HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - HIST-0020-2021 (1136 Iris)Meeting Date: February 22, 2021
Item Number: 2
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPORT
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1136 Iris Street. FILE NUMBER: HIST-0020-2021
APPLICANT: Robert and Michelle Braunschweig, represented by Craig Smith, Architect
For more information contact Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner: 781-7593 (woetzell@slocity.org)
1.0 BACKGROUND
The owner of the property at 1136 Iris Street has requested consideration of the removal the
property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, as described in the applicant’s statement
(see Attachment 1). Consideration of this request is being referred to the Cultural Heritage
Committee (CHC) for recommendation to the City Council, as provided in § 14.01.030 (B) (2) of
the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 Site and Setting
The property is on the north side of Iris
Street, between Ruth and Henry Streets
in the East Railroad area. It is within the
Medium-Density Residential (R-2) and
Special Considerations Overlay (S)
Zone1 The neighborhood is
characterized by single-family
residences, many with historical
character. The property is adjacent to,
but not within, the Railroad Historic
District, and the Southern Pacific Water
Tower (a Master List Historic
Resource) is located behind the
property, to the north, on an adjacent lot.
The site is developed with a two-
bedroom single-family residence in the
front portion of the site, and a small duplex building to the rear. The primary residence was built
in 1910, and following a City-wide survey that included the East Railroad neighborhood, the
1 Special considerations for the area are elevated noise levels along the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way
Figure 1: 1136 Iris Street
Item 2
Packet Page 3
HIST-0020-2021 (1136 Iris)
Page 2
property was designated as a Contributing List Resource in 2007.2 The style of the house is
described in City records3 as “Victorian Cottage.”
2.2 Historic Listing
Historic preservation policies are set out in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of
the City’s General Plan, and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01)
implements these policies.
Property may be designated as a Contributing List resource where a building on it maintains its
historic and architectural character, and contributes, by itself or in conjunction with other
structures, to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole,4
and satisfies at least one of the historic significance criteria listed in § 14.01.070.
3.0 EVALUATION
The applicant statement, prepared by Craig Smith, Architect, (Attachment 1) discusses the
circumstances surround the request to remove the property from the Historic Inventory, as related
to the Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing provided in § 14.01.070 of the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance, concluding that the primary dwelling does not satisfy listing
criteria to a degree warranting designation as a Contributing List Resource:
The property should be removed from the list as it cannot satisfy the required and
appropriate evaluation criteria as a qualified, historic and contributing property.
3.1 Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
In order to be eligible for designation, a resource must exhibit a high level of historic integrity and
satisfy at least one of the evaluation criteria listed in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance. The Ordinance also provides that, while it is the general intent that property not be
removed from historic listing, property may be removed if the structure on it is found to no longer
meet eligibility criteria for listing (§ 14.01.060 (C)). In evaluating the historic significance of this
building, the Commission should consider whether, and to what degree, it satisfies these criteria.
For convenience, these criteria have been provided for reference as Attachment 2 to this report.
Architectural Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (A))
Style and Design. The primary residence on this property, although described as “Victorian
Cottage,” exhibits the “Neo-Classical Cottage” style described in the City’s Historical Context
Statement: simple house forms or cottages with fewer decorative features than other styles from
the period (see Attachment 3).
Architect. The applicant’s statement asserts that “no famous architect of importance has designed
the structure.” A search of permit records related to the construction of the buildings on the site
2 Council Resolution 9875, adopted February 20, 2007
3 Architectural Worksheet from City historical property information file (see Attachment 4)
4 See Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.020 for definition of Contributing List Resource or Property
Item 2
Packet Page 4
HIST-0020-2021 (1136 Iris)
Page 3
provides no indication of their architect or builder.
Historic Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (B))
Person or Event. Similarly, no known association of the property with persons or events significant
to local history or evidence that the property was associated with any famous or “first-of-its-kind”
event has been identified. As stated by the applicant: “no important or significant person has
occupied, owned or used the property.”
Integrity
The front portion of the primary dwelling retains much of its original form and basic character. A
two-story addition was added to the back of the existing residence, providing a new master
bedroom and two-car garage. The addition was part of a 2013 project (Fig. 2) which included
construction of a duplex building at the rear of the lot. These additions have been identified by the
applicant as elements which have degraded the physical integrity of the structure.
On December 2, 2020 the Committee reviewed a proposal for construction of another addition, to
the front of the primary dwelling, involving relocation of its front façade, closer to the street. In its
discussions the Committee noted concerns with the existing conditions and alterations which
already diminished the integrity of the building, and found that the cumulative effects of the
additions and alterations already made on the property taken together with the new proposed
alterations, would further diminish the building’s integrity and the integrity of the setting, such
that the property would not retain its contributing status.
3.2 Conclusion
The description provided in the applicant statement provide a basis for finding that the primary
dwelling on the property does not appear to possess notable historic significance under the City’s
Criteria for Historic Resource Listing. Its architectural style is not particularly rare, it is not known
to be associated with notable architects or craftsmen, and it exhibits compromised integrity as the
CHC discussed in December, 2020, which inhibits ability to convey significance. On finding that
Figure 2: Rendering of south and east building elevations (2013 additions)
Item 2
Packet Page 5
HIST-0020-2021 (1136 Iris)
Page 4
the property does not meet significance criteria, the Committee could recommend that the City
Council remove the property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Consideration of continued eligibility of this property for historic listing is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is does not have the potential
for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the general rule described
in CEQA Guidelines § 15061 (b) (3). The determination of continued eligibility for historic listing
is limited to review of whether the subject site remains eligible for historic resource listing
according to the criteria set forth in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff.
2. Recommend to the City Council that the property not be removed from historic listing, based
on findings describing the property’s continuing eligibility for listing.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Applicant Statement (Craig Smith, Architect)
2. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
3. Neo-Classical Cottage (Context Statement)
4. Architectural Worksheet (City “Yellow File” for property)
Item 2
Packet Page 6
crsa | architecture
January 07, 2021
Community Development
℅ Cultural Heritage Committee
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
Subject: Historical Preservation Application ARCH-0470-2020 (1136 Iris ):
Request to De-List 1136 Iris Property from the Historic List
Dear Cultural Heritage Committee,
Please accept this letter requesting to “delist” the stated and existing property at 1136 Iris Street.
This request is based on the inability to establish any conforming findings set by the State of
California Interior Secretary’s historical preservation conditions and the City of San Luis Obispo
Historic Preservation Ordinance, per the given and established facts with no contributing
“historical” significant elements to maintain eligibility.
The base summary elements are that no important or significant person has occupied, owned or
used the property; no “famous” architect of importance has designed the structures; nor is there
an element of any historical use, event or justification that can be made, or determined, to
establish any historical significant for the property to remain on the list. Furthermore, the ability
to retain existing material integrity, with “original” materials (i.e.: wood shiplap siding), cannot be
assured or verified without detailed, investigated and substantiated inspection and verification.
This later issue has been found to be relevant in the first two phases of the project and are
contributory to this current and proposed phase of work.
Removal from the contributing properties list of historic resources, does not change the proposed
scope of work for the relocation and expansion of the existing front façade and entry porch. The
property should be removed from the list as it cannot satisfy the required and appropriate
evaluation criteria as a qualified, historic and contributing property.
Sincerely,
Craig R. Smith, AIA
Principal Architect
CRSA Architecture
CRSA Architecture – 860 Walnut Street, Suite B – San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
805.544.3380 – crsa@craigrsmithaia.com
ATTACHMENT 1Item 2
Packet Page 7
12
Zoning, or remove the property from historic listing if the structure on the property no longer
meets eligibility criteria for listing, following the process for listing set forth herein.
14.01.070. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural Resource,
the CHC and City Council shall consider this ordinance and State Historic Preservation Office
(“SHPO”) standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high
level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated
that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the
following criteria:
A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
(1)Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details
within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building
style will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the
structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social
milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how
these styles are put together.
(2)Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic
merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or
combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements.
Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately
interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and
craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders,
although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior.
(3)Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for
the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a
reference to:
ATTACHMENT 2Item 2
Packet Page 8
13
a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made
significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced
development of the city, state or nation.
b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San
Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at
810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's home - built between 1927 – 30).
B. Historic Criteria
(1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California,
or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which
a person or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member,
etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or
nationally.
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique,
or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions
(e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad
officials).
(2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the
United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
(i) A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether
the impact of the event spread beyond the city.
(ii) A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah
Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis
Obispo history).
(3) History-Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant
patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental,
military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure
of the degree to which it reflects:
a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic
effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g.,
County Museum).
b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g.,
Park Hotel).
ATTACHMENT 2Item 2
Packet Page 9
HIST-0020-2021 (1136 Iris)
Request to remove the property at 1136 Iris from
the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources
2
3
4
5
6
7
Addition
8
Action
Forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding removal of the property from the
City’s Inventory of Historic Resources
HIST-0020-2021 (1136 Iris)
Request to remove the property at 1136 Iris from
the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources
10
11