appeal of the historic resources board's decision to add prentice residence to city's inventory...

8/13/2019 Appeal of the Historic Resources Board's decision to add Prentice residence to City's Inventory 01-07-14.pdf

1/35236

FromSubmitted by

Subject

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEACouncil Report

January 7 2014Honorable ayor and Members of the City CouncilJason Stilwell, City AdministratorRob Mullane, AICP Community Planning and Building Director

arc Wiener, Senior PlannerConsideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Boards decision (HA13-2) to add the Prentice residence to the City s Inventory of HistoricResources. The decision is being appealed by the property owners: JackPrentice, Lois Prentice, and David Black.

Recommendation Deny the appeal, and uphold the Historic Resources Boards decision toadd the Prentice residence to the City s Inventory of Historic Resources(HA 13-2).

Executive Summary The subject property is located on Camino Real three parcels southeast ofEleventh Avenue. It is in the Single-Family Res idential (R-1) ZoningDistrict . The property is developed with a 788-square foot vernacularstyle residence that was built in 1923. The subject residence is clad withboard-and-batten siding and rests on a mud sill foundation . There is alsoa detached garage at the front of the residence that was built in 1929 andwas reconstructed in 1999.The structures on the property were evaluated for eligibility to be addedto the City s Inventory of Historic Resources at the request of the owners,who wanted this determination preparatory to selling the property. TheHistoric Resources Board reviewed the request at their meeting ofOctober 21, 2013, and on a 4-0 vote, determined that the propertyshould be added to the City s Inventory of Historic Resources. Theowners submitted an appeal of this decision on November 4, 2013 withadditional information in support of the appeal submitted on December17, 2013. The appeal application is included as Attachment A to this staffreport, and the staff report from the October 21, 2013 Historic ResourcesBoard meeting is included as Attachment B.


2/35237

Analysis Discussion:InitialStaff nalysis and Historic Resources Board ReviewThis request was reviewed by the Historic Resources Board HRB) onOctober 21, 2013, af ter a site visit by the Board that same day. The staffreport for that meeting noted that the City contracted with HistoricPreservation Consultant, Kent Seavey, to review the property and itshistorical significance. Mr Seavey conducted a Phase 1 HistoricalResource Evaluation and recommended that the property be added toCarmel's Historic Inventory under California Register Criterion 3, in thearea of architecture, as a good and essentially intact example of Carmel'searlier (1923) vernacular residential design. Mr. Seavey's report alsonoted that the original owners/builders were Celia D. Harris and herfriend Gladys Harvey. Both women had important careers; however,neither is identified in the City's Historic Context Statement.The full analysis and Mr. Seavey's report are included in the staff reportfor the October 21, 2013 meeting (Attachment B to this staff report) . Inaddition to receiving the staff presentation, the Board conducted a publichearing, at which Mr. Matthew Sundt of Maureen Wruck PlanningConsultants, the owner's representative, spoke in opposition to includingthis property in the City's Historic Resources Inventory. Mr. Sundt'sprimary objection was that the residence should not be consideredhistorically significant based on the previous alterations that were madeto the residence over time.The Board, after hearing from staff and Mr. Sundt, considered therequest and determined that the Prentice property did qualify forinclusion in the City's Historic Resources Inventory on a 4-0 vote, withBoard-member Carper absent.Basis for ppealThe applicant has submitted a peer-review analysis prepared by MichaelHibma, from LSA Associates. Mr. Hibma is noted as a Cultural ResourceManager/Architectural Historian.Below is a summary of the concerns raised by Mr. Hibma, along with staffresponses.


3/35238

1. The historic fabric o both the cottage and garage has beensubstantially modified

Response: The analysis prepared by r. Hibma contends that the Phase1 Historical Resource Evaluation does not adequately address thealterations to the residence that occurred in 1942, 1952, and 1999. Mr.Hibma references the addition of the wood deck on the front elevation asan example of alterations that were not addressed in the Phase 1Evaluation.Staff notes that the Phase 1 Historic Evaluation, prepared by Mr. Seaveylists all of the permits that were issued for the property since its originalconstruction in 1923. With regard to the front deck, the report statesthat: In 1999 a low, open wood deck was constructed off theThis feature is accessed by a low brick stoop, with simple wood bencheson either side at the forward limit of the deck. The Phase I Evaluationalso references the 1942 bedroom/bathroom addition and the 1952kitchen addition.In addition to the Phase I Evaluation, the staff report from the October21 2013 Historic Resources Board meeting also lists the permits thathave been issued for the property with information on the scope of workfor each permit. Plans for each permit are on record with the City andwere presented to the HRB at the October meeting to assist in theevaluation of the alterations that ha ve occurred to the residence overtime. These plans will be available for review at the January 7 2014 CityCouncil meeting.The HRB decided that the alterations were consistent with the Secretaryof the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation . The alterations to theresidence primarily occurred along the rear and side elevations, and didnot sign ificantly impact the integrity of the residence, in particular thefront primary elevation.With regard to the detached garage, the property owner providedphotographs from 1999 showing that the garage was rebuilt andexpanded at the front. There is no record of a permit being issued for thework.The Phase I Evaluation does not address the garage reconstruction.However, Mr. Seavey had the opportunity to review the garagereconstruction after preparing the Phase I Eva luation and submitted a


4/35


5/35240

The use of the word or indicates that only one of the above criterianeeds to be met. Pursuant to Criteria 2 , this property can be historicallysignificant for its architectural style and does not need to be associatedwith a recognized architect or builder.Criteria 3 also states that the building need not have been designed byknown architects. Staff notes that there is no record of who designed themain residence.3. The evaluation does not convincingly demonstrate th t the

original owner Ms Celia D. Harris nd Ms Gladys Harvey wereinfluential women in Carmel.

Response : As stated in the previous section, The Phase I HistoricEvaluation recommends that the residence be determined historicallysignificant under California Register Criterion 3, in the area ofarchitecture.A property may qualify under California Criterion 2, which is appliedwhen a property is associated with the lives of persons significant to thepast. However, the Phase I Evaluation does not find that the residence issignificant for its association with Ms. Harris and Ms. Harvey. Rather, thePhase I Evaluation provides information on the individuals who lived inthe residence and states that it warrants further study.4. The evaluation did not present the methods used in the study

nor dequ tely explicate the context of vernacular architecture.Response: As indicated in the Phase I Historic Evaluation, the analysis ofthe subject property was based on the City s Historic Context Statement,which is a valuable tool used by the City in making historicdeterminations. The analysis was also based on building permit recordsto determine the extent of the alterations that have occurred to theproperty over time.With regard to the historicity of single-family residences in Carmel,Historic Context Statement Section 5.6.2 states the following: Carmelh d always been a residential community nd has consciously resistedefforts to develop and urbanize n defiance of economic pressures.Therefore, a substantial percentage of Carmel's residential propertieswere developed prior to World War nd will constitute the bulk of thehistorically significant resources n the city. Described n detail n Section

5


6/35241

5.4, architectural styles include the simple vernacular cottages from theearliest period, craftsman bungalows, and the revival styles popularduring the 1920s and 1930S.Staff notes that the subject residence is a vernacular style residence thatwas built in the 1920s which is identified as a theme in the HistoricContext Statement when describing early development in Carmel.In his analysis Mr. Seavey states that the subject residence clearlyreflects Section 5.4 of the Historic Context Statement which states thata taste for simplicity, often articulated by the use of shingles or board

and-batten siding, transcends the divisions of time and architecturalfashions.Mr. Seavey further notes that the character-defining features of thesubject residence such as board-and-batten siding Dutch-doors andmulti-paned wood casement windows are consistent with thoseidentified in the Context Statement. In staff s opinion the subjectresidence is consistent with and representative of themes identified inthe Historic Context Statement.In addition to the Historic Context Statement Municipal Code Sect ion17.32.040 provides criteria for determining if a structure is eligible andstates that properties that display particularly rare architectural stylesand vernacular/utilitarian types shall be given special consideration dueto their particularly unusual qualities.5 The are numerous better more intact nd more representative

examples of vernacular architecture associated with knownarchitects or designers and/or with person significant to thehistory ofCarmel.

Response: Included in the October 21 2013 HRB packet were Phase 1Historic Evaluations from three other vernacular style residences inCarmel that were built in the 1920s and are historically significant. r.Himba has referenced these three properties as being better examples ofvernacular style architecture from the respective time period.Staff notes that the HRB visited these three sites during the Tour ofInspection. The HRB determined that the subject residence is historicallysignificant based on its own merits and is also a good example of 1920svernacular architecture when compared to the other three residences.


7/35242

Staff nalysis of ppealStaff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold theHistoric Resources Boards decision to add the subject residence to theCity s Inventory of Historic Resources. If the Council denies the appealthen Council should direct staff to return with findings based on thedeliberation at the January 7 2014 meeting.

Previous CouncilAction Decision History:

Attachments:

This Historic Resources Assessment (HA 13-2) appl ication was consideredby the Historic Resources Board on October 21 2013. The decision toinclude the subject property in the City s Historic Resources Inventorywas unanimously passed on a 4-0 vote of the Board.

Attachment A Appeal Application (includes analysis prepared by LSA Associates) Attachment B Historic Resources Board Staff Report dated 11/4/13 (including

attachments)

Reviewed byCity Administrator City Attorney D Administrative ServicesAsst. City Admin. D Dir ofCPB Dir of Public Svcs DPublic Safety Dir D Library Dir D Other D

7


8/35243

111m:m - ' 'ppea1 ApplicatiOn (includes analysis from LSA Associates)CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

APPEAL OF HISTORJC RESOURCES BOARD DECISION(FILING FEE: 295.00*) .,.

NOV 042 13.. I Y- ,

Appellant: _ _ o r n b a_t_e_s___/o_s_h_a_n_d_e_l_l_c_l_a_r_k_Property Owner: Jack & Lois Prent ice David BlackMailing Address: 518 Hurlingham Avenue San Mateo CA 94402

Phones: Day:(a31 ) _7_5_1_ _23_3_o _ Evening: ( )~ ) _ Email: shandell@alornbardolaw. com

Date Board heard the matter: 10/21/2013Appeals t the City Council must be made in writing in the office of he City Clerk within1 working days following the date ofaction by the Historic Resources Board andpaying the requiredfil ing fee as established by City Council resolutionPhysical location of property that is the subject of appeal:

Lot(s): _ _ 6 _ _ _ _ __ Block: APN: ___ _o_ 2_7_3_ _oo_a_ _o_o_oBOARD ACTION BEING APPEALED: Finding the s t ruc tu re to be a s igni f i canth i s t o r i c resource. Placement o f s t ruc tu re /p roper ty on h i s t o r i c inventorylist.

If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicant's representative, please state theevidence that you are an aggrieved party: -

(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)


9/35244

A N T H O N Y L o M B A R D O ssoci TES

A N TH O N Y L . LO MBA RD OKELLY 1\JcCAl lTHY SU TH ERLA N DD E B R A GEMGNANJ T l P T O ND o N N A L . R o V E L L A

Marc WienerSenior PlannerPO Drawer GCarmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921Re: Prentice/AppealDear Mr. Wiener:

P ROF E S S IONAL CORPO RATJON

December 17, 2013VIA EMAIL

450 LINCOLN A V E N U E SU ITE ] 01SALINAS , CA 93901

831 ) 751-2330FAX 831) 751-2331

File No 047 37.000

The attached memorandwn from LSA Associates is submitted in response to the HistoricResources Board s decision to add the residence located at Block L, Lot 6 to the City s historicresources inventory.As indicated in previous discussions with staff, we continue to concur that the property is noteligible for listing on the historic resources inventory for the following reasons: the historicfabric of the cottage and garage has been substantially modified; the garage does not demonstratea significant or important example of John Bathens craftsmanship; the evaluation does notconvincingly demonstrate that the original owners were truly influential to Cannel; theevaluation does not adequately explain the context of vernacular architecture; and finally, thereare already 30 similar propetties listed that are better, more intact examples that retain sufficientintegrity to convey their significance.Unfortunately, the Historic Resources Board did not have the luxury ofan alternate analysiswhen they voted to add the property to the inventory during their October meeting. With th ismemorandum now entered into the record, there is enough evidence to suggest that the propertydoes not merit listing. Should staff disagree and deny the appeal as submitted, we respectfullyrequest that a third party analysis be executed prior to any further action by the City.

Sin e, / >hjt47 1 1 1 d l ~ ? y ~ _/Sh II ClarkLand Use Specialist/spcEnclosure

RECEIVEDDEC 1 72 13

City o a r m ~ l b y t h a S e oPlanning 8: Building Dept.


10/35245

\LR Kf .l l V f RI.SN


11/35246

I : .1\ J . \ I IS I N C.

I The historic fabric o both the collage nd garage has been substantially modified.On Line B6 ofthe Building, Structure, and Object Record a State of California resource form)describing the construction history of the cottage, there are five building permits listed. Thesepermits document the following modifications involving the cottage: original construct ion (1923),a garage addition ( 1929), a bedroom and bathroom addition ( 1942), a kitchen addition (I 952),and a new deck (1999) (Seavey 2013). The evaluation states that both the architect and builder ofthe cottage are unknown.The evaluation makes no further mention of the 1942, 1952, and I 999 alterations and additions,particularly with respect to their location, configuration, size, and the degree to which they do ordo not affect the historical integrity of the cottage. For example, one alteration, a wooden deck onthe main, street-facing fatyade, is evident in the photograph but not discussed in the evaluation.Taken together, these alterations should be discussed as to their potential impact on the property sintegrity of design, workmanship, and materials.A useful approach to understanding what vernacular architecture is, is by defining what it is not .That is, vernacular architecture is not overly formal or monumental in nature, but rather isrepresented by relatively unadorned construction that is not designed by a professional architect.Vernacular architecture is the commonplace or ordinary building stock that is built for meeting apractical purpose with a minimal amount of flourish or otherwise traditional or ethnic influences(Upton and Vlach 1986:xv-xxi, 426-432). Typically associated with older, hand-bui lt ruralbuildings in remote or rural settings, vernacular architecture can also include modern, prefabricated, general purpose steel buildings used as shop space, warehouses, discount-clearancecenters and many other uses (Gottfried and Jennings 2009:9-16).Such a building may be considered eligible if it rises to or surpasses the level of architecturalquality and integrity as expressed by other, similar properties in the historic context of early 20thcentury vernacular architecture in Carmel (National Park Service 1997:20). The evaluation doesnot make an argument based on a comparison with other similar properties; such a comparison isnecessary to relate a property to other examples to establish the importance of its association,unless one of two conditions are met (National Park Service 1997:9). However, the cottage doesnot appear to be the sole example ofvernacular architecture that is important in expressing thiscontext, and, due to its alterations, it may not retain the defined characteristics necessary to be arepresentative example ofvernacular architecture. A comparative examination of other vernacularproperties appears to have been warranted, but was not undertaken.

2. The garage now renovated), although associated with Norwegian-born stone mason JohnBathen, it is not demonstrated by the evaluation to be a significant or important example ofhiswork.The garage was constructed by John Bathen in 1929 and is a simple, detached garage locatednorthwest of the cottage. The evaluation does not demonstrate how the garage embodies aparticular phase in the development of Bathen s career, a distinguishing element of his work, or aparticular theme in his craft, which are aspects of potential significance that commonly reflect thetalents of noted craftsmen (National Park Service 1997:20). Bathens design appears to imitateaspects of the original cottage design. As presented, the evaluation does not convincingly arguethat the garage is an important example of his work. Additionally, the 1999 expansion of he

P:\DAB1301 \Peer_Review_Memo.doc I 217113 2


12/35247

1 ,, 1 : l 1 I I ;-1, I : '

garage, which diminished its integrity of materials, design, and workmanship, appear to havediluted its ability to convey its association with Bathen.3 The evaluation does not convincingly demonstrate that the original owners. Ms. Celia D. Harrisand Ms. Gladys Harvey, were influential women in Carmel.

The evaluation states that the owners/builders of the subject cottage were Celia D. Harris, aretired New York social worker and her friend Ms. Gladys Harvey, who was a native ofWisconsin and a retired principal of the San Jose Americanization School. Both appear to havearrived in Carmel in 1923. The fact that Ms. Harris and Ms. Harvey commissioned theconstruction of the co ttage is not referenced in the eva luation. The evaluation also states that Ms.Harris and Ms. Harvey were active in local organizations relating to social issues, withoutdescribing the organizations and activities, or whether those activities occurred in the cottage(National Park Service 1997: 14-15). The evaluation acknowledges that neither woman wasspecifically described in the Carmel Historic Context Statement, which provides a tenuous basisfor the claim that they were notable figures in Carmel ' s history.

4. The evaluation did not present the methods used in the study, nor adequately explicate the contexto vernacular architecture.The evaluation presents a brief list of references, but the description ofthe study's methods isabridged to the point that it is unclear on what basis the eligibility argument was made. Theevaluation refers to Section 5.4 of the Carmel Historic Context Statement, which briefly describesthe architectural aspects of early Carmel housing as involving, (a] taste for simplicity, oftenarticulated by the use of shingles or board-and-batten siding, transcends the divisions ofarchitecture fashion. The possible significance of a property is determined in the framework ofits historic context. To learn about a property's potential significance, the historic or architecturalcontext needs to (1) describe that aspect of local, state, or national history that the propertyrepresents, (2) determine the importance of that aspect of history, (3) determine ifthat property isa relevant and important example illustrating that aspect of history, (4) how the propertyrepresents that history, and (5) if he property retains the character-defining features and sufficientintegrity to convey that aspect of history that it is associated with. The evaluation states that theproperty mirrors most of hose called out in the [Historic C]ontext [S]tatement (Seavey 2013).This statement could apply to nearly all residential buildings in Carmel built from the late-19thcentury to the 1960s; therefore, its utility in identifying the distinguishing or architecturallysignificant qualities of the subject cottage is questionable.The evaluation does not assess, in light of the alterations to the property, if the cottage retainsenough of its character-defining features to be a representative example of the vernaculararchitecture. The evaluation only refers the reader to information in the Carmel Historic ContextStatement, and there is no discussion of how the cottage reflects or embodies the criticalcharacteristics of this context.

5. There are numerous beller, more intact, and more representative examples ofvernaculararchitecture associated with known architects or designers and/or with persons significant to thehistory ofCarmel.The evaluation states that the cottage is associated with the theme of Architectural Developmentin Ca1111el between 1903 and 1965. The evaluation does not appear to demonstrate convincingly

P:IDABI JOI\Peer_Rcview_Memo.doc (12117113 3


13/35248

that, outside of its temporal association with this 65-year-long phase of architecturaldevelopment , the cottage (I) is an important example of vernacular architecture; (2) representsthe work of master; (3) is associated with important individuals; or (4) represents a significantapplication of vernacular architecture in Carmel. The alterations to the property over the last 90years appear to have also diminished the cottage's ability to convey its significance under thetheme ofCarmel architecture.The Carmel Historic Inventory currently lists 305 properties , 30 ofwhich are described asvernacular-style residences. Of the 30 surviving early-201h century vernacular cottages in Carmel,better, more representative examples of his style exist that retain sufficient integrity to conveytheir significance. Examples of such properties include the Dr. Amelia Gates Cottage (APN 010-265-004) built in 1922; the John Bathen House (APN 0 I0-287-006) built in 192 J; and the DaisyF D. Bostick Cottage (APN 01 0-183-004) built in 1920.

ON LUSIONThis peer review identified several components of the Seavey evaluation that do not sufficientlysupport the conclusion that the cottage at Block L, Lot 6 (APN 0 I 0-273-008) in Carmel, is eligible forlisting in the California Register at the local level for its architectural merit under the theme ofArchitectural Development in Carmel between I 903 and J965 . t is LSA s opinion that, for thereasons expressed previously, this deficiency is primarily based on an insuffi cient analysis of theeffects of previous alterations, the proper ty's relative importance to similar properties , a lack ofstrong associations with individuals important in history, a lack of a clear presentation of theapplicable historic context, and the lack of a comparative analysis of this property's relativeimportance to the other 30 s imilar vernacular properties already listed in the Carmel HistoricInventory.

REFEREN ES ITEDNational Park Service1997 How to Apply the NationalRegister Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior,Washington, D.C.

Gottfried, Herbert and Jan Jennings2009 American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors 1870-1960. W.W. Norton Company, NewYork, New York.

Seavey, Kent L.201 3 Phase I Historical Resource Evaluation Harris-Harvey Cottage City of Carmel MontereyCounty alifornia. Preservation Consultant, Pacific Grove, California.

Upton, Dell, and John Michael Vlach1986 Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture. University ofGeorgiaPress, Athens, Georgia.

P:\DABJ30J\Peer_Review_Mem o.doc I 2/ 17/13) 4


14/35249

Attachment B HR Staff Report and Attachments from 10/21/13

ToFromSubmitted bySubject

Recommendation

CITY OF CARMEl-BY-THE-SEAHistoric Resources Board

October 21, 2013

Cha ir Dyar and Board MembersRob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building DirectorMarc Wiener, Senior PlannerConsideration of a recommendation to add an existing residence locatedin the Single Family Residential R-1) Zoning District to the CitysInventory of Historic Resources

Add the residence to the City s Inventory of Historic ResourcesApplication HA 13-2 Applicant Jack and louis PrenticeBlock l Lot 6LocationAPN

Background

Camino Real 3 parcels southeast of th Ave010-273-008

The subject property is located on Camino Real three parcels southeast of Eleventh Avenue.The property is developed with a 788-square foot Vernacular-style residence that was built in1923. The subject residence is clad with board-and-batten siding and rests on a mud sillfoundation. There is also a detached garage at the front of the residence that was built in 1929and was later reconstructed in 1999. No architect or builder has been identified for the subjectresidence.On September 16, 2013, the owner of the subject residence submitted an application to theCity for a historic review of the property. The City contracted Historic Preservation Consultant,Kent Seavey, to review the property. Mr. Seavey conducted a Phase 1 Historical ResourceEvaluation (refer to Attachment A) and recommends that the property be added to Carmel sHistoric Inventory under California Register Criterion 3, in the area of architecture, as a good


15/35250

HA 13-2 (PrenticeOctober 21, 2013Staff ReportPage 2

and essentially intact example of Carmel s earlier (1923) vernacular residential design. r.Seavey s report also notes that the original owners/builde rs were Cel ia D. Harris and her friendGladys Harvey. Both women had important careers; howeve r, neither is identified in the CitysHistoric Context Statement.Staff has scheduled this matter for the Historic Resources Board to review and determinewhether the property should qualify as historically significant and be added to the City sHistoric Inventory. The property owner is opposed to having the property added to the HistoricInventory and has submitted a letter in opposition to its inclusion in the Historic Inventory(refer to Attachment B .Staff analysisReview Process: CMC Section 17.32.040 states that the Director and the Historic ResourcesBoard, based on recommendations of qualified professionals, shall use certain crite ria in makingdeterminations of eligibility of properties for the Citys Historic Inventory. Below is a summaryof four eligibility criteria that are evaluated in determining whether the property would qualifyas historically significant followed with an analysis by staff.Criteria 1 Should be representative of t least one theme included n the Historic Context

StatementStaff Analysis : With regards to the historicity of single-family residences in Carmet HistoricContext Statement Section 5.6.2 states the following: Carmel had always been a residentialcommunity and has consciously resisted efforts to develop nd urbanize in defiance of economicpressures. Therefore, a substantial percentage of Carmel's residential properties weredeveloped prior to World War and will constitute the bulk of the historically significantresources in the city. Described in detail in Section 5.4, architectural styles include the simplevernacular cottages from the earliest period, craftsman bungalows and the revival stylespopular during the 1920s and 1930s. Staff notes that the subject residence is a Vernacularstyle residence from the 1920s, which is indentified as a theme in the Historic ContextStatement when describing early development in Carmel.In his analysis, Kent Seavey, states that the subject residence clearly reflects Section 5.4 of theHistoric Context Statement, which states that a taste for simplicity, often articulated by the useof shingles or board-and-batten siding, transcends the divisions of time and architecturalfashions. r. Seavey further notes that the character-defining features of the subject

2


16/35251

HA 13-2 (Prentice)October 21, 2013Staff ReportPage 3

residence, such as board-and-batten siding, Dutch-doors, and multi-paned wood casementwindows, are consistent with those identified in the Context Statement. In staff's opinion, thesubject residence is consistent with and representative of themes identified in the HistoricContext Statement.Criteria 2 Shall retain substantial integrityStaff Analysis: While the structure maintains much of its original integrity, there have beenseveral alterations to the residence over the years. The following is a list of permits andalterations that have been made to the buildings on the property.

Permit C P 713 1923)- Construction of the existing cottage Permit C P 2175 1929)- Construction of the detached garage Permit C P 989 (1942) - Construction of a 100-square foot bedroom/bathroom

addition at the rear (northeast) corner of the residence Permit C P 2359 (1952) - Construction of an 80-square foot kitchen addition on the

south elevation of the residence Permit 99-120 (1999) - Construction of a 20-square foot addition at the rear

(northeast) corner of the residence Garage Reconstruction - The property owner has provided photographs from 1999

showing that the detached garage was rebuilt and expanded at the front. There is norecord of a permit being issued for the work. Photographs of the work to the garagehave been provided as Attachment C ased on the photographs, the rebuilt garagematches the appearance of the original garage.

With regards to the 1999 reconstruction of the garage, Mr. Seavey has provided a supplementalanalysis, included in Attachment A which was not provided in the original Phase 1 HistoricEvaluation report. Mr. Seavey notes that when the garage was rebuilt in 1999, the spatialrelationship between the garage and residence was maintained, and the garage was rebuiltwith in-kind materials that matched the design and texture of the original garage. In Mr.Seavey's opinion, the reconstruction of the garage is consistent with the Secretary of theInterior's Standards for Rehabilitation , under Standard 9. Staff concurs with Mr. Seavey' sanalysis on the rehabilitation of the garage.


17/35252

HA 13-2 (Prentice)ctober 2 , 2013

Staff ReportPage 4

With regards to the alterations that have been made to the main residence, in staff s opinionthe alterations have not substantially diminished the integrity of the subject residence. Thealterations have primarily occurred to the rear of the residence and have not significantlyaltered the appearance of the front (primary) elevation.Criteria 3. Should be a minimum of50 years of age.Staff Analysis: The principal structure was built in 1923 and meets the 50 year requirement.However, the detached garage was rebuilt in 1999.Criteria 4.

1.

To qualify for the Carmel Inventory, a historic resource eligible under CaliforniaRegister Criteria No. 3 (subsection {C {3 of this section) only, should:Have been designed and/or constructed y an architect, designer/builder orcontractor whose work has contributed to the unique sense of time and placerecognized as significant in the Historic Context Statement; or

2. Have been designed and/or constructed y a previously unrecognized architect,designer/builder or contractor if there is substantial, factual evidence that thearchitect, designer/builder or contractor contributed to one or more of thehistoric contexts of the City to an extent consistent with other architects,designer/builders or contractors identified within the Historic ContextStatement; or

3. Be a good example of an architectural style or type of construction recognizedas significant in the Historic Context Statement; or

4. Display a rare style or type for which special consideration should e given.Propert;es that display particularly rare architectural styles andvernacular/utilitarian types shall e given special consideration due to theirparticularly unusual qualities. Such rare examples, which contribute todiversity in the community, need not have been designed y known architects,designer/builders or contractors. Rather, rare styles and types that contributeto Carmel s unique sense of time and place shall e deemed significant.

4


18/35253

HA 13-2 (Prentice)October 21, 2013Staff ReportPage 5

Staff Analysis: Subsections 1 and 2 require that the structure was designed by an architectwhose work has contributed to the City. As previously noted, there are no records of whodesigned the house.

Subsection 3 requires that it be a good example of an architectural style or type ofconstruction recognized as significant in the Historic Context Statement. As previously noted,the subject Vernacular-style residence is recognized in the Historic Context Statement as beinga significant style of architecture in Carmel during the 1920s.Subsection 4 states that rare architectural styles and vernacular/utilitarian types shall egiven special consideration, as they contribute to the diversity in the community. The subjectresidence has been classified by r . Seavey as having a Vernacular-style design.

The City's Historic Inventory contains a total of 305 properties, of which 30 are developed withVernacular-style residences. Staff has included, as Attachment D, Phase 1 Historic Evaluationsfrom three other historic Vernacular-style residences in Carmel that were built in the 1920s. Instaff's opinion, the subject residence is important given its age and style, and would contributeto the diversity of the community.Property Owner Comments

As previously noted, the property owner has submitted a letter in opposit ion to the property'sinclusion in the City's Historic Inventory. In the letter, the property owner states that thereport prepared by Kent Seavey is inaccurate, because it identifies that only the garage doorwas replaced when in fact the entire garage was rebuilt . Staff notes that while there is nopermit on record for the reconstruction of the garage, the property owner has providedphotographs dated from 1999 showing that the garage was in fact rebuilt. Staff notes thatsince the property owner submitted the letter, the garage reconstruction has been evaluatedby Mr. Seavey.The property owner would also like the Historic Resources Board to consider the condition ofthe residence. The residence is currently on a mud sill foundation, and according to theproperty owner, the residence is in need of repai r. Staff notes that the structural condition ofthe building should not be considered a factor when considering whether the property shouldqualify as historically significant.


19/35254

HA 13-2 Prentice)October 21 2013Staff eportPage 6

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment Historic Resource Evaluation by Mr Kent Seavey Attachment B Property Owner letter Attachment C Photographs of Garage dated 10/13/99 Attachment D hase 1 Historic Evaluations from three other Vernacular -style

Residences in Carmel built in the 1920s

6


20/35255

- tl

PRIM RY RECORDrStateof California - The e s o u r ~ AgencyOEPARTt.ENTOF PARKS AND RECREATION Prtmary -----------------------------------HR rTrinomialNRHP Status Code 5 2Other ListingsR&vlew Code Reviewer DatePage 1 of 3 Resource Name or : (Assigned by recorder) Harris-Harvey CottageP1 . Other tdentlfier:P2. Location: 0 Not for Publication jgJ Unrestricted a. County Montereyand (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map aa necessary.)b. USGS 7.5 Quad Date T ; R 1/4 of 1/4

c. Address : 3 SEof 11th east side of Gamino Real City Carmel by-the-Sea Zip 93921d. UTM : (Give more than one for large and/llnear resources) mEle. Other Locational Data (Enter Parcel , legal description, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)

8/kLLot 6mN

Parcel No. 010-273..008P3. Oeser ptlon Q s : l t e ~ t s ~ e t : m r t s . l r l : i . l : E d : s q l , l l l i a > , < O ' d i J l , a l 3 r c D : x s , s i z e , d i j , f l j t x x . r d : r e i

S.

A one-story, wood4ramed 1923 Vernacular cottage (CBP 713 . irregular In plan, resting on a mudsill foundation. The exterior wallcladding is veJtica:l board-and-batten, The low-pitched side-gabled main root has overhanging eaves with exposed rafter-tails. Ametal or fiberglass rain gutter covers the ratter-tails along the west facing facade. ln1929, an attached wood-framed front-gabledone-car garage was constructed ott the norlh side of he facade (CBP 2175), employing the satn6 board-and-batten exterior wallcladding as the origlna/1923 cottage. The garage entry is arched, and has had ts originalpaired outward opening wood doorsreplaced in 1999 with the current v e r h e d ~ door, with its decorative wood batten trim , The roof pitch of the garage appears tobe slightly steeper than that of the original side-gabled root of the cottage. There is one interior brick chimney present It is locatedjust below the ridge line of the main building block about midway along this feature. All roof covering is in wood shakes.Fenestration is irregular, with single and paired multlpaned wOOd casement windows. ~ sets of these flank the vertically plankedwood Dutch-door entry, with decorative metal strap-hinges, centered in the building envelope.

P3b. Resource Attril)utes: (List attributes and codes) HP2- Single Family Property'>4, Resource& Present IX Building n Structure n Object f l Site n District

1. ~ Ctwlol'l: (Cil& sUNey report and otner soorCM, Or eYRe ' unone

) +Jl V0 Other (Isolates, etc.)

Pe. Date Constructed/Age and Source0 Prehistoric ~ Historic 0 BothOwner ancf Address& Lois Prentice

1 5

P9. Date Recorded: 1019 2013P10. Survey iype: (Describe)Intensive-required CQA review

~ . h m e n t 0 NONE ~ Continuation Sheet 0 District Record 0 Rock Art Record 0 Other: (List)0 LocatiOn Map ~ Building,S1ructure,and Object Record 0 Unear FeatiKe Record 0 Artifact Recordo SketChMap o Archaeotoglcal Record o Ml llrlg StationRecord o PhOtograph Record52SA (1 tll5) HlstoryMake r SanBuenavent lllll ResearchAssocialeS


21/35256- -

State ofCalifornia The Resources ~ J e n c yDEPARTJ.ENTOF PARKS AND RECREATIONBUILDINGt STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORDPrimary - - - - HRI

Page 2 of 3 NRHP Status Code 5S2Resource Name or : (Assigned by recorder) Harris-Harvey Cottage81 . Historic Name:82. Common Name :63. Original Use : residence 84 . Present USe: residence85. Architectural Styfe: Vernacular86. Construct ion History: Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)

Constructed 1923 (CBP# 713); garage added In 1929 (CBP#217S) ; bed/bath add. in 1942 (CBP# 989) ' kitchen ad


22/35257

Staleof California The Resou1'cesA lencYDEPAAThENTOF PARKSANDRECREATlONCONTINU TION SH T

Primary #HRJ tTri'nomiai

a g e 3 of 3 Re&ource Name or t (Assigned by recorder) Harris-Harvey Cottage{ec crded by :Kent L. eavey Dat e 101912013 Q Continuation 0 Update

P3 (cont.) ln \999 (CBP# 99-120} low, open wood deck 'MIS constructed off the facade. This feature is a


23/35258

Marc WienerFrom:SentTo:Subject:

Dear Mark:

kent Seavey t I 5b S I)Thursday, October 17 2013 10 :52 MMarc WienerHarris/Harvey Cottage

Thank you for the information regarding the 1999 rebuilding of the attached garage onthe Harris/Harvey Cottage on Camino Real (APN 818-273-888). I did not see mention of a newgarage in the existing building records. The feature (garage) appears to be generallyconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation, under Standard9. The garage door while differentiated from the original double doors, is compatible withthe historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion and massing of the earliergarage. In retrospect the loss of original materials may have been attributable to thecondition of the feature, ie. deterioration, structural instability, etc. we do not know asthe record i s mute. Consistent with Standard 6, the deteriorated features were replaced within kind materials that matched the original in design and texture. The property s t i l l retainsthe spatial relationships that characterized the original features. You noted the existenceof photographs that show the garage in the process of rehabilitation. Those could be used asdocumentary evidence i removal of the existing garage were to be undertaken in future, toreturn the feature to i ts original appearance . As noted, the rehabilitation work done in 1999on the exterior of the residence and attached garage appears consistent with the Secretary sStandards and has retained a good example of Carmel ' s earlier vernacular residential designthat, based on the 2888 Carmel Historic Context Statement, should qualify the cottage forlocal l isting in the Carmel Historic resource Inventory .Most Sincerely,Kent Seavey

1


24/35259

Property Owner Letter

October 14 2013TO Marc Wiener Senior PlannerFROM Jack and Lois Prentice homeowners

Susan Fox, agent for the owners

VIA EMAIL mwiener@ci carmel ca us

RE Historic Determination of Camino Real 2 SE of 11h CarmelDear MarcThank you for allowing us to present some facts regarding this property that we feel were not taken intoaccount in Mr . Seavey s report dated 10/9/2013. Also Mr. Seavey did not tour the interior of theproperty upon his inspection to understand the overall condition of the property. The Prentices whoare 91 years young have recently moved from the property to a local assisted living facility and areanxious to resolve this issue so they can finalize the sale of the property.First it should be pointed out that the exist ing garage which is now attached to the home wasconstructed as a new structure in 1999. Mr. Seavey reports that just the garage door was replaced sowe would like the report corrected to reflect this addition. Also, we have supplied photographs thatshow the construction o the new garage and various other alternations to the property in 1999including the shed addition to the south side of the house. The owners also would like the report toreflect that when they made improvements in 1999 the property was not deemed historical so theywere allowed to make these improvements.We also think it is important to point out that the structure is sitting on a mud sill and has nofoundation. The single wall construction and lack of foundation have to be considered by any futureowner as to the overall structural integrity of the home in future years. The chimney has also beeninspected and again does not have any foundation and is unreinforced so it poses safety issues. Pleaserefer to Peninsula Home Inspection prepared by Michael Rachel dated 10/1/2013 which we previouslyforwarded to you. The entire roof needs to be replaced and the skylights are leaking so they need to bereflashed. The shed roofs that were added in the rear part ofthe house are tar and gravel and also needattention. In summary the overall condi tion of the house is not good.There have been other additions to the rear of the property over the years which are very obvious whenyou walk through the house. The owners also demolished the existing brick steps to the entrance of theproperty and replaced them with an attached wood deck and pavers for the walkways and driveway.They also removed a set of patio doors in the back of the property and replaced them wi th a windowand installed skylights.The structure itself although very wonderful from the curb has no structural integrity and is not in goodcondi tion and any future homeowner would likely need to demolish the existing structure and build ahome that meets all current building and energy standards.In conclusion taking into account all the alterations and additions that have been made to this homeover the years; knowing the lack of structural integrity o this single wall constructed home which hasbeen well documented and the overall condition of the home we kindly request that the property not


25/35260

e deemed historical since it will negatively impact its valuation marketability and also create futureproblems or a new homeowner.Thank you in advance or your consideration.


26/35261

Photographs ofGarage Remodel dated 10/13/99)Original garage - Front ofproperty from Camino Real facing east

:f . : \ . ..

Garage under construction - Front ofproperty from Camino Real facing east


27/35262

__ . . . . . u v.o..u . . . . . . uu.ac , crnacrnar-styte es encesin Carmel built in the 1920sP-RtMARV: fllCORO . ; .

q t t t ~ r U ~ t t n g sf t ~ y t & w Code

f Ot W -

581 Date

Page 1 of 3 Resource Name or : Assigned by recorder) Dr. Amelia Gates CottageP1. Other Identifier:P2. Location: 0 Not for Publication ~ U n r e s t r i c t e d a. County Monterey

and P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)b. USGS 7.5 Quad Date T ; R 1/4 of 1/4 of Secc. Address: City Carmel-by-the-Sea :Ztp 93921d. UTM : (Give more than one for large and/linear resources) mEle. Other Locational Data Enter Parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)

3 south of 7th, wlside Gamino Real (Bik N, Lot 11)mN

Parcel No . 010-265-004p 3. Desertpt on ~ r e r u c e c m s r r a ; : x - e l e r r e r f s frd..def... < 1 P5b . ~ d A ' d o : ( V e w , < t m , a : x e N : l t )

11 . ~ r t Cltatron: Cite StJrvey report and other sources, orenter none )CityofCarmel-by-the-Sea Survey 1989-1996

-..,. ~ ~ w e s t a t e a s t t a . . . " i n g f a c a d 9117AJ1, 9500-5Date Constructed/Age and Sourc0 Prehistoric 8; Historic 0 Both

Address

10/ 14/2001Survey Type: Describe)Historic Resource Inventory 2001

n s : c h m 6 n t s o NONE 0 Continuation Sheet 0 District Record 0 Rock Art Record 0 Other: List)o Location Map BI Building,Structure, and ObjectRecord 0 Unear Feature Record 0 Artifact Record0 Sketch Map 0 Archaeological Record 0 Milling Station Record 0 Photograph RecordDPR 523A (1 195) His1oryMaker SanBuena\lenlura ResearchAssoclsles


28/35263

c : ~ ; L : O I N ' G : s T ' R ' U ' ~ l - u R ~ ~ ~ N ~ osJecT RecoRo HRI Primary. . - - - of NRHP Status Code 5S1

Resource Name or :(Assigned by recorder) Dr. Amelia Gates CottageHistoric Name: Dr. Amelia Gates Cottage

. Common Name:3. Original Use: residence 84. Present Use: residence

. Architectural Style: Vernacular cottageConstruction History:(Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)

Constructed 211922 (Cbp 343); undated room addition to the NW cr, and small addition to SW cr.; undated window and doorchanges on east facing facadeMoved? I i No : ' Yes I Unknown Date : Original Location:Related Features: square board batten caniage hse. at street in front (east) of cottage (suggested date of 1908 notreflected on 1910 Sanborn map).

. Architect: designer/Or. Amelia Gates b Builder: M.J. Murphy ?)Significance : Theme: Architectural Development Area: Carmel-by-the-Sea

Period of Significance: 1903-1940 Property Type: single family residence Applicable Criteria: CR2,3(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)

The Amelia Gates Cottage is significant under California Register criterion 2, for its pr imary association with Dr. Gates, one of anumber of educated independent women who designed buildings in Carmel during the formative years of ts development. Italso is significant as an example of early vernacular architecture.Dr. Howard Gates and his pediatrician wife, Dr. Amelia Levinson Gates constructed one or two small cabins on their CaminoReal parcel about 1910, for vacationing between their medical practices in San Jose and Los Angeles, and frequent tripsabroad for advanced study in Europe. They had met as students at Johns Hopkins University and both had distinguishedprofessional careers. Dr. Howard Gates died in Rome in 1913, where he was chief surgeon of a large hospital. Amelia returnedto San Francisco, where she pioneered in preventative care for children, and helped establish the Florence Ward Hospital. Sheretired to Carmel, replacing her earlier cabin with a cottage of her own design in 1922. The jerkin-headed, or clipped gables ofthe cottage reflect features found on Bavarian farmhouses, with which she was familiar from her european travel. All changes tothe cottage prior to 1947 are of her making. She would later (1927) design and supervise construction on a two-storycommercial block at the SE comer of Ocean Ave. and Monte Verde, that drew its inspiration from the same architecturalsources. Dr. Gates continued to practice pediatrics in Carmel until her death in 1947. Her home on Camino Real became ameeting place for professional and creative people, including local suffragettes, labor leaders, financiers and creative artists inmany fields. She was active in community affairs, including the preservation of Devendorf Plaza for public use. A brilliantsc ientist, intellectual and committed community activist, Dr. Gates was also one of a number of educated, independent womenwho designed and constructed buildings during a productive period of her ife in the formative years of the village. The GatesCottage clearly reflects the findings of and is consistant with the 1997 Carmel Historic Context Statement under the theme ofarchitectural development.

. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 - Single Family Property HP38- Women's property2. References:Carmel building permits, Carmel Planning Dept., City Hall, CarmelCarmel Historic Context Statement 1997Hale, Sharron, A Tribute to Yesterday, Valley Press:Santa Cruz,1980 p. 15.Monterey Herald, Fore Qbituary, 6/2147

- Gates Obituary, 6/2/47. Remarks: Zoning R-1CHCS (AD)

Evaluator:of Evaluation:

Kent L. Seavey1011412001

(This space reserved for official comments.)

- ---- --- - -- - - - - ---5238 (1195) HislOI}'Maker 4

(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)

j


29/35264

....,._, ,.,,,,.,_ , - , ,.,,,, ,,.. - - '- ' 'L...I '\IIUJ 'I-ONTINUATION SHEET HRI______________________________r_n_o_m_a____________________________Je of

~ c o r d e d by :Resource Name or : (Assigned by recorder)

Kent L. Seavey

P h o t o g r a ~ ~ r a w i n g

..; . ; .. , .. 4 ;

.

Dr. Amelia Gates CottageDate 10/14/2001 / '] Continuation I 1Update

Des::Cb c Pt do: f:o/eH ciie,aressO 1 )(View toward ). Photo No: 843 -, .

. : . ~ : ~ ~ ==--=======================---------L (1195) HistoryMaker 4


30/35265

.P .r1maey.=t_ . .Hflt . - - , . - - . , - ~ - . . . . . . . , _ - , - - ~ ~ - - - : . _ , _ . . . . _ ~ - - ' - -i tf.hroritlaf "".......... . - ~ - - ' - - - . ~ . , - - . - - ' - - - ~ ~ - - -. - NRHP $tatus Code'. te t ~ . .~ v 1 e w C o d ~ f\eV'i Wl'tt: ..

.581

Page 1 of 3 Resource Name or : (Assigned by recorder) John Bathen HouseP . Other Identifier:P2. Location : 0 Not for Publication 181 Unrestr icted a. County Montereyana (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)b . USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R 1 4 of 1/4 of Sec

c. Address: City Carmel by-the-Sea Zip 93921d. UTM : (Give more than one for large andllinear resources) mEle. Other Locational Data (Enter Parcel#, legal description, directions to resource, elevation , etc ., as appropriate)

Santa Lucia 2 NEof San Antonio (Bik. Z, Lots 14, 16 & pt. 8/k. 149)

B

m

Parcel No. 010-287..()()6P3. o escrlptlon ([m:;ltere;a,.rooan::filsrmj::Jet:mll'is.lrxi..x:eOOsg'l,l'll:iailS, X ) I l t i : J l . ~ . s i z e , s e t t r g , c m ~ )A one-andtwo-story vernacular residence, slightly ell-shaped in plan, resting on a stone foundation. The exterior wall cladding is acombinationof verticalboard-and-batten and Carmel stone on the one-story section, and wood shingle and Carmel stone on thetwo-story portion, to the north. The lowpitched cross-g;Ibled root system is covered in composition shingle. rhere is one Carmelstone interior chimney. It is located toward the east, on the north side-elevation of the two-story section of the house. An exteriorwooden staircase with simple horizontal raRing, recently rebuilt, rises from West to East along the North side-elevation accessingthe second floOr. Fenestration is irregular with a combination of fixed, plate-glass, wood casement type and sliding wood windows Invarying sizes. Someof he wood casement type form a band along the West side of the one-story wing. There is a narrow, fixedstained..glass window, flanking the principal entry, which faces south on the slightly projecting two-story ell. The gable endof theone-story wing has large, multi-panedglazed sliding doots centered In the wall, which is covered ill coutse(f ashlar Carmel stone.The North endof the detached, 1939 flatroofed Carmel stone garage creates an irtterior garden wall tor the property which hasextensive Carmel stone patios, as well as an outdoor stone fireplace in the NWcr. of the parcel. The house is sited in an informallandscape setting of mature pines and cypress with vine-covered walls and fences andseveral flower beds.

P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 Single FamilyProperty

. Report i o n : (Cite StJrvey reportand other sources, or enter 'none")One

, : i::.t 0 Elemsnt of District D Other (Isolates, etc.)P5b. ~ d R t t > { ' l e N d : t e , a m s s b l # )L ingNatw9S1side--elev.,812012003, 512713AP6. Date Constructed Age and Sourc0 Preh istoric ~ Historic 0 Both19211192911939, Cannelbldg.recordsP7. Owner and AddressRichard SttJ/IaFenton25 HydeParkGardens, Flat 1oLJJndon W22LZ. Eng/lind

P9. Date Recorded; 8/21/2003P10. Survey Type: (Describe)Intensive/requiredCEQA review

\ttachments 0 NONE li:l ContinuationSheet 0 District e c o r ~ 0 Rock Art Record o Other: (LiSt)0 Location Map 0 Building, Structure, and Object Record 0 LinearFeature Record 0 Artifact Record0 SketchMap 0 Archaeological Record 0 Milling Station Record 0 PhotographRecornPR 523A (1f.l5) H storyMake r s a n e u e n a n t ~ r a ' i e s e a r c h A s s o o l a t e s


31/35266

P.age 2 of 3 NRHP Status Code 5S1Resource Name or II : (Assigned by recorder) John Bathen House

81 . Historic Name: John Bathen House82. Common Name : Finestre 83. Original Use : residence 84. Present Use : residence85 Architectural Style: vernacular86. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations. and date of alterations)

Constructed 1921 (CBP# 249); twstorystone addition 1927 (CBP 1934)B7. o v e No 0 Yes 0 Unknown Date : Original Location:B8. Related Features: Detached flat-rooted Carmel stone one-car garage, 1939 (CBP# 475)B9a. Architect: b. Builder: John Bathen (192711939)810. Significance: Theme: Architectural Development Area : Carmel by-the-Sea

Period of Significance: 1903-1940 Property Type: single family residence Applicable Cr it eria : CR3(Discuss importance In terms alhistorical or architectural context as defined by heme, period and geographic scope.Also address integrtty.)The John 8athen House iS significant under California Register criteria 3, under architecture, as an excellent example of Bathen'sbuilding skills as a stonemason. The property exhibits several styles of Carmel stone masonry, including patios, and may havebeen used as an example of the craft tor potential clients. John Bathen was a native of Norway, where he had been a isherman.He came to Carmel in the early 1920s with his English wife Uta, ana purchased a portion of the Emi_Y Bell property containing aone-story, rectangular board-and-batten servants quarters. He added a two-story wing to the north end of the existlng buildingthat year, employing carmel stone, and some wood framing for the second floor. He built a Carmel stone garage, fronting on SantaLucia in 1939 that is part of the historic resource. Bathen acquired a quarry in Carmel Valley and established the Santa LuciaQuarries LTD, on Dolores St. between Ocean & 7th Ave ., providing "building stone for all purposes , Art Tile and Patio." He is knownto have constructed several small stone houses on theWest side of MissiOn between 4th and 5th Aves. that may be the currentStonehouse Court, as well as instructing builder Frank Lloyd in the craft of stone masonry between 19401942. According to a

armel Pine one tribute, written at the time of Bathen's death in June of 1945, well known Cennelite Dora Hagemeyer noted thatBathen and his wife Uta had become an integral part of Carmel, Everything concerning the welfare of the village or Its residentsconcerned them. They took an active part in the preservation of the true cannel tradition.... His wife Uta who INOrked in the realtyofflce of Elizabeth McClung White, was well known as a costume designer for the Forest Theater and for her close association withSunset School and its activities. The John Bathen house retains Its historic integrity to a high degree and clearly reflects the thefindings of, and is cons istent with the 1997 Carmel Historic Context Statement under the theme of architectural development.

811 . Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and COdes) HP2 -Single Family Property812. References: r - - --

Carmel bldg. records, Planning Dept., City Hall, CarmelCarmel Historic Context Statement 1997Carmel Pine Cone, 6/15/45,8/3/45Hale, Sharron. A Tribute to Yesterday, Valley Publishers: SantaCruz. 1980, p. 45Harrison Memoriall.ibrarv. Historv Files813. Remarks : ZoningR-1CHCS(AD)814. Evaluator: Kent SeaveyDate of Evaluation: 812112003

(This space reserved tor official comments.)

l

z

z_0z0 .

N

SANTA soL : etA . / .-

, @It'


32/35267

Pdmary - t ~ R l IIr\nomiat .

Page of Resource Name r : Assigned by recorder) John Bathen HouseRecorded byKent L. Seavey ate 812112003 ~ Continuation 0 Update

~ ) ~ c t R n : x V e w , < i : m , ~Looking S at the North (rear) elevationand West side-elevation. 812Q/200351271-BA

SanBuenaYenturaAesean tJAssoelales


33/35268

- Primary -HRJ ____ - ___ _ _ _ _ ---------- -tiof.G . i i f o m i1 - T h e R e ~ o l : i c e s A g e n c yPAR"fMENt OF PARKS A "fD RECREATIONijrM Y RECORD . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ t ~ ; c o d ; -- - - - - 5s_ ------- ---' Other l ist ings . _ - - - - - - . - : - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - . : l ~ t e w _oae -_ :-- R e y i ~ ~ e r ~ = - - = : : - : : : ..=;: : : : : : : = ~ = = - = - - - - = - o a ~ ~ = =:.::...Page 1 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) Daisy F D. Bostick Cottage.P 1. Other Identifier:P2. LOcation: 0 Not for Publication ~ U n r e s t r i c t a. County Monterey

~ n d (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)b . USGS 7.5' Quad Date T R 1/4 of 1/4 of Secc. Address : City Carmel by-the-Sea Zip 93921d. UTM: (Give more than one tor large and/linear resources) mEl mNe. Other Locational Data (Enter Parcel#, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)

2 Wof 12th, wlside Lincoln (Bik 133, Lots 7 9) Parcel No. 010-183-004P3. Description (D::scti::erm:ureardJs r a p r e e r r a - t s l o c l l ; : E ~ ~ an:lbn,aftefattrs size,m-g,ardb:lJrd:lrEs)

S.M

A one-story, wood-framed vernacular cottage, irregular in plan, resting on a concrete perimeter foundation. The exterior wallcladding is a combination of wide, horizontal shilap wood siding, and vertical board-and-batten. The steeply pitched roof system iscross-gabled, with a lower stepped gable to the SW It ha s slightly flared eaves wlexposed ratter tails where it overhangs the n sideelevation. There are two exterior eave -wall chimneys. One of carmel stone, along the north side elevation, and the second, on theeast side of the steppedSWwing, constructed from granitic beach rock. A rectangular banked bay window projects slightly from thegable end on the north side of the east facing facade. It is capped with a narrowshed roof wlexposed rafter tails. All roof covering iscomposition shingle. Fenestration is irregular, wla combination of single, fixed multi-paned wood windows, and paired and bankedmulti-paned casement type wood windows, as well as multi-paned glazed wood French doors. There is a particularly nice large, ttxedmulti-paned focal window in the SWgable end, capped with a segmentallyarched fan light. The cottage sits well back on theproperty. behind an ivy encrusted grape-stake fence in a natural landscape setting of mature oaks and low groundcover.

P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 - Single Family Property HP3B - Women s property4. Resources Present ts . : : : t c m c t A U o ( V e w . ~ . ~ )Looking west at east facing facade,2110/01P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source0 Prehistoric ~ Historic 0 Both1920 Carmelbldg. recordsP7. Owner and AddressJames F. Cooks 111 Trust1012HoneysucleDr.San Marcos,CA 92069

PS. Recorded : N : l r m , ~ . a r d a i t e : s )KentL. SeaveyPreservation Consultant310UghthouseAve.Pacific Grove, CA 93950

.achments 0 NONE ~ C o n t i n u a t i o n Sheet 0 District Record 0 Rock Art Record 0 Other: (List)0 Location Map Building, Structure, and Object Record 0 Linear Feature Record 0 Artifact Recordo Sketch Map 0 Archaeological Record [ ] Milling Station Record 0 Photograph Record(1.95) His Oij'Maket San Buena'-"' n Ura Aesearoh Associates


34/35269

1.5P AfMi5N?DF P i . : F l K ~ ; N D R ~ R , E A T I O N -- -Pt mary .# __

O : D i N G , STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT. ~ E C R D liRJ . ..___.___.... .J.-- . - - - -..- - - - - -- . - - --- -- -- ' . ---- -- - --- -- - - ---- ---Page 2 of 3 NRHP Status Code 5S1

Resource Name or #:(Assigned by recorder) Daisy F. D Bostick Cottage.81 . Historic Name:82 . Common Name:B3. Original Use: residence 84. Present Use: residence85. Architectural Style: vernacular cottage86. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)

Constructed 1920 Cbp 131); addition 1921 (Cbp 319); addition to east 1925 ( Cbp 939); addition to south 1931 {Cbp 2375);remodel1934 (QJp 2616)87. Moved? i8J No 0 Yes 0 Unknown Date : Original Location:88. Related Features:

B9a . Architect: designer/Daisy F. D Bostick (1920-21) b. Builder: Walter B. Snook (1934)81 o. Significance: Theme: Arts & Culture/Architectural Development Area : Carmel by-the-Sea

Period of Significance: 1903-1940 Property Type: single family residence Applicable Criteria: CA 2,3(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period and geographicscope .Also address integrity.)The Daisy F. D. Bostick Cottage is significant under California Register criteria 2, tor its association with Daisy Fox DesmondBostick, an early resident and significant chronicler of daily life in the village. It is also significant under criteria 3, in the area ofarchitecture as a well preserved example of vernacular cottage architecture in Carmel.Daisy Desmond Fox Bostick was a San Jose high school teacher who first came to Carmel in 1910, living for a time with the PerryNewberry family. She was an early manager of the Pine Inn, was one of the


35/35

: Stat Jrcaflforn a-TheResourcesAgency Primary - _ _ __ - -- -- -bEPAATMENTOFPARKSAND RECREATION RJ 1iCONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _ ~ = _ : : / -- - - - Page 3 of 3 Resource ame or # : (Ass;gned by recorder) Daisy F. D. Bostick Cottage.Recorded by :KentL. Seavey Date 412612002 c o n t i n u a O Update81 0. Carmel's cur rent Design Traditions policy also renects the property's attributes. A simple, primary bu ilding form; variety in thecomposition of buildings; an understated building scale; a diversity of textures and details that provide a sense of human scaie. All areapt descriptions of the Bostick cottage. Daisy purchased the 1920 garage that occupied the site, and converted it Into her first Carmelhome. The second owner, Hobart P. Glassell, owner of a mens clothing store on Ocean, added the east wing in 1925. A new owner,Peter Mawdsley continued the expansion with the south wing in 1931 all n keeping with the original cottage character of the building.The last alteration was a minor remodeling for Vera Bernhard by MOnterey builder Walter B. Snook in 1934. Since that time no changeshave been recorded, save tor a carpor t constructed in 1963, that is no longer present.The design sources tor the vernacular cottage come from American adaptations of the English Arts & Crafts tradition in the early part ofthe twentieth century. The building shapes, especially steep pitched roofs w flared eaves, tend to echo the popular Tudor andContinental medieval revivals of the era. Building materials like redwood and pine are focally derived as is the favored Carmel stone forchimneys, retaining walls, walkways and patios, although local granitic beach rock is used as we ll. Fenestration favors large,multi-paned focal windows tor garden views, and to bring as much light Into the interior as possible. Wooden sliders and casement typewindows are favored tor ventilation. Banked windows with small panes, once again referencing a medieval decorative volcabulary, arecommon. The Bostick cottage, though enlarged by later owners, has retained most if not all of these vernacular characteristics overtime. The cottage clearly reflects the findings of and is consistent with the 1997 Carme l Historic Context Statement under the themes ofart and culture, and architectural development.

appeal of the historic resources board's decision to add prentice residence to city's inventory...

Documents