Loading...
Windshield Survey & Assessment - HRI Forms - 1995REVIEW OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL'S HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY: WINDSHIELD SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY FORMS PREPARID FOR CTTY OF CAMPBIIL PLANNING DEPART'MFNf RECE!\/E~ `~ i 1 v~ CpMNtftLL PLANNItG DEPT BY ARCHIVES &ARCHTTECI'URE 353 S URBER DRIVE SAN JOSE, CA 95123 NOVEMBER 17, 1995 INTRODUCTION The City of Campbell conducted a historical resources survey in 1977-1978 that identi- fied 467 potentially historical properties. In 1984, this list of resources was refined by further evaluation to identify the more significant properties. The 1984 Master list of re- sources consisted of 122 properties. In 1994, Archives & Architecture was asked to un- dertake anevaluation to update both the 1978 and 1984 inventories and to assess the sta- tus of associated historic resource inventory forms. This phase of the assessment of the City of Campbell's Historic Resource Inventory con- sisted of two elements. The first was a windshield survey of the City to evaluate presence and condition of currently identified historic resources and to identify potential additions to the inventory. The second element was the evaluation of the histonc inventory forms on file at the Campbell Historical Museum. This report includes 1) a discussion of the methodology use to accomplish this assessment; 2) a discussion of the findings; and 3) recommendations for updating the inventory and suggestions for further study. SURVEY METHODOLOGY Windshield Survey In order to assess the status of historical resources listed on the previous historic invento- ries, it was determined that a reconnaissance level visual survey or "windshield survey" of the city would be the most effective strategy. In preparation for undertaking a wind- shield survey, a master database of all previously identified historical resources was cre- ated. Accordingly all listings on the "Master List of Campbell Historic Survey 1977- 1978," "Master List Campbell Historic Survey 1984," the City of Campbell's Landmazk list, and the Campbell listings in the Office of Historic Preservation "Directory of Prop- erties in the Historic Property File for Santa Clara County" on file at Sonoma State Uni- versitywere combined to create a computerized database of 472 resources. This database included information from the above listings, particularly noting the name of the re- source, its address, azchitect, builder, owners, style, period, and description. A historic theme was provisionally assigned to all the resources in the database for the purposes of analysis. (Upon further evaluation, provisionally assigned themes may be changed.) Database fields were also added for recording the condition of the resource as noted dur- ing the survey. To facilitate the survey process, the database was sorted by geographical districts within the city. This task was greatly aided by the "area" notation listed with each of the re- sources in the 1977 survey. The 1977 survey divided Campbell into 13 geographical re- gions. These regions aze primarily demarcated by major thoroughfares, railways, or chaz- acter (e.g. downtown commercial, residential, etc.). The resulting field survey forms were sorted by district and assembled into a binder with a street map for each district. The actual windshield survey involved walking or driving through each azea to locate and briefly examine each of the listed resourc°s. For each resource located, additional de- scriptive information was noted on the field survey form. Those resources that were not located were marked as "gone," and addresses that could not be located were marked as "couldn't locate." In some cases, buildings have been moved out of the way of new de- velopment, streets have been realigned or renamed, and/or addresses are been changed. During the course of the field survey, previously unlisted resources that appeared to have potential for possible addition to the inventory were noted. It was noted that a large per- centage of the city's identified resources were residential buildings that represented early 20th century architectural styles. In order to create a more balanced documentation of the historical development of the community, the consultant was directed to identify proper- ties associated with themes and resource types presently under-represented on the city's inventory master lists. Criteria used in identtfying potential candidates for inventory addition included properties that included 1) other types of resources or non-residential buildings, 2) under-represented architectural styles, 3) resources that represented non-ar- chitectural historical themes, or 4) concentrations of resources that might constitute a po- tential historical district. Based on the findings of the windshield survey, an updated database was prepared that incorporated field findings, included the potential additions, and separated those re- sources that could not be located in the field. Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) Form Assessment The Historical Resource Inventory form is a standardized means for assembling a wide variety of information about a historical resource. Generally, the form has three sections: identification, description, and history. The identification fields provide the name, ad- dress, parcel number, owner, owner's address, and current use of the resource. The de- scription fields include the architectural style, physical features, and condition of the re- source, and a photograph and location map. The history section contains fields that in- clude architect, builder, dates of construction and alterations, associated historic theme, and a discussion of the people and events associated with the resource. The standard for HRI forms are those used by the Califortia Department of Parks and Recreation. The state form has been revised and updated several times, the most recent revision approved in January 1995. As part of the previous historical surveys of the city, an HRI form was completed to some degree for each identified resource. Information folders for each resource were compiled and filed at the Campbell Historical Museum. Those forms prepared for the 19?7-78 sur- vey were primarily handwritten and included information observed or discovered during the field survey. In some cases the results of oral interviews with neighbors and previous residents or owners were also included on the form. For the 1984 Master List, the HRI forms were typed and more completely filled out. Also evaluation sheets were completed to determine a numerically computed significance level for each resource. To facilitate the evaluation of the HRI forms on file at the Campbell Historical Museum, the consultant prepared a form that listed the address of each of resource and a space to check off each of the fields on the HRI form. Fach of the HRI forms on file at the Mu- seum was reviewed for the presence or absence of data in each field. FINDINGS Windshield Survey As expected, a very large percentage (96 = 90%) of the listed resources are located in Area 3, th~ historic core of the City of Campbell. The predominance of the listed re- sources (88 = 82%) were residences presumably representing the theme of Architecture & Shelter. Cover half (57°k) of these residences represent architectural styles popular during the 1920s and 1930s. These styles constitute 479b of the total inventory. Re- sources associated with other historical themes, however, are under-represented (19 = 18%). 2 Analysis of the 1984 Master List indicates that the full spectrum of pre-1940 residential architectural styles are well-represented in the inventory. These styles are important and represent the essential historical character of the community. Those most commonly seen are: • Queen Anne: Populaz in the late 19th century, this style is primarily characterized by vertical lines, asymmetrical facades, steeply pitched hipped roofs with mul- tiple gables, bay windows, textured or shingled wall-cladding, and spindle work and pierced decorative elements. • Colonial Revival: This stylehas anumber ofsub-types based on English and Dutch colonial prototypes. In Campbell this style usually consists of one- story buildings with gabled or hipped roofs and a full porch supported by round columns. The Georgian subtype usually features a symmetncal facade with a central entrance topped by a pediment and framed by pilasters or columns. Sash windows may have multiple panes and there may be small roof dormers. • Neoclassical: In its pure form this style features two stories with a full height porch supported by classical columns with Ionic or Corinthian capitals. Its most common form in early 20th century California neighborhoods consists of a one-story house with an integrated porch supported by columns on a solid balustrade or on pedestals. In this vernacular form, the roof is generally hipped with a centrally located dormer. The cornice may include boxed eaves, frequently with dentils or modillions beneath, and a wide frieze band. • Craftsman: The first of the architectural styles to originate in California azound the turn of the century, the Craftsman features a low pitched, gabled roof with wide unenclosed eaves and exposed rafter ends. Decorative false beams or braces are commonly added under gables. Porches aze supported by square or round columns on massive tapered pedestals. One of the most popular of early 20th century styles, one-story vernacular examples are often simply called bungalows. • Prairie: Popular from 1900 to 1930, this style was developed by a group of Chi- cago azchitects known as the Prairie School. Frank Lloyd Wright was proba- bly the best known designer of this style. Locally, the style features honzontal lines, aloes-pitched roof with wide overhanging boxed eaves. Elements com- monlyseen include windows in horizontal bands, terra cotta medallions, high- ly decorated floral or geometric bands at the cornice or around doors and windows. Window glazing often includes multi-paned upper sashes and the use of geometric designs. • Spanish Colonial Styles: Mission: Dating in popularity from the about 1900, the Mission style features a mission-shaped curvilinear parapet on the roof, dormers, or porch. It may also exhibit Islamic elements and bell towers. This style shares many elements with the Spanish Eclectic. Pueblo: This variation features a flat roof with a plain or tile-trimmed parapet with water spouts. It may also include rounded corners, projecting roof raft- ers, unpainted round porch posts, roughly hewn window lintels, and the upper floors may be stepped or terraced. 3 (~ Pied. Other missing, but not necessarily significant, elements included 55 without known builders, 72 without known architects, and 94 without ownership information. RECOMII~NDATIONS This phase of the Inventory Update process has provided an overview of the current sta- tus of the city's historic resources inventory. Based on these findings, it will be possible to identify future tasks and to more efficiently develop scopes-of--work for future project elements. The following suggestions are offered for inclusion in future work programs: Refine or update the current inventory by deleting or correcting addresses of re- sources that have been moved or demolished (see Tables 2 and ~. It is recom- mended that these addresses not be listed unless they are important sites that need to be flagged for planning purposes (i.e. in a historic district, have azchaeological po- tential, etc.). If these sites are considered historically important but have no particu- lar planning value, a separate list may be kept. For resources that have been relo- sated and retain historical value, the inventory could list the new address with a no- tation of the old address or location. For future researchers, it is important to keep a record of those resources that have been relocated. 2. Evaluation criteria and an evaluation form were used in developing the 1984 Master List. The 1984 criteria and form should be reviewed by a committee that includes Preservation Board, museum and/or planning department personnel that have used or expect to use the criteria in an evaluation process. This committee should determine how the criteria can be objectively applied to the wide variety of resources in the city and how much weight or importance each criterion be allowed. The goal is to create an evaluation process that can be objectively and consistently applied to different types of resources. It is important that evaluation criteria and the evaluation process be carefully thought out and clearly defined so that the evaluation of potential re- sources can be as objective as possible and that the process will be perceived by both the public and city staff as fair, consistent, and as "uncumbersome" as possible. 3. Based on the final form the evaluation criteria takes, a hierarchy of significance can be developed that attaches a local level of significance to the resources listed in the inventory. The level of significance may be determined by a numerical value that re- sults from applying the evaluation critena. The resource's placement in the hierarchy determines the degree of protection and/or mitigation it menu in the review process. An example of such a hierarchy might be: City Landmark or City Landmark District: An individual resource or a related group of resources determined to have a high degree of historical signifi- cance. As defined by the Historic Preservation Ordinance, landmark des- ignation may undergo a public review process or require owner approval before designation by the City Council. Preservation of a landmark is considered essential and it is protected by City Ordinance. Candidate City Landmark: A "candidate city landmark" is a temporary designa- tion for a resource that has been fully evaluated and is eligible to be a land mark, but has not yet gone through the formal designation process. In the environmental review process, a resource eligible for landmark desig- nation may undergo stricter standards for mitigation than resources with a lesser level of significance. 5 Resource of MeritlContributing Structure: A "resource of merit" will have under- gone afull evaluation and determined to have a level of historic signifi- cance that falls short of meeting the standard for a City Landmark. ~. Contributing Structure, while not individually eligible as a City Landmark, has potential for inclusion in a City Landmark District. The Crty may want to encourage the preservation of this resource, especially of it is a contributing structure in a historic district, but will not give it the same level of protection afforded by a City Landmark designation. Non-Contributing Structure: A structwe in a recogtized or potential historic dis- trict that does not make a significant contribution to that district. Although preservation of this building is not essential, there may be design review or land use review of future property development as it relates to the other significant elements of the district. Non-Significant Resowce: After undergoing the evaluation process, this re- source has been determined to be lustoncally non-significant. If previ- ously listed on the inventory as an "identified resource," this address can now be removed. Identified Resource: An "identified resource" has been identified at some point as having potential historical significance. This designation is a "red flag" that indicates that this resource needs further review before planning deci - sions can be made. For example, all properties listed on the 1971/78 Mas- ter List that were not included in the 1984 Master List may be considered "identified resources." Some communities choose to automatically require all resources that exceed SO years of age to undergo some level of histon- cal review or evaluation. As part of an incentive program for property owners, properties listed on the His- toric Resource Inventory may be eligible for special consideration for reduced permit fees, eligible for historic preservation grants and loans, eligible for use of the Historic Burlding Code, tax credit programs, facade easement programs, Mills Act contracts, etc. 5. It is often helpful if the Historic Inventory is considered a dynamic planning tool rather than a fixed list of significant buildings. As a planning tool, a process that al - lows the inventory to be updated by a relatively easy process should be considered. For example, as properties undergo full evaluation dunng the review and planning process, those that are eligible for landmark status could be routinely forwarded to the City Council for designation. Identified or previously unlisted properties that are found to have merit or to be contributing structures, and identified properties that are determined to be non-significant can be appropriately added, upgraded, or removed from the inventory by a vote of the Histonc Preservation Board. Previously unidenti- fied properties with potential merit that are discovered by the Board, planning staff, museum staff or by members of the public could be added to the inventory as "identi- fied structures" by a vote of the Hisionc Preservation Board. 6. Review the Historic Preservation Ordinance and update it to appropriately reflect any procedure or policy changes regarding landmark designation and the status of the his- toric resources rnventory. The following tables summarize the findings for this phase of the project. 6 Table 1 lists all the resources in the original database that still exist. It includes 333 re- sources that were originally listed on the 1978 Master List, plus two unlisted resources that were in the OHP directory, and three resources that are included in the Alice Avenue City Landmark District, but were previously unidentified. Table 2 lists 134 previously identified resources that no longer exist. It is recommended that as a minimum that the 12 addresses listed on the 1984 Master List be formally re- moved, unless there is a reason for the site to be listed for future planning purposes. Table 3 lists four resources from the 1984 Master List that appear to have been altered or neglected to such an extent that architectural integrity is seriously compromised. It is recommended that these resources undergo further research and evaluation to deternine their current level of significance. It may be appropriate to remove these resources from the Master List. Table 4 lists 17 resources currently listed on the 1984 Master List for which information on the HRI forms is inadequate for completing an evaluation for significance. It is rec- ommended that further historical research be conducted to provide adequate information on the significance of these resources and that the HRI form be updated. Table S lists four resources that have been relocated or for which the address has been changed. The historic inventory needs to reflect this new information. Table 6 lists 28 resources that were identified during the survey that appear to have merit as possible additions to the Master List. Fourteen resources were previously identified during the 1978 survey. Fourteen additional resources were identified as having potential architectural or historical significance during the 1995 windshield survey. It is recom- mended that further research and evaluation be conducted to determine significance, and based on this evaluation that these resources be considered for addition to the Master Iist. 7