The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 4a. 1720 Morro St. (HIST-0495-2022) CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: 1720 MORRO STREET (HIST-0495-2022) REVIEW OF A REQUEST TO REMOVE PROPERTY FROM THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7593 Email: woetzell@slocity.org APPLICANT: Niels Udsen REPRESENTATIVE: James Papp RECOMMENDATION Provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding whether the property continues to meet eligibility criteria for historic listing in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources 1.0 BACKGROUND The owner of the property at 1720 Morro Street has submitted an Historic Preservation Review application, requesting that the property be removed from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, as ineligible for listing, based primarily on the compromised historical integrity of the building on the site. An evaluation of the property and its eligibility for listing as an historic resource has been prepared by James Papp, PhD, historian and architectural historian, to inform consideration of this request (see Attachment A). 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 a residential parcel on the east side of Morro Street, about 150 feet south of Leff Street, within the Old Town Historic District, one of the City’s oldest residential neighborhoods, built up historically around the turn of the 20th Century, with older structures dating back to the 1880s (see description of district, Attachment B). Meeting Date: 10/24/2022 Item Number: 4a Time Estimate: 30 Minutes Figure 1: 1720 Morro (1982) Page 9 of 33 Item 4a HIST-0495-2022 (1720 Morro) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – October 24, 2022 The site is developed with a single-family dwelling (see Figure 1). As described in the applicant’s Historic Resource Evaluation, the dwelling appears on a 1905 Sanborn Map, and is visible in a 1906 panoramic photograph of the City (Papp, pg. 13). No permit record establishing a construction date has been found, nor is the architect of the building known. City records (see Historic Resource Information, Attachment C) describe the building as Neo-Colonial or Colonial Bungalow in style, noting several architectural elements including: Shiplap siding Multi-gable single-hip roof with wood shingles Box cornice, simple frieze Recessed porch with tapered corner columns and square capitals 10-over-1 sash window (right side of façade) Pedimented dormer above entry Pedimented gable (left side of façade) with fishscale, diamond, and half-round shingles Large stained glass windows, with trim and lugsills Wood shingle shed awning above front window bay Side dormer with stained glass window below The applicant’s evaluation more specifically describes the style as “Colonial Revival Bungalow.” Several examples of this modest style are found in the district, as shown in a series of photographs on page 9 of the applicant’s evaluation. 2.2 Historic Listing The property was included as a Contributing List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources in 1987, by adoption of Council Resolution 6424. 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, and satisfies at least one of the historic significance criteria listed in the Ordinance (see Historic Preservation Ordinance §§ 14.01.060 & 14.01.070). 3.0 EVALUATION 3.1 Architecture Style and Design: The primary residence on this property is described in the applicant’s evaluation as a Colonial Revival Bungalow, with historical context for the style provided from page 6 of the document. As executed in the Old Town District, modest bungalows in this style commonly had a pyramidal hipped roof with a ridge oriented perpendicular to the street frontage, and an asymmetric façade with a windowed bay and a front porch topped by a pedimented front gable (Attachment A, pg. 1, with example photos pp. 9-11). Page 10 of 33 Item 4a HIST-0495-2022 (1720 Morro) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – October 24, 2022 These basic character-defining features were originally present on this home, but have been impacted by a series of modifications to the building since its construction, including: Oversized front dormer (by 1949) Large Post-Modern style dormer on rear South facing pedimented dormer (1965-1982) Porch enclosure (by 2017), including modification and fluting of porch columns Removal of 10-over-1 sash window from front façade (behind porch enclosure) Replacement window in front bay (also now removed) North-facing “push-out” addition and window (attached to rear porch enclosure) New window opening in north-facing pediment New window opening (now boarded) between originals on south elevation Full width back porch enclosure With all of these modifications, the Papp evaluation describes loss of the original appearance and character-defining features: In addition to the loss or major alteration of all three character-defining features of the street façade, the rear and side façades have been altered by various eras of expedient pushouts, enclosures, and added and removed fenestration, such that, among the chronological clutter, only two windows in the entire house—both on the south façade, separated by a stained glass window that was added and later removed —appear to be original. (Papp, pg. 2) Figure 2: Modifications - bay (left), porch (center), and south elevation (right) Figure 3: Addition to north elevation (left), added dormer window (center), rear dormer (right) Page 11 of 33 Item 4a HIST-0495-2022 (1720 Morro) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – October 24, 2022 The most visible elevation, the front façade, has been subjected to loss of character- defining features by enclosure of the front porch, loss of the 10-over-1 sash window and modification of porch columns, the addition of an oversize dormer to the hipped roof form, and addition of the shed awning over the large window bay and removal of the original window. Today, observable original elements of the building at large are limited to the pedimented gable and window bay (missing the window from the opening) on the façade, siding on the south elevation (interrupted with a new window opening), siding remaining on some portions of the north elevation, the north-facing dormer (compromised by the added window), and the box cornice and frieze details. Work undertaken with these subsequent modifications would not be considered to be consistent with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historical Properties, mainly because it resulted in the removal and destruction of character-defining features, introduced incompatible new features, and substantially changed a roof form that was important in defining the overall historic character of the building. Together these changes have diminished the architectural and historic character of the building, as described in the applicant’s evaluation. 3.2 Integrity As defined in the Historical Preservation Ordinance, integrity is measured in large part by the degree to which an historical resource has maintained its historic character or appearance, to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reasons for its significance, and the degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association (§ 14.01.070 (C)). A discussion of the historic integrity of the property, and in particular the cumulative effects of modifications to the building since its construction, is provided in the applicant’s eva luation (Attachment A, from pg. 20). The loss of integrity discussed in the evaluation centers around the “cluttered and jarring” effect that the modifications have had on the design, materials, workmanship, and feeling of the building in its current state. The upper-floor additions and related outsize dormers and have obscured and complicated the original simple pyramid roof form. A recent porch enclosure and modification of porch columns has effectively eliminated the original characteristic porch and entry feature. Removal of the window from the front bay and addition of a canopy has altered this feature, with no remaining documentation to aid in its accurate reconstruction. And enclosures at the front and rear have altered the original building form with significant removal of original wall material. As summarized in the applicant’s evaluation: In short, loss of 4 of the 7 Aspects of Integrity—design, workmanship, and materials of the street façade and all secondary façades, and the resultant feeling into which these three aspects of integrity aggregate— has been so global and severe that 1720 Morro’s exterior no longer Page 12 of 33 Item 4a HIST-0495-2022 (1720 Morro) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – October 24, 2022 communicates the streamlined and open nature of its original Colonial Revival architecture or its consistency with the other 27 examples of the subtype in the district. It is not eligible for historic resource listing ... (Papp, pg. 2) 3.3 Conclusion The applicant’s evaluation provides a basis for finding that the dwelling on the property does not possess notable significance under the Ci ty’s Criteria for Historic Resource Listing. The original Colonial Revival Bungalow architectural style has been obscured and altered by modifications to the building, and the building’s historical integrity has been significantly compromised, inhibiting its ability to convey its significance. It is not known to be associated with notable architects or craftsmen, persons prominent in history, or unique events or patterns of history. Because the property does not appear to be important in contributing to the historic character of the Old Town Historic District or the City as a whole, and does not meet significance criteria, the Committee could recommend that the Council remove the property from the Inventory 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 ACTION 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 A - Historic Resource Evaluation (James Papp, PhD) B - Old Town Historic District (Historic Context Statement) C - Historic Resource Information (City “Yellow File”) Page 13 of 33 Page 14 of 33 =RQLQJRUUHPRYHWKHSURSHUW\IURPKLVWRULFOLVWLQJLIWKHVWUXFWXUHRQWKHSURSHUW\QRORQJHU PHHWVHOLJLELOLW\FULWHULDIRUOLVWLQJIROORZLQJWKHSURFHVVIRUOLVWLQJVHWIRUWKKHUHLQ (YDOXDWLRQ&ULWHULDIRU+LVWRULF5HVRXUFH/LVWLQJ :KHQGHWHUPLQLQJLIDSURSHUW\VKRXOGEHGHVLJQDWHGDVDOLVWHG+LVWRULFRU&XOWXUDO5HVRXUFH WKH&+&DQG&LW\&RXQFLOVKDOOFRQVLGHUWKLVRUGLQDQFHDQG6WDWH+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ2IILFH ³6+32´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age 15 of 33 D $ QRWDEOH DUFKLWHFW HJ :ULJKW 0RUJDQ LQFOXGLQJ DUFKLWHFWV ZKR PDGH VLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQVWRWKHVWDWHRUUHJLRQRUDQDUFKLWHFWZKRVHZRUNLQIOXHQFHG GHYHORSPHQWRIWKHFLW\VWDWHRUQDWLRQ E $QDUFKLWHFWZKRLQWHUPVRIFUDIWVPDQVKLSPDGHVLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQVWR6DQ /XLV2ELVSRHJ$EUDKDPVZKRDFFRUGLQJWRORFDOVRXUFHVGHVLJQHGWKHKRXVHDW 2VRV)UDQN$YLOD VIDWKHU VKRPHEXLOWEHWZHHQ± %+LVWRULF&ULWHULD +LVWRU\±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±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age 16 of 33 &,QWHJULW\ $XWKHQWLFLW\ RI DQ KLVWRULFDO UHVRXUFH¶V SK\VLFDO LGHQWLW\ HYLGHQFHG E\ WKH VXUYLYDORIFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKDWH[LVWHGGXULQJWKHUHVRXUFH¶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³+´]RQLQJ3URSHUWLHV]RQHG³+´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age 17 of 33 Page 18 of 33 34 5.2.1 Old Town Historic District Setting Established in 1987, the Old Town Historic District abuts the Railroad district on the southeast and is generally bounded by Pacific and Islay streets on the north and south, and by Santa Rosa and Beach streets on the east and west. As one of the City’s oldest residential neighborhoods, Old Town was built up historically around the turn of the twentieth century, with older structures dating back to the 1880s. It consists of five subdivisions: the Mission Vineyard Tract recorded in March 1873, the Dallidet Tract recorded in 1876, the Murray Church Tract recorded in 1876, the Ingleside Homestead Tract, recorded in 1887, and the La Vina Homestead Tract, recorded in 1903. The District encompasses 86.1 acres, or 0.13 square miles. The District’s prominent location, located just south of and uphill from the Downtown commercial district, made it a desirable neighborhood for the City’s emerging merchant class and leading citizens. Here, residents were close to businesses and commerce, but could avoid the flooding and mud that plagued the Downtown. Home sites were laid out in regular grid patterns, with relatively wide (60 foot right-of-way) streets and 60 foot wide lots. The resultant wide streets and lot frontages allowed deep (20+ feet) setbacks and ample landscaping, reinforcing the district’s prosperous image. Today the high concentration of 100 year old or older residences establishes the District’s predominant architectural and visual character. Site Features and Characteristics Common site features and characteristics include: A. Prominent street yard setbacks of 20 feet or more B. Coach barn (garage) recessed into rear yard C. Finish floors raised 2 3 above finish grade D. Front entries oriented toward street, with prominent walk, stairs and porch E. Front building facades oriented parallel to street 1060 Pismo Street, South Elevation Page 19 of 33 35 Architectural Character In keeping with its peak period of development between 1880 and 1920, the Old Town District has many examples of High Victorian architecture, a style popular in California during that time period that reflected prosperity, power and discriminating taste. This included several style variations, such as Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick and Gothic Revival influences, especially along the top of the hill within the district roughly aligned with Buchon Street. Other, more modest structures with simpler styles abound in other areas of the district. These buildings were first home to the burgeoning merchant class in San Luis Obispo that emerged during the turn of the century. These styles include Neo-classic Row House, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman Bungalow, with many homes borrowing architectural details from several styles. Most of the houses in this district were designed and constructed by the homes’ first occupants or by local builders and were influenced by architectural pattern books of the time period. The shared first story porches along Pismo Street are a good example of a common design feature linking buildings. Predominant architectural features include: A. Two- and rarely three-story houses B. Mostly gable and hip roof types C. Highly ornamented roof features, including prominent fascias, bargeboards, gable end treatments, decorative shingles, prominent pediments or cornices D. Traditional fenestration, such as double-hung, wood sash windows, divided light windows, ornamental front doors, wood screen doors E. Painted wood surface material, including siding and decorative moldings Although many of the buildings were built at separate times, the pattern, rhythm and repetition of common design elements or detailing of historic building facades along Old Town streets creates a prevailing theme and character for the district. Individually Contributing Elements in the Old Town District Some buildings within the bounds of the Old Town District, constructed outside of the period of significance for the district, 1880- 1920, do not share the elements outlined in the above description, but have achieved historical significance on their own and 1543 Morro Street, East Elevation M.F. Avila House, 1443 Osos Street, East Elevation Page 20 of 33 36 therefore individually contribute to the historic character of San Luis Obispo. The M.F. Avila House at 1443 Osos Street is an example of a Spanish Revival style building built in the late 1920s that has been placed on the City’s Master List as a significant resource, in this case for its craftsmanship as well as its association with a historically significant local person. St. Stephens Episcopal Church at 1344 Nipomo Street built in 1873 is an example of Carpenter Gothic style. The first Episcopal church in San Luis Obispo County, St. Stephens is historically significant both its architecture and its association with the pioneer period of San Luis Obispo. Non-Contributing Elements in the Old Town District Non-contributing buildings are those buildings that both do not meet the criteria outlined above and have not achieved historical significance. Most of the contemporary buildings in the district fall into this category. Non-contributing architectural styles, materials or site features include: A. Contemporary stucco or other material exterior siding B. Flat or extremely low pitched roof C. Aluminum sliding windows D. Rectilinear, “boxy” shape or very horizontal massing E. Unarticulated wall surfaces The Vista Grande Apartments, 1415 Morro Street, East Elevation. Page 21 of 33 37 *** 1059 Leff Street; Biddle House, 559 Pismo Street; 1624, 1636, 1642 Morro Street; and Pismo Buchon Alley from Santa Rosa Street Page 22 of 33 Page 23 of 33 Page 24 of 33 Page 25 of 33 Page 26 of 33