, in keeping with the guideline to keep the major massing set back and toward the rear.

Also, vertically,  the 2nd floor addition is broken in plain to the first floor by the lower 1st floor roof that skirts the north and south façades, and it is stepped back from the 1st floor.   

10. Additions should utilize roof forms that are consistent with the existing house to the greatest extent possible, but should be differentiated by virtue of scale and volume. Attention should be paid to eave depth and roof pitch, replicating these to the greatest extent possible.

The proposed additions utilize roof forms that are consistent with the existing house, and are differentiated by virtue of their smaller scale and volume. Eave depth and roof pitch have been replicated to the greatest extent possible.

11. The original rooflines of the front façade of a structure should remain readable and not be obscured by an addition.

The lines of the roof of the front facade of the original structure remain readable, and are not obscured in the proposed 2nd story addition, which is set back 16.5’’ from the front façade.

12. Addition of roof forms and materials should be consistent with those of the original structure.

The new roof structures of the proposed addition will be a hipped roof as the original roof form.  The new roof will also have matching new roof shingles.

13. Additions should use similar or otherwise compatible finish materials as the original building or structure. A stucco addition to a wood clapboard house, for example, would be inappropriate.

The proposed additions will have stucco finish to match the original structure. Therefore, the finish materials of the proposed additions will be similar or otherwise compatible with the finish materials of the original historic single-family structure.  

14. Additions should distinguish themselves from the original structure through the simplified use of architectural detail, or through building massing or subtle variations of exterior finishes, to communicate that the addition is new construction. All buildings should be recognized as products of their own time.

The proposed addition of the second floor is distinguished from the original single-story structure  by the use of the roof detail that skirts the street-viewable elevations at the demarcation point between the first and second stories.

Also, the additional set-back and subordinated mass and relative height of the proposed second floor addition, all serve to distinguish the addition such that the addition will be recognized as from it’s own time, as distinct from the period of significance of the original construction, which  remains the dominant feature of the front-facing facade. 

Finally, the 2nd floor addition is distinguished by the simplified use of architectural detail such as with the similar, but smaller, corner windows on the second floor (see next Finding #15 below)

15. Additions should utilize fenestration patterns that are consistent with the existing house to the greatest extent possible, though simplified window types may be an appropriate means to differentiate the addition from the original structure. For instance, if windows on the original structure are multi-pane 8-over-1 lite windows, simple 1-over-1 lite windows may be appropriate.

The fenestration patterns of the proposed additions are designed to be consistent with the existing house, with window lite divisions to match or suggest a simplified version of the patterns of the existing windows of the front bay and corner windows of the historical house, with a slight simplification as a means to differentiate the additions from the original structure. 

16. Decorative architectural features established on the existing house should be repeated with less detail on the addition. Exact replicas of features such as corbels, pilasters, decorative windows, etc., are inappropriate.

In keeping with the simplified aesthetic of the ranch-style home of that area, there are minimal decorative features on the existing house. Therefore, the proposed additions are simple clean lines for a contemporary look.  The front-facing bay window, and corner window, and the stone veneer are arguably the main architectural features that are established on the existing house.  New windows are not exact replicas of the existing windows but rather allude to the existing modern thin frames in horizontal accentuation and lite divisions.  Matching new stone veneer planters will accent the new front corner entry addition.  

17. Additions that would necessitate the elimination of significant architectural features such as chimneys, decorative windows, architectural symmetry or other impacts to the existing house are not appropriate.

The proposed additions do not eliminate any significant architectural features.  For example the existing front curved bay window, corner window, and the existing stone veneers will be kept, as well as an existing chimney will be left in place at the front, as a non-functioning decorative feature. 

18. Additions should be designed in the same architectural style and character of the existing building or structure.

Additions are designed in the same contemporary ranch style and character of the existing structure.  The additions are contemporary with minimal decorations and similar corner windows to articulate the corners of the building.  Centrally located windows on the front elevation of the 2nd floor addition are to accentuate the long horizontal feel typical of a ranch style home. The proposed additions to the North side elevation, help maintain the long, horizontal style and character of the original structure, (as similarly to the 103 N Norton Ave development) in order to accentuate the horizontal layout and deep overhangs.  New windows at the side elevation additions are placed to support the horizontalness, and reference the existing window articulation with varied compositions of casement and single/double hung windows and divided lights.

Entry

Windsor Square neighborhood is characterized by the prominent visible main entries.  

WINDSOR SQUARE HPOZ PRESERVATION PLAN  

When proposing work that would alter existing original/historic openings, such as doors and windows, it is important to consider not only the architectural style of the structure, but also the broader neighborhood context. The architectural style and neighborhood context will generally inform where on a structure openings should be located, the appropriate scale of the openings, and how openings should be grouped.  (p92)

The new entry is maintained in the same North-West corner and is designed to keep the deep front porch feel with the roof extension to the north side.  Also, the proposed main entryway is configured with a similar scale of the openings of the main entrance of the neighborhood homes.  Careful attention to symmetry, depth, and the use of architectural features was given in order to echo the original entry.  For example, simple double steel posts were added as in the similar composition as seen with the planters and existing steel posts. 

19. Where additions that comprise a new floor can be found appropriate, such additions should be located to the rear of the structure.

The proposed 2nd floor addition which would comprise a ‘new floor’ is located to the rear and/or set back from the original line of the existing front building elevation.  The bulk of the massing of the proposed second story addition is placed in the rear-most portion of the house. 

20. Rooftop additions should be located to the rear of the structure, should preserve the historic character, architectural details, form, and mass of the existing historic structure; and be designed to be compatible with the surrounding historic structures.

To the extent that the proposed 2nd floor addition could be considered a “rooftop addition,” as detailed above, it is located to the rear of the structure, and is designed to preserve the historic character, architectural details, form, and mass of the existing historic structure; and is designed to be compatible with the surrounding historic neighborhood.

21. The enclosure of non-visible porches, when found to be appropriate, should preserve the overall look of the porch to the greatest extent possible with respect to railings, balusters, openings, and roofs.

This plan does not propose the enclosure of non-visible porches. 

22. Additions that would involve the removal or diminishment of open areas on multi-family properties, such as the infill of a courtyard to be used for floor area, are inappropriate.

As this is a single family property, therefore this guideline is not applicable.

23. Additions that would require the location of designated parking areas within the front yard area are not permitted under LAMC.

The proposed additions do not require the location of designated parking areas within the front yard area.

In Conclusion:

As to neighborhood compatibility, this home was built in 1949, outside the Period of Significance after World War II.  Most of the other homes in the immediately-adjacent neighborhood are pre World War II, built as 2-stories with greater front-facing prominence, and mass and stature, as compared to the subject property, where the 304 S Plymouth Blvd home was built more modestly, as a single story structure. 

With regard to preserving the look and feel of the 304 S Plymouth Blvd home, the proposed additions are designed to both maintain the modest, low, horizontal look, feel and style of the original house, while also being distinguished and differentiated from the original historic structure, positioning the new mass toward the rear, and set back from the 1st floor front facade, and on the sides, behind a hipped roof.

The proposed additions are set back from the front and sides, and on the north side of the property, and the neighbors to the north are across the busy and wide 3rd Street and therefore not much affected by the additions. Also, the existing north side of the house has no architecturally defining features, and is purposefully hidden from view by a high wall and dense landscaping, as it is the location of the AC condenser, gas, electric, other utility meters and panels, etc.

Adding mass, especially in the form of adding a 2nd story, while remaining lower in height and front-facing mass than a substantial portion of the homes in the neighborhood would directly contribute to helping the subject property become more consistent and compatible with the neighborhood, while still retaining the style and feel of the existing historic structure.  Additionally, the proposed additions would create a ‘bonus’ benefit to the immediate neighboring homes to the South by helping to block traffic noise and pollution from 3rd Street, while not reducing natural light to those adjacent homes.  

Therefore, as indicated in the FINDINGS/JUSTIFICATIONS above, the addition of a second story to the subject structure does seem positively indicated and justified.

HPOZ Context Analysis

The following is a study of the ‘context’ of the subject property, listing neighboring properties showing the homes as currently developed, including:

1. A Map of Neighborhood Properties

2. Massing and Height Comparison Diagrams ← link to large format 42x30

3. Photo Survey of Surrounding Architectural Styles

4. Summary Table of Contributing Elements

The subject property is lettered “E” and yellow highlighted on the map below (page 16).  It is on the south-east corner of Plymouth Blvd and 3rd Street.  

The properties north of 3rd Street, lettered A, B, and C were also evaluated and found to be the least impacted because 3rd Street is a busy wide street that divides the neighborhood from east to west.  The Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering designates 3rd Street under category Avenue II, which is considered a secondary highway, and as such creates a significant divide. 

The 2 adjacent properties lettered “F” and “H” will be the most impacted by the new development.  Property “F”  (301 S Windsor) is located to the rear/West of the subject property.  Property “H” (314 S Plymouth)  is located to the south of the subject property. 

According to the HPOZ survey report, the property lettered “F” is considered a contributing “Post-Modern / Tudor” style home and similarly a corner lot on Windsor Blvd and 3rd Street.  It is a 2-story home, approximately 28.5’ high with about 33.44% lot coverage.  The north side yard setback from the property line on 3rd street is only about 6’.  

The property lettered “H”,  adjacent to the south of the subject property is a “Mediterranean Revival'' style 2-story home at about 30’ high, with a driveway and porte cochere on its northern side, immediately adjacent to the subject property, which  leads to a detached rear garage.  

Similarly the subject property also has a driveway that leads to a detached rear garage on the south side.  Therefore the 2 driveways provide an extra-large separation of the subject property home with the adjacent Mediterranean Revival style home to the south. 

Because both properties have the larger side yard set back of the driveway between them, and because the subject site is to the north. Impacts such as sunlight restriction are not a factor.  Blocking of view is also much less of an issue since the view in question is the unsightly and noisy view to the busy 3rd Street to the north. In fact, adding mass to the structure on the subject property, would tend to have a positive impact on the adjacent property to the South by blocking more unsightly views and reducing traffic noise and pollution.

CONCLUSION of NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT ANALYSIS:

The proposed development will be only 25.16 feet high and have 27.83 % Lot Coverage, which is only a 1.5% increase.  

Any additional massing added to the subject main structure, would provide some clear benefits to the neighborhood:

1. The existing house is not compatible with the neighboring houses in that it is considerably smaller and less substantial and built outside the Period of Significance.  Adding mass, especially in the form of adding a 2nd story, while remaining lower in height than a substantial portion of the homes in the neighborhood would directly contribute to helping the subject property becoming more consistent and compatible with the neighborhood while still being compatible with the existing context of the historic structure.

2. Any additional massing, especially in the form of a second story addition, will help provide a better barrier to the traffic noise from 3rd Street, benefiting the neighbors to the south.

3. Adding to the north side of the property would have the least amount of perceived mass because the neighbors to the north are across the busy and wide 3rd Street and therefore not much affected by the proposed additions.  

4. Whereas the north side of the existing structure presents little to no architectural features supporting the contemporary ranch style home, the proposed additions would create some architectural continuation of the ranch style on the north face in order to help “establish a seamless transition from architectural style to architectural style and from building type to building type” in the neighborhood, as per pg 93 of the Windsor Square HPOZ Preservation Plan.