'\ -'k -X: >I ,; DIVERSITY LofQ ..,_;,;..;;.o:d• THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO Historical Resources Board DATE ISSUED: ATTENTION: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: January 9, 2003 Historical Resources Board Agenda of January 23, 2003 REPORT NO. P- 03 -002 ITEM #5 - E. B. and Martha Stuart House Dr. Ray Brandes and Scott A. Moomjian, on behalf of owner 2355 Second Avenue, Uptown Community Planning Area, Council District 3 Consider the designation of the E .B. and Mm1ha Stuart House as a Historical Resource Site STAFF RECOMMENDATION Designate the E.B. and Martha Stuart House under HRB CRITERJA A (Conununity Development) and C (Architecture). BACKGROUND This item is being brought before the Historical Resources Board in conjunction with the owners' desire to have the site designated as a historical resource. The house at 2355 Second Avenue is a two-story Craftsman style house built in 1909. The house retains its original materials and is currently undergoing restorations to repair modifications made to the house in the 1950's. An analysis of the house and its significance follows. Planning Department 202 C Street, MS 4A • Son Diego, CA 92101·3865 Tel (619) 235·5200 Fox (619) 533-5951
Transcript
'\ ~
-'k
-X:
>I ,; DIVERSITY
LofQ ..,_;,;..;;.o:d•
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
Historical Resources Board
DATE ISSUED:
ATTENTION:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
January 9, 2003
Historical Resources Board Agenda of January 23, 2003
REPORT NO. P-03-002
ITEM #5 - E. B. and Martha Stuart House
Dr. Ray Brandes and Scott A. Moomjian, on behalf of owner
2355 Second Avenue, Uptown Community Planning Area, Council District 3
Consider the designation of the E.B. and Mm1ha Stuart House as a Historical Resource Site
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Designate the E.B. and Martha Stuart House under HRB CRITERJA A (Conununity Development) and C (Architecture).
BACKGROUND
This item is being brought before the Historical Resources Board in conjunction with the owners' desire to have the site designated as a historical resource. The house at 2355 Second Avenue is a two-story Craftsman style house built in 1909. The house retains its original materials and is currently undergoing restorations to repair modifications made to the house in the 1950's. An analysis of the house and its significance follows.
Planning Department 202 C Street, MS 4A • Son Diego, CA 92101·3865
Tel (619) 235·5200 Fox (619) 533-5951
ANALYSIS
The site is a significant historical resource under HRB CRJTERIA A (Community Development) C (Architecture) as follows :
CRJTERION A - Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's, a community's or a neighborhood's historical, archaeological, cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, landscaping or architectural development.
The E.B. and Martha Stuart House is located in the Banker's Hill area of Uptown. The area known as Banker's Hill was historically developed between 1870 and 1930, and was called "Banker's Hill" because of the concentration of wealthy and influential persons involved in the banking, real estate and law professions that resided in the area. The area was one of the first fashionable neighborhoods in Horton's "New Town" San Diego. The house at 2355 Second Avenue was built in Banker's Hill in 1909 when the number ofhomes located in Banker's Hill was still relatively few. The 1906 Sanborn Map indicates only five existing properties in the area north and south of the parcel that would become the future site ofthe E.B. and Martha Stuart House, and the land to the east was still largely rural. The home, which is cmTently being restored from a duplex back into a single family home, is one of the few remaining homes from the earlier years of development in Banker's Hill, and is representative of the style of homes that characterized the development of the area. Therefore, staff recommends designation under HRB CRJTERION A (Community Development).
CRITERION C - Embodies disttnctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction or is a valuable example of the use of natural materials or craftsmanship.
This is a two story Craftsman style house with pyramidal roofs, eave overhangs with exposed decorative rafter tails, redwood clapboard siding and walls that flare above the foundation. The fenestration of the home consists of double-hung, casement and fixed pane wood-framed windows which have been recently restored by the cunent owners. The street fayade of the house features double-hung wood framed windows flanking the brick chimney on both the first and second stories. Due to the slope of the land, approximately two feet of foundation is visible on this elevation, as are the curved decorative braces just above the foundation. The north elevation consists of a side entry door and nine double hung wood framed windows. The south elevation features an enclosed porch on both the first and second stories with a variety of double hung, fixed pane and casement wood-framed windows. The main entry is located on the south side of the house and is recessed under a large covered porch accessed by a paved walkway. The low wall which surrounds the porch is also finished with redwood and mimics the slight flare at the base of the house.
In 1953 the single-family home was conve11ed into a duplex. Modifications were made to the interior of the home, which is not being designated, and are in the process of being restored by the new owner to convert the building back to a single family residence. Modifications to the exterior of the property resulting from the creation of the duplex include the addition of a balcony on the original porch overhang; the addition of a staircase on the exterior of the house behind the
- 2-
porch leading to the new balcony; and the replacement of a window with a door leading to the second story duplex unit (the size of the window opening and trim were not changed). Currently, there is no interior access to the second story, which is most likely a result of the creation of the duplex . The design of the balcony addition could be more compatible if the pickets were not on the exterior of the fascia. The staircase is concealed by landscaping and is not readily visible from the street. The porch overhang (an original element) provides the floor of the balcony. If the balcony railing and the staircase were removed and the second story door restored to a window, the modifications could be reversed.
Because the property is a good example of Craftsman style archi tecture, retains its original materials and has reversible modifications, staff recommends designation under HRB CRITERION C (Architecture).
CONCLUSION
Based on the information submitted and staffs own field check, it is recommended that the E.B. and Martha Stuart House be designated under HRB CRITERIA A (Community Development) and C (Architecture). Designation brings with it the responsibility of maintaining the building in accordance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The benefits of designation include the availability of the Mills Act Program for reduced property tax, the use of the more flexible Historical Building Code, flexibility in the application of other regulatory requirements, the use of the Historical Conditional Use Permit, which allows flexibility of use, and other programs which vary depending on the specific site conditions and owner objectives.
Kelley Saunder .. -·-- -___,
HRB Staff
KS/bh
r;_. ~. Teri Delcamp Senior Planner Historian
Attachments: 1. E-Mail from Staff to Dr. Brandes Requesting Clarification on Elements of the Consultant's Report. 2. E-Mail Response from Dr. Brandes to Staff. 3. Applicant's Historical Rep01t Under Separate Cover.
After reviewing the historical report for this building, staff has some questions. Could you or Dr. Brandes please provide a response? It will help us immensely in preparing our staff report.
With the holidays and the City's furlough, it may be difficult to schedule this one for the January meeting depending on when we receive a response. Let me know what kind of time frame you're looking at- our reports must be final by January 6 for the January meeting, so we'd really need your response by January 3 to make that meeting.
Here are the comments/questions:
1. Pages 6 and 7 of the report state that the house was converted into a duplex in 1964. However, page 8 states that the duplex was created in 1953, which the Residential Building Record appears to support. Please clarify the correct date.
2. Also on page 8, the report states "Other than changes to a garage and the replacement storage ·shed no alterations or additions are shown or appear for exterior of this residence." However, the Sanborn Maps provided in Appendix F do not show any stairs leading up to the second story on the south elevation, most likely because of the duplex addition in the 1950's or 1960's. The addition of the second story access should be addressed in the body of the report (it was mentioned in the 1980 DPR form provided in Appendix K).
3. Also concerning the balcony/entrance addition and the 1980 DPR form: the photograph on the DPR form shows a balcony enclosure with wide horizontal bars. However, the contemporary photographs of the house on page "29" show a balcony enclosure with n~rrow vertical bars. Please address the alteration to the balcony and provide a date for the alteration.
4. In the conclusion on page 20, the report states, "Documents of record coupled with visual inspection, do not reflect any additions other than those made on the exterior during W orld W ar II in 1944, which were later restored ." This is the first mention of 1944 alterations and no elaboration is provided. In addition, the conclusion does not mention the alterations made to the second story on the south elevation to accommodate the duplex. Please clarify.
5. On page 15, the report speaks at length about the property and the surrounding neighborhood in relation to City of San Diego Historical Resources Board Criterion A (Community Development). However, it is not clear if you are pursuing Criterion A for designation. There is no reference in the conclusion to Criterion A, and it was not checked off on the "Historic Resource Checklist". At present, staff would not be inclined to support designation under Criterion A because there is not sufficient evidence to support the house's significance to the development of the Uptown/Bankers Hill area. Please provide a clarification as to whether or not designation under Criterion A is being requested.
Please give me a call or Email me if you have any questions. If I don't talk to you in the next day or so, have a terrific holiday season, and see you next year!
This memo is in response to your e-mail of December 23, 2002 relative to the nomination application for 2355 Second Avenue, San Diego. I appreciate your seeking clarification of the several questions which allows us to have the nomination considered by the Historical Resources Board in January.
1. In your letter, Questions No. 1. The date of 1953 is the correct one. I simply looked across the line of dates provided by the Inspector on the Residential Building Record and took the wrong one.
2. When I understood the 2d story had once been converted to a duplex I looked for an entrance to the second story likely closed again when the home was restored to a single-family residence. The only entry to the second story from my search and the records had to have been the outside stairway on the south fa9ade which led to the second story porch and entry there. No evidence exists of another entry which was normally opened for 2nd story tenants when single-story homes were converted to duplexes.
3 .. You are correct. I simply failed to note the difference in the horizontal bars on the balcony in the DPR Form as those which had to have been changed, perhaps to meet City Codes after the 1980 survey.
4 .. Again as in Question Number 1, the date of 1953 is correct.
5 .. In my reference to the surrounding neighborhood (very close to my residence) I noted the number of structures already on the Historic Resources Register, as well as a sizeable number which I felt would easily become eligible were the owners to so respond. I pointed out examples of each type so that perhaps consideration could even be given to the concept of an historic district. From the Waterman home to the First Christian Scientist Church, to Beth Temple Israel. At least four other structures on this block already registered would be add to reflect a good representation of a variety of styles. This was a thought and not necessarily a motion for Criterion A, although Bankers Hill held a considerable population of prominent residents due to the location of Balboa Park and the "rapid" streetcar transportation to the banks and businesses located around 5th and Broadway.
