HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5 - ARCH-1428-2018 (1140 Iris)Meeting Date: July 23, 2018
Item Number: 5
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of alterations and additions to a single-family dwelling (Contributing List
Historic Resource)
ADDRESS: 1140 Iris St BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
FILE #: ARCH-1428-2018 Phone: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 RECOMMENDATION: Review the project plans and provide direction regarding
historical preservation policies applicable to the retention of character-defining features,
including distinctive roof and window forms, and policies regarding the appropriate scale and
architectural consistency of the proposed porch addition.
SITE DATA
Applicant Dave & Karen Rucker
Representative Greg Wynn
Complete Date 6/21/2018
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Zoning Medium Density Residential;
Special Considerations (R-2-S)
Site Area 1.04 acres
Historic Status Contributing List Resource
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15301:
Existing Facilities)
2.0 SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to rehabilitate and make additions to a single-family dwelling that is
designated in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Contributing List Historic
Resource.
3.0 COMMITTEE’S PURVIEW
The Committee’s role is to review the proposed work and provide a recommendation to the
Community Development Director on the consistency of the project with the City’s Historic
Packet Page 121
ARCH-1428-2018 (1140 Iris)
Page 2
Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and with the Secretary of
Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
4.0 DISCUSSION
4.1 Site and Setting
The site is a 1-acre parcel on the north side of
Iris Street, about 50 feet west of Ruth Street.
The primary structure on the site is a two-story
2,500 square-foot single-family dwelling, with a
construction date of 1860 noted in Assessor
records.1 Two one-bedroom cottages also exist
on the site, built in 1925. More detailed
information about the background of the
property and its owners and occupants is
provided in the Historic Resources Evaluation
prepared for this application by Bertrando &
Bertrando Research Consultants.2
It is within the East Railroad neighborhood, a residential area south of the railroad depot,
characterized by single-family dwellings in a variety of architectural styles, many with
associated small rental units. As it is one of the earlier developed neighborhoods in the City,
there exists a concentration of historically significant architectural styles associated with the late
19th- and early 20th-Century residential development, such as Neo-Classical Cottage and
Residential Vernacular. In these 2 blocks (1100, 1200) of Iris Street are 5 Contributing List
Resources (including the subject property). Adjacent to the property, and prominently visible
behind it, is the “Master-List” Southern Pacific Water Tower.
The primary dwelling on the property is described in City records as “Vernacular Farmhouse” in
style, “irregular in plan.”3 The City’s Historic Context Statement notes that the Residential
Vernacular style describes simple houses with little or no distinguishing decorative features,
characterized by their simplicity and lack of any characteristics of recognizable styles (see
Attachment 6). Character-defining features of the style include:4
▪ Simple square or rectangular form
▪ Gabled or hipped roof with boxed or open eaves
▪ Wood exterior cladding
▪ Simple windows and door surrounds
1“Property Information Search,” County of San Luis Obispo Asses sor’s Office,
assessor.slocounty.ca.gov/assessor/pisa/
2 Betsy Bertrando, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, Historic Resource Evaluation: The George
Chastain Cocke Homestead (P-40-041330) (April 2018)
3 Historical Property Listing (February 2007), in CDD historic property record (“yellow file”) for 1140 Iris
4 Character-defining features of the buildings are discussed in greater detail in the Evaluation section of this report.
Figure 1: 1140 Iris
Packet Page 122
ARCH-1428-2018 (1140 Iris)
Page 3
The property was added to the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources in February
2007 (Resolution 9875, Attachment 2), with a group of 25 properties in the East Railroad area.
4.2 Project Description
The proposed project involves several elements:5
▪ Remodeling of the interior of the dwelling
▪ Replacement of all windows (for energy efficiency)
▪ Addition of a bathroom at the northeast corner of the building
▪ Extension of the kitchen at the southeast side of the building
▪ Addition of a covered porch extending across the south and east building elevations
Most of the work is contained within the current extent of the building footprint. However, the
bathroom (± 140 sq. ft.), and the kitchen (± 170 sq. ft.) additions add floor area to the building,
and the new porch extends beyond the existing footprint.
4.3 Supporting Documentation
Two supporting documents submitted with this application describe the property, structure, and
proposed work in further detail: the Historic Resource Evaluation for the property, prepared by
Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants (Attachment 3); and an Historic Evaluation, dated
April 23, 2018, prepared by Thomas Brajkovich, Preservation Architect (Attachment 4).
Historical Resource Evaluation (Bertrando & Bertrando). The Bertrando & Bertrando evaluation
provides the history of the property and its owners and occupants, discusses the historical
significance and character-defining features of the property, and offers guidelines and
recommendations for carrying out the work in a manner consistent with applicable historical
preservation standards and guidelines.
5 Also see Sheet A2-1 of Project Plans (Attachment 6)
Figure 2: Model of proposed additions
Packet Page 123
ARCH-1428-2018 (1140 Iris)
Page 4
Period of significance. The period of significance is established as “1883 to Mid-1890s,”6
corresponding to the period of occupation of the house by George Chastain Cocke, a Missouri
native who farmed and ran a diary on the property.7 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps show the
configuration of the building as it existed in 1926 (Figure 3, Attachment 5): an L-shaped building
with porches extending off the front and back of the east wing of the home, and a “Gentleman’s
Parlor” protruding south from the building.
Additions. Subsequent additions were made to the house where porches formerly existed (see
Figure 3). The porch on the north side of the east wing was enclosed, and the space further
extended beyond the original wall plane. The former porch on the south side was enclosed, to
extend the kitchen. A porch at the west side of the building was also enclosed. Sheet A2-0 of the
project plans (Attachment 6) depicts the original extent of the house in comparison to the
existing floor plan indicating where these additions were made.
Character-defining features. Character-defining features of the building are identified in the
evaluation,8 including:
▪ A three-sided Italianate window on the north elevation
▪ Fragments of the original building entry detail
▪ Gable roof with plain boxed cornice, frieze, and louver vents
▪ Transomed parlor window (north side)
Windows. While the varied nature of fenestration is noted as a challenge to identification of
character-defining window elements, those deserving special consideration are noted. These
include the molded window heads and lip sills on many of the second-floor windows. As seen in
a 1984 photograph (Figure 10 on Page 11 of the evaluation), these features were also evident on
the second-floor south wall, but subsequently replaced. Two long windows in the kitchen
6 Bertrando, pg. 16
7 --Ibid., pg. 9
8 --Ibid., pg. 16
Figure 3: Sanborn map (1926), left; Subsequent additions (in orange), right
Packet Page 124
ARCH-1428-2018 (1140 Iris)
Page 5
addition appear to be from the period of significance (though from another location) and, along
with the long 2-over-2 and 1-over-1 sash windows in the original portion of the house, are
recommended in this evaluation for preservation and re-use with this project.
Further recommendations. The evaluation provides additional preservation guidelines and
recommendations, summarized below:
▪ Preservation, retention, and, where necessary, repair of original materials and decorative
elements, including the character-defining features identified in the evaluation
▪ Particular care in matching replacement exterior materials to the original materials
▪ Use of designs for replacement features, such as porches, that are compatible with the
size, scale, and material of original portions of the house, where insufficient
documentation of their original form exists
1140 Iris Street Historic Evaluation (Brajkovich). The Historic
Resource Evaluation prepared by Thom Brajkovich, Preservation
Architect (Attachment 4), evaluates the present condition of the
primary dwelling, and the consistency of the proposed addition to,
and restoration of, the building with applicable historical
preservation standards and guidelines, including the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.9 It was
prepared subsequent to the Bertrando Evaluation described above
and concurs with that evaluation’s findings related to historic
significance. It provides more specific discussion of the
architectural elements of the building, along with recommendations
for promoting consistency with applicable preservation standards.
Subsequent additions to the building are distinguished by different
roof sheathing materials used on them, and by windows of different
proportion and height to those of the original portion of the house.
The distinctive character of the Italianate bay window on the north
wall of the house (Figure 4) is noted. Five different types of
windows are observed, but the “two-over-two sashes” are noted as
typical of the period of significance (pg. 6).
Recommendations are provided for preserving the building’s historic character:
▪ Re-use and re-purposing of original siding where possible
▪ Use of the same channel-bevel siding design for the new additions
▪ Use of the same style and type of double-hung windows and casing, including the
original narrow proportions, “two-over-two” sash configuration, and capped molded
window heads
9 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service; Technical Preservation Services, 2017.
Figure 4: Italianate Bay
Window
Packet Page 125
ARCH-1428-2018 (1140 Iris)
Page 6
▪ Repair, restoration, and re-use of original windows where possible; use of new restoration
copies where repair and re-use is not practicable
▪ Copy the boxed cornices and frieze
This evaluation concludes that the new room and porch additions do not conflict with the
integrity of the original house and its gable roof forms, that the new additions will reflect the
period of significance of the building, and that the proposed addition and restoration project
meets the intent of applicable historical preservation standards and guidance.
5.0 EVALUATION
Evaluation of this project is focused on determining whether the project is consistent with the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, and whether the proposed work will be carried out
consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines for changes to historic
resources (§ 3.4) and with the standards and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings
provided in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
(SOI Standards). The work to be carried out has been described in the project plans and
supporting documentation submitted with this application. As further discussed in this section,
several aspects of the project warrant closer attention, and staff is recommending that the
Committee provide direction regarding design modifications that will result in a project that
achieves better consistency with applicable standards and guidelines.
5.1 Historic Preservation Ordinance and supporting guidelines
Guidelines for alterations. The proposed work involves alteration of a listed historic resource. As
such, guidelines provided in § 3.4 (Changes to Historic Resources) of the Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines (HPPG) are applicable to the proposed work:
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. […] 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 (§ 3.4.2)
Alterations of historically-listed buildings shall retain character defining features. […]
(§ 3.4.3)
Staff Analysis: The project can be carried out in a manner consistent with the above guidelines
for alterations. The applicant has provided preliminary calculations which indicate that more
than 75% of the building elements can be retained. In addition, the evaluations included with this
application identify the building’s character-defining features, and recommend retention, repair,
and re-use of original materials. The applicant’s description of the proposed work, and its
depiction in plans, call for retention of these elements. Staff will incorporate into any approval
action conditions of approval requiring that final plans include an exhibit demonstrating
compliance with this retention threshold, and requiring justification for any original materials
proposed to be replaced.
Packet Page 126
ARCH-1428-2018 (1140 Iris)
Page 7
5.2 Secretary of Interior’s Standards
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI
Standards) are used to provide guidance for rehabilitation of historic buildings. Rehabilitation is
a treatment defined in the SOI Standards as: “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 historical, cultural, or architectural values” (SOI Standards, pg. 75).
Standards for Rehabilitation are provided as Attachment 9 to this report. Of particular relevance
to this project are the following Standards for Rehabilitation:
The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided. (Standard 2)
Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained
and preserved. (Standard 4)
Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. (Standard 5)
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. (Standard 6)
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. (Standard 9)
Staff Analysis. As indicated in the description and discussion of the proposed work in the
accompanying evaluation documents, and its depiction in plans, the applicant will preserve the
building’s character-defining features in completing this project. Staff will incorporate into any
approval action conditions of approval implementing specific guidance found in the SOI
Standards, which provide recommendations for the application of the Standards to specific
elements of historic buildings, such as wood features, roofs, windows, and porches and
entrances. These will require evaluation of the condition of the character-defining elements so
that the extent of repair and replacement of these features can be determined, and will require
that repair and replacement be justified, documented, and depicted in plans, prior to being carried
out. Furthermore, a standard condition of approval will reiterate that the project design and final
construction plans must be in substantial compliance with approved plans and with supporting
documentation, including the recommendations provided in the accompanying historic
evaluations prepared for this application.
Packet Page 127
ARCH-1428-2018 (1140 Iris)
Page 8
5.3 Discussion Items
Prior to taking any action approving this project, however, the direction of the Committee is
sought on: the treatment of the “salt-box” roof form on the east side of the house; the scale and
style of the proposed porch addition, and selection of appropriate window types.
5.3.1 Salt-box roofline
On the east side of the house, the “kitchen addition” has a “salt-box” roof form, sloping gently
away from one side of the gable (Figure 5). This wing does not date from the home’s late 18-th
Century period of significance (see Sheet A2-1 of Project Plans, Attachment 6), but is present on
the 1926 Sanborn Map (Figure 3, above). As an example of the kind of addition that would be
made to homes associated with the City’s early history, it may have acquired historical
significance of its own and preservation of its distinctive roofline may be merited for greater
consistency with SOI Standard 4 (see § 5.2, above). Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Historic
Buildings provide the following:
Recommended: Identifying, retaining, and preserving roofs and their functional and
decorative features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the
building. Not recommended: Removing or substantially changing roofs which are
important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the
character is diminished. (SOI Standards, pg. 98)
As proposed, the roofline at the east side will change from the existing salt-box form to a hipped
form, with the roof surface extended to include the proposed kitchen and bathroom additions.
Alternative designs should be considered that would not require changing the salt -box roof on
this side of the house, to preserve its distinctive vernacular character. A directional item is
suggested in § 5.4.1 below to address preservation of the roofline.
Figure 5: “Salt-box” roofline, east elevation (left); proposed roof form (right)
Packet Page 128
ARCH-1428-2018 (1140 Iris)
Page 9
5.3.2 Porch - Compatibility
The new porch addition extends around the southeast corner of the house, and is about 9 feet
deep. The hipped roof feature described above covers it and integrates it with the new kitchen
and bathroom additions. SOI Standards call for new work to be compatible with the historic
features, size, scale and proportion, and massing (Standard 9), and supporting guidelines provide:
Recommended: Designing and installing a new entrance or porch when the historic
feature is completely missing or has previously been replaced by one that is
incompatible. It may be an accurate restoration based on documentary and physical
evidence, but only when the historic entrance or porch to be replaced coexisted with the
features currently on the building. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the
size, scale, material, and color of the historic building. (SOI Standards, pg. 112)
The 1926 Sanborn Map shows that a porch originally extended from the south kitchen wall, and
shadow lines are evident today, showing its outline. A porch of a form and extent approximating
that of the “original” south porch would be more compatible with the historic scale and
proportion, and massing of the house. Attention should also be paid to the size and forms of such
porch elements as the base and stairs, rails, columns, eaves and columns, to achieve
compatibility in size, scale and proportion, and features. A suggested directional item is provided
in § 5.4.2 to address the scale and compatibility of the porch.
5.3.3 Window style
Several different types of windows are present on the building, having been added and replaced
at various times throughout its history. The two-over-two sash windows, taller and narrower in
proportion, are identified in accompanying evaluations as characteristic of the period of
significance.10 Three windows deviate from the typical window proportions: a taller triplet of
windows on the west building elevation, a wider parlor window on the north elevation, and a
triplet of shorter windows on the east “kitchen addition” elevation. Project plans show that triplet
windows are proposed for the two primary and more visible south and east elevations of the new
addition. Guidelines for windows in SOI Standards discourage certain changes to windows:
Not recommended: Changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows
on primary or highly-visible elevations which will alter the historic character of the
building. (SOI Standards, pg. 109)
While the proposed triplet window on the east elevation echoes the form of the existing window,
a more characteristic two-over-two sash style may be preferable on the south elevation, and more
in keeping with the historic character of the building. It should be noted, though, that to date no
conclusive evidence of the original appearance of this elevation, prior to enclosure of the south
porch, is available to guide selection of appropriate window styles for this elevation. A
directional item is suggested in § 5.4.3 to address window selection on this visible elevation.
10 See Bertrando, pg. 17 and Brajkovich, pg. 6
Packet Page 129
ARCH-1428-2018 (1140 Iris)
Page 10
5.4 Suggested Directional Items
5.4.1 Preserve “Salt Box” roofline
Modify the design of the proposed new porch and additions in a manner that preserves
the existing “salt box” roofline of the “kitchen addition” on the east side of the house.
5.4.2 Reduce scale of porch
Modify the design of the porch to achieve greater compatibility with the house’s historic
features, size, scale and proportion, and massing. Use the evidence provided by the
depiction of the original extent of the south porch in the 1926 Sanborn Map, and
remaining “shadow lines” on the house, showing the location of the original porch, to as
a reference to help judge compatible size, scale and proportion, and massing of new
porch features.
5.4.3 Reconsider south elevation window style
Consider whether a “two-over-two” sash window style, of taller and narrower
proportion than the wide triplet window proposed, would be a more appropriate style to
use on the south elevation of the kitchen addition, to enhance compatibility with the
home’s historic character. If any evidence, such as photographs, can be found of the
original appearance of the south (kitchen) elevation before enclosure of the south porch,
such evidence should guide the selection of window styles for the addition.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
It consists of the repair of an existing structure, with negligible expansion of the existing
residential floor area, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Existing Facilities). The
project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
since character defining features are retained and the work will be carried out in a manner
consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
1.Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project and proposed
work consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, based on findings and
subject to any necessary conditions of approval.
2.Recommend that the Community Development Director deny the application, based on
findings of inconsistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1.Vicinity Map
2.Council Resolution 9875
3.Historic Resource Evaluation (Bertrando & Bertrando)
4.Historic Evaluation (Brajkovich)
5.Sanborn Map
6.Project Plans
7.Residential Vernacular Style (excerpt from Historic Context Statement)
8.SOI Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings (Excerpt)
Packet Page 130
O-S
R-2-SC-S-S-H
R-2
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-3-H
R-3
C/OSR-3-H
R-3-H
IRISLEFFGEORGER
U
T
H
ELLAH
E
N
R
Y
VICINITY MAP ARCH-1428-20181140 Iris ¯
Attachment 1
Packet Page 131
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 132
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 133
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 134
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 135
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 136
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 137
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 138
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 139
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 140
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 141
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 142
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 143
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 144
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 145
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 146
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 147
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 148
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 149
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 150
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 151
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 152
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 153
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 154
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 155
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 156
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 157
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 158
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 159
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 160
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 161
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 162
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 163
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 164
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 165
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 166
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 167
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 168
1140 Iris Street Historic Evaluation
1
April 23, 2018
Greg Wynn
PO Box 14345
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: 1140 Iris St. San Luis Obispo/ Determination of Historic Significance
In April of 2018, I was asked by Greg Wynn, the Architect for the project and the current Owners to look
at and then evaluate historically the house on 1140 Iris Street in San Luis Obispo. The house is now
owned by Karen and David Rucker who wish to renovate it and add on compatible architectural features
that will not affect the historical nature of the original house. They wish to make the Cooke house their
personal residence.
Figure 4. Cooke house as seen today with new foundation
A field investigation and survey was conducted on April 2 & 9, 2018, by this firm. In addition, a historic
evaluation report was conducted by Betsy Bertrando in February of 2018. Her report determined THAT
the Cocke Homestead Tract is historically significant in character per CEQA and the Public Resources
Code Section 5024.i Title 14 criteria. The Cooke House is a cultural resource since it is associated with a
person of significance and embodies the distinctive characteristics of a period and method of
construction and represents the work of an important individual in history. Please refer to Bertrando’s
report for more detail.
The owners wish to rehabilitate and preserve as much of the original structure as possible while
strengthening the foundation and adding on a sensitive addition which preserves the building's historical
character but be functional in contemporary times. The new work should be respective of the Historic
Preservation Guidelines and will incorporate procedures by the U.S. Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties (SOI Standards). The purpose of this evaluation is to show that the proposed addition
to and the restoration of the original house is appropriate and meets the standards of the Secretary of
the Interior for restoration.
Thomas Brajkovich/ Preservation Architect
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 169
1140 Iris Street Historic Evaluation
2
Early Ownership
A large tract of land by the railroad tracks was sold to George Chastain Cocke in 1883 and subdivided in
1887. The project parcel WITH 150’ frontage by 145’ deep was known as the “Cocke Homestead Tract”.
The impact of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1894, the Ramona Hotel in 1886 and California Polytechnic
College in the early 1900’s (now a university) provided the need for more housing along this end of town.
The construction type changed from adobe type buildings to a new era of brick and wood frame.
The house was built around 1887-1890 but the exact date of construction was unknown. (See Bertrando
report pgs. 5-8) Most likely the estimate is correct because Bertrando’s report shows a builder named
Emery Osgood who most likely built the house for Mr. Cocke or for himself. An 1890 picture shows the
house surrounded by mature trees which was prior to any subdivision. Cocke used the land for a dairy,
farming and ranching. The house still stands much as it was then as well as the landscaping.
Fig. 2 House shown surrounded by trees circa 1890-1900.
Cocke lived in the house until around 1895 and then moved to Los Angeles. After Cocke left, various
owners came, and the house was allowed to deteriorate. (See Bertrando report for list of owners). By the
1990’s the house was in very poor condition and needed much attention. The owner at that time Barbara
Stanford had the property placed on the Contributing Properties List of Historic resources in 2007. It
remains on the list today. This report will address the proposed new additions in relation to the house’s
historic style and will not repeat the significance criteria and research already wonderfully portrayed in
the Bertrando report.
Current Ownership
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 170
1140 Iris Street Historic Evaluation
3
The newest and current owners are Karen and David Rucker. They wish to renovate and restore the
original house and make additions that would prove more livable in today’s world. When they bought
the property they noticed the foundation was almost non-existent and, as a result, the house was
severely settled. Today it remains waiting for a total renovation.
Figure 3. Proposed additions and original historic house remaining
Current Condition of House
When I first viewed the house on April 2, 2018, it was raised onto a new foundation and much of the
interior was removed down to the stud framing. See figure 1 & 4. Previous additions were easier to view
once the interior was mostly stripped down to the studs; some of the original lath and plaster remain
around the parlor at the bay window. The house was no doubt in poor condition.
About a year ago a permit was applied for and granted to install a new foundation SINCE the previous
front of the house was covered in dirt above the finish floor line. The contractor raised the house well
above the original level both to strengthen the structure and to prevent future floods from entering the
house. The two non-historic additions were added off the original kitchen and the rear of the two-story
on the west side. These additions will be altered and re-constructed as they are not in the period of
historical significance.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 171
1140 Iris Street Historic Evaluation
4
Figure 4. Rear of House. Later additions with different siding and framing on East and West sides.
Exterior
It appears that the original building was the two-story vernacular farmhouse in the center and the one-
story South side facing Iris Street. At some point unknown the one-story additions were added. From the
old photos around 1900, the house was much as it appears today. See figure 2. The exterior is intact and
much of the original building is still present. As evident by the original 1x10 channel bevel siding on the
interior of the old kitchen the original entry porch was removed. Evidence of a second porch on the south
of the house is also visible from the interior. The two older additions onto the two story house have a
different siding type (1x8 Beveled t &g), which indicates a later addition, perhaps as the family grew or a
later tenant built the additions. See picture on figures 3 & 4.
The original historical structure in the period of significance will remain intact and restored during
construction of the new addition and renovation. The window treatments on the later additions have
different proportioned windows and mullions and are lower in height with different header heights. The
additions also used different or pre-used materials on the roof sheathing. See figure 4.
I conclude these additions could not be construed as original.
Figure 5. Used roof sheathing and different joist spacing. Different siding styles on later E & W additions.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 172
1140 Iris Street Historic Evaluation
5
Interior
When I viewed the interior of the house, it was mostly stripped down to the studs and the stairway had
its balustrades removed to protect them during renovation. The newel post remains and appears in good
condition. Some areas in the parlor still have remnants of the lath and plaster with wallpaper still
attached. One can see the altered original entry and the reuse of old wood to build later additions.
Figure 5. Interior of west addition showing outside siding of two story original house. Picture on right shows original entry
Style/Period
I would concur with the Bertrando report on the historic significance of the house. The style of the
original house seems to be of a simpler style except for the style of the seemingly Italianate bay window.
The “Italianate Style (period of 1860-1900) is a two or three story house that is box like, or cubic in a
shape with very wide roof eaves supported by large brackets. The brackets are such a prominent feature
that the style was sometimes known as the Bracketed Style” (American Homes Encyclopedia of Domestic
Architecture, Lester Walker, 1996).
The Italianate style bay window with its curled brackets and paneled bottom that the original 2x8 floor
joist framing ends at the house wall and the bay window joists are scabbed onto the original joists. In
addition, the siding of the bay window element laps over the finished surface of the house’s beveled 1x10
siding. This indicates the bay window may have been added at a later time or if built with the house it
was a way for the carpenter to show off his skill. The details of the base, siding, and eaves appear
nowhere else in the original structure. The bay is also at a steeper angle (60 degrees) than the usual 30-
45 degree angle of most bays of the Italianate period.
Figure 6. Bay window details showing differing materials and style than main house.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 173
1140 Iris Street Historic Evaluation
6
In my opinion, the Cocke house reflects the typical Railroad Farmhouse vernacular that characterizes the
surrounding styles of the time. Although there are five different types of windows in this house, the two
over two sashes (vertical double hung windows with a singular vertical mullion) were typical of that era.
That as well as the closed eaves and simple fascia devoid of detail were common in the railroad district.
These were simple farmhouses that used available materials that most carpenters use to build simple
houses with readily available materials and local labor.
Figure 9. Framing below bay window showing offset joists Interior of bay window with lath and plaster and old wallpaper.
Proposed Design
The new building walls for the proposed addition should reflect the character of the original building. The
kitchen wing will be added on to with a roof that wraps around it to form a porch. Under the same new
roof will be a family room, and A bathroom will be added to the north of the new kitchen area.
The West addition will have a master bath and laundry room. Materials will be re-used as needed, and
the original siding shall re-purposed where possible. The new additions should use the same channel-
bevel siding as the original. It should have the same style and type of double hung windows and casing.
The new windows will copy the original with narrow proportions with the two over two sashes. If
optional original windows can be repaired or restored if preferred, although new restoration copies are
available with dual glazing. Casing window detail with a capped molded window head should be copied
as well as the boxed cornices and frieze.
According to the City of SLO Historic Preservation Guidelines (page 6 d.1) “Changes to the outside of a
historic building should further promote its original architecture and character” and “a building may
reflect a combination of styles or might have been modified. Changes to the outside of such a building
should not introduce some new or conflicting element and should complement the prevailing
architecture of the surrounding area." I believe with the addition of the new lower pitched room and
porch the element does not conflict with the integrity of the original house and gables.
The windows proposed should be a type and style that reflect the original even with the modern dual
glazing and requirements for Title 24 and energy efficiency. TM Cob makes compatible restoration
windows that are used in many of the Master listed house restorations in San Luis Obispo. The original
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 174
1140 Iris Street Historic Evaluation
7
exterior door detail visible in the current west wing gives a glimpse of the detailing that should be copied
or recreated. (see figure 5).
Figure 10. Proposed model of addition to original house with wrap around porch around house.
The proposed addition and restoration in my opinion meets the intent of the City of SLO Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for the treatment of
Historic Properties. The new additions will reflect the period of significance as defined in the Bertrando
report (1883 to mid-1890’s) whenever possible in the renovation.
Yours Sincerely,
Thom Brajkovich
Figure 11. Panorama of SLO showing the Cocke House in the early 1900’s and in present time. House on lower right hand corner still remains.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 175
ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 176
ATTACHMENT 6Packet Page 177
ATTACHMENT 6Packet Page 178
ATTACHMENT 6Packet Page 179
ATTACHMENT 6Packet Page 180
ATTACHMENT 6Packet Page 181
ATTACHMENT 6Packet Page 182
City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
139
RESIDENTIAL VERNACULAR
The term “Residential Vernacular” is used to describe simple houses or cottages with little or no
distinguishing decorative features. These buildings are characterized by their simplicity and lack of any
characteristics of recognizable styles.
Character-defining features include:
Simple square or rectangular form
Gabled or hipped roof with boxed or open eaves
Wood exterior cladding
Simple window and door surrounds
Fitzpatrick House, 670 Islay Street, 1880. Source: Historic
Resources Group.
Foreman House, 1500 Eto Street, 1878. Source: City of
San Luis Obispo.
Anderson House, 532 Dana Street, 1898.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo.
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Page 183
REHABILITATIONREHABILITATION
STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION & GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is defined as 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 historical,
cultural, or architectural values.
75 ATTACHMENT 8Packet Page 184
REHABILITATION
76
Standards for Rehabilitation
1.A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal
change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
2.The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of dis
tinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that character
ize a property will be avoided.
3.Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes
that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or
elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4.Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
5.Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
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.
7.Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8.Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must
be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
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, fea
tures, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and
its environment.
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.ATTACHMENT 8Packet Page 185