HomeMy WebLinkAboutNorcross Historic Report 4-26-15
Historic Preservation Report on Architectural Proposal
The David Norcross House 546 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA
Paragon Design*
Prepared for the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing
April 27, 2015
*Paragon Design and its principal/owner, Thom Brajkovich, have been responsible for the rehabilitation
and reconstruction of dozens of historic buildings in San Luis Obispo County, from the 1980’s to the
present. Representative projects range from 412 Marsh Street (ED Bray, original architect) to the Cass
House in Cayucos
SHERIFF DAVID NORCROSS 1874
CURRENT NORCROSS HOUSE 2015
Historic Preservation Report on Architectural Proposal
The David Norcross House, 546 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
Prepared for the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing April 27, 2015
Report on Consistency with Historical Preservation Guidelines
This report includes by reference the following documents in the record before the CHC and as
previously considered by the CHC in its staff report and public hearing for the subject property
September 22, 2014:
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)
Project Description: In the process of CHC evaluation of the building at 546 Higuera, it came to light that
the house, which has a two‐story 16’ x 30’6” footprint, was built in 1874 by or for David Norcross, a
sheriff of San Luis Obispo from 1871 to 1876. Several additions of far less quality were added over the
years to the original house. Prior to the discovery of the connections to David Norcross, a historical
report and photo documentation “Eligibility Evaluation” was prepared by Michael Hibma showing that
the building is too poor condition to save and secondly that it should not be on the Master List of
historic homes. On September 22, 2014 the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) recommended that the
house should be considered historic and evaluated for inclusion on the Master List based on its
architecture and affiliation with prominent officials in San Luis Obispo. At the request of the CHC, the
applicant and Betsy Bertrando provided evidence to the City of the ownership by Norcross. The City
then recommended inclusion on the Master List to the City Council, to which the applicant consented.
There was discussion at the CHC and later in connection with the determination by the City Council, of
the possibility of rehabilitation of the original structure and reconstruction of the dilapidated portions of
the structure. In conversations with Staff after the CHC meeting and as part of the applicant’s
agreement to the property’s placement on the Master List at the City Council, the present plan was
developed with input from former CHC staff (Phil Dunsmore) and the architecture developed consistent
with those discussions. It is our intention to show that the building plans as proposed meet the
guidelines of the federal Secretary of Interior Standards and the City Historic Preservation Guidelines.
The particular Standards and Guidelines discussed below are those indicated by the City Staff as a
subject for evaluation by the CHC. A more complete analysis of the project’s compliance with all the
federal and local guidelines is also provided as an attachment.
I. OVERVIEW
The preservation of the Norcross house is a blend of several principles of historic building treatment, as
defined in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, as follows:
A. Restoration:
“the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features and character of a property as it
appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods
in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period.” City Historic
Preservation Ordinance Section 14.01.020 paragraph 47.
1. The original 16x30’ structure will be moved forward onto a foundation and the
front balcony and French door access off the second floor restored to the original, as
shown in the 1904 photo included with the staff report.
2. The rear portion of the building which was scabbed on piecemeal with differing
forms, scale and architecture will be restored with a foundation, fully functional space
and structural integrity, all of which in form and scale steps down from and
complements the original structure.
3. The garage built years later will be incorporated into the project so as to match
the form of the original structure in height, design and scale and remove cars from view.
B. Rehabilitation:
“the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair,
alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its
architectural, cultural, or historic values.” City Historic Preservation Ordinance Section
14.01.020 paragraph 44.
1. The project allows a renewed use as a residence, by repairs, alterations and
additions allowing living space, bathrooms and enclosed garage space.
2. The project continues a multi‐family use which existed for many decades, in a
zone and property (mobilehome park) permitting such use.
C. Reconstruction:
“the act or process of recreating the features, form and detailing of a non‐surviving building or
portion of building, structure, object, landscape, or site for the purpose of replicating its
appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.” City Historic Preservation
Ordinance Section 14.01.020 paragraph 43
1. The original 16 x 30’ structure will be retained and rehabilitated, while the rear
portion of the existing building will be reconstructed due to its dilapidated condition.
2. The featured of the original building will be recreated, including the front
balcony and French door second floor entry.
D. “Feasible”
“capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,
taking into account cultural, economic, environmental, historic, legal, social and technological
factors. ‘Structural feasibility’ means that a building or other structure can be repaired or
rehabilitated so as to be safe and usable without significant loss of historic fabric…”
1. The additions behind the original structure are not feasibly repairable. Walls
contain substandard or non‐existent studs, requiring each wall to be entirely rebuilt.
2. There are no cultural or architectural reasons to restore or replicate the rear
scabbed‐on portions of the existing building. In fact the existing forms are so haphazard
and of uneven scale as to detract from the original 16x 30’ structure.
3. By contrast the original 16 x 30’ structure is framed with full‐size 2x4 studs at
16” on center. Placed on a new foundation, this original structure can be feasibly
salvaged and properly integrated into a complete and fully functional residential
structure.
The foregoing fall within the rubric of “Alterations”, which is addressed in Section 3.4.1 of the
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. To the above, the Guidelines include the
following:
E. “Accessory Structures”.
“New accessory structures should complement the primary structure’s historic character
through compatibility with its form, massing, color and materials.” Section 3.4.1 (c)
1. The rear portions of the proposed structure include a parking garage, so as to
meet code‐mandated parking requirements, which staff indicates as mandatory. By
making the garage unit two story, it matches the form of the original structure, creating
a uniform and complementary building.
2. The rear portions, including the garage unit, step down in height and scale to
respect the original 16 x 30’ structure.
F. “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.” Section 3.4.1 (d)
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Program Guidelines allow for all manner of treatment of
historic structure, including:
Restoration
Rehabilitation
Reconstruction
Accessory Structures
Additions
The guiding principles of the City’s regulations and program include the following:
Feasibility
Complementary or compatible form, massing, scale, color and materials
The principle goal of reconstruction is to “preserve the original historic character of the historic resource
to the maximum extent feasible”. Program Guidelines Section 3.5.1
In sum, the plan before the CHC takes all these factors into account. It attempts to salvage the original
structure as feasible, restore important original features such as the front porch/balcony and French
door access while retaining all other features visible from Higuera Street. It reconstructs the scabbed‐on
additions with complementary form and scale while adding functionality to allow a continued historic
residential use, including off‐street, out of view parking. The overall effect is to preserve the original
historic character of this Master List property.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND LOCAL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
This Report focuses on issues raised by staff in its report to the CHC for its meeting of April 27, 2015. An
additional submittal by applicant PB Companies, dated April 26, 2015 analyzes each of the federal
Standards and City Guidelines and is incorporated by reference into this Report.
1. Issue: Compliance with Secretary of Interior Standards/ Consistency, Section 3.4.2
This section deals with the percent of the historic resource to be preserved. It says “alterations
of historically listed buildings shall retain at least 75% of the original building framework, roof
and exterior bearding walls and cladding, in total, and reuse original materials as feasible”.
Proposal
Maintain all of the ORIGINAL 16 x 30 building as far as possible. This portion of the
structure has solid framing (full‐size redwood 2x4 construction) and flooring and
fenestration usable and intact.
Move to a new foundation 15’ towards Higuera Street.
The part that is proposed for demolition is comprised of later additions and is not
salvageable.
Rear additions were done over a period of time since the original Norcross/ Sinclair
House was built and are of shoddy construction, as documented in the Hibma, Molnar
and Stone reports
The proposed alterations will be less than 25% of the original building and comprised
mainly of reconstruction of the now‐missing balcony and second floor French doors.
The added rear portions of the proposal are complementary to the original historic
house.
New floor plan will function similar to the existing floor plan
Our design features the original front and partial side elevation from Higuera Street. The
side will step back so that the prominent feature is the original Norcross house (see
rendering below).
The addition of the rear portions of the new building will not be altering the old original
building but will complement it.
PROPOSED VIEW FROM HIGUERA STREET AT ENTRY
2. Issue: SOI Guidelines for Historic Preservations. P.113: This recommendation calls for constructing a
“new addition to a historical building so that there is the least amount of loss of historic materials and
that the addition makes it clear what is new and what is added”.
Proposal
Our addition will be lower in scale by reducing the height of the roof line and changing
the pitch of the roof (from 16 in 12 to 5 in 12).
Complementary steep lower scale gable adds character and respect for old historic
building yet is diminished in importance and set back.
Dormer windows used in new addition because the original house 2nd story ceilings are
too low for windows. Dormer windows were not an element of the original house nor
was the low pitched roof.
Second, the newer addition steps back vertically 3’‐0” from the original along the
driveway and visual side of the house so that it diminishes the rear yet enhances the
sight of the original.
Historic materials on the front house maintained or refurbished to match.
3. Issue: Exterior Building Changes City Historic Preservation Guidelines, Section
3.3.4
“Exterior changes to historically‐listed buildings should not introduce new or
conflicting 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”
Proposal
New unit addition separates the roof element with a smaller scaled version of the steep
pitched gable with less decoration and simpler detail on the fascia. This complies with
the City’s Historical Preservation Guideline section 3.4.4
The rear addition continues the lower pitched roof to the end of the original house.
Scale and size of the addition is similar to what is now existing footprint of 30’ x 68’
Reduction of scale and massing in addition is accomplished by lowering floor and
window plate lines.
Opening in the rear for the garages and carport is a new and differing element.
Vehicles will be hidden from view from the historical building with cars parked in
garages and carports below in the rear of the addition.
Complies with SOI’s suggestion that the design for the new work be differentiated from
the historical building and are “compatible in terms of mass, materials, relationship of
solids to voids and color” and ” consistent with the original style of the structure” See
photo below.
4. SOI Standards: New Additions: Standard #9.”New additions, alterations, or related
new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial
relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated
from the old and will be compatible with the historical materials, features, size, scale
and proportion and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its
environment”
Also it recommends that there is the “least possible loss of historic materials and
character defining features are not lost.”
Proposal
Restored Norcross house will more resemble the original house than in present and past
additions.
Replacement of prominent front deck balustrade over the porch and
Adding back the original French doors and shutters exiting to deck.
Reuse of siding on original house. Use of Dutchlap wood siding or comparable design
and slightly different sizing to complement the original siding.
We are also replacing lost elements like the front porch columns and balusters as well
as missing elements from the dominant front gables.
Addition designed to complement and enhance the original Norcross House by using
similar character defining features as well as materials.
Previous additions severely diminished the character of the original house. We intend to
do the opposite by providing an add‐on that enhances and respects the original house.
New building materials be consistent with the original materials in terms of size shape
and appearance per SOI standards
Character defining features maintained. The only part of the house that will change is
the rear wall in which due to all the poorly constructed additions is all but gone. Our
addition will restore character defining features and enhance and protect the original
house. Notice in the photo below how the many additions tend to overwhelm the
original house and diminish its character.
EXISTING REAR OF NORCROSS HOUSE
5. SOI Rehabilitation Standard # 10 “ New additions and or related adjacent new
construction will be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the
essential form and integrity of the historical property and its environment would be
unimpaired.”
Proposed
If the proposed rear addition is ever removed the original building would still be intact.
The back of the building would then be restored to the original look (the missing
dominant steep gable added back on).
During construction the original building will be moved first onto its new foundation and
the subsequent additions will be added later. One will be able to easily differentiate the
old from the new.
III. SUMMARY:
In conclusion, we feel we have complied with the SOI standards by replacing a series of very
substandard and ugly rear additions done at various times in the past and replacing them with a
compatible lower scaled and proportioned addition that both enhances the restored front
house while providing a reduced height, different roof pitch, simpler trim details and similar
wood windows. These elements will make an elegant addition that complements rather that
takes away from the original house. The use of similar materials but simpler in detail will clearly
distinguish the old from the new. With regards to Directional Item #3 we propose to offer more
of a visual break to the rear by stepping in the side yard elevation to be similar to the driveway
side by providing the same vertical break which will further define the front original house. Also
we will incorporate simpler materials for fascias, casings and trim that will further enhance the
front houses character. We will provide revised plans that show how this will be accomplished.
We ask the Cultural Heritage Commission to move that the project be conceptually approved as
presented and that staff be directed to proceed with staff level ARC review if required without a
need to return to the CHC for review.
Respectfully,
Thomas G. Brajkovich, Architect