HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - ARCH-1632-2018 (547 Dana)
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPORT
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 547 Dana St. FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1632-2018
APPLICANT: Irv Hepner; represented by Don Love, Love Architecture
For more information contact Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner: 781-7593 (woetzell@slocity.org)
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The applicant proposes to construct an addition
to a single-family dwelling 547 Dana Street, a
residential property located about 350 feet west
of Nipomo Street. The property is a listed
historical resource (Contributing List Property)
within the Downtown Historic District, and is
developed with a single-family dwelling and
detached garage.
Zoning, Surrounding Uses, Historic Designation:
The site is located in a Medium-High Density
Residential (R-3) and a Historical Preservation (H)
Overlay Zone. The area is characterized by single-
family dwellings, with office uses and a mortuary
to the west, closer to Nipomo Street. Eleven of
the seventeen properties in the immediate
vicinity are listed historic resources (3 Master
List, 8 Contributing List).
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
City records1 indicate that the dwelling was built in 1928. It is a single-story structure that exhibits
a Spanish Revival architectural character, having a flat roof with a tile-clad parapet, stucco siding,
wood-framed windows, tile window awnings and entry porch cover, and arched entry (see
Figure 2 below). The property was included in the City’s Inventory Historic Resources as a
Contrubuting Property in April 1988 (Resolution 6424). Permitting history for the property shows
no significant modifications to the structure, giving it a high degree of integrity.
1 Community Development Department historic property record (“yellow file”) for 547 Dana.
Meeting Date: February 25, 2019
Item Number: 3
Item No. 1
Figure 1: Subject Property
3.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
Alterations on historically listed properties and in historic districts are subject to review by the
Cultural Heritage Committee (Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.030 (C)). The Committee
will make a recommendation to the Community Development Director as to the consistency of
the proposed work with applicable historical preservation policies and standards, and may
recommend conditions of project approval as appropriate.
4.0 PROPOSED CHANGES
As shown in the Demolition Plan included with this application (see Attachment 1, Sheet A4.0),
the majority of the existing dwelling and garage are to be retained, with demolition limited to
the back wall of the building and the adjacent back-west corner, in preparation of the proposed
addition. A new arched window will be added to the east elevation to provide egress from a
bedroom. The front windows are in good condition, but are proposed to be replaced with
windows of a similar divided-light and double-hung form for increased energy efficiency.
The new addition (see Figures 3 and 4, with existing extent of structure outlined) is proposed to
be constructed over the rear third of the existing building, creating a second -floor level,
extending back beyond the south side of the building, and wrapping around the side and back of
the garage. It is of smooth plaster, matching the original siding, and includes a tower element
extending from roofline in the middle of the expanded building. Flat rooflines are retained at the
Figure 2: Existing dwelling
lower level of the building, and hip roof elements of clay tile are added with the new second floor
and tower. New windows are of a composite material simulating wood, and include divided-light
elements and arched window openings that echo the existing window forms and the arched front
entry.
While the existing dwelling is incorporated into the expanded structure, the proposed additions
to the structure result in a noticeably taller and larger structure, constituting a significant increase
in site coverage, floor area, and building extent. A comparison of pre- and post-project
dimensions is provided (see Table 1) to facilitate evaluation of the magnitude of the proposed
changes.
Table 1: Selected project dimensions
Existing Proposed Difference
Height (ft) 14
2nd Fl (ft)
28 14 (100%)
Tower
32 18 (130%)
Floor Area (sf) 1,280 4024 2,745 (215%)
Coverage (sf) 1,670 3,275 1,605 (95%)
Length (ft) 40 90 50 (125%)
Figure 4: Proposed addition (existing structure outlined); West Elevation
Figure 3: North Elevation (front)
5.0 DISCUSSION ITEMS
Guidance is provided mainly in the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.2 Selected
applicable guidelines, standards, and recommendations from these documents are outlined
below. Historic Preservation Program Guidelines for the Downtown Historic District are provided
as Attachment 2 for reference.
5.1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
Section Subject Note
§ 3.4.1 Additions: Architectural integrity
(scale, form, massing, etc.)
Scale increased; new roof and window forms
introduced; Massing builds to new tower
element; similar materials, color, architectural
details (vs. existing building).
§ 3.4.2 Percent of resource to be preserved Retain at least 75%: Retention of most of
existing dwelling structure, except portions of
roof and rear walls to be incorporated into
proposed addition.
§ 3.4.3 Retain character-defining features.3 Retained: Smooth stucco siding; flat roof form
on lower floor; clay tile parapets and awnings;
windows on east and west elevation; form of
windows on north elevation (front); arched
entry
Modified: New windows (composite material)
on north elevation (front)
§ 3.4.4 No new or conflicting architectural
elements; changes to be architecturally
compatible with building character
Introduction of hip roof forms (upper floor)
and arched windows.
§ 5.2.2 Downtown Historic District –
Architectural Character
Conventional residential setback with low
wall at sidewalk; garage in rear yard; front
entry (street-oriented) retained.
Discussion: The proposed addition is of a scale that rivals or exceeds the original building. The
Commission should consider whether the addition closely matches the building’s original
2 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
3 Character Defining Features: The architectural character and general composition of a resource, including, but
not limited to, type and texture of building material; type, design, and character of all windows, doors, stairs,
porches, railings, molding and other appurtenant elements; and fenestration, ornamental detailing, elements of
craftsmanship, finishes, etc. (Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.020 (9))
architecture in terms of scale, form, massing, and rhythm, as provided by Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines § 3.4.1 (d).
Additionally, the Commission should consider how closely the hip roof and arched window
forms introduced with the new addition match the fenestration, materials, color and
architectural details of the building’s original architecture.
5.2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (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.
Recommended Not Recommended
New Additions
Constructing a new addition on a secondary or
non-characterdefining elevation and limiting its
size and scale in relationship to the historic
building
Constructing a new addition on or adjacent to a
primary elevation of the building which
negatively impacts the building’s historic
character
Ensuring that the addition is subordinate and
secondary to the historic building and is
compatible in massing, scale, materials,
relationship of solids to voids, and color.
Constructing a new addition that is as large as or
larger than the historic building, which visually
overwhelms it (i.e., results in the diminution or
loss of its historic character.
Roofs
Identifying, retaining, and preserving roofs and
their functional and decorative features that are
important in defining the overall historic character
of the building. The form of the roof is
significant, as are its decorative and functional
features roofing material and size, color, and
patterning.
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..
Windows
Identifying, retaining, and preserving windows
and their functional and decorative features that
are important to the overall character of the
building.
Removing or substantially changing windows or
window features which are important in defining
the overall historic character of the building so
that, as a result, the character is diminished.
Replacing windows solely because of peeling
paint, broken glass, stuck sash, or high air
infiltration. These conditions, in themselves, do
not indicate that windows are beyond repair.
Adding new window openings on rear or other
secondary, less visible elevations, if required by a
new use. The new openings and the windows in
them should be compatible with the overall design
of the building but, in most cases, not duplicate
the historic fenestration
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.
Discussion: The Commission should consider whether the scale of the addition, the new roof
and window forms, and the replacement of front windows are appropriate and protective of
the building’s historic character and the integrity of the property.
6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review to another date with direction to staff and applicant.
2. Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project inconsistent
with historical preservation policies, citing specific areas of inconsistency.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Plans
2. Downtown Historic District (HPPG § 5.2.2)
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
38
5.2.2 Downtown Historic District
Setting
The Downtown Historic District encompasses the oldest part of the City of San Luis Obispo and
contains one of the City’s highest concentrations of historic sites and structures. The historic
Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa is at the geographic and historic center of the district, which
is bounded roughly by Palm and Marsh Streets on the north and south, Osos and Nipomo Streets
on the east and west, plus Dana Street as the northwest corner. Although some structures date to
the Spanish and Mexican eras (1772-1850) and the American pioneer settlement era (1850s-
1870), the majority of surviving structures date from the 1870s to the 1920s. The district is
comprised of two subdivisions: the Town of San Luis Obispo, recorded 1878 and the Mission
Vineyard Tract recorded in March of 1873. The Downtown Historic District has an area of 61.5
acres and in 2010 includes 98 designated historic structures.
The Downtown Historic District was developed along the City’s earliest commercial corridors
along Monterey, Higuera, Chorro, Garden and Marsh Streets, and has retained its historical use
as San Luis Obispo’s commercial and civic center. Commercial structures were laid out in a
regular grid pattern, with buildings set at the back of sidewalks and relatively narrow (60 foot
right-of-way) streets. The resultant narrow streets and zero building setbacks reinforce the
district’s human scale and vibrant Main Street image.
Site Features and Characteristics
Common site features and characteristics
include:
A. Buildings located at back of sidewalk
with zero street and side setbacks
B. Finish floors at grade
C. Recessed front entries oriented toward
the street
D. Front facades oriented toward the
street
E. Trees placed at regular intervals along
the street
Architectural Character
Built during the San Luis Obispo’s boom time circa 1870s-1910s (when the Town’s population
increased over 800 percent from 600 people in 1868 to 5,157 in 1910), the district’s commercial
architectural styles reflect the increasing wealth of the times. Architectural styles present in the
Downtown District include examples of Classical Revival, Italianate and Romanesque structures,
and more modest early American commercial. Although a few structures were designed by
outside architects (specifically from San Francisco and Los Angeles), the majority of Downtown
buildings were designed and built by local builders, including the Maino family, John Chapek,
721, 717 and 715 Higuera Street, North
Elevation
ATTACHMENT 2
39
Doton Building, 777 Higuera
Street, North Elevation
and Frank Mitchell.
Predominant architectural features include:
A. One to two stories (occasionally three)
B. Flat or low pitched roof, often with a parapet
C. Wide entablature or projecting cornice that often
includes classical architectural details such as
dentils, brackets and molding
D. First floor windows are horizontally oriented
storefront windows, often with display space
facing street. In multi-story structures, windows
are vertically oriented, typically with double
hung, wood sashes, and symmetrically arranged
so that they are dimensionally taller than their
width
E. Structures follow simple rectilinear or “boxy”
buildings forms
F. Masonry or smooth stucco wall siding
G. Contrasting bulkheads along base of street façade
H. Use of awnings, historic signs, second-story
overhangs and canopies
I. Use of transom windows above storefronts
Individually Contributing Elements in the Downtown District
Not all historic resources in the Downtown Historic
District were built during the district’s period of
significance of 1870-1930. These buildings generally do
not exhibit the signature architectural elements described
above but do contribute to the historic character of San
Luis Obispo in their own right based on age, architectural
style or historical association. By virtue of their
significance, these resources also merit preservation.
For example, the Doton Building is an example of
Streamline Moderne architecture from the 1930s. This
building was placed on the Master List as a significant
resource due to its craftsmanship and the rarity of this
particular style in San Luis Obispo. Additional examples
include the Laird building at 1023 Garden. Built in the
1880s, the Laird building is one of the City’s last
remaining Pioneer False front buildings. The Golden State
Creamery building at 570 Higuera is historically
significant to San Luis Obispo for its association with the
Smith Building and Union
Hardware Building, 1119 and
1129 Garden Street, East
Elevation
ATTACHMENT 2
40
dairy industry, an industry integral to the City’s development.
Non-Contributing Elements in Downtown
Non -contributing buildings are those that both do not meet the criteria outlined above and have
not achieved historical significance. Most of the post—1950 contemporary buildings in the
district fall into this latter category.
Non-contributing architectural styles,
materials or site features include:
A. Buildings setback from street or side
property lines
B. Building height, form or massing
which contrasts markedly with the
prevailing 2-3 story pattern
C. Wood, metal or other contemporary
material siding, or “faux”
architectural materials or features.
D. Asymmetrical arrangement of doors
and windows
E. Raised, non-recessed or offset street
entries to buildings
Residential
Although the majority of the Downtown District is commercial, within the district is a smaller
residential section, primarily along Dana Street and also down Monterey Street to the west of the
mission. This subsection includes a spectrum of settlement from the mid 19th century to the
1920s. Lots were generally platted in regular grids, although curved along Dana to accommodate
the creek.
Site features and characteristics- Residential:
A. Street yard setbacks of 20 feet or
more, often with low walls (2 feet) and
fences at sidewalk
B. Coach barn (garage) recessed into rear
yard
C. Front entries oriented toward the street
with prominent porch and steps
D. Front facades oriented toward the
street
The architectural styles in the residential area
of the Downtown district are varied and 756 Palm Street, South Elevation
1010 Nipomo Street, South and West
Elevations
ATTACHMENT 2
41
represent several different periods of development in San Luis Obispo. The oldest, vernacular
Adobe, dates back the early pioneer period. The Rosa Butrón de Canet adobe at 466 Dana is
from this period and is one of the few surviving adobes in San Luis Obispo. Folk and High
Victorian structures built during the population influx at turn of the twentieth century. Finally,
Spanish Revival, a style that achieved popularity in San Luis Obispo during the housing boom of
1920s and 1930s which was itself funded in part by the maturation of war bonds from World
War I.
Architectural features- Residential:
A.One and rarely two story buildings
B.Gable and hip roof types predominate
C.Traditional fenestration, such as
double-hung, wood sash windows,
ornamental front doors, wood screen
doors
D.Painted wood or smooth stucco
siding.
469 Dana Street, North Elevation
ATTACHMENT 2
42
***
Murray Adobe, 474 Monterey Street; Anderson House, 532 Dana
Street; Hotel Wineman, 849 Higuera Street; 762 Higuera Street
ATTACHMENT 2