Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Alteration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic preservation board continues decision on Panorama Road garage after debate over integrity and code case
Summary
After extensive discussion about unpermitted work, permit history, and whether the house is associated with architects John Porter Clark and Albert Frey, the Historic Site Preservation Board continued consideration of a major-alteration request at 877 West Panorama Road to the March 3 meeting to gather additional information.
The Historic Site Preservation Board on Feb. 3 continued consideration of a major-alteration request for 877 West Panorama Road after a lengthy debate over whether the property still retains enough historical integrity to merit designation proceedings.
Staff presented the owner-initiated application, which seeks demolition of a detached garage and was flagged because the house is listed as a Class 3 potential historic resource in the city inventory. Staff said the property’s survey notes referenced an association with architects John Porter Clark and Albert Frey, but added that a code-enforcement case opened the same day had introduced new uncertainty about recent work and permitting on the site.
Owner Matthew Phillips and co-owner Devin Howard told the board they purchased the house about a year ago and have submitted 25 pages of permit records and archival research, arguing the house has been altered repeatedly over decades and no longer represents a strong example of its period. Phillips said the owners want a sensitive new garage but asked to proceed with the permit process if the board decided not to stay the application.
Board members split on how to proceed. Some members argued the property’s documented associations and remaining design features could warrant Class 2 consideration and recommended commissioning a professional report; others said the visible alterations, past fire damage and unclear permit history made extensive research a poor use of limited city resources. Board members also raised procedural questions about whether code-enforcement matters and potential CEQA implications alter the board’s options.
After two tied votes on alternate motions, the board adopted a motion to continue the item to the board’s next regular meeting on March 3 to allow additional information and participation of an odd-numbered board; the motion to continue passed 4-2.
