HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric restoration findingsHiguera Commons, LLC
3480 S. Higuera Street, Suite 130
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Phone: 805‐540‐3330
April 26, 2015
CHC Members
City Staff
City of San Luis Obispo
Re: Norcross House: 546 Higuera
Dear CHC Members:
The City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines require analysis of restoration and rehabilitation efforts with
respect to historic resources. This analysis provides such an analysis. There are three parts to the
analysis: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance and the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation ‐‐ Published in 1977 and revised in 1990 as part
of Department of the Interior regulations (36 CFR Part 67, Historic Preservation Certifications).
According to the National Park Service publication Historic Preservation Tax Incentives, the Standards
are “applied to projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical
feasibility.” There are 10 such standards, all addressed below. The Standards (36 CFR Part 67) apply
where, as here, a building is designated as historic.
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires
minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
RESPONSE: This property will continue in its historic use as a rooming house or single family
residence, with a second unit in the rear over the garage. Historically the property has been
used as a boarding house (college student housing) for the past several decades. (For a short
temporary period it served as a costume shop). Numerous residents report its use in this
fashion. Thom Brajkovich lived in the house and reports that the house had two units, one in
the front and a second in the rear.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic
materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
RESPONSE: The original house is a 16 deep by 30 wide home. A privy was later built on the
side and rooms added to the rear in a haphazard fashion. As porch was walled in. The
original house will be preserved and restored consistent with the earliest photo from 1904,
included with the historic report and staff report. The original off‐white paint will be used.
Original siding and interior materials will all be re‐used as feasible. The fenestration will be
restored as closely as possible to the earliest photo. Over time, the upstairs French doors
and balcony were demolished and/or changed. This will be restored to the original as closely
as possible.
3. Each property shall 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
architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
RESPONSE: Architectural elements are all tied to the original Norcross house and no
conjectural or outside features or elements are proposed. Only the garage is added, as
there were no garages included in the 19th century structure. The garage is not a feature as
it is only an opening in the rear of the building.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in
their own right shall be retained and preserved.
RESPONSE: The changes over time did not acquire any historic significance, but degraded
the structure from its original appearance, as reflected in the 1904 photo. The addition of
such elements as Craftsman style patio supports shown in a 1935 photo will not be retained
as they betray the original architectural period and style.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that
characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
RESPONSE: All known architectural features of the original building will be retained and/or
restored. The distinctive porch and upstairs doors will be restored. The plank lapboard
siding will be retained in materials and style. The original structure itself will be moved
forward on the lot, but retained in both interior and exterior elements as its integrity
appears manageable. The additions tacked onto the original building have no structural
integrity and are comprised of substandard building technique with no architectural value.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the
old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or
pictorial evidence.
RESPONSE: We will repair the interior and exterior of the original building to the extent
feasible. The porch/deck will have to be replaced as it is gone. The 2nd floor French doors
will have to be added back as they were removed between 1904 and 1935. Overall, the
project will match the original house and replace the scabbed‐on additions in the rear with
architecturally consistent features.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic
materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be
undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
RESPONSE: No sandblasting is proposed. The siding will be re‐used where board integrity
survives. Where removal is required, the exterior boards will be removed by hand and
stored for reuse.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If
such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
RESPONSE: There are no known archeological resources present.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old
and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect
the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
RESPONSE: The materials on the original house will be re‐used. The materials on the rear
additions will necessarily be modern (Hardiboard planks) and therefore differentiated in
appearance and style, while retaining and respecting the original architecture in color and
architectural features. The roof lines of the addition is slightly lower than that of the
original house, “stepping back” from the original structure as the historical scabbed‐on
additions did. The new project will have the same depth as the current composite structure.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall 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.
RESPONSE: The remodel addition will mimic the existing transition between the original
structure and the current addition. Therefore, the new construction/additions will not, if
removed in the future, affect the original structure in any way different from the current
relationship between the original house and the current additions. In other words, the
present integrity of the original house will be improved by the addition of a foundation and
structural improvements as well as restoration of architectural elements. This improvement
does not depend on the additions, other than to provide the modern living conveniences
not present in the original house (like bathrooms).
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Guidelines. The City Guidelines echo or closely follow the
federal standards by and large. They are included here in the event there are differences.
11. Section 3.4.1 (d) Additions. Additions to listed historic structures should maintain the
structure’s original architectural integrity and closely match the building’s original
architecture, or match additions that have achieved historic significance in their own right,
in terms of scale, form, massing, rhythm, fenestration, materials, color and architectural
details.
RESPONSE:
* The proposed addition to replace the substandard scabbed‐on additions to the original
house “closely match” the original building’s architecture.
*The overall project helps maintain and in fact saves the original structure by creating a
modern habitable space consistent with its family and boarding room status historically.
*The roof line of the addition steps down and is lower than the original house.
*The addition matches the footprint of the structure as expanded over the years, 68’ by 30’.
12. Guideline 3.4.1 (e) Historic Preservation Report: An historical report has been prepared for
this project, including (1) The historic context, period of significance and character‐
defining features. (2) An architectural history of the resource which includes:
•Photographs and drawings which identify the original building, structure, object,
and site configuration,
•Character defining features of the resource as originally constructed,
•Alterations, including those alterations made over time that have achieved status as
character defining features, even though not a part of the original resource,
•Alterations not consistent with maintaining the historic integrity of the resource.
A program for repair, rehabilitation and preservation of the resource, including a
statement of how the proposed program meets the identified treatment option from
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.
RESPONSE:
*This application is accompanied by both an historic report and a program for the repair,
rehabilitation and preservation of the resource, prepared by respected historical architect
Thom Brajkovich of Paragon Design, who has achieved numerous historic preservation
projects in San Luis Obispo.
*The Paragon Report includes and incorporates several other inspections and reports,
including
1. The Historic Report for 546 Higuera by Michael Hibma of LSA, dated July, 2014.
2. Molnar Construction & Development, Inc. evaluation on the potential for
restoration, dated May 29, 2014
3. Barry Stone Inspection Report dated March 12, 2014
4. Report by Betsy Bertrando dated September/October 2014 (record before City
Council on Master List determination of November 18, 2014)
13. Guideline 3.4.1 (f) Consistency required. Alterations to listed historic resources shall be
approved only upon finding that the proposed work is consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, any required historic
preservation report, General Plan policies, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and these
Guidelines.
RESPONSE:
*The above findings/responses demonstrate compliance with the federal Standards and the
City Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines.
* The historic reports indicate gothic design for the original house, as viewed from the
street.
*This street frontage will be preserved as near as possible to the house viewed in the 1904
photo included with the staff report. Preserving the original house and adding
complementary re‐construction of the rear additions meets the federal and City standards,
policies and guidelines.
14. Guideline 3.4.2: Percent of historic resource to be preserved. Alterations of historically‐
listed buildings shall retain at least 75% of the original building framework, roof, and
exterior bearing walls and cladding, in total, and reuse original materials as feasible.
Proposed alterations of greater than 25% of the original building framework, roof, and
exterior walls will be subject to the review process for demolitions. Alterations do not
include ordinary repair or maintenance that is exempt from a building permit or is
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Resources.
RESPONSE: This project retains 100% of the original building framework, roof and exterior
bearing walls and cladding, subject to materials being usable. Alterations are necessary for
the front deck and French doors which have all be destroyed over time. The goal is to
achieve the elements of the 1904 photo.
15. Guideline 3.4.3 Retention of character‐defining features. Alterations of historically‐listed
buildings shall retain character defining features. New features on primary and secondary
building facades, or features visible from a public area, should be completed in a manner
that preserves the original architectural character, form, scale, and appearance of the
building.
RESPONSE: This project retains or restores all features of the original building (form, scale
and appearance) and character from the 1904 photo, as well as replacing the scabbed‐on
additions with complementary and functional forms, which are smaller and different in scale
from the original house.
16. Guideline 3.4.4 Exterior building changes. Exterior changes to historically‐listed buildings or
resources should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be
architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the
building, its setting and architectural context. Additions to historic buildings shall comply
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to complement and be consistent with the
original style of the structure. Building materials used to replicate character‐defining
features shall be consistent with the original materials in terms of size, shape, quality and
appearance. However, original materials are not required.
RESPONSE:
* Exterior changes for the original house will only be made to the porch and French door
second floor window.
* Additions will be re‐built to meet modern codes and these will “complement” and be
“consistent with” the architectural style of the original house, in terms of size, shape, quality
and appearance.”
* Slightly different materials will be used for the siding, consistent with the direction of the
federal guidelines to repeat but not match exactly the original structure.
John Belsher
PB Companies, LLC, managing member of
Higuera Commons, LLC