The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-24-2017 CHC Agenda Packet City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Agenda Cultural Heritage Committee Monday, July 24, 2017 5:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA CALL TO ORDER: Chair Papp ROLL CALL: Committee Members Thom Brajkovich, Damon Haydu, Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Glen Matteson, Vice-Chair Shannon Larrabee, and Chair James Papp ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee or staff may modify the order of items. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Minutes of the Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting s of April 24, May 15, and May 22, 2017 . PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, the public may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff, and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS NOTE: The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director, another advisory body, or City Council, and, therefore is not final, and cannot be appealed. 1. 683 Pismo Street. ARCH-0733-2017: Review of an addition to a Contributing List historic property in the Medium-Density Residential zone, within the Old Town Historic District; categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 15332); R-2-H zone; Mark and Heather Minnoch, applicants. (Kip Morais) 2. 546 Higuera Street. ARCH-0339-2017: Continued review of repositioning, restoration, and rehabilitation of the Master List Historic structure known as Norcross House, including the San Luis Obispo – Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda of July 24, 2017 Page 2 construction of an additional two-story dwelling unit for consistency with the Historic Preservation Ordinance; categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 15331 & 15332); C-R zone; Higuera Commons, LLC, applicant. (Kyle Bell) COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 1. Memorandum & Discussion – Queenie Warden Bridge plaque information 2. Agenda Forecast & Staff Updates ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee is a Special Meeting scheduled for Monday, August 14 , 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such requests to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. Minutes - DRAFT CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Monday, April 24, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, April 24, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Acting-Chair Brajkovich. OATH OF OFFICE Recording Secretary Monique Lomeli administered the oath of office to new members Glen Matteson and Damon Haydu. ELECTIONS Committee Member Brajkovich nominated Committee Member Papp as Chair. Committee Member Larrabee volunteered to serve as Chair or Vice-Chair. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, CARRIED BY CONSENSUS 7-0 to elect Member Papp as Chairperson. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BRAJKOVICH, CARRIED BY CONSENSUS 7-0 to elect Member Larrabee as Vice-Chair. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Damon Haydu, Glen Matteson, Thom Brajkovich, Vice-Chair Shannon Larrabee, and Chair James Papp. Absent: None Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille and Recording Secretary Monique Lomeli. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of April 24, 2017 Page 2 --End of Public Comment-- PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 1020 Railroad Avenue. ARCH-2769-2016: Review of a new wireless telecommunications facility proposed on the roof of an existing commercial building on a Contributing List Historic Property located in the Railroad Historic District (categorically exempt from environmental review); C-R-S-H zone; Verizon Wireless, applicant. Associate Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report with use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Committee inquiries. Applicant representative Robert McCormick, Verizon Wireless, provided clarification regarding the recommended alternative. Public Comments: None. --End of Public Comment-- Committee discussion followed regarding compatibility of the proposed options. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, CARRIED BY CONSENSUS 7-0 to recommend to the Community Development Director approval of option #6 with the following modification: Finding #2: “…consistent with the architectural guidelines provided in the Railroad District Plan and with the signature architectural elements of the Railroad Vernacular style…” COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION Senior Planner Leveille presented the agenda forecast and announced a Special Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee scheduled for May 6, 2017. Chair Papp provided an update on the City’s Certified Local Government (CLG) Grant and distributed a transcript detailing the proposal. Committee Members provided brief personal introductions. Committee Member Baer requested clarification on the Committee’s role regarding advocacy of projects in Council and Advisory Body public comment periods. DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of April 24, 2017 Page 3 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee is scheduled for Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2017 Minutes - DRAFT CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Monday, May 15, 2017 Special Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee CALL TO ORDER A S pecial Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, May 15, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Papp. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Thom Brajkovich, Damon Haydu, Craig Kincaid, Glen Matteson, and Chair James Papp. Absent: Committee Member Sandy Baer and Vice-Chair Larrabee. Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 1035 Madonna Road. SPEC/ANNX/ER 1502-2015: Review of the cultural resource components of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan project, including the relocation/reconstruction of two structures in the Dalidio Farm complex to the proposed Agricultural Heritage & Learning Center; and demolition of remaining historic farm complex structures; Final EIR will be available for review pursuant to CEQA, which includes mitigation to address identified impacts that relate to these actions; Specific Plan Area 2; Coastal Community Builders, applicant. Contract Planner John Rickenbach presented a staff report with use of a PowerPoint presentation, summarizing the historic resources and changes to the project following the CHC’s previous review. Applicant representative Rachel Kovesdi presented information regarding Agricultural Heritage Center and responded to Committee inquiries. DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of May 15, 2017 Page 2 Senior Planner Brian Leveille responded to Committee inquiries regarding the historic resources on the site. Public Comments: David Gibbs, RRM, spoke in favor of the project. Jamie Magon, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project. Rebecca Anastasio, Atascadero, offered her professional opinion on the historical significance of the on-site structures. Pierre Rademaker, San Luis Obispo, encouraged the Committee to preserve the structures on-site and spoke in favor of moving the spectator barn closer to the agriculture. Theo Jones, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for the project and requested the eucalyptus trees remain. John Madonna, spoke in favor of the project. --End of Public Comment-- Marshall Ochylski responded to Committee Member inquiries regarding the Madonna Road improvements. Committee Member Kincaid spoke in favor of the project and stated he would support moving the project forward. Committee Member Brajkovich spoke in favor of the project and in support of relocating and reusing the buildings. Committee Member Haydu voiced concerns with the relocation of the barn and stated overall support for the project. Committee Member Matteson encouraged the applicants to stay true to the original crops grown in the location and voiced support for approving the project. Chair Papp stated disagreement with the historical resources survey since some of the contributing structures identified in the survey likely do not have significance to the complex. He requested the CHC be afforded the opportunity to review and approve interpretive signage. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER HAYDU, CARRIED 5-0 to adopt the draft resolution as presented. DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of May 15, 2017 Page 3 COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2017 Minutes - DRAFT CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Monday, May 22, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:33 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Papp. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Vice-Chair Shannon Larrabee, and Chair James Papp Absent: Committee Members Thom Brajkovich (recused) and Damon Haydu Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Kyle Bell, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, and Recording Secretary Monique Lomeli APPROVAL OF MINUTES Consideration of Minutes of the Regular Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of September 19, 2016: ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, SECONDED BY VICE- CHAIR Larrabee, CARRIED 4-0-1-2, the Cultural Heritage Committee approved the Minutes of the Regular Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of March 27, 2017, as presented. Committee Member Matteson voted to abstain, having not attended the March 27th meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT None. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. 546 Higuera Street. ARCH-0339-2017: Review of the repositioning and rehabilitation, including an addition to the rear of the Master List Norcross House; and review of a proposed construction of a two-story structure behind the Norcross House, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-R zone; Higuera Commons, LLC, applicant. DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of May 22, 2017 Page 2 Associate Planner Kyle Bell provided a power point presentation and responded to Committee inquiries. Chair Papp asked a series of questions to staff regarding how the project could be found exempt from environmental review and noting that the additional information previously requested on the additions had not been provided. Senior Planner Leveille responded to questions regarding staff’s analysis of how the project was eligible for a categorical exemption and that there were not changes in the project which would result in adverse changes to the significance of the Norcross House. Applicant John Belsher submitted written correspondence for the record, discussed the project, and responded to Committee inquiries. Committee Member Matteson noted that it appeared the applicant had responded to the previous CHC directional items provided in the staff report. Committee Member Baer stated she is uncomfortable supporting approval of the project prior to receiving additional information on the significance of the additions at the rear of the structure. Committee Member Kincaid stated agreement with Committee Member Matteson’s comments. Vice-Chair Larrabee stated that is appeared the original construction portion of the home is most significant and spoke in support of approving as presented. Chair Papp stated there is insufficient study of the additions; and noted concern for the use of a categorical exemption without having the information. He stated that without understanding more about the additions and their possible significance the CHC cannot make the environmental determination or make a recommendation. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, CARRIED 4-1-2, WITH VICE-CHAIR LARRABEE OPPOSED the Cultural Heritage Committee continued the item to a date uncertain, requesting further evaluation, by an “independent” City qualified architectural historian, on the historic significance of the additions at the rear of the Norcross House. 2. 570, 578, 590 Marsh Street & 581 Higuera Street. ARCH-2213-2015: Determination of historic significance and review of responses to previous Cultural Heritage Committee feedback on a project adjacent to the Historic Jack House for a new mixed-use project that includes three four-story structures, with 19,792 square-feet of commercial space, 62 residential units, 36 hotel rooms, and a two-level underground parking garage with 136 parking spaces, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-D zone; The Obispo Company, applicant. DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of May 22, 2017 Page 3 Associate Planner Rachel Cohen presented an in-depth staff report, passed around material boards for reference, and responded to Committee inquiries. Chair Papp noted that he went on site to check the accuracy of the shading study, and that the shadows on site did not correspond with what was shown in the study. Project Manager Jenny Emrick briefly addressed the nine (9) directional items incorporated in the San Luis Square project and responded to Committee inquiries. Public Comment: Bob Spector, San Luis Obispo spoke in opposition of the project. Chuck Crotser spoke in favor of the project and encouraged the Committee to adopt the resolutions. Kathi Settle, Chairperson for the Jack House Committee, and voiced concerns with density, parking, and tree preservation. John Ashbaugh, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project. Katchi Andrews voiced concerns regarding project massing. Dorothy Sundbye voiced concerns regarding density and the limits the building will place on Jack House events. Following public comment, Chair Papp asked for Committee Member dis closure of ex-parte communications. Committee Member Matteson disclosed he received an email from the applicant regarding the project. Chair Papp disclosed his concerns over “hard lobbying”. Vice-Chair Larrabee stated concerns with lack of remedy for potential damage to Jack House trees and opined the applicant did address directional items from previous CHC/ARC review except that based on Chair Papp’s concerns over the accuracy of the shading study and that adequate evaluation was not available regarding the potential impacts of the project on the Jack House. Committee Member Baer stated the project is overwhelming for the location. Committee Member Kincaid stated that he thought the applicant has addressed all previous directional items even though they may not be to the CHC’s satisfaction. Chair Papp stated the viewshed and lightshed of the Jack House Garden would be compromised, DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of May 22, 2017 Page 4 the integrity of the setting association and feeling would be significantly compromised, and could affect the Integrity and Historic Significance of the Jack House. He stated he believes it qualifies as an exception to the exemption from environmental review due to potential adverse impacts to the Jack House and voiced concerns with the shade study inaccurately representing the potential impacts of shading the project would have on the Jack House gardens. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY CHAIR PAPP, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, CARRIED 5-0-2 to find the existing structure at 570 Marsh Street is not historically significant. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY CHAIR PAPP, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, CARRIED 4-1-2, WITH COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID OPPOSED the Cultural Heritage Committee continued the item to a date uncertain, finding an exception to the exemption from environmental review based on potential adverse impacts on a historical resource, and recommending preparation of an initial study pursuant to CEQA; and, recommending preparation of an independent shading study prepared with a different methodology. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast. Committee Member Baer requested future meetings expected to be 4 hours be divided into two meetings. Committee Member Larrabee voiced agreement with Committee Member Baer’s comments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 26, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2017 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of minor exterior modifications and an addition to the rear of a Contributing List Historic Resource PROJECT ADDRESS: 683 Pismo Street BY: Kip Morais, Planning Technician Phone Number: (805) 781-7101 E-mail: kmorais@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0733-2017 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner 1.0 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which recommends the Community Development Director find the project consistent with Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicants Mark and Heather Minnoch Representative Greg Wynn Historic Status Contributing List Complete Date Pending Zoning Medium Density Residential within the Old Town Historic District (R-2-H) General Plan Medium Density Residential Site Area ~0.12 acres Environmental Status Categorically Exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (In-fill development projects) 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting Meeting Date: July 24, 2017 Item Number: 1 CHC 1 - 1 ARCH-0733-2017 683 Pismo Street Page 2 The subject property is within the Old Town Historic District, and is across the street from and adjacent to Master and Contributing list historic properties. The subject house appears on the 1909 Sanborn map in its current location and is estimated to have been built between 1905 and 1909. The architectural style is described in the survey as Neo- Classical rowhouse. Character defining features include a raised base composed of stone, bay view windows, four columns supporting the porch roof, diamond roofing with clay tile hip and ridge, and gabled roof with decorative fish-scaling over the bay view window (Figure 1). Vehicle access is from a paved driveway along Pismo Street. No modifications are proposed to the existing storage shed and garage as part of this submittal. 2.2 Project Description The applicant is proposing to remodel and construct an addition to the rear portion of the house. The project includes the repainting and repair of each of the bay windows at the front and west elevation of the house, and the porch window. These are proposed to be removed, repaired where rotted, fitted with new sash weights and weather-stripping, and reinstalled in in their original locations. The window at the rear of the west elevation (Figure 2) is to be removed and infilled with wood clapboard to match the existing wall. This window is to be preserved and installed on eastern elevation at the bathroom. The project also includes seismic anchorage of the existing residence through the use of an underfloor attachment of the floor to the stem wall, and the removal of the existing chimney, for seismic reasons (Figure 2). The roof is proposed to be patched with in-kind materials. The proposed addition will include the demolition of an older addition at the rear of the original which is not part of the original historical house (Figure 3), and replace it with a single-story addition that includes a 350-square foot bedroom and bathroom addition and a 422-square foot accessory dwelling unit (Attachment 2, Reduced Project Plans). The Figure 1: View of the subject property from Pismo Street Figure 2: window to and chimney to be removed seen from west elevation Figure 3: Addition to be removed at rear of property CHC 1 - 2 ARCH-0733-2017 683 Pismo Street Page 3 addition is designed to complement the primary residence in design, color, and materials with matching painted horizontal wood siding and painted wood windows. The addition is differentiated from the original through the use of gray asphalt roof shingles and gray concrete site wall. The proposed addition is inset from the historic structure, and the roof ties in at a lower height (Attachment 2, Reduced Project Plans). 3.0 EVALUATION/DISCUSSION The CHC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The project is consistent with SOI Standards for Rehabilitation, because the applicant is proposing to preserve the character defining features of the existing residence, including the front window, roofing, and the covered porch with columns1. The applicant also proposes to refurbish and keep the existing bay windows2. Staff recommends condition #2 (Attachment 2, Draft Resolution) that window repair and refurbishment on the original historic structure shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and maintain their functional and decorative features and materials. The design of the addition complements and incorporates architectural colors and materials that are compatible or match the original house3. The new addition includes painted horizontal wood siding to match the historic siding, painted wooden windows to match the historic windows, gray concrete site wall, and gray premium grade asphalt roof shingles. The National Parks Service Preservation Brief #14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings, states that in addition to preserving significant materials, compatible new additions to historic buildings must be visually distinguishable from the historic building. The addition is compatible in scale and massing with the historic structure and the surrounding neighborhood, and is visually distinguishable from the historic structure. The roof of the addition ties in lower than the historic roof, and the addition steps in from the rear of the existing historic building. The use of differentiated but compatible materials for the roof and the site wall provide additional distinction from the historic residence4. The 1 SOI Rehabilitation Standard #5: Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 2 SOI Rehabilitation Standard #6: Deteriorated 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. 3 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Section 3.4.1(d): Additions to listed historic structure should maintain the structure’s original architectural integrity and closely match the buildings 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. Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Section 3.4.4: Exterior changes to historically listed buildings or resources should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be architecturally compatible with the original architectural character of the building, its setting and architectural context. 4 SOI Rehabilitation Standard # 9: New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. CHC 1 - 3 ARCH-0733-2017 683 Pismo Street Page 4 essential form and integrity of the historic structure will be preserved. The addition could be removed without impairing the historical integrity of the Contributing historic residence5. The project is consistent with Historic Preservation Guidelines since the remodel and addition complement, and do not detract from, the architectural significance of the historic house. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project site is surrounded by urban uses and is consistent with the general plan land use designation. The approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The project will not result in a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historical resource (15300.2(f)). 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project inconsistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and/or Secretary of Interior Standards. 2. Continue the item with specific direction for additional discussion or research. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Reduced scale Project Plans Available at CHC hearing: color/materials board 5 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Section 3.4.2: 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. SOI Standard for Rehabilitation #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will 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. CHC 1 - 4 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR APPROVE THE RENNOVATION AND ADDITION TO THE REAR OF A CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC RESOURCE IN THE OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT, R-2-H ZONE, AT 683 PISMO STREET, ARCH-0733-2017 WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 24, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-08733-2017, Greg Wynn, applicant; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. 1. The project is consistent with relevant Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation because the addition will be compatible with, and differentiated from, the original historic structure and will preserve character defining features and historic integrity. 2. The project is consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines section 3.4.1(d), 3.4.3, and 3.4.4 because the proposed addition complements the original structure’s historic character through compatibility with its form, massing, color, and materials, and preserves the original architectural character of the building. 3. The project is consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines section 3.4.2, because the construction of the proposed addition to the historic structure does not constitute removal of significant character-defining features and retains at least 75% of the original building framework, roof, and exterior bearing walls and cladding, in total, and reuses original materials as feasible. Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project site is surrounded by urban uses and is consistent with the general plan land use designation. The approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The project will not result in a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historical resource (15300.2(f)). Attachment 1 CHC 1 - 5 Resolution No. XXXX-17 683 Pismo Street (ARCH-0733-2017) Page 2 Section 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends approval of application ARCH- 0733-2017 allowing the remodel and addition to the rear of a Contributing historic resource, subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions 1. Original windows noted on plans to be repaired, and retained for reinstallation on the original historic structure shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and maintain their functional and decorative features and materials. All other existing windows shown on plans to be retained shall be clearly indicated in building plans to remain. 2. Repair and proposed replacement of exterior materials shall be indicated on plans and be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly detail all proposed modifications to the existing historic structure and include details, notes, and callouts in order to demonstrate consistency with Secretary of Interior’s Standards and to ensure follow through of required treatments during construction phases. On motion by Committee member _________, seconded by Committee member _______, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 24th day of July, 2017. _____________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee Attachment 1 CHC 1 - 6 A t t a c h m e n t 2 C H C 1 - 7 A t t a c h m e n t 2 C H C 1 - 8 A t t a c h m e n t 2 C H C 1 - 9 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Continued review of the proposed repositioning, and rehabilitation, including an addition to the rear of the Master List historic Norcross House; and review of a proposed construction of a two-story structure behind the Norcross House. PROJECT ADDRESS: 546 Higuera Street BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7524 E-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0339-2017 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner 1.0 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which recommends the Community Development Director find the project consistent with Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant John Belsher Representative Thom Brajkovich, Paragon Design Historic Status Master List Complete Date Pending Zoning Commercial Retail (C-R) zone General Plan General Retail Site Area ~2.07 acres Environmental Status Categorically Exempt from environmental review under Section 15331 & 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Historical Resource Restoration/ Rehabilitation & Infill Development Projects) 2.0 SUMMARY The proposed project has been previously reviewed by the CHC, this report and the attached exhibits address the applicant’s responses to the prior comments made by the CHC review held on May 22, 2017. The previous project description and evaluation can be found in the attached May 22, 2017 CHC Staff Report (Attachment 3). During the May 22, 2017 CHC meeting, the CHC continued the item requesting further evaluations of the significance of the additions at the rear of the Norcross House by a City qualified architectural historian. Meeting Date: July 24, 2017 Item Number: 2 CHC2 - 1 ARCH-0339-2017 546 Higuera Street (Norcross House) Page 2 3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNICAL ANALYSIS Per the request of the CHC, a supplemental historical analysis was conducted to assess whether the several additions proposed for demolition (located on the north façade of the Norcross House) are associated with the property’s historical significance and eligibility (Attachment 2). The analysis was completed by LSA Architectural Historian and Senior Cultural Resources Manager, Michael Hibma who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural History and History and is certified by the Register of Professional Historians. Summary of Technical Analysis The analysis includes photo documentation of the additions to the Norcross House that date outside the period of significance and states that the additions detract from its eligibility as a Master List property. The photo documentation identifies that the subsequent additions to the north-facing façade, were built following the original Norcross House built in 1874 and after Mr. Norcross died in 1889. The analysis identifies that the original design and construction of the Norcross house was built in the “Carpenter Gothic” style to be stand alone. The single-story addition in question was removed at some date, with the exception of the west wall, as seen in Figure 1. • The remaining wall of the single-story addition is described in the technical analysis (Attachment 2) to be of inferior construction that includes mismatched framing, footing and siding that continues to the newer second story addition. The only remaining elements from the original addition on the west façade are the three windows that match the original Norcross House. The original addition has been further altered by subsequent additions along the west and north façades, as seen in Figure 2. The analysis states that the second story addition which does not include matching windows or materials, and the later additions are shown to be of inferior construction than the original house. • The additions are of dis-similar materials and include a different subfloor system. • The foundation under the addition is inferior and similar to the later additions: o No perimeter footing was used o Floors held up with pieces of wood, stone and brick o Structurally inadequate and difficult to save with the addition of the second floor • Floor under original Norcross House includes superior construction: o Minimal settlement of perimeter footings o Joists are still straight and floors do not sag Figure 1: West façade, single-story addition in question outlined in red (left), close-up of the remaining wall and windows (right). CHC2 - 2 ARCH-0339-2017 546 Higuera Street (Norcross House) Page 3 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation because the proposed project will remove dilapidated, vernacular-styled, and noncontributory rear additions built after the period of significance that detract from the historic character of the Norcross House and replace them with compatibly-styled and appropriately proportioned addition. The proposed addition will not detract or destroy any historic character defining features of the existing residence and is designed so that the essential form and integrity of the historic property is preserved. The rehabilitation of the Norcross House will preserve the original residential use and provide for the long-term preservation of a currently dilapidated and vacant structure that is threatened. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 31 (Section 15331) Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation of the CEQA Guidelines because the project consists of rehabilitation and restoration of a historical resource in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The project is also identified as an in-fill development project (Section 15332) that is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project will not result in significant impacts on historic resources, traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. Figure 2: Subsequent additions added to the rear of the Norcross House over time. CHC2 - 3 ARCH-0339-2017 546 Higuera Street (Norcross House) Page 4 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1 Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project inconsistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and/or Secretary of Interior Standards. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Supplemental Technical Analysis of Structural Additions 3. Previous CHC Report – May 22, 2017 CHC2 - 4 RESOLUTION NO. CHC-XXXX-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FIND THE REPOSITIONING, RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION OF THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC STRUCTURE KNOWN AS NORCROSS HOUSE, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL TWO STORY UNIT CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE 546 HIGUERA STREET (ARCH-0339-2017) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 18, 2014, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under HIST-0155-2014, John Belsher, applicant; and approved adding the David Norcross Residence to the Master List of Historic Resources and adopted the City Council Resolution No. 10579 (2014 Series); and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 27, 2015, pursuant to conceptual review proceeding instituted under ARCH- 0982-2015; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 22, 2017, pursuant to review proceeding instituted under ARCH-0339-2017, John Belsher, applicant; where the project was continued to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 24, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0339-2017; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Cultural Heritage Committee makes the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines since the architectural character of the existing residence is retained, and new construction is consistent with the existing character including site design, roofing style, siding materials, Attachment 1 CHC2 - 5 Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-17 ARCH-0339-2017 (546 Higuera Street) Page 2 finish, and scale. The proposed project does not impact the scale or historical character of the existing residence. 2. The project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation because the proposed addition will not detract or destroy any historic character defining features of the existing residence and is designed so that the essential form and integrity of the historic property is preserved. 3. The construction of the additional two story unit is consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards for new construction on historic properties since the new construction is compatible with the scale, size, massing and architectural features of the property and with development in the vicinity. 4. The project is consistent with the General Plan policies for compatible development (LUE 2.3.9), and housing conservation (HE 3.5) since the project retains the scale and character of the existing residence and maintains the existing residential use. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 31 (Section 15331) Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation of the CEQA Guidelines because the project consists of rehabilitation and restoration of a historical resource in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The project is also identified as an in-fill development project (Section 15332) that is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project will not result in significant impacts on historic resources, traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. SECTION 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee does hereby recommend that the Community Development Director find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, based on the above findings, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the CHC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly detail all proposed modifications to the existing historic structure and include details, notes, and callouts in order to demonstrate consistency with Secretary of Interior Standards and to ensure follow through of required treatments during construction phases. The detailing of the modifications shall be consistent with the submitted Historic Preservation Plan, prepared by Thomas G. Brajkovich. Attachment 1 CHC2 - 6 Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-17 ARCH-0339-2017 (546 Higuera Street) Page 3 3. All historic materials, including decorative brackets, porch supports, and any other original materials that can be reused, shall be integrated into the rebuilt porch in its original configuration. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include details and the procedure for removal of the additions in compliance with Secretary of the Interior Standards for rehabilitation to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non-repairable or missing material shall be replaced to match in-kind and in-alignment with the original construction. 5. Plans submitted for construction permits shall include the method and details to accomplish the lifting of the structure, demolition of existing non-historic additions, and construction of the addition to the historic residence. All required information shall be provided to guarantee preservation of the historic residence and all character defining features to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and Community Development Director. A security bond shall be submitted to complete necessary reconstruction work in the event the project is not fully completed or the historic residence incurs structural damage or character defining details are compromised. On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 24th day of July, 2017. _____________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee Attachment 1 CHC2 - 7 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) BERKELEY CARLSBAD FRESNO IRVINE LOS ANGELES PALM SPRINGS POINT RICHMOND RIVERSIDE ROSEVILLE SAN LUIS OBISPO 157 Park Place, Pt. Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 www.lsa.net MEMORANDUM DATE: June 26, 2017 TO: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department FROM: Michael Hibma, M.A., RPH #603, LSA Architectural Historian, Senior Cultural Resources Manager, LSA SUBJECT: Supplemental Technical Analysis of Structural Additions to the David Norcross House, 546 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Per the request of the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) of the City of San Luis Obispo, (City), this memorandum provides supplemental historical analysis of several additions located on the north (rear-facing) façade of the David Norcross House (Norcross House) at 546 Higuera Street (Assessor Parcel Number: 002-402-030) proposed for demolition. This analysis presents the results of a two- step process. The first step was to identify and photo document those additions to the Norcross House that date outside the period of significance and detract from its eligibility as a Master List property.1 This step was completed by Thom Brajkovich, an architect with over 30 years of experience who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History and Historic Architecture (36 CFR Part 61). The second step utilized related technical preservation guidance prepared by the National Park Service (NPS) to assess whether (1) the additions are associated with the property’s historical significance and eligibility, and (2) if the proposed design is compatible with relevant NPS guidance on additions to historical buildings.2 This second step was completed by LSA Architectural Historian and Senior Cultural Resources Manager, Michael Hibma who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural History and History (36 CFR Part 61) and is certified by the Register of Professional Historians (#603). 1 Based on information from an article dated November 11, 2014, San Luis Obispo Tribune, Sherriff Norcross was elected SLO County Sherriff in 1871 (three years before 546 Higuera was built), served until 1877, and lived at 546 Higuera until his death in 1889. Therefore a defensible period of significance for this property is 1874-1889 <http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39504234.html#!>. The period of significance begins when the house was built in 1874 and ends with Norcross’ death in 1889. 2 This analysis addresses a specific information request by the CHC for information regarding additions to the rear, north-facing façade of the Norcross House to determine their status as contributory elements to the Norcross House’s significance. This memo does not constitute a formal Project Impacts Analysis per the Secretary of the Interior‘s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 8 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 2 The following contains a summary of the process to date far, an overview of relevant regulations that informed the analysis, and a conclusion statement. Attached to this memo are photographs taken June 17, 2017, by Mr. Brajkovich depicting current conditions of the Norcross House (Attachment A), set of Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps that depict the Norcross House and additions to it from 1886-1950 (Attachment B), relevant NPS technical guidance consulted to prepare this study (Attachment C), and a set of the current project plans dated March 21, 2017 (Attachment D). In addition, this memorandum includes by reference the following documents in the public record submitted to and previously considered by the CHC in the staff report and September 22, 2014, public hearing for the building at 546 Higuera Street: x An Eligibility Evaluation for 546 Higuera Street by Michael Hibma, M.A. RPH #603, LSA Architectural Historian/Senior Cultural Resources Manager, dated July, 2014; x Molnar Construction & Development, Inc. evaluation on the potential for restoration, dated May 29, 2014; x Barry Stone Inspection Report dated March 12, 2014; and x Report by Betsy Bertrando dated September/October 2014 (record before San Luis Obispo City Council on Master List determination of November 18, 2014). SUMMARY OF DESIGNATION PROCESS During the September 22, 2014, CHC meeting, members reviewed and commented on an evaluation prepared by LSA Architectural Historian Michael Hibma. The report, titled An Eligibility Evaluation for 546 Higuera Street, concluded that “that although the building at 546 Higuera Street possesses expressive Gothic Revival/Carpenter Gothic architectural qualities, it does not retain the integrity necessary to convey those significant characteristics in a manner that would render it eligible for inclusion in the CRHR. The same deficiencies support a conclusion that the building is also not a candidate for inclusion in the City of San Luis Obispo Master List of Historic Resources. For these reasons, the building at 546 Higuera Street is not a historical resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5).” The CHC did not concur with LSA’s report and recommended that the building at 546 Higuera Street be included in the City’s Master List based on its architecture and affiliation with the City’s pre- railroad past. At the request of the CHC, the applicant and an independent cultural resources consultant Betsy Bertrando provided evidence that the two-story, 16’x30’6” Gothic revival-styled house was built in 1874 by or for Mr. David Norcross who served as San Luis Obispo County Sheriff from 1871 to 1877. Based on this new information, the CHC recommended the building at 546 Higuera Street be included in the City’s Master List (Public Resources Code Section 21084.1). The applicant consented. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 9 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 3 Following the CHC meeting, current and former City Staff (Phil Dunsmore and Brian Leveille, respectively) and the applicant team met to redesign the project’s architectural design in a manner consistent with CHC findings and Master List designation. During the May 22, 2017 CHC meeting, the CHC requested a supplemental survey and technical analysis of the original one-story addition on the rear, north-facing façade of the Norcross House to determine whether it is a contributory element to the Norcross House’s significance or if it detracts from the building’s historical character and architectural qualities (Attachment B: 1909, 1926). A complete analysis and photos of the current remaining portion of the addition is contained in Attachment A oĨ this memorandum. PART 1: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND CITY ORDINANCE REVIEW As currently designed, the project would preserve the Norcross House utilizing several relevant principles of historic building treatments as defined in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. They include: 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” San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance Section 14.01.020; 47. 1. The original 16’x30’6” building will be relocated 15 feet south and closer to Higuera Street and sited on a new foundation. The front balcony and French door access off the second floor will be restored to the original, as shown in the 1904 photo included with the City Staff report. 2. The two-story rear portion of the building which was added on piecemeal with differing forms, massing, roof-pitches, scale and architectural styles will be resisted on a new foundation, with fully functional space and structural integrity, which would be subordinate to and complements the original Gothic revival building in form and scale. 3. A detached garage, built years later, will be incorporated into the project so as to match the form of the original building 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” San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance Section 14.01.020; 44. 1. The project restores the original use of the Norcross House as a residence. 2. The project continues a multi-family use in an area currently zoned for such use. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 10 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 4 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” San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance Section 14.01.020; 43. 1. The original 16’x30’6” building will be retained and rehabilitated, while the rear portion of the existing building will be reconstructed due to its dilapidated condition. 2. Subsequent alterations to the main, street facing façade would be removed and historical features of the original building restored, including the front balcony with a French door entry on the second floor. 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. . .” San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance Section 14.01.020; 18. 1. The first addition behind the original 16’x30’6” building is not feasibly repairable. Walls contain substandard or non-existent studs, requiring each wall be stripped and entirely rebuilt. 2. There are no cultural or architectural reasons to restore or replicate the rear scabbed-on portions of the existing building. The existing forms are so haphazard and of uneven scale as to detract from the original 16’x30’6” building. 3. By contrast the original 16’x30’6” building is framed with full-size 2x4 studs at 16” on center. Placed on a new foundation, this original building can be feasibly salvaged and properly integrated into a complete and fully functional residential building. The following are within the category of “Alterations” which is addressed in Section 3.4.1 of the San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (2010). E.“Accessory Structures” “New accessory structures should complement the primary structure’s historic character through compatibility with its form, massing, color and materials” San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 2010; Section 3.4.1(c). 1. The rear portions of the proposed building include a detached parking garage, so as to meet code-mandated parking requirements, which City Staff indicates as mandatory. By making Attachment 2 CHC2 - 11 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 5 the garage unit two story, it references the form of the original building, creating a more uniform and complementary design. 2. The rear portions, including the garage unit, are stepped down in height and scale to respect and not compete with the original 16’x30’6” building. 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” San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 2010; 3.4.1(d). In sum, the current proposed project takes all these factors into account to balance preservation with new modern uses in accordance with the City’s housing goals and policies.1 It attempts to salvage the original building as feasible, restore important original features such as the front porch/balcony and French door access while retaining all other features of the main, street-facing façade visible from Higuera Street. It reconstructs 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 and its character- defining features that convey its significance as of this Master List property. PART II: COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND LOCAL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES This section applies relevant technical preservation guidance prepared by the City and NPS including the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (2010); Technical Preservation Services Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings;2 various bulletins of the NPS’s Interpreting The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation3 to the proposed project and is incorporated by reference into this Report. Copies of the NPS guidance are attached to the memorandum as Attachment C. 1 Per the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Chapter 3 - Housing Element, Goal 3 - Housing Conservation: Policy 3.1. Continue to encourage the rehabilitation, remodeling or relocation of sound or rehabitable housing rather than demolition. Demolition of non-historic housing may be permitted where conservation of existing housing would preclude the achievement of other housing objectives or adopted City goals; Goal 6 - Housing Production: Policy 6.17. Encourage residential development through infill development and densification within City Limits and in designated expansion areas over new annexation of land (City of San Luis Obispo 2015, <http://38.106.4.251/home/showdocument?id=6703>). 2 Preservation Briefs 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns, <https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14-exterior-additions.htm>. 3 Interpreting the Standards Bulletins: <https://www.nps.gov/tPS/standards/applying- rehabilitation/standards-bulletins.htm>. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 12 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 6 A. Issue: Compliance with Secretary of Interior Standards/Consistency With respect to the percentage of a given historic resource to be preserved, Section 3.4.2 of the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines states “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” (San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 2010:13). Proposal x Maintain the original 16’x30’6” building as far as possible. This portion of the building has solid framing (full-size 2x4 redwood construction) with intact flooring and usable fenestration. x Relocate to a new foundation 15 feet south towards Higuera Street. Orientation with Higuera Street will remain the same. x The project proposes to demolish subsequent, non-contributory, additions to the rear, north-facing façade that are of negligible historical value, and are not feasibly salvageable. x Subsequent additions to the rear, north-facing façade were built following the original Norcross House was built in 1874 and after Mr. Norcross died in 1889 and are of sub-par construction, as documented in the LSA, Molnar, and Stone reports. Sanborn maps of the project site show that sometime after 1909 and before 1926, the current expanded single- story addition was built on the rear, north-facing façade (Attachment B: 1909, 1926) x 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, which removes subsequent alterations to the main, street-facing façade. x The proposed new construction will be detached from and sited behind the Norcross House and will be complementary to, but are not replicative of the original Gothic Revival-styled house (Attachment D). x New floor plan will function similar to the existing floor plan. x The current design features the original south and partial east façades as view from the Higuera Street right-of-way. The side will be stepped back so the Norcross House retains its prominent visual signature on the property (Attachment D). Attachment 2 CHC2 - 13 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 7 B. Analysis Aspects of the as-proposed project that work towards a favorable outcome include the following. Note: where applicable, analysis and compliance findings utilize appropriate NPS technical preservation guidance relevant to additions to historic buildings generally and proposed additions to the rear façades of historical buildings specifically: 1) The proposed design would reconstruct the original second floor balcony on the south façade, originally accessed from the second floor via French doors. The remainder of the primary, street facing (south) façade and its character-defining Gothic Revival architectural qualities will remain intact. The narrow parcel lends itself to the proposed project (parcel shape and flat topography) by retaining the Norcross House in a prominent location facing Higuera Street and additional open space to the rear of the house. The parcel allows for new construction without crowding, enveloping, or competing with the original construction. Proposed additions, as shown on the attached project plans appear compatible. They are largely referential but not replicative of the Norcross House’s Gothic Revival architectural qualities. The new construction will not compete with the scale and massing of the original Norcross House (Attachment D, Sheets: A-1.4, A-1.5). Preservation Brief 14: A new addition should always be subordinate to the historic building; it should not compete in size, scale or design, with the historic building (Attachment C: Preservation Brief 14:5); and [a] new addition that will abut the historic building along an entire elevation, or wrap around a side and rear elevation, will likely integrate the historic and new interiors, and thus result in a high degree of loss of form and exterior walls, as well as significant alteration of interior spaces and features, and will not meet the Standards (Attachment C: Preservation Brief 14:3-5). Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 37: Rear additions that meet the Standards are compatible in design, yet differentiated from the old building, often through a process of simplification. For example, if the original house features narrow clapboard siding, multi-light, double-hung sash windows and an elaborate decorative cornice, the new addition could be sided with different clapboards, one-over-one, double-hung sash, and a less detailed cornice. New materials need not match exactly the historic materials but should be appropriate to the building type, compatible with existing materials, and unobtrusive in appearance (Attachment C: Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 37:1-2). 2) The proposed alterations to the south (rear) façade would be on a scale in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Attachment D, Sheet: A-1.3). While the guidance prefers that alterations/additions be along secondary façades, sweeping transformations to the walls, doors, fenestration, and rooflines are not acceptable. Setting the new addition back from the existing exterior walls preserves more of the original walls and reinforces differentiation of original and new construction (Attachment D, Sheet: A-1.4, A-1.5). Attachment 2 CHC2 - 14 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 8 Preservation Brief 14: A new addition that will abut the historic building along an entire elevation, or wrap around a side and rear elevation, will likely integrate the historic and new interiors, and thus result in a high degree of loss of form and exterior walls, as well as significant alteration of interior spaces and features, and will not meet the Standards (NPS 2010:3); and Avoid designs that unify two volumes into a single architectural whole…this approach will not impair the existing building’s historic character as long as the new structure is subordinate in size and clearly differentiated and distinguishable so that the identity of the historic structure is not lost in a new and larger composition (Attachment C, Preservation Brief 14:7). Interpreting The Standards Bulletin 3: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation permit new additions to historic buildings if the new addition is compatible with the historic building and its historic character. A new addition will usually meet the Standards if: (1) it is located at the rear, or on another secondary and inconspicuous elevation of the building; (2) its size and scale are limited and appropriate for the historic building; (3) the new addition does not obscure character-defining features of the historic building; and (4) the new addition is designed in such a way that clearly differentiates the new from the old (Attachment C: Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 3:1-2). SUMMARY For the reasons stated above, the proposed project complies with the intent of City regulations and supplemental related technical preservation guidance prepared by NPS. The proposed project will remove dilapidated, vernacular-styled, and noncontributory rear additions built after the period of significance (1874-1889) that detract from the historic character of the Norcross House and replace them with compatibly-styled and appropriately proportioned additions. The new construction is designed to balance compatibility with and be differentiated from the Norcross House’s original Gothic Revival architectural qualities. The new construction will be clearly modern in style, located behind the Norcross House’s rear-facing secondary façade, and will have a subordinate profile that clearly reinforces the primacy of the portions of the Norcross House associated with the 1874-1889 period of significance. The new construction will be shorter than the Norcross House, covered with a different roof pitch, simpler trim details and materiality, and similar wood-sash windows. The new additions will be detached from the original Norcross House to further differentiate the new construction from the original. The project proposes to accentuate the visual break at 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 original house. Revised plans will be prepared that show how this will be accomplished. Taken together, these elements of the proposed project will make an appropriate addition that complements rather than competes with the Norcross House. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 15 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 9 Attachment A: Site Survey Photographs by Thom Brajkovich - June 17, 2017. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 16 NORCROSS HOUSE ADDITION REPORT Period of significance 1874 to 1889 June 19, 2017 Thom Brajkovich, Architect AIA, PA Page 1 The original Norcross House was built to stand alone in 1874. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 17 NORCROSS HOUSE ADDITION REPORT Period of significance 1874 to 1889 June 19, 2017 Thom Brajkovich, Architect AIA, PA Page 2 Figure 1a. The original design and construction of the Norcross house was built in the “Carpenter Gothic” style to stand alone (west façade). x The west side of the Addition is the remaining 1 of 4 walls and roof that is the original addition. x The siding on the remaining side does not match with the original. (1x10 instead of 1x8) x The single story addition in question was removed at some date and mismatched siding continues to the newer second story addition. x The rear addition to the original is again of dis-similar materials and a different subfloor system. Figure 1b. The original addition is of inferior construction and style on the one remaining wall (west façade). x The only remaining elements are the three windows that match the original. x This picture shows another addition to the rear of the addition in question. Notice the siding again is mismatched. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 18 NORCROSS HOUSE ADDITION REPORT Period of significance 1874 to 1889 June 19, 2017 Thom Brajkovich, Architect AIA, PA Page 3 Figure 2a. The addition has been altered by more additions on the top and two sides (west and north façades. x The second and third additions are of similar inferior construction. x The top addition does not have matching windows but was added as a second story. Figure 2b. The later additions shown to be of inferior construction than the original house (north façade). x The Norcross addition in question has been altered on all sides and is no longer recognizable. x Windows, gables, doors and siding continued around original 16’ x 30’ house. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 19 NORCROSS HOUSE ADDITION REPORT Period of significance 1874 to 1889 June 19, 2017 Thom Brajkovich, Architect AIA, PA Page 4 Figure 3a. Windows of original house (west façade). x Built with superior materials and are in better condition than the later addition. x Addition of bathroom has further destroyed significance of the one remaining wall. Figure 3b. Windows of addition (north façade). x Detailing is different in the only remaining original addition. x Integrity of original Norcross house is compromised. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 20 NORCROSS HOUSE ADDITION REPORT Period of significance 1874 to 1889 June 19, 2017 Thom Brajkovich, Architect AIA, PA Page 5 Figure 4a. Fireplace in addition was made to mimic original but the materials. x Size of fireplace and details differ. 52” wide. x 6” wide sides and non-firebrick indicate poor attempt at copying. Figure 4b. Fireplace on second floor of original Norcross House. x Proportions are smaller and fireplace is 3’6” side. x Use of firebrick indicated original is older and in better condition. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 21 NORCROSS HOUSE ADDITION REPORT Period of significance 1874 to 1889 June 19, 2017 Thom Brajkovich, Architect AIA, PA Page 6 Figure 5a. Floors in addition differ in size and materials with newer additions. x Worn floor boards in the addition are inferior quality wood. x Shown in the photo is the Eastern addition. Figure 5b. The floor boards and joist direction in the original house are different than the addition. x 1”x6” t &g boards on 2x8 joists in original house run parallel to the street. x 1”x 5.5” straight boards run perpendicular to the street in the original addition. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 22 NORCROSS HOUSE ADDITION REPORT Period of significance 1874 to 1889 June 19, 2017 Thom Brajkovich, Architect AIA, PA Page 7 Figure 6a. The original Norcross House was built with nominal 2’x4” studs on all walls. x Original lath and plaster remain in most areas. Figure 6b. The addition was built with nominal 2”x3” studs on all walls. x Original plaster has been removed and drywall is placed over the wood lath. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 23 NORCROSS HOUSE ADDITION REPORT Period of significance 1874 to 1889 June 19, 2017 Thom Brajkovich, Architect AIA, PA Page 8 Figure 7a. Original stairs were built with quality and the correct proportions of the period. x There is a landing at the half way mark that goes up to the original second floor. x Risers and treads are equal and balustrades are symmetrical. Figure 7b. Stairs added for the addition. x Indicates hole was cut in original house to get to later second story addition. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 24 NORCROSS HOUSE ADDITION REPORT Period of significance 1874 to 1889 June 19, 2017 Thom Brajkovich, Architect AIA, PA Page 9 x Original addition roof was removed to make way for second story addition. x Risers and treads of addition differ than the original. Figures 8a and 8b. Foundation under addition is inferior and similar to later additions. x No perimeter footing was used. x Floors slope radically due to differential settlement. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 25 NORCROSS HOUSE ADDITION REPORT Period of significance 1874 to 1889 June 19, 2017 Thom Brajkovich, Architect AIA, PA Page 10 x Floor held up with pieces of wood, stone and brick. x Structurally inadequate and difficult to save with the addition of the second floor. Figure 9a. Floor under original Norcross House. x Superior constructions with 2x8”S at 24” on center. x Minimal settlement of perimeter footings. x Joists are still straight and floors do not sag. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 26 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 10 Attachment B: Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps of 546 Higuera Street (1886-1950) Attachment 2 CHC2 - 27 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 11 1886 The 1886 Sanborn map of 546 Higuera Street depicts an L-shaped, multi-story, wood-framed, single- family residential building with the address of “17 Higueras.” The building is divided into two parts: a rectangular-shaped, 30-foot-deep, two-story portion that faces the street; and a rectangular- shaped, 30-foot deep, single-story wing that is attached perpendicularly in an offset fashion to rear of the two-story portion. A single-story inset porch is located in the inside angle of the L-shaped building footprint and a full-width, single-story porch is located on the southern, street-facing façade. The building rests on a pier foundation and is covered by wooden shake roofing. The building has a moderate setback on the 365-foot-by-200-foot rectangular parcel that contains two additional, detached, single-story, single-family residential buildings with addresses of “18 Higueras” and “19 Higueras” with uniform setbacks farther west along Higuera Street. The parcel also contains five variously-sized and shaped wood-framed, single-story outbuildings with wood shake roofs, and one rectangular-shaped, wood-framed, two-story stable covered by a wood shake roof. The outbuilding nearest the building at 546 Higuera Street is labeled as “Out Ho.” which presumably means “outhouse” and has an open, covered area attached to the far right side of the west façade. Two outbuildings are located to the west of and behind the building at 546 Higuera Street, and each is labeled “Shed.” One small, square-shaped outbuilding is close behind the single family residence with the address of “18 Higueras.” The stable is located behind the building at 546 Higuera Street, at the far northwestern corner of the parcel, near the (unnamed) San Luis Obispo Creek. No other buildings, structures, or objects are shown. The building at 546 Higuera Street is located in a lightly developed, mixed-use area with single- family dwellings on variously-sized parcels and non-uniform street setbacks. Many of these residential properties have associated outbuildings, suggesting a semi-rural area of mostly small farms. Other land uses depicted include small-scale commercial activity, including the “San Luis Obispo Gas Works” and a “Brewery” located across San Luis Obispo Creek. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 28 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 29 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 30 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 12 1888 The 1888 Sanborn map depicts the building at 546 Higuera Street and associated built environment in a similar configuration as shown two years earlier. The only discernable change is the addition of a single-story, shed-roofed porch on the west façade of the stable located at the rear of the property. The “Brewery” labeled in 1886 is renamed “Pacific Brewery”. This Sanborn map depicts the configuration of the Norcross House before David Norcross dies the following year. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 31 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 32 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 33 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 13 1891 The 1891 Sanborn map depicts the parcel shown in 1886 and 1888 which contains the building at 546 Higuera Street was subdivided into three parcels. The building at 546 Higuera Street has the address of 82-84 Higuera, and its footprint is more detailed. The rear, single-story portion is depicted with two rectangular-shaped sections. The street-facing, two-story portion is depicted with a two-story addition where the single-story porch was in 1886 and 1888. The earlier outhouse is gone, but was replaced by an L-shaped, single-story, wood-framed outbuilding. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 34 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 35 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 36 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 14 1903 The 1903 Sanborn map depicts the same built environment shown 12 years earlier in 1891. The only discernable change is the addition of a single-story, shed-roofed porch on the west façade of the stable at the rear of the property. Changes nearby include residential in-fill development across Higuera Street and a “Gas Works” facility belonging to the “Pacific Coast Heat, Light, and Power Company” across San Luis Obispo Creek at the site of the former “Soda Works,” “San Luis Obispo Gas Works,” and the “Pacific Brewery” (Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd. 1903). Attachment 2 CHC2 - 37 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 38 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 39 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 15 1905 The 1905 Sanborn map depicts the same built environment shown two years earlier in 1903. The only discernable changes are (1) the address of the building at 546 Higuera Street is changed from 82-84 Higuera to “546 Higuera” and (2) the “Pacific Coast Heat, Light, and Power Company” gas works facility site across San Luis Obispo Creek is labeled “Old and Vac[ant].” Attachment 2 CHC2 - 40 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 41 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 42 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 16 1909 The 1909 Sanborn map depicts the same built environment as shown four years earlier in 1905. The only discernable change is evidence of further parcel splitting in lots across Higuera Street. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 43 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 44 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 45 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 17 1926 The 1926 Sanborn map depicts alterations to building footprint of 546 Higuera Street. The rear of the house has a 10-foot long addition, as well as a nearly full-length porch along the north-facing façade of the single-story wing that is attached perpendicularly to rear of the street-facing two-story portion, now depicted as “1½” story. Another alteration is a short, rectangular, single-story, shed- roofed addition (laundry or wash room) to the center of the west façade. The two-story stable at the rear of the parcel is depicted, and the L-shaped, single-story, wood-framed outbuilding located to the west of the building at 546 Higuera Street is gone. The surrounding area is shown as a nearly built out residential neighborhood. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 46 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 47 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 48 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 18 1950 The 1950 Sanborn map depicts the building and surrounding parcel at 546 Higuera Street as was shown 24 years earlier in 1926. The surrounding area is showing signs of a shift in land uses; examples include gas stations, storage facilities, and International Order of Odd Fellows Hall on Dana Street, west of 546 Higuera Street. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 49 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 50 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 51 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 19 Attachment C: National Wark Service Technical Guidance Attachment 2 CHC2 - 52 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 53 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 54 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 55 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 56 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 57 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 58 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 59 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 60 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 61 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 62 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 63 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 64 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 65 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 66 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 67 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 68 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 69 Attachment 2 CHC2 - 70 Interpreting The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Re ha bil i ta tion REAR ADDITIONS ITS NUMBER 37 Issue: Whenever possible, new additions should be con- structed on rear elevations where they will have less of an impact on the building’s historic integrity. Rear additions—like all new additions—should be subordinate to the original build- ing in size, scale, and massing, as well as design. Additions that feature a higher roofl ine, that extend beyond the side of the building, or that have a signifi cantly greater footprint than the original building are usually not compatible. The expansion of modest scale houses or those in prominent locations (such as a corner lot) can be particularly challenging. Standard 1 states that “A property should be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defi ning characteristics of the building and its site and envi- ronment.” In cases where an overly large addition is required in order to accommodate the owner’s programmatic needs, a more suitable building should be identifi ed. Rear additions that meet the Standards are compatible in de- sign, yet diff erentiated from the old building, often through a process of simplifi cation. For example, if the original house features narrow clapboard siding, multi-light double-hung sash windows and an elaborate decorative cornice, the new ad- dition could be sided with diff erent clapboards, one-over-one double-hung sash, and a less detailed cornice. New materials need not match exactly the historic materials but should be appropriate to the building type, compatible with existing materials, and unobtrusive in appearance. Rear additions that do not require signifi cant removal of exist- ing materials may help retain the house’s historic appearance and character. Connecting the new addition to the historic building with a modest hyphen can limit removal of historic materials, drastic structural changes, and irreversible changes to the original building. A hyphen can also more clearly dif- ferentiate new from old construction. Rear additions can also provide the opportunity to make a building accessible, rather than constructing ramps on a more prominent elevation. Top and Above: This historic house had been altered numerous times in the past--including multiple additions to the rear of the building. Application 1 (Incompatible treatment): This modest resi- dence began as a two-story log house. Later, the main portion of the house was converted into a distinctive Bungalow-style residence. Over time, multiple additions were also made along the natural grade at the rear of the house. Prior to rehabilita- tion, these later additions were quite deteriorated. National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services Subject: Rear Additions to Historic Houses Applicable Standards: 9. Compatible New Additions / Alterations 10. Reversibility of New Additions / Alterations Attachment 2 CHC2 - 71 These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting de ter mi na tions, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not nec es sar i ly ap pli ca ble beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. Chad Randl, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service June 2006, ITS Number 37 When the project began, the existing rear additions were determined to be beyond repair and were demolished. A re- placement addition of a similar size to those removed would likely have met the Standards. However, the new addition constructed on the rear doubled the size of the structure as it existed before the rehabilitation. As built, the cladding, open- ings, and roofl ines of the new addition were appropriate to the building’s historic character. Yet this was not suffi cient to overcome the eff ect of an addition substantially more massive than the additions that were demolished. With two full fl oors, a footprint that was much deeper than the previous additions, a new deck extending from the rear and side elevations, and signifi cant grade changes at the rear, this work competes for attention with the historic structure to which it is attached and has seriously impacted the property’s historic character. The size of this new rear addition—incorporating two fl oors and an ex- tended depth--combined with substantial changes to the site overwhelm the modest historic house. Right: The house prior to rehabilitation. Below right: Drawing of proposed rear addition and hyphen, show- ing how the new construction was subordinate in size to the historic house. Below left: New addition and connecting hyphen. The new materials and fenestration complement, yet are distinct from, the historic house. Application 2 (Compatible treatment): This large brick house was converted for use as offi ces. As part of the rehabilitation a new addition was constructed at the rear of the house. With a brick ground fl oor and a clapboard upper level set beneath a roofl ine that was lower in height than the original structure, the rear addition’s design was both distinct from, and compat- ible with, the size, scale, massing and architectural features of the historic house. The use of varied materials on the addition (brick below, clapboard above) was handled with restraint in a manner that did not compete visually with the main house. The addition provided space to locate new systems for the entire structure as well as accessibility to the historic house at grade, making exterior ramps unnecessary. A hyphen (with a lower roofl ine and narrower footprint) separated the new addition from the old, further distinguishing the various periods of construction and reducing the addition’s massing. The hyphen required only a minimal amount of distur- bance to the rear wall of the historic house and left the plan of the main house intact. If the addition were ever removed, the house’s historic integrity would remain undiminished. Attachment 2 CHC2 - 72 6/26/17 (P:\PBC1401_546_Higuera\2017\Report\LSA&Brajkovich_Norcross_Additions_Technical_Memorandum_(6.26.17).docx) 20 Attachment D: Current Project Plans (March 21, 2017) Attachment 2 CHC2 - 73 $O O G H V L J Q V D Q G R W K H U L Q I R U P D W L R Q R Q W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V D U H I R U X V H R Q WK L V V S H F L I L F S U R M H F W D Q G V K D O O Q R W E H X V H G R W K H U Z L V H Z L W K R X W W KH H[ S U H V V H G Z U L W W H Q S H U P L V V L R Q R I W K H $ U F K L W H F W :U L W W H Q G L P H Q V L R Q V R Q W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V V K D O O W D N H S U H F H G H Q F H R Y H U VF D O H G G L P H Q V L R Q V & R Q W U D F W R U V V K D O O Y H U L I \ D Q G E H U H V S R Q V L E O H IR U D O O GLP H Q V L R Q V D Q G F R Q G L W L R Q V R Q W K L V M R E D Q G W K L V R I I L F H V K D O O E H QR W L I L H G LQ Z U L W L Q J R I D Q \ Y D U L D W L R Q V I U R P W K H G L P H Q V L R Q V R U F R Q G L W L R Q V VK R Z Q LQ W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V 2) 6+ ( ( 7 6 '$ 7 ( -2 % 1 2 6+ ( ( 7 6& $ / ( &+ ( & . ( ' '5 $ : 1 1 2 5 & 5 2 6 6 + 2 8 6 ( + , * 8 ( 5 $ 6 7 & / , ( 1 7 - 2 + 1 % ( / 6 + ( 5 6 $ 1 / 8 , 6 2 % , 6 3 2 & $ 12 5 & 5 2 6 6 + 2 8 6 ( + , * 8 ( 5 $ 6 7 6 $ 1 / 8 , 6 2 % , 6 3 2 & $ 9, & , 1 , 7 < 0 $ 3 35 2 - ( & 7 ' $ 7 $ 6& 2 3 ( 2 ) : 2 5 . ', 5 ( & 7 2 5 < 6+ ( ( 7 , 1 ' ( ; 2: 1 ( 5 6 -2 + 1 % ( / 6 + ( 5 6 + , * 8 ( 5 $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( 6$ 1 / 8 , 6 2 % , 6 3 2 & $ 3+ $5 & + , 7 ( & 7 7+ 2 0 $ 6 % 5 $ - . 2 9 , & + & 3$ 5 $ * 2 1 ' ( 6 , * 1 6 0 2 5 5 2 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( 6$ 1 / 8 , 6 2 % , 6 3 2 & $ 3+ ) $ ; SU R M H F W L Q I R # S D U D J R Q D U F K L W H F W V F R P 67 5 8 & 7 8 5 $ / ( 1 * , 1 ( ( 5 &, 9 , / ( 1 * , 1 ( ( 5 7, 0 & 5 $ : ) 2 5 ' 3 5 2 - ( & 7 ( 1 * , 1 ( ( 5 3% & 2 0 3 $ 1 , ( 6 6 + , * 8 ( 5 $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( 6$ 1 / 8 , 6 2 % , 6 3 2 & $ 3+ LQ I R # S E F R P S D Q L H V F R 62 , / 6 5 ( 3 2 5 7 (1 ( 5 * < & $ / & 6 7, 7 / ( 6 + ( ( 7 1 2 7 ( 6 7 7 , 7 / ( 6 + ( ( 7 7 * ( 1 ( 5 $ / 1 2 7 ( 6 &, 9 , / & 7 , 7 / ( 6 + ( ( 7 & 6 , 7 ( ' 5 $ , 1 $ * ( 3 / $ 1 & 6 , 7 ( ' 5 $ , 1 $ * ( 3 / $ 1 & ( 5 2 6 , 2 1 & 2 1 7 5 2 / 3 / $ 1 & / $ 1 ' 6 & $ 3 ( 3 / $ 1 & 6 7 $ 1 ' $ 5 ' ' ( 7 $ , / 6 $5 & + , 7 ( & 7 8 5 $ / $ 6 , 7 ( $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 8 5 $ / 6 , 7 ( 3 / $ 1 $ $ 6 % 8 , / 7 ' 5 $ : , 1 * 6 0 $ 7 ( 5 , $ / 6 6 $ / 9 $ * ( 5 ( 8 6 ( $ 3 5 2 3 2 6 ( ' ) , 5 6 7 ) / 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 6 $ 3 5 2 3 2 6 ( ' 6 ( & 2 1 ' ) / 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 6 $ 3 5 2 3 2 6 ( ' ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6 ) 5 2 1 7 5 ( 6 , ' ( 1 & ( $ 3 5 2 3 2 6 ( ' ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6 5 ( $ 5 5 ( 6 , ' ( 1 & ( $ 6 ( & 7 , 2 1 6 $ 1 ' 5 2 2 ) 3 / $ 1 /$ 1 ' 6 & $ 3 ( / / $ 1 ' 6 & $ 3 ( 3 / $ 1 6, 7 ( , 1 ) 2 $' ' 5 ( 6 6 + , * 8 ( 5 $ 6 7 6 $ 1 / 8 , 6 2 % , 6 3 2 & $ $3 1 /( * $ / , 1 ) 2 / 2 7 % / 2 & . 3 $ 5 & ( / 0 $ 3 3 0 % . 3 * 0& ' 2 8 * $ / / 7 5 $ & 7 5 0 % . $ 3 * 2& & 8 3 $ 1 & < 5 =2 1 , 1 * & 5 %8 , / ' , 1 * 7 < 3 ( 9 % 2 ) 6 7 2 5 , ( 6 5( / 2 & $ 7 , 2 1 $ 1 ' $ ' ' , 7 , 2 1 7 2 ( ; , 6 7 , 1 * ; + , 6 7 2 5 , & $/ 5 ( ' + 2 8 6 ( 7 : 2 6( 3 $ 5 $ 7 ( 5 ( 6 , ' ( 1 & ( 6 : , / / % ( & 2 1 6 7 5 8 & 7 ( ' 6, 7 ( $ 5 ( $ 6 6, 7 ( $ 5 ( $ $ & 5 ( 6 6 4 ) 7 (; , 6 7 , 1 * % 8 , / ' , 1 * $ 5 ( $ 6 4 ) 7 6 7 ) / 2 2 5 6 4 ) 7 1 ' ) / 2 2 5 6 4 ) 7 $5 ( $ 2 ) ' ( 0 2 / , 7 , 2 1 6 4 ) 7 $5 ( $ 2 ) + , 6 7 2 5 , & $ / + 2 8 6 ( 7 2 5 ( 0 $ , 1 % ( 5 ( / 2 & $ 7 ( ' 6 4 ) 7 $' ' ( ' & 2 1 ' , 7 , 2 1 ( ' 6 4 8 $ 5 ( ) 2 2 7 $ * ( 6 4 ) 7 72 7 $ / & 2 1 ' , 7 , 2 1 ( ' 6 4 8 $ 5 ( ) 2 2 7 $ * ( 6 4 ) 7 81 & 2 1 ' , 7 , 2 1 ( ' 6 4 8 $ 5 ( ) 2 2 7 $ * ( *$ 5 $ * ( 6 4 ) 7 &2 9 ( 5 ( ' 3 2 5 & + ( 6 6 4 ) 7 )2 2 7 3 5 , 1 7 $ 5 ( $ 6 4 ) 7 %8 , / ' , 1 * & 2 9 ( 5 $ * ( 6 4 ) 7 6 4 ) 7 9, ( : ) 5 2 0 + , * 8 ( 5 $ 6 7 +, 6 7 2 5 , & $ / 3 + 2 7 2 & , 5 & $ A t t a c h m e n t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t t a c h m e n t 2 C H C 2 - 7 5 &/ $ : ) 2 2 7 78 % & ( , / , 1 * + ( , * + 7 & ( , / , 1 * + ( , * + 7 & ( , / , 1 * + ( , * + 7 ( ' ( & . : 1 2 $ & & ( 6 6 )5 2 1 7 3 2 5 & + [ 6 + ( ' 2 ) ) 2 ) . , 7 & + ( 1 32 5 & + 0$ 7 ( 5 , $ / 6 : 0$ 7 ( 5 , $ / 6 6 $ / 9 $ * ( / , 6 7 .( < 4 7 < 6 , = ( '2 8 % / ( + 8 1 * : , 1 ' 2 : 6 Z : ( , * + 7 6 '( 6 & 5 , 3 7 , 2 1 9 $ 5 , ( 6 :2 2 ' 0 $ 1 7 ( / 72 3 2 ) : , 1 ' 2 : * 5 , ' 64 ) 7 7 * ' 2 8 * / $ 6 ) , 5 ) / 2 2 5 , 1 * ; 32 5 & + % 2 $ 5 ' 6 2 ) ( '8 7 & + / $ 3 : 2 2 ' 6 , ' , 1 * ; 64 ) 7 2 ) ( ; ; '8 7 & + / $ 3 : 2 2 ' 6 , ' , 1 * ; 1( : ( / / 3 2 6 7 ; &$ 6 7 , 5 2 1 & / $ : ) 2 2 7 7 8 % " ; )5 $ 0 , 1 * 0 ( 0 % ( 5 6 , 1 6 3 ( & 7 6 $ / 9 $ * ( $ & & 2 5 ' , 1 * / < 9$ 5 < , 1 * 25 1 $ 0 ( 1 7 $ / ) $ 6 & , $ ; &5 2 : 1 0 2 / ' , 1 * ; )$ 6 & , $ ; '2 2 5 : , 1 ' 2 : & $ 6 , 1 * 0$ 7 ( 5 , $ / 6 : 0$ 7 ( 5 , $ / 6 5 ( 8 6 ( / , 6 7 .( < 4 7 < 6 , = ( '( 6 & 5 , 3 7 , 2 1 :2 2 ' 0 $ 1 7 ( / & $ 1 % ( 5 ( 8 6 ( ' $ 5 2 8 1 ' 1 * $ 6 ) , 5 ( 3 / $ & ( , 1 6 ( 5 7 64 ) 7 7 * ' 2 8 * / $ 6 ) , 5 ) / 2 2 5 , 1 * 5 ( 8 6 ( ) 2 5 1 ( : & 2 1 6 7 5 8 & 7 , 2 1 $ / 2 1 * : , 7 + 1 ( : 0 $ 7 ( 5 , $ / 6 ; 3 2 5 & + % 2 $ 5 ' 6 5 ( 8 6 ( ) 2 5 1 ( : & 2 1 6 7 5 8 & 7 , 2 1 $ / 2 1 * : , 7 + 1 ( : 0 $ 7 ( 5 , $ / 6 2 ) ( '8 7 & + / $ 3 : 2 2 ' 6 , ' , 1 * 5 ( 8 6 ( 7 2 6 , ' ( 1 ( : & 2 1 6 7 5 8 & 7 , 2 1 $ / 2 1 * : , 7 + 1 ' 8 7 & + / $ 3 6 , ' , 1 * ; 64 ) 7 2 ) ( ; ; ; 1( : ( / / 3 2 6 7 5 ( 8 6 ( $ 7 % $ 6 ( 2 ) 1 6 7 $ , 5 $ ' ' % $ 6 ( 7 2 0 ( ( 7 & 2 ' ( + ( , * + 7 5 ( 4 8 , 5 ( 0 ( 1 7 6 ; &$ 6 7 , 5 2 1 & / $ : ) 2 2 7 7 8 % 5 ( 6 7 2 5 ( 8 6 ( , 1 1 0 $ 6 7 ( 5 % $ 7 + " ; )5 $ 0 , 1 * 0 ( 0 % ( 5 6 5 ( 8 6 ( , 1 1 ( : & 2 1 6 7 5 8 & 7 , 2 1 : + ( 5 ( $ 3 3 / , & $ % / ( 9$ 5 < , 1 * 25 1 $ 0 ( 1 7 $ / ) $ 6 & , $ 5 ( 8 6 ( $ 7 0 $ , 1 * $ % / ( 6 ; &5 2 : 1 0 2 / ' , 1 * 5 ( 8 6 ( $ 7 ) $ 6 & , $ $ / 2 1 * : , 7 + 1 0 $ 7 ( 5 , $ / 6 7 2 0 $ 7 & + ( & 5 2 : 1 ; )$ 6 & , $ 5 ( 8 6 ( ) 2 5 1 ( : & 2 1 6 7 5 8 & 7 , 2 1 $ / 2 1 * : , 7 + 1 ( : 0 $ 7 ( 5 , $ / 6 ; '2 2 5 : , 1 ' 2 : & $ 6 , 1 * 5 ( 8 6 ( ) 2 5 1 ( : & 2 1 6 7 5 8 & 7 , 2 1 $ / 2 1 * : , 7 + 1 ( : 0 $ 7 ( 5 , $ / 6 '8 7 & + / $ 3 : 2 2 ' 6 , ' , 1 * 5 ( 8 6 ( 7 2 6 , ' ( 1 ( : & 2 1 6 7 5 8 & 7 , 2 1 $ / 2 1 * : , 7 + 1 ' 8 7 & + / $ 3 6 , ' , 1 * $O O G H V L J Q V D Q G R W K H U L Q I R U P D W L R Q R Q W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V D U H I R U X V H R Q WK L V V S H F L I L F S U R M H F W D Q G V K D O O Q R W E H X V H G R W K H U Z L V H Z L W K R X W W KH H[ S U H V V H G Z U L W W H Q S H U P L V V L R Q R I W K H $ U F K L W H F W :U L W W H Q G L P H Q V L R Q V R Q W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V V K D O O W D N H S U H F H G H Q F H R Y H U VF D O H G G L P H Q V L R Q V & R Q W U D F W R U V V K D O O Y H U L I \ D Q G E H U H V S R Q V L E O H IR U D O O GLP H Q V L R Q V D Q G F R Q G L W L R Q V R Q W K L V M R E D Q G W K L V R I I L F H V K D O O E H QR W L I L H G LQ Z U L W L Q J R I D Q \ Y D U L D W L R Q V I U R P W K H G L P H Q V L R Q V R U F R Q G L W L R Q V VK R Z Q LQ W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V 2) 6+ ( ( 7 6 '$ 7 ( -2 % 1 2 6+ ( ( 7 6& $ / ( &+ ( & . ( ' '5 $ : 1 1 2 5 & 5 2 6 6 + 2 8 6 ( + , * 8 ( 5 $ 6 7 & / , ( 1 7 - 2 + 1 % ( / 6 + ( 5 6 $ 1 / 8 , 6 2 % , 6 3 2 & $ ) , 5 6 7 ) / 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 6& $ / ( 6 ( & 2 1 ' ) / 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 6& $ / ( $6 % 8 , / 7 6 ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 0 $ 7 5 ( 8 6 ( 6& $ / ( $6 % 8 , / 7 ( ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 0 $ 7 5 ( 8 6 ( 6& $ / ( 0$ 7 ( 5 , $ / 6 6 $ / 9 $ * ( 5 ( 8 6 ( / ( * ( 1 ' 6& $ / ( 1 7 6 A t t a c h m e n t 2 C H C 2 - 7 6 ', 1 , 1 * 5 2 2 0 *$ 6 ) , 5 ( 3 / $ & ( ., 7 & + ( 1 , 6 / $ 1 ' Z % $ 5 6 ( $ 7 , 1 * %$ 7 + 5 2 2 0 &2 1 9 ( & 7 , 2 1 29 ( 1 0, & 5 2 : $ 9 ( 3$ 1 7 5 < &$ % , 1 ( 7 32 5 & + )$ 0 , / < 5 2 2 0 3$ 5 / 2 8 5 5,6(6RI 5816RI 5( / 2 & $ 7 ( ' 5 ( ' +2 8 6 ( ' ( 6 , * 1 $ 7 ( ' %< : $ / / + $ 7 & + &2 9 ( 5 ( ' 83 & $ 5 * $ 5 $ * ( & $ 5 * $ 5 $ * ( &$ 5 5 , $ * ( 6 7 < / ( 29 ( 5 + ( $ ' ' 2 2 5 [ & $ 5 & 2 9 ( 5 ( ' &$ 5 3 2 5 7 ' : :$ 6 + ( 5 ' 5 < ( 5 5,6(6RI 5816RI83 $ $ $ $ &$ 5 5 , $ * ( 6 7 < / ( 29 ( 5 + ( $ ' ' 2 2 5 [ &$ 5 5 , $ * ( 6 7 < / ( 29 ( 5 + ( $ ' ' 2 2 5 [ 3U R S H U W \ / L Q H 3U R S H U W \ / L Q H $OO G H V L J Q V D Q G R W K H U L Q I R U P D W L R Q R Q W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V D U H I R U X V H R Q WK L V V S H F L I L F S U R M H F W D Q G V K D O O Q R W E H X V H G R W K H U Z L V H Z L W K R X W W KH H[ S U H V V H G Z U L W W H Q S H U P L V V L R Q R I W K H $ U F K L W H F W :U L W W H Q G L P H Q V L R Q V R Q W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V V K D O O W D N H S U H F H G H Q F H R Y H U VF D O H G G L P H Q V L R Q V & R Q W U D F W R U V V K D O O Y H U L I \ D Q G E H U H V S R Q V L E O H I R U D O O GL P H Q V L R Q V D Q G F R Q G L W L R Q V R Q W K L V M R E D Q G W K L V R I I L F H V K D O O E H QR W L I L H G LQ Z U L W L Q J R I D Q \ Y D U L D W L R Q V I U R P W K H G L P H Q V L R Q V R U F R Q G L W L R Q V VK R Z Q LQ W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V 2) 6+ ( ( 7 6 '$ 7 ( -2 % 1 2 6+ ( ( 7 6& $ / ( &+ ( & . ( ' '5 $ : 1 1 2 5 & 5 2 6 6 + 2 8 6 ( + , * 8 ( 5 $ 6 7 & / , ( 1 7 - 2 + 1 % ( / 6 + ( 5 6 $ 1 / 8 , 6 2 % , 6 3 2 & $ ), 5 6 7 ) / 2 2 5 6& $ / ( A t t a c h m e n t 2 C H C 2 - 7 7 %( ' 5 2 2 0 %( ' 5 2 2 0 0$ 6 7 ( 5 %( ' 5 2 2 0 5,6(6RI 5816RI '( & . 78%6+2:(5 '( 6 . 0$ 6 7 ( 5 &/ 2 6 ( 7 0$ 6 7 ( 5 %$ 7 + 5 2 2 0 )2 < ( 5 $ $ %( ' 5 2 2 0 '( & . %( ' 5 2 2 0 %( ' 5 2 2 0 %$ 7 + 5 2 2 0 78 % 6 + 2 : ( 5 /, 9 , 1 * 5 2 2 0 $ $ '( & . *$ 6 ) , 5 ( 3 / $ & ( %$ 7 + 5 2 2 0 '( 6 . /, 1 ( 1 ., 7 & + ( 1 67 $ & . ( ' :$ 6 + ( 5 ' 5 < ( 5 /, 1 ( 1 5,6(6RI 5816RI83 6+ 2 : ( 5 3U R S H U W \ / L Q H 3U R S H U W \ / L Q H $OO G H V L J Q V D Q G R W K H U L Q I R U P D W L R Q R Q W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V D U H I R U X V H R Q WK L V V S H F L I L F S U R M H F W D Q G V K D O O Q R W E H X V H G R W K H U Z L V H Z L W K R X W W KH H[ S U H V V H G Z U L W W H Q S H U P L V V L R Q R I W K H $ U F K L W H F W :U L W W H Q G L P H Q V L R Q V R Q W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V V K D O O W D N H S U H F H G H Q F H R Y H U VF D O H G G L P H Q V L R Q V & R Q W U D F W R U V V K D O O Y H U L I \ D Q G E H U H V S R Q V L E O H I R U D O O GL P H Q V L R Q V D Q G F R Q G L W L R Q V R Q W K L V M R E D Q G W K L V R I I L F H V K D O O E H QR W L I L H G LQ Z U L W L Q J R I D Q \ Y D U L D W L R Q V I U R P W K H G L P H Q V L R Q V R U F R Q G L W L R Q V VK R Z Q LQ W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V 2) 6+ ( ( 7 6 '$ 7 ( -2 % 1 2 6+ ( ( 7 6& $ / ( &+ ( & . ( ' '5 $ : 1 1 2 5 & 5 2 6 6 + 2 8 6 ( + , * 8 ( 5 $ 6 7 & / , ( 1 7 - 2 + 1 % ( / 6 + ( 5 6 $ 1 / 8 , 6 2 % , 6 3 2 & $ 6( & 2 1 ' ) / 2 2 5 6& $ / ( A t t a c h m e n t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t t a c h m e n t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t t a c h m e n t 2 C H C 2 - 8 0 2 3 / $ 7 ( + ( , * + 7 I U R P J D U D J H I O R R U 2 ) / 2 2 5 + ( , * + 7 I U R P J D U D J H I O R R U 3 / $ 7 ( + ( , * + 7 I U R P J D U D J H I O R R U 7 2 6 ( + 2 8 6 ( 6 7 ) / 2 2 5 3 / $ 7 ( + ( , * + 7 3 / $ 7 ( + ( , * + 7 ( + 2 8 6 ( 1 ' ) / 2 2 5 + ( $ ' ( 5 + ( , * + 7 + ( $ ' ( 5 + ( , * + 7 R U I U R P Q G I O R R U 0$ ; + ( , * + 7 9 H U L I \ ( 5 2 2 ) 5 $ ) 7 ( 5 6 7 2 %( 5 ( 3 / $ & ( ' $ 6 1 ( ( ' ( ' 1 7 5 8 6 6 *$ % / ( 5 2 2 ) 1 7 - , ) / 2 2 5 -2 , 6 7 6 # 2 & 1 3 ( 5 , 0 ( 7 ( 5 ) 2 8 1 ' $ 7 , 2 1 [ # 2 & Z 3/ < : 2 2 ' 6 8 % ) / 2 2 5 7( 0 3 2 5 $ 5 < ) / 2 2 5 , 1 * [ # 2 & Z 3/ < : 2 2 ' 6 8 % ) / 2 2 5 7( 0 3 2 5 $ 5 < ) / 2 2 5 , 1 * (; , 6 7 , 1 * 6 7 5 8 & 7 8 5 ( 7 2 5 ( 0 $ , 1 1 75 8 6 6 * $ % / ( 52 2 ) $O O G H V L J Q V D Q G R W K H U L Q I R U P D W L R Q R Q W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V D U H I R U X V H R Q WK L V V S H F L I L F S U R M H F W D Q G V K D O O Q R W E H X V H G R W K H U Z L V H Z L W K R X W W KH H[ S U H V V H G Z U L W W H Q S H U P L V V L R Q R I W K H $ U F K L W H F W :U L W W H Q G L P H Q V L R Q V R Q W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V V K D O O W D N H S U H F H G H Q F H R Y H U VF D O H G G L P H Q V L R Q V & R Q W U D F W R U V V K D O O Y H U L I \ D Q G E H U H V S R Q V L E O H IR U D O O GLP H Q V L R Q V D Q G F R Q G L W L R Q V R Q W K L V M R E D Q G W K L V R I I L F H V K D O O E H QR W L I L H G LQ Z U L W L Q J R I D Q \ Y D U L D W L R Q V I U R P W K H G L P H Q V L R Q V R U F R Q G L W L R Q V VK R Z Q LQ W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V 2) 6+ ( ( 7 6 '$ 7 ( -2 % 1 2 6+ ( ( 7 6& $ / ( &+ ( & . ( ' '5 $ : 1 1 2 5 & 5 2 6 6 + 2 8 6 ( + , * 8 ( 5 $ 6 7 & / , ( 1 7 - 2 + 1 % ( / 6 + ( 5 6 $ 1 / 8 , 6 2 % , 6 3 2 & $ 52 2 ) 3 / $ 1 6& $ / ( 6( & 7 , 2 1 $ 6& $ / ( A t t a c h m e n t 2 C H C 2 - 8 1 $OO G H V L J Q V D Q G R W K H U L Q I R U P D W L R Q R Q W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V D U H I R U X V H R Q WK L V V S H F L I L F S U R M H F W D Q G V K D O O Q R W E H X V H G R W K H U Z L V H Z L W K R X W W KH H[ S U H V V H G Z U L W W H Q S H U P L V V L R Q R I W K H $ U F K L W H F W :UL W W H Q G L P H Q V L R Q V R Q W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V V K D O O W D N H S U H F H G H Q F H R Y H U VF D O H G G L P H Q V L R Q V & R Q W U D F W R U V V K D O O Y H U L I \ D Q G E H U H V S R Q V L E O H I R U D O O GLP H Q V L R Q V D Q G F R Q G L W L R Q V R Q W K L V M R E D Q G W K L V R I I L F H V K D O O E H QR W L I L H G LQ Z U L W L Q J R I D Q \ Y D U L D W L R Q V I U R P W K H G L P H Q V L R Q V R U F R Q G L W L R Q V VK R Z Q LQ W K H V H G U D Z L Q J V 2) 6+ ( ( 7 6 '$ 7 ( -2 % 1 2 6+ ( ( 7 6& $ / ( &+ ( & . ( ' '5 $ : 1 1 2 5 & 5 2 6 6 + 2 8 6 ( & / , ( 1 7 - 2 + 1 % ( / 6 + ( 5 + , * 8 ( 5 $ 6 7 6 $ 1 / 8 , 6 2 % , 6 3 2 & $ 12 5 & 5 2 6 6 + 2 8 6 ( 5( 6 7 2 5 $ 7 , 2 1 $ ' ' , 7 , 2 1 + , * 8 ( 5 $ 6 7 6$ 1 / 8 , 6 2 % , 6 3 2 & $ / , ) 2 5 1 , $ A t t a c h m e n t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t t a c h m e n t 2 C H C 2 - 8 3 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of the proposed repositioning, and rehabilitation, including an addition to the rear of the Master List historic Norcross House; and review of a proposed construction of a two - story structure behind the Norcross House. PROJECT ADDRESS: 546 Higuera Street BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7524 E-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0339-2017 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner 1.0 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which recommends the Community Development Director find the project consistent with Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant John Belsher Representative Thom Brajkovich, Paragon Design Historic Status Master List Complete Date Pending Zoning Commercial Retail (C-R) zone General Plan General Retail Site Area ~2.07 acres Environmental Status Categorically Exempt from environmental review under Section 15331 of the CEQA Guidelines (Historical Resource Restoration/ Rehabilitation) 2.0 SUMMARY The proposed project includes the rehabilitation and repositioning of a Master List Historic Resource (Norcross House) and construction of a two-story detached residence. On November 18, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10579 (2014 Series) adding the David Norcross residence at 546 Higuera Street to the Master List of Historic Resources. The property was found to qualify for listing under three of the significance criteria including architectural style, his toric significance and integrity, as the structure maintains its original location, style, and character defining features. (Attachment 5, City Council Resolution). The proposed project has been previously reviewed by the CHC, this report and the attached exhibits address the applicant’s responses to the prior comments made by the CHC conceptual review held on April 27, 2015 (Attachment 6, Previous CHC Report). Meeting Date: May 22, 2017 Item Number: 1 Attachment 3 CHC2 - 84 ARCH-0339-2017 546 Higuera Street (Norcross House) Page 2 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information/Setting The subject property is 2.07 acres in size (90,169 sq. ft.) and is located at 546 Higuera Street mid- block along Higuera Street between Nipomo and Carmel Streets, within the Commercial Retail (C- R) zone. The property abuts the San Luis Creek toward the rear of the property. The 1.44 acre site was previously utilized as a residential trailer park, all trailers have been removed for the resurfacing of the property, subject to the review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The existing residence is no longer in habitable condition, and over the years the property has suffered from a lack of maintenance. Failing foundation supports have caused the floors to be uneven, and the structure suffers from damaged exterior and interior details. A complete rehabilitation or partial reconstruction of the residence is necessary to allow it to be safely occupied. Project Description A summary of the significant project features is included below (Attachment 3, Project Plans): 1. Historic Preservation: See Attachment 2, Historic Preservation Report;  Demolition: Remove non-historic additions to the rear of the structure  Reposition: The historic structure will be repositioned 15-feet closer to Higuera Street  Rehabilitation: Rehabilitating the residence to its appearance during its period of significance from 1886-1890, includes; o Repair/replace the deteriorated foundation and materials o Reconstruction of the front porch to include balcony, as was in 1904 o Replacing 2nd story window with new double doors to access balcony 2. Architectural Design: The project has been designed similar to the Eastlake Gothic Revival architectural style (Attachment 4, City Council Report), without replicating or detracting from character defining features of the original structure, designs include;  A two-story addition to the Norcross House to restore the use of the structure to a single- family residence.  New detached two-story unit to the rear of the Norcross House with covered tandem parking on the ground floor. 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS Historic Preservation Guidelines & Secretary of Interior Standards (SOI) The Historic Preservation Guidelines provide criteria to evaluate alterations to historic resources to be designed a compatible with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with applicable design and preservation policies and standards. The most appropriate treatment standard to consider is characterized as “rehabilitation” under the SOI Standards since the project proposes a continuation Figure 1: Norcross House (Photo 2014) Attachment 3 CHC2 - 85 ARCH-0339-2017 546 Higuera Street (Norcross House) Page 3 of a compatible use for the property, proposes restoration of key elements of the building’s exterior to approximate its appearance during the historic era, and proposes new additions to the building. SOI Rehabilitation 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 historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. SOI Rehabilitation Standard #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will 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. The SOI Standards for Historic Rehabilitation recommends constructing new additions so that there is the least possible loss of historic materials and so that character-defining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed. The revisions to the design of the project are consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and SOI Standards since architectural character of the existing residence is retained1, and new construction is consistent with the existing character including site design, roofing style, siding materials, finish, and scale2. The construction of the additional two story unit is compatible with the scale, size, massing and architectural features of the property3. Previous Conceptual CHC Review After the CHC conceptual review on April 27, 2015 the applicant worked with staff to revise the project to address directional items identified by the previous CHC report (Attachment 6). The applicant has made the following changes to the project in response to the directional items: Directional Item #1: Explore design alternatives to reduce the massing and height of the project by reducing height of the new construction where it meets the historic structure so that the additions are subordinate to the historic resource and do not detract from the architectural integrity of the structure. Additions should be more proportional and step down from the height of the original structure and/or step in from the edges of the building, effectively emphasizing the historic residence in relation to the additions. The proposed additions should be designed so that there is the least possible loss of historic materials and the character-defining features are not obscured. Due to the small footprint of the historic structure, reduction in total floor area may be required in addition to architectural design modifications. 1 Secretary of Interior Standards. Additions/Alterations. Some exterior and interior alterations to a historic building are generally needed to assure its continued use, but it is most important that such alteration do not radically change, obscure, or destroy character defining spaces, materials, features, or finishes. 2 Historic Preservation Guidelines. Additions 3.4.1(d). 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. 3 Historic Preservation Guidelines. New Accessory Structures 3.4.1(c). New accessory structures should complement the primary structure’s historic character through compatibility with its form, massing, color, and materials . Attachment 3 CHC2 - 86 ARCH-0339-2017 546 Higuera Street (Norcross House) Page 4 Staff Evaluation: The project has been reduced in height and stepped back approximately 3-feet on along the east and west elevations where it meets the historic structure so that the additions are visually subordinate and do not detract from the architectural integrity of the original structure, as seen from Higuera Street. Visibility of the historic structure is enhanced by repositioning the structure closer to the street, further emphasizing the integrity of the historic structure at this location without obscuring any of the character-defining features. Directional Item #2: To reduce massing of the addition, consider a separate structure and/or remove vehicle parking from the addition or consider providing parking in a separate parking structure; or leave parking uncovered on the site. Staff Evaluation: The applicant has revised the project design to provide the parking and additional unit in a separate structure, effectively reducing the overall scale and mass of the project so that the additional structure does not detract from the architectural integrity of the historic structure as a single-family residence (Figure 2 & 3). Covered parking is provided for both units on the ground floor of the additional structure. Directional Item #3: The proposed addition should include some differentiation from the historic building by including one or more of the following measures: 1) Include a visual break or border between the addition and historic building. 2) Incorporate architectural details which are more simplified from the historic building. 3) Include slight variation in exterior details (siding dimensions, trim, etc.) while emphasizing complementary design between the addition and historic structure. Figure 3: Revised East Elevation Figure 2: Previous East Elevation Attachment 3 CHC2 - 87 ARCH-0339-2017 546 Higuera Street (Norcross House) Page 5 Staff Evaluation: The architectural details and materials of the addition to the historic structure have been simplified when compared to the historic structure including, dormers, exterior wood-lap siding to closely match existing, a lower roof pitch, simplified detailing of the eaves and dormers, and non-decorative wood framed double-hung windows and doors. The addition does not introduce any conflicting elements and has been designed to be architecturally compatible with the original architectural character of the building. Directional Item #4: Plans submitted to include details regarding rehabilitation of historic structure. Clearly define portions/aspects of structure to be preserved/restored versus reconstructed. Include details regarding deconstruction of structure, repositioning, foundation, materials to be used for reconstruction, and documentation to support features to be recreated. Identify methods of restoration for features to be retained. Response: The applicant has provided a historic preservation report (Attachment 2) that outlines the methods of restoration and preservation of the historic resource4. Staff has evaluated the report and recommends Conditions 2 through 5 to ensure that character defining features are preserved and methods of rehabilitation and repositioning of the structure are clearly identified and consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and Community Development Director. 5.0 CONCLUSION The project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation because the proposed addition will not detract or destroy any historic character defining features of the existing residence and is designed so that the essential form and integrity of the historic property is preserved. The rehabilitation of the Norcross House will preserve the original residential use and provide for the long-term preservation of a currently dilapidated and vacant structure t hat is threatened. The removal of non-historic additions and repositioning of the structure toward Higuera Street will enhance the historic character of the property and add to the importance of the building as part of San Luis Obispo, as seen from the public right-of-way. 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 31 (Section 15331) Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation of the CEQA Guidelines because the project consists of rehabilitation and restoration of a historical resource in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The project is also identified as an in-fill development project (Section 15332) that is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project will not result in significant impacts on historic resources, traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. 4 Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Attachment 3 CHC2 - 88 ARCH-0339-2017 546 Higuera Street (Norcross House) Page 6 7.0 ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project inconsistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and/or Secretary of Interior Standards. 2. Continue the item with specific direction for additional discussion or research. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Historic Preservation Report 3. Reduced scale Project Plans 4. City Council Report – November 18, 2014 5. City Council Resolution No. 10579 (2014 Series) 6. Previous CHC Report – April 27, 2015 7. CHC Meeting Minutes – April 27, 2015 Included in Commission member portfolio: Project plans Available at CHC hearing: color/materials board Attachment 3 CHC2 - 89 City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org MEMORANDUM July 24, 2017 TO: Cultural Heritage Committee FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Queenie Warden Bridge Plaque (Mission Plaza) Discussion: City Volunteer Historian, Joseph Carotenuti, has expressed interest in recognizing Queenie Warden as an important figure in the City’s history through a plaque installation on the bridge crossing San Luis Creek. The bridge crosses San Luis Creek in Mission Plaza behind the historic Warden Block building at 762 Higuera Street. Please see the attached Journal Plus Magazine article on Queenie Warden by Joseph Carotenuti. A few options of varying lengths for plaque verbiage are also attached. Provided the CHC is supportive and recommends pursuing the project further, staff will work to further refine the details and wil l bring back more refined concepts for further discussion including design, location, mounting options, etc. Attached: Journal Plus article on Queenie Warden, by Joseph Carotenuti Plaque verbiage options Queenie Warden Joseph A. Carotenuti Tens of thousands have walked over the bridge; there are even vehicles using it to access the backs of businesses facing Higuera Street. Built in 1927 linking the Warden Building to Monterey Street, few travelers know it was built by Queenie Warden and not by her husband, the civic legend, Horatio M. Warden. When his wife of 25 years, Maria, died in 1881, Horatio returned to an ongoing friendship to marry again. Warden born in 1828 in Granville, Ohio married Queenie Parr on November 30, 1882 in Grass Valley at the home of her mother Loraine Page Parr. While Horatio had left his home in 1850 for the gold fields of California, he maintained a friendship with his neighbors, the Parr family. For the 21 year old woman, the new life with the successful Warden could have been one devoted to family duties and attendant responsibilities. For Queenie, however, the next 62 years were ones of increasing maturity as both an adult and a prominent resident on the central coast. Moving to the Warden ranch in Los Osos, Queenie found her new home on the 3000 acre ranch filled with “every convenience and luxury any reasonable man can desire” according to a contemporary account. Complete with family memorabilia, it burned to the ground in 1930. While many might be content with the safety and security of wealth and privilege, Queenie excelled in maintaining the stature of her life but was most willing to share advantages with others. Here’s the story. Little is known of Queenie’s early years. The Page ancestors had arrived in America in 1630 with the family motto “Spe Labor Levis” (Hope Lightens Labor) that became especially appropriate for Queenie in her later years as a progressive resident and enabler locally. Educated in a convent school in Davenport, Iowa (her home state), the new bride also assumed the care of two adopted Warden children, Rosa Louisa and Joseph Wilkinson. Family life on the Warden ranch grew rapidly with the birth of three children: Queenie Moore (1884), Horatio, Jr. (1886) and Mary Loraine (1888). The latter child survived to 14. The eldest daughter would eventually marry Thomas A. Norton, the Superior Court judge and the son is remembered with his own building in town. Yet, amid the demands of family, when the various Warden interests were incorporated in 1898, Queenie became the president of the enterprise. One observer praised her “splendid executive and business ability.” Possibly for Queenie, managing a large household or business utilized the same skill set. Queenie’s interests outside the home had already shown themselves as she joined the Political Equality Club in 1896 and undoubtedly was in the audience that year to listen to the legendary Susan B. Anthony extoll the necessity of allowing women to vote. It was not to be until 1911. The nascent suffrage movement would be a constant theme in many of the female leaders’ issues at the time. For Queenie, however, talking about change was not enough. Words needed to be translated into deeds. Essential to an understanding of both the suffrage and temperance movements is the momentum provided by the women’s clubs. Quite often designated as “civic improvement” clubs, the ladies were not content in having meetings designed as merely social but also addressed what a community needed to do to become “progressive” as well. Thus, Queenie Warden became one of the five founding members in 1915 of the San Luis Obispo Women’s Civic Club. With the right to vote attained in 1911 in California, attention shifted to reminding those elected or wanting to be elected that the newly enfranchised intended on using their right. Quite often, political issues were part of the women’s monthly agendas. This was not sufficient for Queenie as she decided to take the next step in the political process and run for mayor in 1917. Losing to incumbent Dr. W. M. Stover by 76 votes (791-715), Queenie was quick to thank her supporters and reminded all she was not retiring from progressive causes. “Beware, I’m coming sure,” she ended her note of appreciation. Nonetheless, it would be some 50 years later before the mayor of the community was a female. Nor did the right to vote diminish temperance as the major agenda item on the social agenda. An important project locally was a small plot of ground near the railway station “El Triangulo Park” named after its shape. For ground donated to the club, Queenie appeared at City Council meetings enlisting their support. Obligingly, the City provided for a caretaker and free water to the site’s fountain. In an era of numerous saloons, a major temperance cause was providing water in public places in contrast to spirits. A nondescript pocket park today, Triangle Park remains as a reminder of the women’s (along with many men) efforts to challenge Demon Rum. Women’s clubs were also federated to promote a stronger presence on a local, state and national level. It was not long before San Luis Obispo’s chapter was federated and active in both social and political issues. Not all was well, however, and the Women’s Club disincorporated in 1926 amid a financial crisis. It seems Queenie spent a great deal of her own money in promoting various causes including expenses to bring the annual Los Angeles District Federated Women’s Club convention to the city. Some members objected to the amount of the treasury being spent and went so far as to refuse reimbursing Queenie who promptly filed suit for $10,000 against the Club. The resolution of the dispute was the deeding of the Women’s Club building to Queenie who eventually sold it. There is much more to be related about this energetic lady who was described by Annie Morrison in 1917 as: “an intelligent, understanding, sympathetic companion and guide; she controlled with a strong, but tender hand; she has been sympathetic without being weak, kind without condescension - an earnest, wise and unostentatious benefactor, whose benefactions have left no string; and in all good works she has modestly taken an important place.” Queenie Warden died in 1944. There should at least be a plaque identifying her bridge connecting more than two sides of a creek. For Queenie, progress meant connecting the present with a better future. Contact: jacarotenuti@gmail.com Visit: www.joefromslo.com Journal Plus Magazine June 2015 July 13, 2017 To: Brian Leveille; members of the CHC From: J. A. Carotenuti Several factors are to be considered for any verbiage on a plaque. The most important (other than accuracy) is the size of the plaque and its location for easy reading. Thus, the following are simply beginning suggestions. QUEENIE WARDEN BRIDGE (1927) QUEENIE PARR WARDEN (1861-1944) married civic pioneer, Horatio A. Warden, in 1882. Surviving her husband, she raised their three children and was a champion of social issues. During her long life, she was a business women and suffragette. She was the first woman to run for mayor in 1917 being narrowly defeated. To connect the then-Monterey Street to the back of her property, she constructed the first bridge across the San Luis Creek. 73 words QUEENIE PARR WARDEN (1861-1944) had a bridge constructed to connect her property with the then- Monterey Street. Mother of three, business woman and civic leader, she was the first woman to run (unsuccessfully) for mayor in 1917. 36 words QUEENIE PARR WARDEN (1861-1944), community leader, business woman and a widow with three children, she constructed the bridge to reach her property. She was the first woman to run (unsuccessfully) for mayor in 1917. 34 words