Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-08 Heritage Preservation Commission Agenda PacketCity of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 8:30 a.m. Place: Regular Meeting — Please meet in the parking lot in front of the Warner Hutton House at 8:30 a.m. and Staff will provide transportation to the site visit under New Business and return to Warner Hutton House by 9:15 a.m. 1. Routine Organization A. Roll Call B. Approval of minutes from October 14, 2008 meeting. C. Posting of Agenda — Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda was posted on November 5, 2008. D. Oral & Written Communication - Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. E. Oral Communications — Historic Preservation Commission direction to Staff — Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. 2. Old Business A. Discuss National Registry & Saratoga Landmark Plaques B. Discuss Heritage Orchard Signage and November 5, 2008 City Council Meeting when the Council reviewed final plans for design of the sign. 3. New Business A. 8:30 a.m. Site Visit — 14370 Elva Avenue — Determination of whether the existing structure is historically significant and review plans for a proposed residential addition. B. 8:50 a.m. Site Visit — 20365 Williams Avenue — Determination of whether the existing structure is historically significant and review plans for a proposed residential addition. C. 13514 Hammons Avenue — Review proposed new stucco exterior wall covering and replacement windows for an existing adobe brick home. D. Sam Cloud Barn — Discuss building rededication and HPC Proclamation for the building. 4. Pending Items A. Update the Heritage Resources Inventory List B. National Register Applications 5. Adjournment Adjourn to 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, December 9, 2008, Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Please advise the Chair if you will be absent from the next scheduled meeting In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability - related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (408) 868 — 1269 or ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least one full business day before the start of the meeting. Any recommendation made by the Heritage Preservation Commission may be appealed to the Planning Commission within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. The appeal shall be taken by filing with the Secretary of the Planning Commission a written notice and filing fee within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Historical Preservation Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development Department Director at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the Director at the time they are distributed to the Planning Commission. Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Heritage Preservation Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 5th day of November 2008, at Saratoga, California ChristopheO Riordan Senior Planner City of Saratoga (408) 868 —1235 City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 8:30 a.m. Place: Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Regular Meeting 1. Routine Organization A. Roll Call PRESENT — Commissioners Koepernik, McCarty, Tai, Vice Chair Marra, and Chair Kellond. Commissioner Tai departed the meeting at 10:40 A.M. ABSENT — Commissioner Gommersall GUESTS — Ms. Jill Hunter, Ms. Pam Parker, Mr. Erik Schoennauer, Ms. Cindy Brozicevic B. Approval of minutes from September 9, 2008 meeting — Approved 5 -0 C. Posting of Agenda — Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda was posted on October 10, 2008. — Staff announced this item. D. Oral & Written Communication - Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda — None. E. Oral Communications — Historic Preservation Commission direction to Staff — Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications - None 2. Old Business A. Discuss National Registry & Saratoga Landmark Plaques — Not discussed Discuss Heritage Orchard Signage — Not discussed 3. New Business A. 8:30 a.m. Site Visit — Saratoga Village — Review proposed Historical Walking Tour and Brochure for Saratoga Village — Site visit not conducted. Item discussed. Ms. Hunter discussed the site walking tour plaques. She said some members of the Saratoga Village Development Council (SVDC) had visited Boston and had taken notice of historical plaques located in their sidewalks. Ms. Hunter said funds for the plaques would come from the money raised during the fashion show. Ms. Hunter said the plaques would be on both sides of Big Basin Way and was coming to the HPC to determine their thoughts on the plaques and if the HPC had an opinion about putting the plaques in the sidewalk to identify a building since removed. Commissioner Koepernik said he was supportive of the idea and said he would also like to see similar plaques along Oak Street. Chair Kellond said he too was supportive of the idea and it was his opinion most individuals are not familiar with the existing tour. Ms. Hunter said historical tours with plaques are already being done in cities such as Campbell, San Francisco, and Boston. Commissioner McCarty said she had read the proposed brochure for the walking tour and was of the belief the original name for the City should be spelled McCartysville and not McCarthysville. Ms. Hunter replied she had spoken to April Halberstadt about the name and April had said it was spelled McCarthysville. Ms. Parker said it would be interesting to see a timeline of the city's history in the sidewalk. B. 9:00 a.m. Site Visit — 13686 Quito Road — Site visit completed. Item discussed. Mr. Schoennauer said the historical report speaks for itself, the project would be moving human activity away from the creek, the homes have no historical value, the project would have environmental benefits, and said he hopes the HPC would support the project. Commissioner Marra said the old oak trees on the project site should have been included in the historical report. Mr. Schoennauer stated that all the oak trees would be maintained. Commissioner Koepernik said he supported the project as stated since and was pleased the oaks would be saved. Commissioner Tai said she supported the project. Chair Kellond said he could support removing the buildings since their removal had already been supported by a different HPC when the project was different. Commissioner Koepernik said he had mentioned to Mr. Schoennauer at the project site about some elements of the barn and /or materials which could be offered to the museum, McWilliams House, or other historical buildings. Mr. Schoennauer said he would be interested in offering the building for salvage. Motion by Commissioner Koepernik and seconded by Commissioner Tai to recommend approval to demolish the existing buildings on the site. Carried on a 5 -0 vote. C. 9:30 a.m. Site Visit — 19161 Cox Avenue — Review proposed replacement roofing for a house included on the Historic Resource Inventory — Site visit completed. Item discussed. Ms. Parker said the lender would not give a loan on the house until the roof is repaired. Commissioner Koepernik said he is concerned about the roof and the gutters and maintaining the historical integrity of the home, there is so much work to be done and unsure how to more forward, the present roof on the house is not appropriate, straight composition shingles which would be more appropriate, does not support presidential shingles but would support a three tab composition shingle, it is important to maintain the gutters. Ms. Hunter inquired if the roof could be put on without gutters. Commissioner Koepernik replied it could. Chair Kellond said he was attempting to strike a balance since the current proposal was not appropriate, the color of the roof material was acceptable, the gutters should remain on the building, the work should be limited to just replacing the roof, limit it to that amount of work, rake ends need to be reconstructed, future architectural changes would need to be reviewed by the HPC, choose a historically consistent roofing style, and repair porch /rake. Commissioner Koepernik said it would be acceptable to leave the "sag" in the roof for now since it will take a great deal of work to repair. Chair Kellond said to use flat rectangular three tab shingles. Ms. Parker said the individuals interested in purchasing the property would like to restore the house. Commissioner Koepernik said he understood but he wanted to make sure the minimum amount of work was going to be done at this time. Motion by Commissioner Koepernik and seconded by Commissioner Marra the roof had to be replaced and it was to be done with three tab composition roof shingles and the work to be done was to be the "bare minimum ", the existing gutters are to remain on the building, perform minimum structural work as needed, the repairs to the porch must match the existing structure, applicant is to follow up with Chair Kellond or Commissioner Koepernik on the specifics of the roofing materials, and any work effecting the architectural integrity is to be reviewed by the HPC. Carried on a 5 -0 vote. D. 9:50 a.m. Site Visit — 13514 Hammons Avenue — Review proposed new stucco exterior wall covering and replacement windows for an existing adobe brick home. Site visit completed. Item discussed. Commissioner Kellond told Ms. Brozicevic the HPC had continued the project from the last meeting so an alternative design could be submitted using the existing wall openings with new windows and the HPC had agreed the adobe walls could covered with plaster. Ms. Brozicevic said she did not attend the last meeting and her client had not been clear on that particular point. Ms. Brozicevic said her client wants to recoat the existing adobe walls with stucco and that double hung style windows with a factory applied finish would be preferred and the width of the window openings would remain. Chair Kellond reiterated the HPC had already made the findings to maintain the adobe walls and there was an opportunity to create consistency with windows and the project had been continued so the applicant could devise some alternatives.. Ms. Brozicevic said she now had a clear understanding the adobe walls were to remain but did admit her client had was concerned the adobe house on Thelma was allowed to be demolished. Chair Kellond said the house on Thelma was a wood structure with a brick exterior finish. Ms. Brozicevic asked if there was some opportunity to smooth out the exterior adobe walls with stucco. Commissioner Koepernik replied this would not be acceptable. Chair Kellond said he was concerned about the exterior details and he could support applying plaster over the adobe walls but was concerned how the historical elements would be maintained. Commissioner Koepernik said the existing building was designed to have the exposed adobe walls and stucco covering over adobe is typically part of the original design. Chair Kellond said the question of how the stucco is applied is a technical one and a design should be considered to maintain the adobe. Commissioner Marra said he was concerned the adobe appearance of the structure would be lost if the building was covered with stucco. Chair Kellond said stucco could be appropriate and it would be consistent with that kind of structure. Commissioner Koepernik said he would not be in support of covering adobe bricks with stucco. Motion by Commissioner Koepernik and seconded by Commissioner Marra to continue the project to the next HPC meeting. Carried on a 4 -0 vote. 4. Pending Items A. Update the Heritage Resources Inventory List B. National Register Applications 5. Adjournment Adjourn to 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, November 11, 2008, Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 8:30 a.m. Place: Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Regular Meeting 1. Routine Organization A. Roll Call PRESENT — Commissioners Koepernik, McCarty, Tai, Vice Chair Marra, and Chair Kellond. Commissioner Tai departed the meeting at 10:40 A.M. ABSENT — Commissioner Gommersall GUESTS — Ms. Jill Hunter, Ms. Pam Parker, Mr. Erik Schoennauer, Ms. Cindy Brozicevic B. Approval of minutes from September 9, 2008 meeting — Approved 5 -0 C. Posting of Agenda — Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda was posted on October 10, 2008. — Staff announced this item. D. Oral & Written Communication - Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda — None. E. Oral Communications — Historic Preservation Commission direction to Staff — Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications - None 2. Old Business A. Discuss National Registry & Saratoga Landmark Plaques — Not discussed Discuss Heritage Orchard Signage — Not discussed 3. New Business A. 8:30 a.m. Site Visit — Saratoga Village — Review proposed Historical Walking Tour and Brochure for Saratoga Village — Site visit not conducted. Item discussed. Ms. Hunter discussed the site walking tour plaques. She said some members of the Saratoga Village Development Council (SVDC) had visited Boston and had taken notice of historical plaques located in their sidewalks. Ms. Hunter said funds for the plaques would come from the money raised during the fashion show. Ms. Hunter said the plaques would be on both sides of Big Basin Way and was coming to the HPC to determine their thoughts on the plaques and if the HPC had an opinion about putting the plaques in the sidewalk to identify a building since removed. Commissioner Koepernik said he was supportive of the idea and said he would also like to see similar plaques along Oak Street. Chair Kellond said he too was supportive of the idea and it was his opinion most individuals are not familiar with the existing tour. Ms. Hunter said historical tours with plaques are already being done in cities such as Campbell, San Francisco, and Boston. Commissioner McCarty said she had read the i/ P proposed brochure for the walking tour and was of the belief the original name for the City should be spelled McCartysville and not McCarthysville. Ms. Hunter replied she had spoken to April Halberstadt about the name and April had said it was spelled McCarthysville. Ms. Parker said it would be interesting to see a timeline of the city's history in the sidewalk. B. 9 :00 a.m. Site Visit — 13686 Quito Road — Site visit completed. Item discussed. Mr. Schoennauer said the historical report speaks for itself, the project would be moving human activity away from the creek, the homes have no historical value, the project would have environmental benefits, and said he hopes the HPC would support the project. Commissioner Marra said the old oak trees on the project site should have been included in the historical report. Mr. Schoennauer stated that all the oak trees would be maintained. Commissioner Koepernik said he supported the project as stated since and was pleased the oaks would be saved. Commissioner Tai said she supported the project. Chair Kellond said he could support removing the buildings since their removal had already been supported by a different HPC when the project was different. Commissioner Koepernik said he had mentioned to Mr. Schoennauer at the project site about some elements of the barn and /or materials which could be offered to the museum, McWilliams House, or other historical buildings. Mr. Schoennauer said he would be interested in offering the building for salvage. Motion by Commissioner Koepernik and seconded by Commissioner Tai to recommend approval to demolish the existing buildings on the site. Carried on a 5 -0 vote. C. 9:30 a.m. Site Visit — 19161 Cox Avenue — Review proposed replacement roofing for a house included on the Historic Resource Inventory — Site visit completed. Item discussed. Ms. Parker said the lender would not give a loan on the house until the roof is repaired. Commissioner Koepernik said he is concerned about the roof and the gutters and maintaining the historical integrity of the home, there is so much work to be done and unsure how to more forward, the present roof on the house is not appropriate, straight composition shingles which would be more appropriate, does not support presidential shingles but would support a three tab composition shingle, it is important to maintain the gutters. Ms. Hunter inquired if the roof could be put on without gutters. Commissioner Koepernik replied it could. Chair Kellond said he was attempting to strike a balance since the current proposal was not appropriate, the color of the roof material was acceptable, the gutters should remain on the building, the work should be limited to just replacing the roof, limit it to that amount of work, rake ends need to be reconstructed, future architectural changes would need to be reviewed by the HPC, choose a historically consistent roofing style, and repair porch /rake. Commissioner Koepernik said it would be acceptable to leave the "sag" in the roof for now since it will take a great deal of work to repair. Chair Kellond said to use flat rectangular three tab shingles. Ms. Parker said the individuals interested in purchasing the property would like to restore the house. Commissioner Koepernik said he understood but he wanted to make sure the minimum amount of work was going to be done at this time. Motion by Commissioner Koepernik and seconded by Commissioner Marra the roof had to be replaced and it was to be done with three tab composition roof shingles and the work to be done was to be the "bare minimum ", the existing_ gutters are to remain on the building, perform minimum structural work as needed, the repairs to the porch must match the existing structure, applicant is to follow up with Chair Kellond or Commissioner Koepernik on the specifics of the roofing materials, and any work effecting the architectural integrity is to be reviewed by the HPC. Carried on a 5 -0 vote. D. 9:50 a.m. Site Visit — 13514 Hammons Avenue — Review proposed new stucco exterior wall covering and replacement windows for an existing adobe brick home. Site visit completed. Item discussed. Commissioner Kellond told Ms. Brozicevic the HPC had continued the project from the last meeting so an alternative design could be submitted using the existing wall openings with new windows and the HPC had agreed the adobe walls could covered with plaster. Ms. Brozicevic said she did not attend the last meeting and her client had not been clear on that particular point. Ms. Brozicevic said her client wants to recoat the existing adobe walls with stucco and that double hung style windows with a factory applied finish would be preferred and the width of the window openings would remain. Chair Kellond reiterated the HPC had already made the findings to maintain the adobe walls and there was an opportunity to create consistency with windows and the project had been continued so the applicant could devise some alternatives. Ms. Brozicevic said she now had a clear understanding the adobe walls were to remain but did admit her client had was concerned the adobe house on Thelma was allowed to be demolished. Chair Kellond said the house on Thelma was a wood structure with a brick exterior finish. Ms. Brozicevic asked if there was some opportunity to smooth out the exterior adobe walls with stucco. Commissioner Koepernik replied this would not be acceptable. Chair Kellond said he was concerned about the exterior details and he could support applying plaster over the adobe walls but was concerned how the historical elements would be maintained. Commissioner Koepernik said the existing building was designed to have the exposed adobe walls and stucco covering over adobe is typically part of the original design. Chair Kellond said the question of how the stucco is applied is a technical one and a design should be considered to maintain the adobe. Commissioner Marra said he was concerned the adobe appearance of the structure would be lost if the building was covered with stucco. Chair Kellond said stucco could be appropriate and it would be consistent with that kind of structure. Commissioner Koepernik said he would not be in support of covering adobe bricks with stucco. Motion by Commissioner Koepernik and seconded by Commissioner Marra to continue the project to the next HPC meeting. Carried on a 4 -0 vote. 4. Pending Items A. Update the Heritage Resources Inventory List B. National Register Applications 5. Adjournment Adjourn to 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, November 11, 2008, Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Community Development Department ITEM A City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 12, 2008 TO: Heritage Preservation Commission 2 FROM: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner (11 `'' SUBJECT: Determination of whether or not the existing home is historically significant. Property Location: 14370 Elva Avenue Saratoga, California Project Number: HPC08 -0010 Property APN: 503 -27 -093 Project Owner /Applicant: Samuel Kim Project Summary The subject 1,248 square foot, approximately 16 feet tall, single -story house -was most likely constructed in the early 1950's. It features a hipped roof with composition shingles, horizontal wood siding, a covered front porch, and includes both original wood double hung windows as well as metal slider windows. An addition that does not match the architectural style of the house has been added to the rear of the house. An existing detached two car garage is located in the rear half of the lot. The project would include a new 569 foot single story addition to the northeast corner of the house as well as a 42 square foot addition to the front near the entry. The existing roof would be removed, raised in height by approximately one foot, and would be covered with Spanish style tiles. The horizontal siding would be removed and replaced with stucco. The existing windows would be removed and replaced with double pane vinyl windows with foam trim. A new 13' -6" entry feature would be added to the front of the house. It too will have a tile roof with a stucco exterior finish. The base of both columns would be covered with a "river rock" stone veneer. The project would not be subject to Design Review due to its limited scope and could be approved over the counter. However, prior to planning staff making a decision on the project, the staff and the applicant request a determination from the Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) on the historical significance of the existing residence. The determination to allow the addition would be based on the recommendation from the HPC. Decision by HPC The applicant is requesting a determination of the HPC regarding the historical significance of the structure. The following are options available to the Commission in reviewing this proposal: Determine that the structure is not historically significant: If the Commission determines that the structure is not historically significant, the property would not be listed on the Historic Resources Inventory. Proposed demolition and /or future alterations would not be subiect to HPC review. HPC November 12, 2008 Meeting Project Address: 14370 Elva Avenue Project Applicant: Samuel Kim 2. Determine that the property /structure is historically significant and direct staff to place the structure on the historical list: If the Commission determines that the property /structure is historically significant: ■ At least one (1) of the seven (7) criteria listed in the City code must be selected to reflect the reasons why the structure is significant. ■ The HPC would need to determine that the proposed project either meets or does not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards (Standards) for historic properties. Suggestions to ensure compliance with the Standards may be provided. ' Staff would place the property on the Historic Resources Inventory and proposed future alterations to the structures would require HPC review and would be required to meet Standards for historic properties. The seven Criteria are as follows (City Code §13- 15.010): (a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or (b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or (c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials; or (d) It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect; or (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or (f) It represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or (g) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. Attachments Photographs of Existing Home and Plans for Proposed Addition Memorandum to the Saratoga Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 mlYm.tml• . Yle�elq . {b o...rp..r HL Design Incorporation 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 105 Pleas-ton, California 94588 Tel :(925)460 -0881 Fax: (925) 460-0991 hidesign@sbcglobai.net OWNERfTENANT: Sam Kim 14370 Elva AVenue SARATOGA,CA KIM RESIDENCE. 0 C) ROOM ADDITION Q E C E HE, W Q 14370 E LVA AVENUE SARATOGA � CALIF R N IA 95070 / 1 U AS SHOWN DRAWN: � � HL � ±/aR 1 � �nnA -'- !i._ _ - -- yam•,,, ..•, •. '-' -_- A -1 OF SHEETS A.P.N. 503 -2]-093 >Q J" CITY OF SARATOG�, ". p,� D•`hP4h t't .•i O SITE AREA - GROSSMET 7,473 SO. FT. p.l GENERAL INFORMATION /SITE PLAN r-- SITE COVERAGE (SCrF,rj4RAl Ir, llr ._ %OF ET LOT SIZE .. 6 F- BUILDING AREA: EXISTING RESIDENCE 1248 50. FT. A -2 FLOOR PLAN/ DEMOLITION PLAN A -3 ROOF PLAN FOOT PRINT OF HOUSE; •. MITI 1JLVCLVI-'IVItP1 2,194 SO.FT.t 29.3 X 4 , j '!F ' �� � ) J�� REVISION NUMBEA , _ . ADDITION fill SO. FT. (48.9 % (611 /1,248) OF EXISTING AREA) A4 ELEVATIONS /SECTION A -5 ELEVATIONS DRIVEWAY: WALKWAY: 1,337 SOFT. 17.9% 178 SOFT. 2d% ' '_ 90' "�- : - -,� -: � � ��"• EXISTING GARAGE 335 SO. FT. 33 q! DETAILS �_. 14 `-• WO R KPOINT.DATWAPONT TOTAL 2,194 SO. FT. MPE -1 LOGHTING, POWER, HVAC B PLUMBING LAYOUT TOTAL • - - OR CONTROL POINT FLOOR AREA STANDARD 2680 SO F-r T -24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE FORM S-1 SPECIFICATION /NOTES ' 49.6 % __ ». '. - '• -_ ^' I I_ 7 _ -�� (2.400T(160 X3) =2.860) S -2 FOUNDATION/ FLOOR FRAMING PLAN a ELEVATION IDENOFlCATgN AZ SHEET WHERE ELEVATION IS DRAWN LOT COVERAGE EXISTING 212% PROPOSED 29.3 % S7 ROOF FRAMING PLAN S4 DETAILS S-5 DETAILS SETBACKS FRONT REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED 25-0' 267• 25-0- ' -14370 ELVA AVE h IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE EXISTWG 27.0 %(2,170 SO.FT.) ' LEFT S-0' Be• 8'S SAAATOGA; CA 95070 f 1` i v 3 SEC710N IDENTIFICATION PROPOSED 27.5 %(2212 SOFT.) ZONING R- 1- ID,000 RIGHT REAR S-0' S -9• 5'-9• ZS'-0' 45' -1- 45-1 - YT. A2 SHEET WHERE SECRON IS DRAWN AGE 1946 (63 YRS) ��N• _ EXISTING USE SFR LINEAR FEET AND PERCENTAGE OF EXTERIOR WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED: 62'3' (30.1 %OF EXISTING) Cdlryal Ylen O I *: L : 3 DETAIL IDENn KXJ FICAT AVERAGE SLOPE LEVEL k g1 \ Dr', SHEET WHERE DETAIL IS DRAWN APPLICABLE CODES: 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2007 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE _ `A� .�.p�/ \• �f 3 INTERIOR ELEVATONIOEMIFICATICH 2007 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE SHEET WHERE INTERIOR ELEVATION IS DRAWN. 2007 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 45 2007 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 4 - ENERGY CODE VICINITY MAP SYMBOLS 2 TABULATIONS 3 SHEET INDEX 3 THIS PROJECT IS A 761 SOFT. OF ROOM ADDITION TO EXISTING D SINGLE STORY. z I. REMOVE EXISTING ROOF AND INSTALL NEW ROOF. 1 V 2. INSTALL NEW FURNACE Q ATTIC. I 2 3. ADDITION INCLUDE INTERIOR RENOVATION (I)- MASTER BATH RDOM, MASTER BEDROOM, LAUNDRY ROOM _ _ _ _ _ _ Do 09 M.001Z.0[N 1 3NIl A1H3dOtld z AND NEW ENTRY. ( 15" DIA 55.1' LEI ELEC.METER I •' TB -' 1 I 1 15' DIL .- ..,.Aw ,. �'�� � .s.,:a�•*s...� .. ... ^�. � 1 344 (E) LAWN% I / I N i{ W k 1 I FRONT SET6ACx: to SCOPE OF WORK 6 3 1 EXISTING GARAGE= EXISTING RESIDENCE "' i " 1. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTORS TO N I (335 SF) (1,246 SF) i a t3 04 CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS AND MAKE KNOWN ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING THEIR WORK a ( y ','�! 11i 2. THESE DRAWINGS AREA INTENDED FOR USE IN A NEGOTIATED (E) LANDSCAPE 5•'4 ^�^^'+y., 1 / n 4S \ CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND, THEREFORE, MAY NOT SPECIFICALLY DETAIL OR SPECIFY MATERIAL AND / OR MANUFACTURERS. THE I ? U ' Z 3 fit) - r { LAWN { Ia CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL SAMPLES AND OR CUTS AS REQUIRED SETBACK O NEW ADDITION -- (E); Z \ ASSIST OWNER HIS AGENT IN MAKING MATERIAL SELECTIONS. FOR THE IO E 25' D' REAR I U - {. Sp (42 $F) :' 4 \ TJ PURPOSE OF ESTIMATING, THE CONTRACTORS SHALL USE THE MATERIALS / I 4D DIA > 4T` 1 SELECTED BY THE OWNER, OR IN ABSENCE OF SAME, HE SHALL PROVIDE AN 1 p 1 NEW ADDITION / I / 23' DL I w c, 00 °j { J ALLOWANCE AMOUNT AND SO CONDITION ANY COST ESTIMATE. ALL MATERIALS SPECIFIED IN THESE DRAWINGS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN SUCH ° 1 -' (569 SF) i i r ^ O W ESTIMATE. I ,.. (E) ASP." -, " I 1 • I a l 1 3. NO GUARANTEE OF OUAUTY OF CONSTRUCTION IS IMPLIED OR INTENDED BY I 1 THE ARCHITECTURAL DOCUMENTS, AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME - FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY OR ALL CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES. 1 " a- ).lu- F• = - -_. _ , u_ �,� \ ' 4. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL HOLD HARMLESS, INDEMNIFY AND DEFEND THE DESIGNER FROM ANYACTION INITIATED BY THE INITIALOWNER OR ANY ..; \,EXISTING DRIVEWA r SUBSEQUENT OWNERS FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES. MODIFICATIONS OR SUCH CONDITIONS WHICH MAYBE \� 1 �` ..' ' ' ' " ' ' :' ` '' ,, ( ;)GAS METERw /BOLLARD (E) ASP. ' \: .. ,..� BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE DESIGNER ..: '. TO REMAJN_ S. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM WITH 2001 EDITIONS OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING, 1 ^ ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL. PLUMBING AND ENERGY CODE. I ".W'OSl M.00.LZeOL N1 Il A1U3d0 ` I \ � 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW AND RECORD THE CONDITIONS OF ALL ) S' HIGH WOOD EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING PAVED AREAS. HE SHALL MAKE M LEI FENCE W KNOWN ALL EXISTING DAMAGED OR DISREPAIRED ITEMS AND CONDITIONS /GATE TO REMAIN THAT MAY WORSEN DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION. ALL ITEMS IN GOOD CONDITION SHALL BE MAINTAIN IN THEIR PRESENT CONDITION AND ANY REPAIR OR DAMAGE WHICH OCCURS DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL THOROUGHLY EXAMINE THE SITE AND SATISFY HIMSELFO V ' AS OF THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED. 2 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AT THE SITE ALL MEASUREMENTS AFFECTING HIS WORK AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF SAME. NO EXTRA COMPENSATION WILL BE ALLOWED TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE EXPENSES DUE TO HIS NEGLECT TO EXAMINE OR FAILU RE TO DISCOVER CONDITIONS WHICH MAY AFFECT HIS WORK. S. ALL NEW INTERIOR PAINT COLOR, FLOOR, WALLS AND CEILING FINISHES /I SHALL BE SELECTED BY OWNER AT THE TIME WHEN IT IS NECESSARY FOR H W / THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. f L 9. ALL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST ADOPTED CITY STANDARDS. THE STORING OF GOODS AND Q O D_ Z MATERIALS ON SIDEWALK ANOADR STREET WALL NOT BE ALLOWED UNLESS• THE CONTRACTOR HAS APPLIED AND SECURED A SPECIAL PERMIT WHICH ALLOW SUCH STORAGE TO BE PLACED. • EXISTING TREES ARE SHOWN AND NO TREES WILL BE REMOVED. ' EXISTING SITE IS A 4% AVERAGE SLOPE. GENERAL NOTES 7 1 SITE PLAN ,/6• =1' -D• mlYm.tml• . Yle�elq . {b o...rp..r HL Design Incorporation 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 105 Pleas-ton, California 94588 Tel :(925)460 -0881 Fax: (925) 460-0991 hidesign@sbcglobai.net OWNERfTENANT: Sam Kim 14370 Elva AVenue SARATOGA,CA Wo 0 C) Z z W Q O LU _`� 08465 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN: HL >O HL SHEET TIRE GENERAL INFORMATION SITE PLAN ra0 A -1 OF SHEETS Q ra >Q J" W 2 W O Q r-- NT Ir F- Q m a'10! HL DESIGN INCORPORATION HL DESIGN, INC. "PRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANCED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO A THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF HL DESIGN, INC. W THE EVENT OF UINAUrHORIZED REUSE OF THE PLANS BY A THIRD PARTY, THE TNIRO PARTY SHALL HOLD HL DESIGN. INC. HARMLESS. r->O NOT SCALE PLANS REVISION: DATE I O0I.2008 PROJECT NO: 08465 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN: HL CHECK HL SHEET TIRE GENERAL INFORMATION SITE PLAN SHEETNO. A -1 OF SHEETS (E) T-5' 1E) 56 -0" - tP -tP tP -0' S' -I t' 13IP 11'-5" I SHAPED WNG WALL 1 (SEE ELEVATION) 1 G - SV"XTT SL. (E)60"X3"0 "SL_ (E)]4XTP SL. (E)60'X4.0•SL. (E)60•X4'0 "SL O I G T- a ®a -, la I ( I T I I I Nos z 6i• KITCHEN I BED RM 2 I I BED RM 1 LIVING n I CErtJNG I .3 -0'CcaYNG � _ - _ .B -0'GEBJNG -T CEILING - I CARPET •., CARPET - -u _ ,(EI CARPET _ HARDWOOD PP (E)zfifia BATH 1 r 1 CEILING 1 (E) GARAGE _ TILE $ I (NO CHANGE) (LINEN CLQ" ( n w n ________ ALIGN W_(E) FIN. _ - - - — g_4 E 1P3" 1PNT I TYp. 1 w° -0 w A6 1 �I I REGE is WALL l I g ff I e ° M1 '3 o.a ENTRY DINING ROOM ` VAULTED CEILING FAIR F2 4SNP 1. 3TG. HARDWOOD r— TE' - -- STC. 3'- 5.11' 2 g�CARPET L -- _P. WALK -IN 16 -bil" .0 A6 - I CARPET Q n n I _ I 1• -0. -0 NOTE: o WO R ' 2x4 °U(RIWERS LAY FIAT, - - •C G O I OPENING NOTCH RAFTERS @2 -PO.C. O DECORATIVE CONC. BLOCK I 26611 TI VERIFY ALL WINDOW AND DOOR SIZE WITH MANUFACTURE MAX., TYP. I , . HEARTH d FACE T.B.O. BY - - -- PRIOR TO FINALIZING FRAMED OPENING DIMENSIONS. OWNER a L MASTER BED RM FILL WINDOW 1 NATURAL LIGHT AND NATURAL VENTILATION OF WALL WINDOWS .N -0' CEILING OPN`G ) SHALL COMPLY W/ SECTION SHALL - 1. -14 -r I METAL GAS FlREPLACE CARPET 1 ENERGY ESCAPE WINDOWS SHALL COMPLY SECTION 310.4. °� MDEL CH a FRONTS BACK LINE u - MODEL CHATEAUDVTJB 1 STRAP TIE ST �6 @LIRE PL MASTER BATH O n .S -0'CEB.WG GUEST RM I PROVDE BLXG ®(N)WA1L LEGEND: 5 ryP FAMILY AREA TILE 0 -0'CEa1NG I FRAM]NG w '�° 3 1 0 VAULTED CEIUNG m CARPET fl 1 - - - - -- - - - EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN, REPAIR E RE- FINISH A6 A6 HARDWOOD ., 1 AS RE90 TO MATCH NEW FINISH (SEE PLAN) 1 2X4 WOOD STUDS @76' O.C. WITH 12' THK. GYP. BD. INTERIOR. 1 (3)-COATS OF CEMENT PLASTER OVER SELF. FURRING LATH OVER 1 2- LAYERS OF GRADETYBLDG. PAPER OVER I2'PLYWD.(SEE ELEVATIONS FOR EXTERIOR FINISH) (3)-T6•X4 SH 3o'xfo' SH ]o•xb'P SH 3WM0 SqM 31 16' B' -6' S'A' 6'E' O O ) W 2 2X4 WOOD STUDS @I6.O.C. WITH 12-THK. GYP. BD.ON BOTH 1 Q SIDES, USE W/R GYP. BD. @ WET WALLS USE 2X6 STUDS @ 16' O.C. 1'a 13 -3• IPL' t2 -5' I2 -1P 1 Q O @ PLUMBING WALL Q. Z (E) EXISTING NEWADDITK)N,30' -9' (E) RESIDENCE, t21 1 BTRAP TIE ST 6236 NI OB'L PL I (N) NEW PROVIDE BLK'G ®INIWALL t FLOOR PLAN 1/4 ° =1 D° 1 �00'OSl M „OO�LZoOL N 3NIl AlH3dOkid -- -- -- -- -� -- -- -- - -- - --- -- -- -- - -- -- -� - -- r 1 15P DIA 15' DL 0 o� C, r Q 7f.' LU z J ul/1� O Q a LEGEND: EXISTING WALL FRAME TO REMAIN AS SHOWN REMOVE EXTERIOR FINISH FOR NEW FINISH PER PROPOSED PLAN EXISTING WALLS d DOORS TO BE REMOVED. M (E)GARAGE (E) ASP. EE3 0 r `� l O Zz II 1J (E)CLOSET wrn W o Zz u i" f I III (E)BED RM (E)BED RM pl i o Zj (E)BED RM W ° 1 ° o / III (E)CLOSET (E)TOILET LU uT O¢/� 0 co V O IO I \ � I (E) allwa ) � '• j ..:.......... / 1 % r J (E)LIVING IF Ill.'.- ...- ....'..' • I IL IIL .............A; REMOVE (E) CONC. PAD ;l ; z II L W'''' r 40° DIA r I I 23' DL 1 I W (E)UTIL I I l'a n (E)KITCHEN I i • I n 1 E)BEDRM Jr I I 11 11 \ 1 L_ 1 ` -\ O O \ i (E) CON DRIVEWAY I / I (E) ASP. (E) DRIVEWAY 00 Q DEMOLITION PLAN HL Design Incorporation 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 105 Pleasanton, California 94588 Tel :(925)460 -0881 Fax: (925) 460-0991 hidcsign@sbcglobal.net OWNER/TENANT: Sam Kim 14370 Elva AVenue SARATOGA.CA W 0 Ao ' O Zz wrn W o Zz Q' Q O ra Q > U W2w- LU O O¢/� 0 co V O ® 2006 HLDESIGNINCORPORATKNN HL DESIGN. INC. EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO A THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF HL DESIGN, INC. IN THE EVENT OF UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OF THE PLANS BY A THIRD PARTY, THE THIRD PARTY SHALL HOLD HL DESIGN. INC. HARMLESS. [DO NOT SCALE PLANS REVISION: DATE- 10-01-2008 PROJECT NO 08 -465 SCALE: ASSHOWN DRAWN: HL CHECK: HL SHEET TITLE FLOOR PLAN DEMOLITION PLAN SHEET NO. A-2 OF SHEETS it wl zl - I SPANISH STYLE ROOFTILIE ¢ I ¢ I HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF aWOOD BRACKET, PANfTED p l o I I sI al I I ROOFAPEX � j TOP OF FRONT ACCENT ROOF T't!-trK'�{` {`}/trvyiF` }YY, I J I -Y 'H �fYA� t"'r>• 2 STUCC WALL FIN, I I -� -T 1 1 1 } - Iz - t't. .r',nhr ir.nr-•r✓- -,•-el - - ]f'�f,. Q 5 I I _ i -- I I T- T T"' _ 1 ! DBL PL :: 14 0 .1 IT (E) W-1 WALL T I FINISH FL .��T r: f y'i • ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ FINISH OR. TS 6S 3'G' DOUBLE PANE CLEAR GLASS DOUBLE PANE CLEAR GLASS WSE / FOAM TRIM ND DEC. VYINDOW AG SET IN WHITE VINYL FRAME W /FOAM TRW AROUND 21, DU Wt FOAM TRW AROUND R'ER ROCK STONE VENEER FINISH .. .. ..zp _ 0 o _ FIN. FL 0 I I I DATE: 1001-2DDa PROJECT NO FIN.GR. - w Q ASSHOWN LV DOUBLE PANE CLEAR GLASS zz SET IN WHITE V WYL FRAME W/ FOAM TRIM AROUND SHEET TITLE w Im EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION (WEST) I �I �I wl OI aI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I wl wl �I �I a� o� PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION (EAST) EXISTING REAR ELEVATION (EAST) ELEVATIONS CLASS'S' ASSEMBLY REQUIRED SPANISH ROOF TILE OVER TYPICAL R -30 NSUURONS 30/ BLDG. PAPER OVER PROOF I2 PLYWOOD SHEATHING ROOFAPEX FAMILY ROOMCLG. 12 12 ROOF INSULATION 5� - -' ~- ,S— MANUFACTURED\TRUSS ZX FASCIA BOARD }COAT CEMENT PLASTER Of FURRING LATH O' (I) -LAYER OF GRADED' BLDG. PAPER d i'THK. PLYWD, TYP. WEEP SCREED - DBL PL. L -TYP. R -30 INSULATIONS 12' TYPE 'X' P ROOF GYPSUM WALL 4 BOARD Y4-THK. T&G PLYWOOD MIN. SUB. FL 0.2X6 FL JOIST P 24' O.C. W/ R-19 INSULATION TrvP.I KITCHEN CORRIDOR MASTER'S BEDROOM PROVIDE I r MIN, CLR. CRAWL SPACE BUILDING SECTION ti4" =t' -O" 2 bd .d— . 0lee9q . t4 BndW—A HL Design Incorporation 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 105 Pleasanton , California 94588 Tel: (925) 460 -0881 Fax: (925) 460-0991 hidesign@sbcglobal.net OWNER[TENANT: Sam Kim 14370 Elva AVrnue SARATOGA.CA LV 0 o 0 Z DATE: 1001-2DDa PROJECT NO z w Q ASSHOWN LV O zz HL SHEET TITLE ELEVATIONS SECTION SHEET NO A-4 OF SHEETS o Q° Q >U W w- o �a �� 't oT b O 2009 HL DESIGN INCORPORATION HL DESIGN, INC. EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO A THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF HL DESIGN, INC. IN THE EVENT` OF UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OF THE PLANS BY A THIRD PARTY, ME THIRD PARTY SHALL HOLD HL DESIGN, INC. HARMLESS. DO NOT SCALE PLANS REVISION: DATE: 1001-2DDa PROJECT NO 08 -465 SCALE: ASSHOWN DRAWN: HL CHECK: HL SHEET TITLE ELEVATIONS SECTION SHEET NO A-4 OF SHEETS I I I t!i illriI Ili I SF,11 :li_ri; :!Ili � zl _ I c I I I I tEl SLOPE : I.eax EXISTING LEFT SIDE ELEVATION (NORTH) EXISTING GARAGE STUCCO WALL, PAINT FINISH SPANISH STYLE ROOF TILE IU T ANGLED PROPERTY UNE 7'S "t r�;itiF•T: Y'!fW i-"^� sit ROOF APEX 'N,-r� : tff! , �!-�•`�r-...; �.^ +, , I I . `t I t :r->SY?i'�,t}';r?r`f ;'i "i: v't� +i^,- '�- ;'f?" "r, ^i. irR +ry i �r it r : ti^ ii i ±h v r %iry� 1' 'fit Q s ENTRY ROOF .;i ` I rTI' '; ^Y` 11 I in{•M x of r'irlr`Frw IS .i r{vt6 *titi•!`iris �•y ,(.T{^:�- •s{•�{`4�!rir,.r'.�c•, rz I _ �: {•l�- �{•,�.,{rk^tr,. r1- rir•�^� 1 - tf'Nf's,�r%i`tr'!_rkf'�' -Y•e�• Rr-rvy.)"Yt`L � - ���'�rs(w"Fj xv.'r�- y^..r�• 3.. ,•"v'4t',,.!f� (r� r. � 5 Li irar�\ 1 .r`s,-tr'k'v .+^ -r'tr' 'Y'�hrr{rr., (r 'Iri- v'�"•+^i# ! �'i. Lr� �'u- -fir J ^+=^, - I I - � ^.:�'1r"'+Y-.A'�_�.i'L(• ^.r^;{ti r- }Y•,I„yt -�: �r,.'t.�` .`N`- Y'ii":,,`ii ":Yf'�?"y; �z y`v >♦"Y'r •r• �'-r •a�;r',!-vi ;Y;i a s; ,Y..rt'T. ,. � � :rcrs -�'sF" - I I . :T i ii'it"iv"1- "Yf`tJ'•:Y-;u ";rxF �y'.'rtr'� -iar- yti?'-,�z`H^i:�•'ii•'-yt'i Afli'�;�a- ti:"'u.'r'4�'sf'trrv^ii••.��: - rsf;f'ii L ,r^- ,:•'�(.! i^s2°;�irlY(f;r•yr' I I DBL PLATE � 7 I T T T T zs -T }• ' i T T I T I .. - A6 _• .. PROPOSED LEFT SIDE ELEVATION (NORTH) ANGLED PROPERTY ONE FL II II 14L L I _iii LiJ LLIA Ll I II 'vv II I II v I I I EXISTING RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION (SOUTH) STUCCO WALL. PAINT RNISH SPANISH STYLE RCOFTILE t ANGLED PROPERTY LINE 1 12 S 1 � 1. T I I � ' F�rvr•Lr-Tt`,�2r w �.u. { .r^ - '>t} +!'k ''s. 5!'xt"°.�:v ,r rr_ x� �..� °i'•^r ,�4"u' f'-r -rI- u'.'}, it T ti'" I I TOP OF FRONT ROOF I I z Y,'- ;J,`�,� `'x"kk"t:"}+'i+" F !�'irr - J fr:- r'•il••v-,u r�}r?n.. -fx.S ,r .r•� srx :�-• v��-r :.�^.. {r7rr^(r:r l'+f K y"�.tf'lir.% -r'i.r -F+"y Sri EXISTING GARAGE TO REMA ! 'i , h*'t; N' "`'* N , 1' H - -f .{'•af':F- .r" rx it"1"-!lF y^v-.4• -Ir.r . - t,- r.v =t -.t• ! l`= i^it'jrYrl( ,Y"{ �r. •vIr! I i ,r" i .y.f^T{•�r ti*-x - -- ;x�• r� a rk••- ,^_-sr -Ea` i% -tirerx Y`f• Ii I I 't 'r r r N tf f t u7r r .r r xr x) > rr f 4 �• ry w_r�r� }:-y r` Y'vi v'ti ry k i{,�..ft - �" ��Ak,? r"v �k'? i� ,rv�rrlr•�r- ni"r"try•ry:'�'�{n; y^xr• -r 4n.^sri`•ira, �-•�.rr.ri i^rrrv�•�.v r'w•�sY'?rli F'ar't. `'r+�r",! r'fsf",�`i; � �I I 1 -r�`�: s .rt} y"t��tT�yt-,L� l'`ti+'�•'•�f :��- �`rrf'u�. k^� �}I >.r "Y`"�_' "i!'?( r+'ir k-'�' ir'�T" ir�•:ti'-itu-}r`rf^!r'✓v �4'Fi.Yt%'Nr}r'V'tirv'x"v +-t" � rs !`( W I DEL PUTS .!•Xir'X•`v`4 lrYf'r�f•LrL^r ; "tftiRY1Y- ir':Y1i"l!`ITIr'�i' ar �..,t.. *- rtit'"'kl - :°Ir'1'e "a. _ it `Jt3:•Yy?•}L�f'Y.'_Y•'r!°Sf•4y Ii .1••lie^!fF!V- ':!'1i. rS.r`.(�l`F • OI ( 25-q I iV I I I I V , . - .. FIN. GRADE I III DUAL PAIN W INDOW TO REMAIN PROPOSED RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION (SOUTH) -liars u lam u� i Ehdm.mu . Y4.ew� . fi. D...tap..r HL Design Incorporation 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 105 Pleasanton , California 94588 Tel :(925) 460 -0881 Fax: (925) 460-0991 h Idesign@sbcglobal.net OWNER/TENANT: Sam Kim 14370 Elva Avenue SARATOGA,CA W t` O ZU') Z w¢ W o LU CE: ~ >O D Q LL Q > Q WW o 0 co V 0 T 0 —11 HL DESIGN INCORPORATION HL DESIGN. INC. EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO A THIRD PARTY WTTFIOUT FIRST OSTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF HL DESIGN. INC. IN THE EVENT OF UNAURIORIMD REUSE OF THE PLANS BY A THIRD PARTY, THE THIRD PARTY SHALL HOLD HL DESIGN. INC. HARMLESS. 0O NOT SCALE PLANS REVISION: DATE: 10- 01 -2D08 PROJECT NO: 08 -465 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN: HL CHECK HL SHEET TITLE BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHEET NO. A -5 OF SHEETS X4, qr Y- p W- Us Az s .s �� •x'11 a.:sa;'� ���� � Tw `. IIp � 0 I f ��- � f � 1111 I ` • a- JILL 'nrf C Pit &H7 Slbr-) R AP-C P-16HT 51 pro) S (�IsAR CMIDDI -�) GCE DEJPAcNE-D GARAGE 4i1NORM I Fmt4-r C RI Ca HT) FRONT C MI PIDLE) FqLoNT C LIFT) fiZoNT C PCoHT) RJR RI &kT sl PE Rz&m -r 911 E REAR c P-I&Nr si bE �Tl I EA F, L r=1 Tor) L-r-FT (NWNT �SFT i I Community Development Department ITEM B City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 12, 2008 TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Determination of whether or not the existing home is historically significant. Property Location: 20365 Williams Avenue, Saratoga, California Project Number: HPC08 -0011 Property APN: 397 -28 -032 Project Owner /Applicant: David Perng Project Summary The subject project is a 2,872 square foot, approximately 24 feet tall, two -story house with a Craftsman architectural style. It features a gabled roof with composition shingles, horizontal wood siding, and a covered front porch. A band of river rock is located along the bottom of the house. The same rock is used on the chimney. An attached two car garage is located at the front. According to the letter submitted by the applicant, the home has .undergone two significant remodels, one in 1966 and another 1972. A new roof was put on in 2002 and the house has been recently painted. A detached secondary dwelling unit is located in the rear of the lot. The project would include a 191 square foot first story addition at the rear of the structure for the purpose of expanding the existing kitchen. The addition will have a hipped roof. No other elements of the building's exterior will be changed. The project would not be subject to Design Review due to its limited scope and could be approved over the counter. However, due to the age of the structure and potential historic significance, and prior to planning staff making a decision on the project, the staff and the applicant request a determination from the Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) on the historical significance of the existing residence. The determination to allow the addition would be based on the recommendation from the HPC. Decision by HPC The applicant is requesting a determination of the HPC regarding the historical significance of the structure. The following are options available to the Commission in reviewing this proposal: Determine that the structure is not historically significant: If the Commission determines that the structure is not historically significant, the property would not be listed on the Historic Resources Inventory. Proposed demolition and /or future alterations would not be subiect to HPC review. .01. i HPC November 12, 2008 Meeting Project Address: 20365 Williams Avenue Project Applicant: David Perng 2. Determine that the property /structure is historically significant and direct staff to place the structure on the historical list: If the Commission determines that the property /structure is historically significant: ■ At least one (1) of the seven (7) criteria listed in the City code must be selected to reflect the reasons why the structure is significant. ■ The HPC would need to determine that the proposed project either meets or does not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards (Standards) for historic properties. Suggestions to ensure compliance with the Standards may be provided. ' Staff would place the property on the Historic Resources Inventory and proposed future alterations to the structures would require HPC review and would be required to meet Standards for historic properties. The seven Criteria are as follows (City Code §13- 15.010): (a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or (b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or (c) It embodies. distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials; or (d) It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect; or (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or (f) It represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or (g) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. Memorandum to the Saratoga Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 HPC November 12, 2008 Meeting Project Address: 20365 Williams Avenue Project Applicant: David Perng Attachments 1) Letter from applicant 2) Plans for Proposed Addition Memorandum to the Saratoga Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 We do not think 20365 Williams Ave. is historically significant. This house is not on any historic structure list. When we purchased this house in Sept. this year, the seller told us this house had never been considered to be historically significant. There is no person or event significant in history link to this house. The seller also disclosed that this house had at least 2 major structural additions in 1966 and 1972 respectively. A new roof was put on in 2002 and the exterior of the house was painted in early this year.` No historic compliance review was needed before. We are planning to add a small addition (12ft by 16ft) at the backend of the house to cover the current steep steps to the group floor and outside entrance to the basement. People cannot see this-change from the street. Our backyard is in adjunction with Saratoga High School storage sheds and softball practice area. People at the school site cannot see the projected small addition either. The addition will be more than 50 feet away from the backyard fence and 17 feet away from the side neighbors. We spent almost all of our savings to purchase this house and would like to make the living comfortable in order to enjoy this great neighborhood, schools and community. S WILLIAMS AVE. '-� SITE PLAN S. 1•- 1o•-o• LQDD040O Gvl �LQI�LQ4OC�La9 C�LQo g�b�70 VICINITY MAP A �a� � P WILLIAMS. AVE. SAP r �ti Z j �P P o VP � PLO ll h S� NORTH FP-ROJECT DATA APN: 397 -28 -032 ADDRESS: 20365 WILLIAMS AVE. ZONE: R- 1- 10,000 OCCUPANCY: R -3 k U TYPE OF CONST.: VB LOT SIZE: 7,682 S.F. BLDG. AREA: 1ST: 2ND: EXIST'G 1,309 +624(GAR) 748 NEW . 191 TOTAL 21248 +624 (GAR) A. FA: 2,400 +160X3 =2,880 S.F. SITE COVERAGE: 2,124/7,682 =27.6% BLDG. HT.: (E) IMPERVIOUS COVFRAGE 2124 (BLDG) +143 (PORCH) +1,834 (CONC. PAVG) 4,101/7,682= >53.4% FSHEET INDEX A -1 TITLE SHEET AND SITE PLAN A -2 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN A -3 PROPSED FLOOR PLAN A -4 EXISTING ELEVATIONS A -5 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SCOPE OF WORK ONE STORY HOUSE ADDITION * ENLARGE KITCHEN W/ NOOK * INTERIOR ALTERATION, ADD MASTER BATHROOM, FULL BATH AT 2ND FLOOR. * INTERIOR ALTERATION, EXPAND KITCHEN, NOOK. UTILITY AND NEW BATHROOM AT 1ST FLOOR. REVISIONS 8 C w r Q Q zU) O Q a 1— J � J Q L C � � a z n w O Q U (V (/ Dds 10/31/01 Soak AS SHOW LWM DP bb P834 511 Qo I I I I I - I I I I I I �- I � I I I I I I 20'-Y I I I _ I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----------------- I I I I I I I I I i I i I I I I----------------- L-- - - - - -� EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN S: 1 /4' =1'-0' EXISTING 1ST FLOOR PLAN s 1/4- =1'-0' I ii I I I I I N. I � I I i i I I i i I I o ❑ - -- I I I \ I i I 1 �J I I I BR.I #4 I I I I I d Ll- I ❑ I I I I I � I I � I II I I II I I ------- - - - - -- r-i ------- ------'LL------L------- EXISTING 2ND FLOOR PLAN S: 1/4' -1'-0' U 09c, Q � l � Z W U- 0 CL 1 z a_ Of O O J LL- CD z X w w Q z � O F- Q o � C Q V CO Z I'7 W O U 04 IDdo 10/311 Scdo AS SHf Dmm DP Job P834 Shed ;°2 D<. —..N_ .Sh i r--- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- I I I I I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I � I I I I ❑ I I ED ❑ I I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I I -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L-- - - - - ----- ------ L-- - - - - -J PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN S: 1/4' =1' -0' PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN S: 1/4' =1' -0' PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN S: 1/4' =1' -0' — - z- — �� �� - -- -- -- y . ... . . �� ��. � , _. _ - _ ¥ .. . � ... �. . .� . - -- ter_ GM _ _ �. . .... - --Iiml 1=1 in \' MON.�'- . — - z- — �� �� - -- -- -- y . ... . . �� ��. � , _. _ - _ ¥ .. . � ... �. . .� . - -- ter_ GM _ _ �. . .... - --Iiml 1=1 in Community Development Department ITEM C City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 12, 2008 TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Determination of whether or not the existing home located at 13514 Hammons Avenue is historically significant. Property Location: 13514 Hammons Avenue, Saratoga, California Property APN: 393 -34 -009 Project Number: HPC08 -0006 Project Applicants: Cindy Brozicevic — InnerHouse Design Property Owners: Kyung -Mo Shin Project History On September 9 and October 14, 2008, the HPC reviewed the applicant's proposal to stucco over the existing adobe bricks and to replace the existing windows and relocate some exterior openings of an existing one story single - family home located at 13514 Hammons Avenue. The HPC agreed that the the house is aesthetically attractive and that the existing adobe bricks give the house historical significance. The HPC determined that that the house met Criterion "C" of the seven criteria needed to deem the property historically significant, that there was a great opportunity for the applicant to make the project new and fresh while maintaining its historical significance, and directed staff to place the structure on the historical list. On October 14, 2008 the HPC reviewed the applicant's revised materials and decided that there was not enough information to make a determination. The HPC continued the project to give the applicant more time to clarify their information prior to making a final determination. The applicant has submitted revised elevations that clarify how the existing exterior opening would be modified. These plans indicate that stucco will be applied directly over the existing adobe bricks. All building corners and corners at window insets would be bullnosed. All existing windows will be replaced with Low -E wood clad windows with true divided lights. The applicant has also included material that describes how historic adobe buildings are preserved. These materials indicate that it was a common practice to cover adobe wall with cement stucco to prevent deterioration of the adobe. Also included in the packet are pictures of the adobe house at 20220 Thelma Avenue that was recently demolished. Project Summary The subject property is a one story single - family home located at 13514 Hammons Avenue. According to the applicant, the home was constructed in 1951. . The residence was originally constructed using adobe bricks. An addition was added in 1977 that used conventional wood framing with a smooth stucco exterior that does not match the exterior of the original adobe home. HPC November 12, 2008 Meeting Project Address: 13514 Hammons Avenue Project Applicant: Cindy Brozicevic — InnerHouse Design The applicant does not plan on adding any square footage to the existing residence. Modifications would include updating the existing windows as well as relocating some of the exterior openings. The existing roofline and roof tiles are to remain. The primary exterior change would consist of coating the existing adobe bricks with smooth stucco so that both the original house and the addition would have the same exterior finish. Prior to applying stucco over the existing adobe bricks, the staff and the applicant request a determination from the Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) on the historical significance of the existing residence. The determination to allow the project to continue would be based on the recommendation from the HPC. Historic Evaluation The property is not currently listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory. Decision by HPC The applicant is requesting a determination of the HPC regarding the historical significance of the structure. The following are options available to the Commission in reviewing this proposal: Determine that the structure is not historically significant: If the Commission determines that the structure is not historically significant, the property would not be listed on the Historic Resources Inventory. Proposed demolition and /or future alterations would not be subject to HPC review. 2. Determine that the property /structure is historically significant and direct staff to place the structure on the historical list: If the Commission determines that the property /structure is historically significant: At least one (1) of the seven (7) criteria listed in the City code must be selected to reflect the reasons why the structure is significant. The HPC would need to determine that the proposed project either meets or does not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards (Standards) for historic properties. Suggestions to ensure compliance with the Standards may be provided. Staff would place the property on the Historic Resources Inventory and proposed future alterations to the structures would require HPC review and would be required to meet Standards for historic properties. The seven Criteria are as follows (City Code §13- 15.010): (a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or (b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or (c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials; or Memorandum to the Saratoga Historic Preservation Commission . Page 2 HPC November 12, 2008 Meeting i Project Address: 13514 Hammons Avenue Project Applicant: Cindy Brozicevic — InnerHouse Design (d) It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect; or (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an. established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or (f) It represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or (g) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. Attachments (1) Letter from the project architect which includes elevation drawings, photographs, and historical information about adobe structures. Memorandum to the Saratoga Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 October 30, 2008 Historic Preservation Committee City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Project Location: 13514 Hammons Avenue This project proposes to renovate the existing structure in the following ways: 1 . Re -coat the exterior surface with plaster, suitable for protecting the existing adobe building from moisture. This procedure will extend the life of the building significantly and is consistent with older homes constructed in this manner. A qualified professional will determine the appropriate method of plaster adhesion. The finish will be smooth, applied with a steel trowel, but will have undulations and imperfections consistent with the Spanish Colonial Style. See Attached `Preservation Brief 5, Us Department of Interior.' 2. Replace all existing windows with a wood clad window, high quality, double pane, and Low E. The existing windows are a mixture of metal and wood frames, and none of the windows are energy efficient. 3. Please refer to the Floor Plans and Elevations for the modified window openings. We are proposing keeping the change of opening sizes to a minimum. In `A Field Guide to American Houses', it was common to replace small openings with larger ones, as we are proposing for the Dining Room window, facing Hammons Avenue. See attached excerpt. Outstanding Issues Related to Historic Significance: 1 . According to the City Code, 13- 15.010 Criteria, states that the Heritage Commission must satisfy two or more of the criteria in order to consider this project historically significant. We would respectfully request that this be reconsidered. It seems possible that only one of the findings may be met, 13- 15.010c. 2. It appears that according to the attached photos, the Adobe structure on Thelma Avenue that was torn down recently, was in fact constructed with adobe walls on the interior. The similarities between the home on Thelma and the Hammons house are striking. Both buildings had a cedar shake roof ( Hammons Ave. prior to 2001), both buildings were originally 2 bedrooms / 1 bath, both had metal windows of similar style and age. It is likely that these buildings were built by the same builder at about the same time. That building was demolished, while this building has been renovated twice, yet it is being considered to have historic significance. Conclusion: Please review the attached documents, and provide any feedback you may have with regard to the proposed work. Please use our Grass Valley address for mailing any correspondence. For your convenience, you may also contact us via email: cindv(@innerhousedesign.com Sincerely, Cynthia Brozicevic Designer BAY AREA OFFICE: 12229 Goleta Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Tel /Fax: 408.868.9475 SIERRA OFFICE: 15101 Georgia Way Grass Valley, CA 95949 Tel /Fax: 530.271.5787 Email: cindy @innerhousedesign.com f>aKf EXISfYiG DOOR ANO WP✓DOVIW /NEW WOFSi Firriir DOOR WlDI $CHJDfiI" FJGSTNG IN REiLH.® N saGi ro RRAAN E--] I--] LLl L1_I W W I WLJ I i Nl 4,\ SLL 0 . _ MATCH EbSfNG __ ® IT WTM EXiETLOFi 91fiACE1 (E)GAfUGE DOORro- RE0.ALE WWOOW'�W1M1l REPLACE WWDJYI WfiH 9- UWRU -.T CS. 9AA SILLLM� x�g so.L, arrro FR PEPLACE 9LL ro MATai PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONg° OSE ALL STUD[A COWiEF>:i AT wS=TNSG Arro ocrsaoR alarwc NEW WAW FNISH PLASFSiro BEMRED OV61 ALDB TFUI S. MSt6i T00E IiR ®Yrtt11 Brea TROwE- wrtH NwFSrarons TFe ST fwl91. CONCEAL WOOD IEA06:S SCALE: 1 /4' =1' -0' , w/ l PLASIETi. � A¢T}CO reo. PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: 11,V=1'-O" F�L.ACE PAIR OF G4• Bf� WRJOOrVS W/ SNQE OOUHE HUNG WR✓OTV NEW WAW FW ISH PLAS/ERTO eE PPPL® L ADOBE DPoDI:S. THE PLO" IER HMSHE W!L MATCH ON O W THE NEW FgUSE, TFr:. FINISH. ADORpNS TO MATCei THE NEW STUCCO FLASH. CbNCEAL W000 HEADERS W /PIA:,16i PLASIETi FW 191 ro CONCEAL LNE AT rnlJrVJCLi nC/1n CLCVhI 1%.J IN SCALE: 1/4'=l'-O' I I I I RrRACE EXISRJG WINDOWS __ _J WFp1 Ex1.SfW0 WNDDW 1 1 I WRHHKi10UA1MWS I 1 I WOOD UGHTS DWS. TiAIE OMDED LIGMS w1 NEW WAW FW 191 PLASTER TO gE PPPLED OVER PROPOSEDLEFT ELEVATION �FRA IO s MATaPLA�EHFw� As CLOSaY AS POSara c TOADOff Bfi(,l( SCALE: 1/4'=l'-O' cwsrRlcnoN. REVISIONS: 0 6 � m J �D o m� �zm p c� G, O O o r` Q O ° Lo � Q Q o Z II1''�Iu�y'FTI' � a J O J Q rU o R V w O F O w Q ¢ cf) a 0 w Z w Z Z > W o Q Q Z cr O � o Q w = O Z Lo L' Q C'7 w T Q U U) TRLEroTHESE PLANSAND �ECFIC H IN 9lALL RS IGN WRH WNETtIDUSE DE9GN. T!¢ USE W THESE PLAN$ SHALL BE RESiF➢CI® TO THE Spec AS NO5(fE A WINS AS NOTHIONTHS DiMWING. RBRDIXICUON OR TRANSFBi OF TH6 PO IS `M N WHOLE OR N PNiIISPROHI WRTIXR PRIOR CON:ENf G" OF NNERHOU9: DESIGN, PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS L —g I NPLL WNDOW (E) DECK ° DEMO POOL EQUIP J Y �w; NPIIJ. q.ur rue. Am PA Tt� oc� DFTM1VALL ro M. BATH A� 1 ` (] iVd I'c 1^o1^ �U\.P VJ O I IXERCISE RM. cA�r CLOSET BEDROOM #2 PA WDOD �ooa WW1 ExiBJD I - 3� 1 1� M. BEDROOM Iy cn wooD rtooa ' I I� Ii I �1 II 2x69! II II II #3 U II II U J GARAGE Nc¢.L Does a wNOav LAUND. HALL " WDOO FLOOR p.� a wwoow gwr f>BIACE kl WNDOWS W /HIGI�R SiL M. PORCH vaexACe 1gTa -E eu�rsa - oESc I DOOR I Ili I I FAMILY ROOM cn Wood FLOOR NFU POH �AALL� wNDOw, Am WOOD PPfltiro PLAN NOTES: o 1. REPLACE ALL INTERIOR DOORS, PAINT GRADE 2. RECOAT ALL WALLS, INCLUDING INTERIOR ADOBE WALLS, WITH PLASTER - UGHT SIMULATED PLASTER FINISH. 3. REPLACE ALL EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND DOORS W/ WOOD CLAD & STAIN GRADE INTERIOR s 4. ADD EXTERIOR PLASTER COAT TO UNIFY EXISTING ADOBE (n e WALLS & WOOD FRAMED WALLS. O (Jr 5. PAINT EXTERIOR WOODWORK 6. EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN. ? > ON OENVND HOT WATER FEATEA T%YlAI LOGTpN: ATTIC BEDROOM #4 wl wooD CLOOH SEAT faEPIAf,E a. i u u �■ 1101.� OFFICE I / BEDROOM FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4'=l'-O" ° J Y �w; cn oc� co O A� 1 ` (] 1^o1^ �U\.P VJ ° _Q Z z f a nnn O < U o V zz LJ F � O O U < w a CU) w Z Q z > W o Q Q U) ° z W not G Q ° LLI T O Z T Q J EXISTING LIVING AREA: 3400SF T- p co WALL LEGEND TITLE TO �F PLANS AND SPEOFICATIONS SHALL ®N WALL ( % W NNEgQ15E oESCN. muse oc THE o (E) WOOD WALL ros ADDfiESS AS NOr®ON TMS ® (E) ADOBE WALL DPwwwc. �saDUCrnN off rnws� aP rHr> = = = = = DEMO WALL P�w�r LMS v�w�Nimlrm vm�inlNrr PRIOfi coNSErrr of NNESUnug CE54i. REVISIONS: FLOOR PLAN Q. e i �?DZ20 -rhe (14uq- Ave . d.u,nvt j de" Ii -oK tgd.LG M+WL6r �(s wfrQ coasftuc-kd y... _I - f - Preservation Brief 5: Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings Page 1 of 14 � + Briefs Technical Preservatlon Services P r e s e t v a {• ion National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings >>What is Adobe? *Adobe Construction Techniques >>Traditional Surface Coatis »Adobe Deterioration >>Sources of Deterioration >>Repaj:mng_ and Maintaining. >>Maintenance »Summary_ »Bibliography_ A NOTE TO OUR USERS: The web versions of the Preservation Briefs differ somewhat from the printed versions. Many illustrations are new, captions are simplified, illustrations are typically in color rather than black and white, and some complex charts have been omitted. Whether built in the 17th century or in the 20th century, adobe buildings share common problems of maintenance and deterioration. This brief discusses the traditional materials and construction of adobe buildings and the causes of adobe deterioration. It also makes recommendations for preserving historic adobe buildings. By its composition, adobe construction is inclined to deteriorate; however, the buildings can be made durable and renewable when properly maintained. What is Adobe? The adobe, or sun -dried brick, is one of the oldest and most common building materials known to man. Traditionally, adobe bricks were never kiln fired. Unbaked adobe bricks consisted of sand, sometimes gravel, clay, water, and often straw or grass mixed together by hand, formed in wooden molds, and dried by the sun. Today some commercially available adobe -like bricks are fired. These are similar in size to unbaked bricks, but have a different texture, color, and strength. Similarly some adobe bricks have been stabilized, containing cement, asphalt. and /or bituminous materials, but these also differ from traditional adobe in their http: / /www.nps.gov/ history/HPS /tps/briefs/brief05.htin 11/3/2008 Preservation Brief 5: Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings appearance and strength. Traditional adobe construction techniques in North America have not varied widely for over 3 -1/2 centuries. Adobe building methods employed in the Southwest in the 16th century are still used today. Because adobe bricks are not fired in a kiln as are clay bricks, they do not permanently harden, but remain unstable - -they shrink and swell constantly with their changing water content. Their strength also fluctuates with their water content: the higher the water content, the lower the strength. San Francisco de Assisi Mission Church in Rancho de Taos, NM, was constructed of adobe between 1772 and 1819 and, because of its distinctive sculptural quality, is one of the most famous and frequently photographed of the mission churches. Photo: HABS Collection, NPS. possibilities and variations in design physical constraints of the material. Page 2 of 14 A mixture of mud and straw is pressed into Adobe a mold to form an adobe brick. After the will not adobe brick is removed from the mold, it st dry in the open air for a month or permanelQye before it can be used. Photo: Russell bond Lee, Farm Security Administration with Collection, Library of Congress. metal, wood, or stone because it exhibits much greater movement than these other materials, either separating, cracking, or twisting where they interface. Yet, many of these more stable building materials such as fired brick, wood, and lime and cement mortars are nonetheless used in adobe construction. For example, stone may be used for a building's foundation, and wood may be used for its roof or its lintels and doorways. In the adobe building, these materials are generally held in place by their own weight or by the compressive weight of the wall above them. Adobe construction have therefore been somewhat limited by the Preserving and rehabilitating a deteriorated adobe building is most successful when the techniques and methods used for restoration and repairs are as similar as possible to the techniques used in the original construction. Adobe Construction Techniques The Brick: The adobe brick is molded from sand and clay mixed with water to a plastic consistency. Commonly, straw or grass is included as a binder. Although they do not help reinforce the bricks or give them added long -term strength, straw and grass do help the bricks shrink more uniformly while they dry. More important for durability, however, is the inherent clay -to -sand ratio found in native soil. The prepared mud is placed in wooden forms, tamped, and leveled by hand. The bricks are then "turned -out" of the mold to dry on a level surface covered with straw or grass so that the bricks will not stick. After several days of drying, the adobe bricks are ready for air - curing. This consists of standing the bricks on end for a period of 4 weeks or longer. http: / /www.nps.gov/ history/HPS /tpsibriefs/briefO5.htm 11/3/2008 Preservation Brief 5: Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings Page 3 of 14 Mortar: Historically, most adobe walls were composed of adobe bricks laid with mud mortar. Such mortar exhibited the same properties as the bricks: relatively weak and susceptible to the same rate of hygroscopic (moisture absorptive) swelling and shrinking, thermal expansion and contraction, and deterioration. Consequently, no other material has been as successful in bonding adobe bricks. Today, cement and lime mortars are commonly used with stabilized adobe bricks, but cement mortars are incompatible with unstabilized adobe because the two have different thermal expansion and contraction rates. Cement mortals thereby accelerate the deterioration of adobe bricks since the mortars are stronger than the adobe. Building Foundations: Early adobe building foundations varied because of the difference in local building practices and availability of materials. Many foundations were large and substantially constructed, but others were almost nonexistent. Most often, adobe building foundations were constructed of bricks, fieldstones, or cavity walls (double) infilled with rubble stone, tile fragments, or seashells. Adobe buildings were rarely constructed over basements or crawlspaces. Viga logs and savinos are seen in the interior of the adobe building. Often the wooden materials that comprise the traditional flat adobe roof create t Y d I tt th Walls: Since adobe construction was load- bearing with low structural strength, adobe walls tended to be massive, and seldom rose over 2 stories. In fact. the maximum height of adobe mission churches in the Southwest was approximately 35 feet. Often buttresses braced exterior walls for added stability. In some parts of the Southwest, it was common to place a long wooden timber within the last courses of adobe bricks. This timber provided.a long horizontal bearing plate for the roof thereby distributing the weight of the roof along the wall eyes Ong p easing erns a c Roofs: Earl Southwest adobe roofs ceilings of interior rooms. . Photo: Russell y (17th-mid- Lee, ( Lee, Farm Security Administration 19th centuries) tended to be flat with low parapet Collection, Library of Congress. walls. These roofs consisted of logs which supported wooden poles, and which in turn supported wooden lathing or layers of twigs covered with packed adobe earth. The wood was aspen, mesquite, cedar, or whatever was available. Roughly dressed logs (called "vigas ") or shaped squared timbers were spaced on close (23 feet or less) centers resting either on the horizontal wooden member which topped the adobe wall, or on decorated cantilevered blocks, called "corbels," which were set into the adobe wall. Traditionally, these vigas often projected through the wall facades creating the typical adobe construction detail copied in the 20th century revival styles. Wooden poles about 2 inches in diameter (called "latias ") were then laid across the top of the vigas. Handsplit planks (called "cedros" if cedar and "savinos" if cypress) instead of poles were used when available. In some areas, these were laid in a herringbone pattern. In the west Texas and Tucson areas, "saguaro" (cactus) ribs were used to span between vigas. After railroad transportation arrived in most areas, sawn boards and planks, much like roof sheathing, became available and was often used in late -19th and early -20th century buildings or for repairs to earlier ones. Next cedar twigs, plant fibers, or fabric were placed on top of the poles or planks. These served as a lathing on which the 6 or more inches of adobe earth was compacted. If planks were used, twigs were not necessary. A coating of adobe mud was then applied overall. The flat roofs were sloped somewhat toward drains of hollowed logs (called "canales," or "gargolas "), tile, or sheet metal that projected through the parapet walls. http: / /www.nps.gov/ history/HPS /tps/briefs/brief05.htm . 11/3/2008 Preservation Brief 5: Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings Page 4 of 14 Gable and hipped roofs became increasingly popular in adobe buildings in the 19th and 20th centuries. "Territorial" styles and preferences for certain materials developed. For example, roof tiles were widely used in southern California. Although the railroad brought in some wooden shingles and some terra cotta, sheet metal roofing was the prevalent material for roofs in New Mexico. Floors: Historically, flooring materials were placed directly on the ground with little or no subflooring preparation. Flooring materials in adobe buildings have varied from earth to adobe brick, fired brick, tile, or flagstone (called "lajas "), to conventional wooden floors. Traditional Surface Coatings Adobe surfaces are notoriously fragile and need frequent maintenance. To protect the exterior and interior surfaces of new adobe walls, surface coatings such as mud plaster, lime plaster, whitewash, and stucco have been used. Such coatings applied to the exterior of adobe construction have retarded surface deterioration by offering a renewable surface to the adobe wall. In the past, these methods have been inexpensive and readily available to the adobe owner as a solution to periodic maintenance and visual improvement. However, recent increases in labor costs and changes in cultural and socioeconomic values have caused many adobe building owners to seek more lasting materials as alternatives to these traditional and once inexpensive surface coatings. Mud Plaster: Mud plaster has long been used as a surface coating. Like adobe, mud plaster is composed of clay, sand, water, and straw or grass, and therefore exhibits sympathetic properties to those of the original adobe. The mud plaster bonds to the adobe because the two are made of the same materials. Although applying mud plaster requires little skill, it is a time - consuming and laborious process. Once in place, the mud plaster must be smoothed. This is done by hand; sometimes deerskins, sheepskins, and small, slightly rounded stones are used to smooth the plaster to create a "polished" surface. In some areas, pink or ochre pigments are mixed into the final layer and "polished." Traditionally, adobe surface coatings that protected the fragile adobe building fabric were renewed every few years. Women are seen here recoating an adobe wall with mud plaster mixed with straw at Chamisal, New Mexico. Photo: Russell Lee, Farm Security Administration Collection, Library of Congress. Whitewash: Whitewash has been used on earthen buildings since before recorded history. Consisting of ground gypsum rock, water, and clay, whitewash acts as a sealer, which can be either brushed on the adobe wall or applied with large pieces of coarse fabric such as burlap. Initially, whitewash was considered inexpensive and easy to apply. But its impermanence and the cost of annually renewing it has made it less popular as a surface coating in recent years. Lime Plaster: Lime plaster, widely used in the 19th century as both an exterior and http:// www. nps. gov/ history/HPS /tpsibriefs/briefO5.htm 11/3/2008 Preservation Brief 5: Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings Page 5 of 14 interior coating, is much harder than mud plaster. It is, however, less flexible and cracks easily. It consists of lime, sand, and water and is applied in heavy coats with trowels or brushes. To make the lime plaster adhere to adobe, walls are often scored diagonally with hatchets, making grooves about 1 -1/2 inches deep. The grooves are filled with a mixture of lime mortar and small chips of stone or broken roof tiles. The wall is then covered heavily with the lime plaster. Cement Stucco: In the United States, cement stucco came into use as an adobe surface coating in the early 20th century for the revival styles of Southwest adobe architecture. Cement stucco consists of cement, sand, and water and it is applied with a trowel in from 1 to 3 coats over a wire mesh nailed to the adobe surface. This material has been very popular because it requires little maintenance when applied over fired or stabilized adobe brick, and because it can be easily painted. It should be noted however, that the cement stucco does not create a bond with unfired or unstabilized adobe; it relies on the wire mesh and nails to hold it in place. Since nails cannot bond with the adobe, a firm surface cannot be guaranteed. Even when very long nails are used, moisture within the adobe may cause the nails and the wire to rust, thus, losing contact with the adobe. Other Traditional Surface Coatings: These have included items such as paints (oil base, resin, or emulsion), portland cement washes, coatings of plant extracts, and even coatings of fresh animal blood (mainly for adobe floors). Some of these coatings are inexpensive and easy to apply, provide temporary surface protection, and are still available to the adobe owner. Adobe Deterioration When preservation or rehabilitation is contemplated for a historic adobe building, it is generally because the walls or roof of the building have deteriorated in some fashion- - walls may be cracked, eroded, pitted, bulging, or the roof may be sagging. In planning the stabilization and repair of an adobe building, it is necessary: e To determine the nature of the deterioration e To identify and correct the source of the problem causing the deterioration e To develop rehabilitation and restoration plans that are sensitive to the integrity of the historic adobe building . To develop a maintenance program once the rehabilitation or restoration is completed. General Advice: There are several principles that when followed generally result in a relatively stable and permanent adobe resource. 1. Whenever possible, secure the services or advice of a professional architect or other preservationist proficient in adobe preservation and stabilization. Although this may be more costly than to "do -it- yourself," it will probably be less expensive in the long run. Working with a deteriorated adobe building is a complex and difficult process. Irreversible damage may be done by well- meaning but inexperienced "restorationists." http:// www. nps. gov/ history/HPS /tps/briefs/briefD5.htm 11/3/2008 Preservation Brief 5: Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings Page 6 of 14 Moreover, professional assistance may be required to interpret local code requirements. 2. Never begin restoration or repairs until the problems that have been causing the deterioration of the adobe have been found, analyzed, and solved. For instance, sagging or bulging walls may be the result of a problem called "rising damp" and /or excessive roof loads. Because adobe deterioration is almost always the end product of a combination of problems, it takes a trained professional to analyze the deterioration, identify the source or sources of deterioration, and halt the deterioration before full restoration begins. 3. Repair or replace adobe building materials with the same types of materials used originally and use the same construction techniques. Usually the best and the safest procedure is to use traditional building materials. Repair or replace deteriorated adobe bricks with similar adobe bricks. Repair or replace rotted wooden lintels with similar wooden lintels. The problems created by introducing dissimilar replacement materials may cause problems far exceeding those which deteriorated the adobe in the first place. Sources of Deterioration The following are some common signs and sources of adobe deterioration and some common solutions. It should be cautioned again, however, that adobe deterioration is often the end - product of more than one of these problems. The remedying of only one of these will not necessarily arrest deterioration if others are left untreated. Structural Damage: There are several common structural problems in adobe buildings, and while the results of these problems are easy to see, their causes are not. Many of these problems originate from improper design or construction, insufficient foundations, weak or inadequate materials, or the effects of external forces such as wind, water, snow, or earthquakes. In any case, the services of a soils engineer and /or structural engineer knowledgeable in adobe construction may be necessary to evaluate these problems. Solutions may involve repairing foundations, realigning leaning and bulging walls, buttressing walls, inserting new window and door lintels, and repairing or replacing badly deteriorated roof structures. There are many tell -tale signs of structural problems in adobe buildings, the most common being cracks in walls, foundations, and roofs. In adobe, cracks are generally quite visible, but their causes may be difficult to diagnose. Some cracking is normal, such as the short hairline cracks that are caused as the adobe shrinks and continues to dry out. More. extensive cracking, however, usually indicates serious structural problems. In any case, cracks, like all structural problems, should be examined by a professional who can make recommendations for their repair. Water - Related Problems: Generally, adobe buildings deteriorate because of moisture, either excessive rainwater or ground water. Successful stabilization, restoration, and the ultimate survival of an adobe building depends upon how effectively a structure sheds water. The importance in keeping an adobe building free from excessive moisture cannot be overestimated. The erosive action of rainwater and the subsequent drying out of adobe roofs, parapet walls, and wall surfaces can cause furrows, http: / /www.nps.gov/ history/HPS /tps/briefs/briefD5.htm 11/3/2008 Preservation Brief 5: Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings '7 — tr.-rc. Page 7 of 14 cracks, deep fissures, and pitted surfaces to form. Rain saturated adobe loses its cohesive strength and sloughs off forming rounded corners and parapets. If left unattended, rainwater damage can eventually destroy adobe walls and roofs, causing their continued deterioration and ultimate collapse. Standing rainwater that accumulates at foundation level and rain splash may cause "coving" (the hollowing -out of the wall just above grade level). Coving at the base of this adobe wall may have been caused by salts deposited by rising Ground water (water below ground level) might groundwater and /or rainwater splash. Photo: be present because of a spring, a high water NPs files. table, improper drainage, seasonal water fluctuations, excessive plant watering, or changes in grade on either side of the wall. Ground water rises through capillary action into the wall and causes the adobe to erode, bulge, and cove. Coving is also caused by spalling during the freeze -thaw cycles. As water rises from the ground into the wall, the bond between the clay particles in the adobe brick breaks down. In addition, dissolved minerals or salts brought up from the soil by the water can be deposited on or near the surface of the wall as the moisture evaporates. If these deposits become heavily concentrated, they too can deteriorate the adobe fabric. As the adobe dries out, shrinkage cracks usually appear; loose sections of adobe bricks and mud plaster may crumble. A water -tight roof with proper drainage is the best protection against rainfall erosion. Adobe wall and roof surfaces properly maintained with traditional tiles or surface coatings generally resist the destructive effects of rainwater. Roof drains should be in good repair and sufficient to carry rainwater run -off from the roof. In an effort to halt the destructive effects of rainwater, 19th century builders often capped parapet walls with fired bricks. These bricks were harder and better suited to weather the erosive action of rainwater; however, the addition of a brick cap to an existing parapet wall creates a drastic change in a structure's appearance and fabric. The use of traditional lime mortar with the fired brick is advised because it is more watertight and compatible with the harder brick. Rainwater that has accumulated at adobe foundations should be diverted away from the building. This may he done by regrading, by building gravel - filled trenches or brick, tile, or stone drip gutters, or by any technique that will effectively remove the standing rainwater. Regrading is perhaps the best solution because defective gutters and trenches may in effect collect and hold water at the base of the wall or foundation. In repairing "coving," the damage caused by rain splash, adobe bricks stabilized with soil cement might be considered. On the other hand, concrete patches, cement stucco, and curb -like buttresses against the coving usually have a negative effect because moisture may be attracted and trapped behind the concrete. Cement stucco and cement patches have the potential for specific kinds of water related adobe deterioration. The thermal expansion coefficient of cement stucco is 3 to 10 times greater than that of adobe resulting in cracking of the stucco. Cracks allow both liquid water and vapor to penetrate the adobe beneath, and the stucco prevents the wall from drying. As the' moisture content of the adobe increases, there is a point at which the adobe will http: / /www.nps.gov/ history/HPS /tps/briefs/brief05.htm 11/3/2008 ti b Page 7 of 14 cracks, deep fissures, and pitted surfaces to form. Rain saturated adobe loses its cohesive strength and sloughs off forming rounded corners and parapets. If left unattended, rainwater damage can eventually destroy adobe walls and roofs, causing their continued deterioration and ultimate collapse. Standing rainwater that accumulates at foundation level and rain splash may cause "coving" (the hollowing -out of the wall just above grade level). Coving at the base of this adobe wall may have been caused by salts deposited by rising Ground water (water below ground level) might groundwater and /or rainwater splash. Photo: be present because of a spring, a high water NPs files. table, improper drainage, seasonal water fluctuations, excessive plant watering, or changes in grade on either side of the wall. Ground water rises through capillary action into the wall and causes the adobe to erode, bulge, and cove. Coving is also caused by spalling during the freeze -thaw cycles. As water rises from the ground into the wall, the bond between the clay particles in the adobe brick breaks down. In addition, dissolved minerals or salts brought up from the soil by the water can be deposited on or near the surface of the wall as the moisture evaporates. If these deposits become heavily concentrated, they too can deteriorate the adobe fabric. As the adobe dries out, shrinkage cracks usually appear; loose sections of adobe bricks and mud plaster may crumble. A water -tight roof with proper drainage is the best protection against rainfall erosion. Adobe wall and roof surfaces properly maintained with traditional tiles or surface coatings generally resist the destructive effects of rainwater. Roof drains should be in good repair and sufficient to carry rainwater run -off from the roof. In an effort to halt the destructive effects of rainwater, 19th century builders often capped parapet walls with fired bricks. These bricks were harder and better suited to weather the erosive action of rainwater; however, the addition of a brick cap to an existing parapet wall creates a drastic change in a structure's appearance and fabric. The use of traditional lime mortar with the fired brick is advised because it is more watertight and compatible with the harder brick. Rainwater that has accumulated at adobe foundations should be diverted away from the building. This may he done by regrading, by building gravel - filled trenches or brick, tile, or stone drip gutters, or by any technique that will effectively remove the standing rainwater. Regrading is perhaps the best solution because defective gutters and trenches may in effect collect and hold water at the base of the wall or foundation. In repairing "coving," the damage caused by rain splash, adobe bricks stabilized with soil cement might be considered. On the other hand, concrete patches, cement stucco, and curb -like buttresses against the coving usually have a negative effect because moisture may be attracted and trapped behind the concrete. Cement stucco and cement patches have the potential for specific kinds of water related adobe deterioration. The thermal expansion coefficient of cement stucco is 3 to 10 times greater than that of adobe resulting in cracking of the stucco. Cracks allow both liquid water and vapor to penetrate the adobe beneath, and the stucco prevents the wall from drying. As the' moisture content of the adobe increases, there is a point at which the adobe will http: / /www.nps.gov/ history/HPS /tps/briefs/brief05.htm 11/3/2008 Preservation Brief 5: Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings Page 8 of 14 become soft like putty. When the wall becomes totally saturated, the adobe mud will flow as a liquid. This varies with the sand, clay, and silt content of the adobe. If the adobe becomes so wet that the clay reaches its plastic limit, or if the adobe is exposed to a freezethaw action, serious damage' can result. Under the weight of the roof, the wet adobe may deform or bulge. Since the deterioration is hidden from view by the cement stucco, damage may go undetected for some time. Traditional adobe construction techniques and materials should therefore, be used to repair or rebuild parts of the walls. The destructive effects of moisture on adobe buildings may be substantially halted by several remedies. 1. Shrubs, trees, and other foundation plantings may be causing physical damage. Their roots may be growing into the adobe, and /or they may be trapping excessive moisture in their roots and conducting it into walls. Their removal might be considered to halt this process. 2. Level ground immediately adjacent to the walls may be causing poor drainage. Regrading could be considered so that the ground slopes away from the building, eliminating rainwater pools. 3. The installation of footing drains may be considered. Trenches about 2 to 2 -1/2 feet wide and several feet deep are dug around the adobe building at the base of the walls or at the foundation if there is any. If the soil is weak, it may be necessary to slope the sides of the trench to prevent cave -in of the trench and subsequent damage to the wall. The walls and bottom of the trench should be lined with a polyethylene vapor barrier to prevent the collected water from saturating the surrounding soil and adobe wall. Clay tile, or plastic pipe, which drain to a sump or to an open gutter, are then laid in the bottom of the trench. The trench is filled with gravel to within 6 inches of grade. The remaining excavation is then filled to grade with porous soil. A Word of Caution: Plant removal, regrading, or trenching may be potentially destructive to archaeological remains associated with historic adobe building sites. Any disturbance of the ground should, therefore, be undertaken with prudence and careful planning. Once any. one or all of these solutions has effectively minimized the problems of rising ground water, the coving and deterioration of the walls can be corrected by patching the area with new adobe mud and by applying traditional surface coatings. It should be remembered, however, that unless the capillary action is stopped effectively, this erosive condition will certainly continue. Most important, surface coatings and patching only repair the effects of ground water and wind erosion, they cannot cure the cause. Wind Erosion: Windblown sand has often been cited as a factor in adobe fabric erosion. Evidence of wind erosion is often difficult to isolate because the results are similar to water erosion; however, furrowing caused by wind is usually more obvious at the upper half of the wall and at the corners, while coving from rainsplash and ground water is usually at the lower third of the wall. Maintenance is the key to mitigating the destructive effects of wind erosion. Wind damage on adobe walls and roof surfaces should be repaired with new adobe mud. Any traditional surface coating may be applied to protect against any possible future destructive effects. If high wind is a continuing problem, a wind screen or breaker might http:// www. nps. gov/ history /HPS /tps/briefs/briefD5.htm 11/3/2008 Preservation Brief 5: Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings Page 9 of 14 be built, using fencing or trees. Care should be taken to plant trees far enough away from the structure so that the roots will not destroy the foundation or trap moisture. Vegetation, Insects, and Vermin: Vegetation and pests are natural phenomena that can accelerate adobe deterioration. Seeds deposited by the wind or by animals may germinate in adobe walls or roofs as they would in any soil. The action of roots may break down adobe bricks or cause moisture retention which will harm the structure. Animals, birds, and insects often live in adobe structures, burrowing and nesting in walls or in foundations. These pests undermine and destroy the structural soundness of the adobe building. The possibility of termite infestation should not be overlooked since termites can travel through adobe walls as they do through natural soil. Wood members (lintels, floors, window and door shutters, and roof members) are all vulnerable to termite attack and destruction. It is important to rid adobe structures immediately of all plant, animal, and insect pests and to take preventive measures against their return. Seedlings should be removed from the adobe as soon as they are discovered. Large plants should be removed carefully so that their root systems will not dislodge adobe material. Pest control involving the use of chemicals should be examined carefully in order to assess the immediate and longlasting effects of the chemicals on the adobe building. Professional advice in this area is important not only because chemicals may be transported into the walls by capillary action and have a damaging effect on the adobe fabric, but also for reasons of human and environmental safety. Material Incompatibilities: As adobe buildings are continually swelling and shrinking, it is likely that repair work has already been carried out sometime during the life of the building. Philosophies regarding adobe preservation have changed, and so have restoration and rehabilitation techniques. Techniques acceptable only 10 years ago are no longer considered appropriate. Until recently, adobe bricks have been repointed with portland cement; deteriorated wooden lintels and doors have been replaced with steel ones; and adobe walls have been sprayed with plastic or latex surface coatings. The hygroscopic nature of adobe has rendered these techniques ineffective and, most important, destructive. The high strength of portland cement mortar and stucco has caused the weaker adobe brick to crack and crumble during the differential expansion of these incompatible materials. Steel lintels are much more rigid than adobe. When the building expands, the adobe walls twist because they are more flexible than the steel. Plastic and latex wall coatings have been used to seal the surface, keeping it from expanding with the rest of the brick. Portions of the wall have consequently broken off. In some instances, incompatible materials can be removed from the building without subsequently damaging the structure. Other times, this is not possible. Professional advice is therefore recommended. Repairing and Maintaining the Historic Adobe Building Once the adobe deterioration and any resulting structural damage is repaired, the restoration of the adobe building can proceed. Careful attention should be given to replace, repair, and /or reproduce all damaged materials with traditional or original materials. Patching and Repairing Adobe Brick: In patching and replacing adobe brick. every reasonable effort should be made to find clay http: / /www.nps.gov/ history /HPS /tpsibriefs/briefD5.htm 11/3/2008 Preservation Brief 5: Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings Page 10 of 14 with a texture and color similar to the original fabric. When an individual adobe brick has partially disintegrated, it may be patched in place. The deteriorated material may be scraped out and replaced with appropriate adobe mud. Often fragments of the original adobe brick have been ground up, mixed with water, and reused to patch the eroded area. However, some professionals advise against the reuse of material which has spalled off because it frequently contains a high concentration of salts. A traditional mixture of mud and straw If a substantial amount of the brick has been plaster should be applied to stabilize the destroyed or spalled, commercially made adobe exterior of this house. Photo: NPS files. bricks and half- bricks can be obtained, or they may be made at the site or nearby. Generally these are 3 or 4 inches thick, and ideally they are composed of unstabilized adobe (that is, without any chemical additives). The deteriorated adobe bricks should be scraped out to insert the new bricks. If most of the brick is not deteriorated, then the deteriorated portion may be replaced with a half - brick. It may be necessary to cut back into undeteriorated portions of the brick to achieve a flush fit of the new or halfbricks. Spray (do not soak) the new brick and surrounding area lightly with water to facilitate a better bond. Too much moisture can cause swelling. Always use traditional adobe mud mortar. When entire bricks or sections of the brick walls have to be replaced, caution should be exercised when buying ready -made bricks. Many are now manufactured using stabilizing agents (portland cement, lime, or emulsified asphalt) in their composition. While the inclusion of these agents in new adobe bricks is a technical advancement in their durability, they will prove incompatible with the fabric of the historic adobe building. Concrete blocks and cinderblocks are likewise tempting solutions to extensive adobe brick replacement; but, like commercially stabilized adobe bricks, they are not compatible with older and more unstable adobe bricks. However, concrete blocks have been used for interior partitions successfully. Patching and Replacing Mortar: In repairing loose and deteriorated adobe mortar, care should also be taken to match the original material, color, and texture. Most important, never replace adobe mud mortar with lime mortar or portland cement mortar. It is a common error to assume that mortar hardness or strength is a measure of its suitability in adobe repair or reconstruction. Mortars composed of portland cement or lime do not have the same thermal expansion rate as adobe brick. With the continual thermal expansion and contraction of adobe bricks, portland cement or lime mortars will cause the bricks - -the weaker material - -to crack, crumble, and eventually disintegrate. It is recognized, however, that some late historic adobe buildings have always had portland cement or lime mortars in their initial construction. The removal and replacement of these mortars with mud mortar is not advised because their removal is usually destructive to the adobe bricks. In repairing adobe cracks, a procedure similar to repointing masonry joints may be used. It is necessary to rake out the cracks to a depth of 2 or 3 times the width of a mortal joint to obtain a good "key" (mechanical bond) of the mortar to the adobe bricks. The bricks should be sprayed lightly with water to increase the cohesive bond. A trowel or a large grout gun with new adobe mud mortar may then be used to fill the cracks. http: / /www.nps.gov/ history/HPS /tps/briefs/brief05.htm 11/3/2008 Preservation Brief 5: Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings Page 11 of 14 Repairing and Replacing Wooden Members: Rotted or termite infested wood members such as vigas, savinos, lintels, wall braces, or flooring should be repaired or replaced. Wood should always be replaced with wood. For carved corbels, however, specially formulated low- strength epoxy consolidants and patching compounds may be used to make repairs, thus saving original craftsmanship. Tests, however, should be made prior to repairs to check on desired results since they usually are not reversible. This is an area of building repair that ought not be attempted by the amateur. Patching and Replacing Surface Coatings: -Historically, almost every adobe building surface was coated. When these coatings deteriorate, e! they need to be replaced. Every effort should be made to recoat the surface with the same material that originally coated the surface. When the coating has been mud plaster, the process requires that the deteriorated mud plaster be scraped off and replaced with like materials and similar techniques, attempting in all cases to match the repair work as closely as possible to the original. It is always better to cover adobe with mud plaster even though the mud plaster must be renewed more frequently. The process is not so simple where lime plaster and portland cement stuccos are involved. As much of the deteriorated surface coating as possible should be removed without damaging the adobe brick fabric underneath. Never put another coat of lime plaster or portland cement stucco over a deteriorated surface coating. If serious deterioration does exist on the surface, then it is likely that far greater deterioration exists below. Generally this problem is related to water, in which case it is advisable to consult a professional. If extensive recoatings in lime plaster or portland cement stucco are necessary, the owner of an adobe building might consider furring out the walls with lathing, then plastering over, thus creating a moisture barrier. Always patch with the same material that is being replaced. Although lime plaster and portland cement stucco are less satisfactory as a surface coating, many adobe buildings have always had them as a surface coating. Their complete removal is inadvisable as the process may prove to be more damaging than the natural deterioration. Roofs: Flat adobe roofs should be restored and maintained with their original form and materials; however, it may not be feasible or prudent to restore or reconstruct a flat adobe roof on a building if the roof has previously been modified to a gable roof with sheet metal, tiles, or wood shingles. If an existing flat adobe roof is restored with a fresh layer of adobe mud over an existing mud roof, care should be taken to temporarily support the roof during the work because adobe mud is heavier wet than after it has cured. If not supported, the roof may collapse or deflect. If the wooden roof supports are allowed to sag during such work, the wood may take a permanent deflection, resulting in inadequate drainage and /or "ponding" at low points. Ponding is especially damaging to adobe roofs since standing water will eventually soak through the mud and cause the wooden roof members to rot. On an adobe building, it is not advisable to construct a new roof that is heavier than the roof it is replacing. If the walls below have uncorrected moisture problems, the added weight of a new roof may cause the walls to bulge (a deformation caused while the adobe mud is in a plastic state). If the walls are dry but severely deteriorated, the added weight may cause the walls to crack or crumble (compression failure). http: / /www.nps.gov/ history/HPS /tpsibriefs/briefD5.htm 11/3/2008 Preservation Brief 5: Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings Page 12 of 14 Floors, Windows, Doors, Etc.: Windows, doors, floors, and other original details of the older adobe building should be retained whenever feasible. It is, however, understandable when the demands of modern living make it necessary to change some of these features: thermal windows and doors, easily maintained floors, etc. But every reasonable effort should be made to retain original interior and exterior details. Maintenance Cyclical maintenance has always been the ke to successful adobe building survival. As soon as rehabilitation or restoration has been competed, some program of continuing maintenance should be initiated. Changes in the building should particularly be noted. The early stages of cracking, sagging, or bulging in adobe walls should be monitored regularly. All water damage should be noted and remedied at its earliest possible stages. Plant, animal, and insect damage should be halted before it becomes substantial. The roof should be inspected periodically. Surface coatings must be inspected frequently and repaired or replaced as the need indicates. Mechanical systems should be monitored for breakdown. For instance, leaking water pipes and condensation can be potentially more damaging to the adobe building than to a brick, stone, or frame structure. Observing adobe buildings for subtle changes and performing maintenance on a regular basis is a policy which cannot be over emphasized. It is the nature of adobe buildings to deteriorate, but cyclical maintenance can substantially deter this process, thus producing a relatively stable historic adobe building. Summary In conclusion, to attempt the preservation of an adobe building is almost a contradiction. Adobe is a formed -earth material, a little stronger perhaps than the soil itself, but a material whose nature is to deteriorate. The preservation of historic adobe buildings, then, is a broader and more complex problem than most people realize. The propensity of adobe to deteriorate is a natural, ongoing process. While it would be desirable to arrest that process in order to safeguard the building,. no satisfactory method has yet been developed. Competent preservation and maintenance of historic adobe buildings in the American Southwest must (1) accept the adobe material and its natural deterioration, (2) understand the building as a system, and (3) understand the forces of nature which seek to return the building to its original state. Bibliography Baer, Kurt; and Rudinger, Huge. Architecture of the California Missions. Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1958. Boundreau. E. H. Making the Adobe Brick. Berkeley, Calif.: Fifth Street Press, 1971 Bunting, Bainbridge. Early Architecture in New Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1976. http: / /www.hps.gov/ history/HPS /tps/briefs/briefD5.htm 11/3/2008 Preservation Brief 5: Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings Page 13 of 14 Of Earth and Timbers Made: New Mexico Architecture. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1974 Clifton, James R. Preservation of Historic Adobe Structures: A Status Report. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards Technical Note 934, US Government Printing Office, Stock No. 003 - 00301740 -0, Feb. 1977. McHenry, Paul Graham, Jr. Adobe - -Build It Yourself. Tucson, Ariz.: University of Arizona Press, 1973. Phillips, Morgan W.; and Selwyn, Judith E. Epoxies for Wood Repairs in Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 1978. Articles, Periodicals, and Bibliographies: "Adobe, Past and Present." Reprinted from El Palacio. Vol. 77, no. 4 (1971). "An Architectural Guide to Northern New Mexico." New Mexico Architecture. Vol. 12, nos. 9 and 10 (Sept.Oct. 1970). Adobe News. Los Lunas, New Mexico. Published bimonthly. Barnes, Mark R. "Adobe Bibliography." The Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin. Vol. 7, no. 1 (1975). Eyre, T. A. "The Physical Properties of Adobe Used as a Building Material." The University of New Mexico Bulletin. Engineering Series. Vol. 1, no. 3 (1935). George, Eugene. "Adobe Bibliography." The Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin. Vol. 5, no. 4 (1974). Haapala, K. V. "Stabilizing and Restoring Old Adobe Structures in California." Newsletter of the National Association of Restoration Specialists. Murphy, Calif., June 1972. Hooker, Van Dorn. "To Hand Plaster or Not ?" New Mexico Architecture. Vol. 19, no. 5 (Sept.Oct. 1977). Acknowledgements Many individuals have contributed to the direction, the content and the final form of this Preservation Brief. The text and illustration materials were prepared by de Teel Patterson Tiller, Architectural Historian, and David W. Look, AIA, Technical Preservation Services Division. Much of the technical information was based upon an unpublished report prepared under contract for this office by Ralph H. Comey, Robert C. Giebner, and Albert N. Hopper, College of Architecture, University of Arizona, Tucson. Valuable suggestions and comments were made by architects Eugene George, Austin, Texas; John P. Conron, Santa Fe; and David G. Battle, Santa Fe. Other staff members who provided editorial assistance include H. Ward Jandl, and Kay D. Weeks. Washington, D.C. August, 1978 Horne page logo: Traditional adobe repair. Photo: Russell Lee, Farm Security Administration Collection, Library of Congress. http: / /www.nps.gov/ history/HPS /tps /briefs/brief05.htm 11/3/2008 Preservation Brief 5: Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings Page 14 of 14 This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make available information concerning historic properties. Technical Preservation Services (TPS), Heritage Preservation Services Division, National Park Service prepares standards, guidelines, and other educational materials on responsible historic preservation treatments for a broad public. Order Brief I Technical Preservation Services I Preservation Briefs. I Search Questi _ Answers KDW http: / /www.nps.gov/ history /HPS /tps/briefs/brief05.htm 11/3/2008 Fremont Adobe Home About Historic Monterey- Events Historic Buildings Walking Tour For Teachers New Users I Log In 41 o r Agriculture ! History Architecture' Page 1 of 2 Lc o e re 14 Fishing Military Art Maritime Literature ; Nature Contact Us You are here: Welcome to Historic Monterey! > Historic Monterey_ Buildings > Fremont Adobe Fremont Adobe Historic Buildings Alvarado Adobe Boston Store California's First Theatre Casa Amesti Casa Gutierrez Casa Serrano Casa Soberanes Casa de la Torre Colton Hall Cooper - Molera Adobe Custom House Doud House Duarte's Store First Brick House FREMONT HEADQUARTERS Actual ownership of the little adobe has been traced through several Monterey families. In 1861, Antonio Maria Vasquez and his wife, Asuncion Boronda Vasquez, sold it for $200. By the late 1800s, it was the family home of Cristosomo Castro, who came to Monterey during the Gold Rush period. Fremont Headquarters 539 Hartnell Street Monterey, CA 93940 831- 372 -2608 Latitude: 36.596372 Longitude: - 121.895921 Ownership: Monterey History and Art Association Open: Building leased privately for commercial uses OTC % P l-1 &(art CO 0r-C-D FLU S Ff VOI [: XTEP -1op- - WO�Osieil�� s -cU000 © U5r �o ­rHl s >Op�, �yT i- E A TIE hqp://www.historicmonterey.org/?p=fremont—adobe 11/3/2008 Casa Gutierrez Home About Historic Monterey_ ---- -� Events Historic i Buildings Agriculture �Histary - Walking Tour For Teachers New Users I Log In Page 1 of 3 o r I o , n.te r Architectural Fishing Military Art Maritime literature i Mature Contact Us You are here: Welcome to Historic Monterey! > Historic Monterey_ Buildings > Casa Gutierrez Casa Gutierrez Historic Buildings CASA GUTIERREZ Alvarado One of _Adobe the few Boston remaining Store adobes built in California's the simpler First Mexican style Theatre that once lined - Monterey's Casa streets, Casa A_mesti Gutierrez was Casa constructed by Gutierrez Joaquin — Gutierrez. Casa Gutierrez Serrano came to Monterey Casa -- from Chile in Soberanes the 1830s as a Casa de la. young cavalry Torre_ soldier; he - married a Colton Hall daughter of Cooper- the respected Molera Escobar Adobe family, and they had a Custom family of 15 House children. In 1841 he Casa Gutierrez 580 & 590 Calle Principal Monterey, CA 93940 831- 649 -7118 Latitude: 36.596927 Longitude: - 121.896748 Ownership: California State Parks Open: Building leased privately for commercial uses, generally not open to the public. Vv ►N,�(�U�S �U�fi� Wj ��r�� http:// www. historicmonterey .org / ?p= casa_gutierrez 11/3/2008 Vasquez Adobe Page 1 of 3 Home ^s � r Historic i io _i o tic 1 e_ - Monterey_ --� i Events e e. Historic - Agriculture History Architecture Fishing Military Art Maritime Literature j Mature Buildings -_ -- - - - Walking Tour For Teachers New Users I Log In Contact Us You are here: Welcome to Historic Monterey! > Historic Monterey Buildings > Vasquez Adobe Vasquez Adobe Historic Buildings VASQUEZ ADOBE Alvarado. Adobe In the 1830s, Boston Store Guadalupe California's Cantua de First Theatre Vasquez - -- — bought the Casa Amesti modest single story Casa adobe house Gutierrez from Luis Casa Pacencia. Serrano . The house would one Casa day become Soberanes notorious in Casa de la Old Torre Monterey for its Colton Hall association Cooper- with her son Molera Tiburcio Adobe Vasquez. Tiburcio _Custom was well - House known as a charming Doud House — and flamboyant Vasquez Adobe 546 Dutra Street Monterey, CA 93940 Latitude: 36.597854 Longitude: - 121.897676 Ownership: City of Monterey Open: In use by City departments, the building is not generally open to the public. WTO; U &t-t-T 6p W1l'�Ibfws http:// www. historicmonterey .org/ ?p= vasquez_adobe 11/3/2008 ATYPICAL ADOBE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Shinsi. .,r.p C[dar shattas ar Shinji.$ 2.a' r4C lhaothi �� i we' Aaftars 4 -O os.� L'. C- Plata continuous bolts a' C bond boom full Vi. at W i Peinf.,, rods ce,.tinuoua ,C.6' Lintel (r.faWed) Yw4' Speears if N - If a pion for Is a Canerrue Is used i.—.. dinaanv s e'per Wall tone sans site raolnf. If pipes or chaa<s are let ­r- Walls thlchan theca dell. accordinEiy. Ceilin` haidf,r subject 7�} locol requircmeMS. Sae F.N.A.. cads for apecificarlona. �t.6- Solid brid,nI 2 js' J '.r meat suer OWd., .ill f lA'ee- baits Rust resistant tar-it- shield thru -out Cancr." foundation (ale note) e.C' Ti. Zee Hollins strip 1'. e' Trhn le) i Pad ($a. saetlen Ji.W) jti,painf.,rad. continuo.. . LG Cam 6.1. anchor► busty Sd muse at Qi fh porti�laea. Sa cure tli4 e na.ls in assn brick. Me J Q.inf, rod icb Split Or to fir ell 1l.b al reiM, rod.. p.nded metal is,h pearer,(oprianwl bas. beard 16 Fleorin� u, caw bmein� paper b' Sub - floor( lay dimolly) PICTORIAL VIEW showing construction details, including wooden floor. 45 li t� I� li I i I`lbT�: bye-g' AlIbW li ,I it ffI, II 'A F; CUB Pictorial Key Walls IF YOU SEE logs — - -- -- half- timbering adobe rough -faced stone smooth stone stucco - -- -- 1' l;lI patterned wood shingles plain— — wood shingles I i patterned stick- work on walls tt I t 1 J 54 I�II�I IiOmI W nol /c C Roof form IF YOU SEE 1 side - gabled i steep pitch A II n� todcrate or varied pitch low pitch ` t Pueblo Revival, rusncatea stone LJLJLJ t Spanish Colonial (joints L TRY THESE FIRST ( exaggerated) Postmedieval English Pre- Railroad Folk t I wall surface j (first story only) I material extends ---- low patch Beaux Arts, up into gable Chateauesque, Tudor, Craftsman, I without break Queen Anne, French i ':;i� v.- •: ' I Eclectic, Prairie _- second-story nI iFrench Colonial, I overhang I�II�I IiOmI W nol /c C Roof form IF YOU SEE 1 side - gabled i steep pitch A II n� todcrate or varied pitch low pitch ` t Pueblo Revival, � LJLJLJ t Spanish Colonial L t Richar sonian Postmedieval English Romanesque, Shingle —JULJ I j (first story only) j-- - - - - -- � I =g � ---- low patch Beaux Arts, Chateauesque, Italian Renaissance t� Tudor, Mission, Spanish Eclectic, I v.- •: ' Prairie, Modernistic, International, Italian Renaissance, iFrench Colonial, I occasionally in most i i other styles I�II�I IiOmI W nol /c C Roof form IF YOU SEE 1 side - gabled i steep pitch A II n� todcrate or varied pitch low pitch ` t Queen Anne, Shingle, 1 - - - - -- Folk Victorian i front - gabled t' (also tri- gabled) � steep pitch LJLJLJ Shingle, Craftsman, t Colonial Revival, 1 L moderate or varied t_t t Postmedieval English pitch —JULJ I I I f- Stick, Queen Anne, ' 1 I Exotic Revival (Swiss) j-- - - - - -- � I =g � ---- low patch t Beaux Arts, Italian Renaissance 1 Postmedieval English Colonial Revival, Tudor, Postmedieval English TRY THESE FIRST Tudor, Gothic Revival, Stick, Queen Anne, French Colonial, Postmedieval English Georgian, Adam, Early Classical Revival, Folk Victorian, Neoclassical, Shingle, National Folk, Pre- Railroad Folk Craftsman, Spanish Eclectic, Italianate, Monterey, Greek Revival, Dutch Colonial, Spanish Colonial, Adar Gothic Revival, Stick, Queen Anne, less commonly Tudor Folk Victorian, Neoclassical, less commonly Colonial Revival Italianate, Craftsman, less commonly Spanish Eclectic T`1 r't c t:, r rr"'7 T " y, !X, l� low - pitched or flat roof IMl-> CZAt iA--, TO INMWA6AN -AO)' ' normally one story few small w: (originally u commonly n by larger, ro paned windy.._, 1 \ i II I i I I I, 1 I I.� � I I 'I I PRINCIPAL SUBTYPES multiple external doors P17Y:111 ?O ROOF ff D pages 134 -5 P1�1'f ItOOP WIT:I PAR:\VEF CT 77 pagan 136 -7 walls very thick si ucco over adtb, : brick or rubbles T 6 134 Spanish Colonial r. ..... ..... 5rualo OVIFRTMIF IFYPOeA 'or D aoor nas vicinity, California; early 19th century. Sherwood I-louse. tl view o(a little-altered rural survivor of modest scale. The wide pans; of the gable is unusual. California; 1829. Estudillo blouse (restoration). Exterior t of an extended, U- shaped example that survives relatively ate the intersecting shed roofs. to Barbara, California; ca. 1830. Lugo House (restoration). A mple restored as a part of a 20th- century building complex. The !oor and windows would have been unglazed. 1pleton vicinity, California; early lrph century. Blackburn :ourtyard view of a little- altered rural survivor. Note the inter - of planes. Grande City vicinity, Texas; lath celitury. A modest rural two - nple with a Montercy -style cantilevered porch. Note the absence VS. Juan Bautista, California; 1841. Castro House. A very large ex- the A4onterey style. Note the adobe bricks exposed beneath the 2cco. 'Ilie house has been restored since the photograph was terry, California; ca. 1824 (expanded 1846). Amcsti House. atcrey style that survives ,with little alteration. The house has had restoration since the photograph was talten. 5 9 Spanish Colonial 135 I I � i '•`i Il i it � Ilt� � 1 ail � i , II 1i .III I, I1 II 1 I t I t III ( u i I� I 1 I 1 1 f � II; 1 f , L.