APP 24117 (Rodriguez) - Consideration of an Appeal of the Historic Resources Board's decision to add an individual property known as the "Henry J. Ohloff House" located at Camino Real 4 northwest of 11th Avenue to the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources. APN: 010-275-006.

Adopt Resolution 2024-079 (Attachment 1) denying APP 24117 (Rodriguez) and upholding the April 15, 2024 decision by the Historic Resources Board to list the “J. Henry Ohloff House” located at Camino Real 4 northwest of 11^th Avenue, APN 010-275-006, on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources.

Executive Summary:

On July 11, 2023, the City received a historic evaluation application, HE 23209 (Rodriguez) for Camino Real 4 northwest of 11^th Avenue. City-contracted qualified professional, Margaret Clovis, completed an intensive review of the property and authored a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 form (Attachment 2). Ms. Clovis and City staff concluded the “J. Henry Ohloff House” was eligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources, as a good local example of a Tudor Revival style cottage constructed in 1933 by designer/builder Ernest Bixler, rebuilt to Bixler’s original design by Miles Bain in 1940 following a fire. City staff informed the applicant that the property would be listed on the Inventory; the applicant challenged the decision and submitted two (2) second opinions asserting the resource was not eligible. The Historic Resources Board considered HE 23209 at the April 15, 2024 meeting and voted to add the property to the Inventory. The vote was 3-0-1 in favor of listing the resource, with one Board member absent. On April 24, 2024, the City received an appeal of the HRB decision. Decisions of the Historic Resources Board are appealable to the City Council. APP 24117 (Rodriguez) will be considered by the Council on August 6, 2024.  

Background/Summary

On May 16, 2023, Design Study application DS 23147 (Rodriguez) was submitted for after-the-fact alterations to Camino Real 4 northwest of 11^th Avenue, a 5,000-square-foot residential property (APN 010-275-006) in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district developed with a one-story residence and detached garage. The after-the-fact alterations include the application of stucco and stone to the original brick chimney, divided light wood doors, a 76-square-foot rear deck extension, mortared stone driveway and pathways (in addition to extant Carmel stone front walkway), and a metal driveway gate. Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.32.130.A requires that upon submittal of a design study application, the City shall determine if the property contains historic resources. Therefore, on July 11, 2023, the applicant submitted an application for a Historic Evaluation (HE 23209, Rodriguez).

CMC Section 17.32.030.B (Initial Assessment of Historic Significance) requires that an initial assessment be performed to determine whether the property may have historic resource potential sufficient to warrant conducting an intensive survey. The initial assessment (Attachment 3) concluded that an intensive survey was warranted due to association with Ernest Bixler and Miles Bain, two locally prominent builders described in the Carmel Historic Context Statement.

Per CMC 17.32.060.B.5 (Intensive Survey), intensive surveys are required to be performed by a qualified professional. City staff engaged the services of Ms. Margaret Clovis to perform the intensive survey; Ms. Clovis is a qualified professional who exceeds the qualifications established by the State Historic Preservation Office and who works under contract to the City. As part of the intensive survey, Ms. Clovis prepared a DPR 523 Form (Attachment 2) in August, 2023, and found the "J. Henry Ohloff House" eligible for listing in the Carmel Inventory as a good local example of a Tudor Revival style cottage constructed in 1933 by designer/builder Ernest Bixler, rebuilt to Bixler’s original design by Miles Bain in 1940 after a fire.

The cottage was originally built as a vacation home for San Francisco-based owners, Jacob Henry Ohloff and his wife, Dorothy. The Ohloffs hired Ernest Samuel Bixler (1898-1978), who had relocated from the Bay Area c.1927 and partnered with his father, Harrison Edward Bixler, to grow a contracting business in Carmel. Bixler is credited as the carpenter of the Tudor-Revival style Enchanted Oaks Building (1927) on 7^th Avenue 2 northeast of Dolores Street. He quickly evolved his business beyond carpentry to fill both the designer and builder role, and developed some 80 homes in the Carmel area before retiring in 1966. While he is often credited for mastery of the Spanish Eclectic style, Bixler designed in a range of styles, as reflected on the Carmel Historic Inventory. The Bixler-attributed buildings on the Carmel Historic Inventory (unless otherwise noted) are listed below.

•  (1930) Mrs. Glenn Myers House, a Tudor Revival home on Carmelo Street 3 NW of 13^th (not yet evaluated as a historic resource).

•  (1930) Ten Winkel Spanish House, a Spanish Eclectic home on San Antonio 2 SE of 4^th Avenue.

•  (1931) LaFrenz/The Arbors House, a Tudor Revival home at the northeast corner of San Antonio Avenue and 8^th Avenue.

•  (1932) L.A. Williams Cottage, a Vernacular home on Camino Real 4 southwest of 13^th Avenue.

•  (1932) Alice Elder House & Guest House, and English style home on Carmelo 3 northeast of 11^th Avenue.

•  (1933) George E. Butler House/Lanakai, a Spanish style home at the northeast corner of Scenic and 8^th Avenue.

•  (1933) Henry J. Ohloff House, a Tudor Revival home on Camino Real 4 NW of 11^th Avenue (under consideration).

•  (1936) T.J. Brennan House, a Tudor Revival home at the northeast corner of Scenic Road and Martin Way (just outside City limits).

•  (1936) Colonial Terrace Inn, a Colonial Revival Inn on Carmelo/San Antonio between 12^th and 13^th Ave.

While the buildings listed above date to the 1930s, the Carmel Historic Context Statement identifies Bixler as a prominent builder/contractor in the 1940s and 1950s. Most of Bixler’s buildings have yet to be individually identified and evaluated. In addition to his work as a designer/builder, Bixler served as Carmel by the Sea Postmaster from 1939 to 1951, except for during WWII when he was chief petty officer for the US Naval Construction Battalions stationed in Rhode Island, the Philippines, and Australia. Upon his return to Carmel, Bixler served as a member of the Planning Commission in the 1950s.

The subject property at Camino Real 4 NW of 11^th Avenue burned down in a fire and was reconstructed to Bixler’s original plans in 1940 by Miles Bain (Building Permit #665). The extent of the fire is not known; BP#665 states: “reconstruct to original.” One year later, in 1941, Bain added a small rear (west) bay addition (Building Permit #889), not visible from the street. Builder Miles Bain (b.1895) arrived to Carmel in the 1920s to work as an estimator for contractor George Mark Whitcomb. In the 1930s, Bain earned his own contractor license and constructed a number of houses in Carmel under the tagline, “Integrity of Construction.” After WWII, Bain and Whitcomb partnered up again to work for Bechtel Corporation, building oil-pumping stations in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return to Carmel, Bain was hired by Frank Lloyd Wright to build the Ms. Clinton Walker House (1952) and was hired by Nathaniel Owings, American architect and founder of the architectural firm, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, to build Owings’ “Wild Bird” House (1958) in Big Sur. Bain also built Ansel Adams’ Carmel Highlands home (1965). The Carmel Historic Context Statement states that Bain also built a home for American photographer Neil Weston in the Carmel Highlands; a source was not provided and staff cannot confirm. Bain operated out of a Carmel office (listed in the 1963 City Directory) and – like Ernest Bixler – is considered a local master builder.

Significance

When Ms. Clovis prepared the intensive survey (DPR 523 Form) for the subject property, she found that it meets the criterion for historic eligibility per CMC 17.32.040 because it represents at least one theme in the Historic Context Statement (the theme of Architectural Chronology); retains substantial integrity; is a minimum of 50 years of age; and meets California Register Criterion 3 (Design/Construction). The property meets CA Register Criterion 3 because it is a good example of a Tudor Revival cottage representative of Carmel’s architectural chronology, and also because of its association with prominent local builders Bixler and Bain. The character defining features of the property are as follows:

• Cross gabled roof system with sloping eaves
• Compound floor plan
• Horizontal and vertical boards within the apex of the gables
• Louvered vents in the front gables
• Original old brick chimney (recently covered with stucco)
• Multi-paned casement windows
• Partial-width porch
• Stucco exterior walls

Integrity

The subject property has undergone the following permitted and unpermitted changes:

• 1933 (BP #2560): Original cottage by Bixler
• 1940 (BP #665): Cottage rebuilt to original plans following fire by Bain
• 1941 (BP #889): Small rear bay addition by Miles Bain.
• 2000 (BP #00-73): Re-roof with composition shingle.
• 2020 (DS #20-276): Site work at front property line: low stucco wall topped with iron railing (4’ tall), and an arched stucco arbor with wood gate door.
• 2020 (BP #20-0312 and BP #21-0148): Window replacement of “aluminum” windows (per applicant) with new aluminum-clad wood windows. The window replacement should have triggered the historic evaluation process, but (potentially due to Covid-era challenges) an historic evaluation was not completed at that time. The original building plans do not indicate a window material, but do depict three-light casements, rather than the six-light casements installed in 2020.

• 2021 (BP #21-0321): Re-roof with cedar shake.

• Recent (unpermitted):

o   Wood replacement doors throughout. Note the original front door was a solid wood plank door with iron hinge straps, and the new door is wood with upper divided lights.  

o   Stucco and stone over the original brick chimney.

o   Mortared stone driveway.

o   Mortared stone pathways (in addition to extant Carmel stone front walkway).

o   Metal driveway gate.

o   76 square foot rear deck extension.

Ms. Clovis assessed the six relevant aspects of integrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling) and found the integrity of the residence to be sufficiently intact; the seventh aspect, association, is only applicable for properties eligible under CA Register criteria 1 and 2. Ms. Clovis’ integrity assessment is as follows:

Location: the house is still in its original location.

Design: the house retains its original Tudor Revival cottage design.

Setting: the house is still located in a neighborhood setting.

Materials: the house retains materials from its original construction in 1933 and the rebuild in 1940.

Workmanship: the house still exhibits the workmanship associated with the Tudor Revival style such as the sweeping roof lines, casement windows, and stucco exterior walls.

Feeling: the house retains the physical features that convey its historic character.

Association: this aspect of integrity is only applicable to resources eligible under Criteria One and Two.

*Note: At the time of writing the DPR Form, based on the incomplete information in the City’s files at the time, Ms. Clovis was not aware of the window replacement in 2020. When staff informed her of the window replacement, Ms. Clovis opined via email on April 12, 2024, “The question is whether the windows have more impact on the integrity than massing, roof line, wall materials, etc. The windows openings have not been changed so technically the windows could be restored to their original panes. Another question, are there better examples by this architect/builder? A house should retain most aspects of integrity- it does not need to retain all.”

Appeal to Historic Resources Board

The applicant, on behalf of the property owners, submitted peer reviews by qualified professionals Anthony Kirk and Kent Seavey (Attachments 4 and 5). Upon receipt and review of the peer reviews from the applicant’s team, Ms. Clovis maintained that the property was eligible for listing on the Inventory, and City staff concurred. 

The matter was considered by the Historic Resources Board on April 15, 2024; the Board voted 3-1 (with one Board member absent) to pass Resolution 2024-002-HRB (Attachment 6), adding the property to the Inventory.

STAFF ANALYSIS

Carmel Municipal Code Section 17.32.040 sets forth the criteria for evaluating whether an individual property is eligible for the Carmel Inventory. The following is an analysis of the requirements for eligibility to be listed as a historic resource, and the reasons why the “J. Henry Ohloff House” meets those requirements. Staff recommends listing the “Henry J. Ohloff House” as a historic resource on the Carmel Inventory (Attachment 1).

A. Should be representative of at least one theme included in the Historic Context Statement.

Staff Response: The “Henry J. Ohloff House” represents the theme of Architectural Development.

B. Shall retain substantial integrity. Integrity (association, feeling, setting location, design, materials, and workmanship) shall be documented by comparing the existing condition of the resource with the original building plans or early records and photographs, or other substantial evidence (e.g., literature review, Sanborn maps, architectural files, land records) and/or by physical inspection by a qualified professional. Integrity shall be assessed by (1) defining the physical features that must be present for a property to represent its significance, (2) determining whether these features are still visible enough to convey significance, (3) determining whether the property needs to be compared to other similar properties to understand its significance, and (4) determining which aspects of integrity are vital if the property is to qualify as a resource (see National Register of Historic Resources, Bulletin #15).

Staff Response: The “Henry J. Ohloff House” retains substantial integrity. The footprint was very modestly expanded to the rear (west) in 1941 by Bain, with the cross-gable roof form maintained. The sweeping roof lines at the façade and south elevation are intact, as are stucco walls, porch roof beams, exposed eaves, and rough-hewn wood plank detailing in the gable peaks (present on all four elevations). The house maintains most materials specified on the 1933 original plans, re-installed after the fire in 1940. These materials include stucco siding, wood roof (replacement), and Carmel stone stone porch and front path.

The original brick chimney was altered without permits and is currently finished with stucco and stone. The original plans do not specify a window material. A single leaded glass window at the façade was replaced with a faux leaded glass window, and all other replacement windows contain double the divided lites than the original windows. The front door was originally a solid wood plank door with iron hinge straps and now features upper glazing. The Council should consider whether these alterations, and the other permitted alterations described in the Integrity section above, result in a loss of integrity for the building as a whole.  Windows and doors, ideally, would have been replaced in-kind, if found to be deteriorated beyond repair. However, the aluminum-clad wood windows and wood replacement doors do not destroy the integrity of the entire building as the size and location of openings remains unchanged. Standards 9 and 10 of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties allow compatible replacement materials. The most critical consideration regarding door and window replacement is to retain the size of the original openings and to preserve the style of the windows (ie casement configuration). Fortunately, original plans confirm the size, location, and configuration of the original fenestration openings have not been altered.

Because the identified alterations are sufficiently sympathetic to the building’s architectural character, the Ohloff House continues to reflect its identity as a 1930s-era Tudor Revival cottage.

C. Should be a minimum of 50 years of age and shall meet at least one of the four criteria for listing in the California Register at a national or Statewide level of significance (primary resource) or at a regional or local level of significance (local resource) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3):

Staff Response: The “Henry J. Ohloff House” is over 50 years old and meets at least one of four CA Register Criteria (Criterion 3). See analysis below.

Criterion 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;

Staff Response: The “Henry J. Ohloff House” is not eligible under Criterion One (Event/Association).

Criterion 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;

Staff Response: For a property to be listed under Criterion Two (Important Person) it must be associated with a person who is considered significant within Carmel’s historic context. The Ohloffs, and subsequent owners, were not found to be significant individuals within Carmel’s historic context. The association with Ernest Bixler and Miles Bain is captured under Criterion 3, below; if a significant architect/builder had themselves lived in the subject property, or operated an office or studio out of the subject building, then it would likely be found significant under Criterion 2 (see How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, p.16). Because the original owners and subsequent owners have not been found significant within Carmel’s historic context, the “Henry J. Ohloff House” is not eligible for listing in the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources under Criterion Two.

Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

Staff Response:  A property is eligible under Criterion Three (Design/Construction) if it, “embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.” Carmel’s Historic Preservation Ordinance includes additional qualifications for eligibility under Criterion Three.

•  The “Henry J. Ohloff House” does meet the first part of California Register Criterion Three because it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a particular style of architecture: Tudor Revival. The residence reflects a modestly employed yet cohesive stylistic vision.

•  The “Henry J. Ohloff House” does meet the second part of Criterion Three because the cottage was designed and constructed by master builders who are recognized as significant in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement. Ernest Bixler designed and built the house in 1933, and Miles Bain rebuilt the house to Bixler’s plans following a fire in 1940.

•  The “Henry J. Ohloff House” does not meet the third part of Criterion Three because it does not possess high artistic values and does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts. This criterion is reserved for resources that reflect a truly elevated design ideology. 

Criterion 4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Response: The California Register’s Fourth Criterion (Information Potential) is generally reserved for archeological sites. There is no evidence in the historical record that the “J. Henry Ohloff House” meets the eligibility requirements for Criterion Four.

D. To qualify for the Carmel Inventory, a historic resource eligible under California Register Criterion 3 only [Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values] should:

1. Have been designed and/or constructed by an architect, designer/builder, or contractor whose work has contributed to the unique sense of time and place recognized as significant in the Historic Context Statement; or

Response: The 1933 residence is attributed to Ernest Bixler and was reconstructed to Bixler’s design in 1940 by Miles Bain; Bixler and Bain are both listed in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement and are both known for their work in the residential sector, reflecting a range of architectural styles. Per National Register Bulletin 15, a property is not eligible as the work of a master simply because it was designed by a prominent architect. “The property must express a particular phase in the development in the master’s career, an aspect of his or her work, or a particular idea or theme in his or her craft.”

The “Henry J. Ohloff House” reflects the earliest phase of development of both Bixler and Bain’s careers.  The Ohloff project came at a time when Bixler/Bain were gaining local experience, developing a body of work, satisfying client requests, and responding to popular trends (and economic limitations) of the time. Tudor Revival is a popular style which peaked in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s. 1933 fell during the heart of the Great Depression, which very likely influenced the design of the subject property. Rather than half-timbered beams, Bixler applied rough-hewn wood boards to the gable eaves to mimic the effect. Another likely influence on the design is the fact that the Ohloffs were not exceedingly wealthy. Ohloff was an Episcopalian minister in San Francisco for forty years. Known as the “skid row priest”, he worked with those down on their luck and founded a day nursery for working mothers, known as the Canon Kip Community House. He directed Canon Kip from 1915 to 1952 and at various times was chaplain at San Quentin prison, St. Luke’s Hospital, and rector at the Church of St. Mary the Virgin. In 1958 the Episcopal Church founded the J. Henry Ohloff Recovery Center in San Francisco, which is still in operation today.  Likely influenced by the Great Depression time period, and the financial means (and values) of his client, Bixler’s “J. Henry Ohloff House” is undeniably modest, yet still identifiable as a Tudor Revival style cottage. Thus, in addition to representing the start of Bixler’s highly productive career as a local developer, the “Henry J. Ohloff House” reflects a theme in his craft: an adeptness at translating the Tudor Revival style to the Carmel context.

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

Response: This criterion is not applicable.

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

Response: The Historic Context Statement minimally describes the Tudor Revival style as it appears in the City’s residential districts. The Context Statement states that “Tudor Revival buildings typically feature characteristic half timbering and gabled rooflines” (p. 52) and “Tudor homes were usually stuccoed, half-timbered, and gabled (53).” The lack of content related to Tudor Revival in the Context Statement is not a reflection of the style’s insignificance. The Context Statement was updated in 2022 to cover the twenty-year period of 1966 to 1986; only architectural styles from that era are discussed in detail, while early twentieth century styles are minimally defined, or not described at all. The Carmel Inventory includes 45 listed buildings categorized as Tudor, with construction dates ranging from 1905 to 1940. The Ohloff House is a simple cottage that represents Carmel's building tradition of rustic simplicity. Like many of the hundreds of homes listed on the Carmel Inventory, it is not a “high style” architectural work. Rather, it is a simple dwelling with modestly employed Tudor Revival style influences.

Virginia McAllister, author of A Field Guide to American Houses, describes the Tudor style (1890 to 1940) as follows:

“Steeply pitched roof, usually side-gabled (less commonly hipped or front gabled); façade dominated by one or more prominent front-facing gables, usually steeply pitched; tall, narrow windows, usually in multiple groups; with multi-pane glazing; massive chimneys, sometimes crowned with decorative chimney pots; front door and/or entry porch with round or Tudor arch; decorative (i.e. not structural) half-timbering present on about one-third of examples.” McAllister, pg. 449

The Ohloff house is side-gabled with prominent front-facing gables, tall, narrow windows, multi-pane glazing, and an entry porch. There are three distinctly elongated/sweeping roof slopes that result in an asymmetrical appearance. McAllister says, “Tudor houses are almost always asymmetrical after 1920... [variations to include] one eave curving or sweeping outward.” (p.450). The chimney is a predominant exterior feature. McAllister defines “half timbering” as follows. “Decorative (i.e., false) half-timbering, mimicking Medieval infilled timber framing, is found on about one-third of Tudor houses. It is generally a wood layer of two to three inches attached to the material below. Many different designs are found; most have stucco infilling between the timbers.” The subject property features rough-hewn wood horizontal and vertical boards in the stuccoed front gable apexes, and horizontal boards in the secondary elevation gable apexes. McAllister states, “After 1920, solid stucco remained the choice for those desiring a ‘modern English home’ – eschewing half timbering and masonry patterns for a smooth-wall appearance” (p.452).

As previously discussed (see D.1 analysis) the subject property was developed during the Great Depression for a “skid row priest.” Carmel’s Inventory contains hundreds of buildings that are more vernacular than high-style. A local interpretation of the style need not include every possible Tudor Revival feature. McAllister explicitly states, “Tudor houses were simplified by the Depression” (p.454).  Buildings need not be the first, last, only, best, or most exceptional example of a style. As such, the J. Henry Ohloff House contains sufficient architectural character to be considered a good example of the Tudor Revival style, as viewed within our local context and the era in which it was constructed.

4. Display a rare style or type for which special consideration should be given. Properties that display particularly rare architectural styles and vernacular/utilitarian types shall be given special consideration due to their particularly unusual qualities. Such rare examples, which contribute to diversity in the community, need not have been designed by known architects, designers/builders, or contractors. Rather, rare styles and types that contribute to Carmel’s unique sense of time and place shall be deemed significant.

Response: This criterion is not applicable.

Staff Summary and Response to Peer Reviews

The applicant, Jeremy McCullough, has provided second opinions by qualified professionals Dr. Anthony Kirk and Kent Seavey. Architectural historian Dr. Anthony Kirk authored a second opinion on November 29, 2023 (Attachment 4).  In his letter to Planning staff, Dr. Kirk asserts the property is not eligible for the Carmel Inventory. Dr. Kirk’s primary claims are listed below, followed by a staff response in italics.

• A significant builder is not a basis for listing.
  •  Staff Response: See D.1 analysis above.

• The tall casement windows are common features of many early Carmel cottages regardless of style.
  •  Staff Response: There are many commonalities between early Carmel cottages; the DPR form simply identifies the characteristics (such as the tall, narrow casement windows) that architectural history scholars attribute to the Tudor Revival style. The fact that tall casement windows may cross stylistic “borders” doesn’t mean they aren’t characteristic of the Tudor Revival style, such that stucco cladding is a predominant Tudor Revival material but is also characteristic of the Spanish Revival style. A building’s features viewed collectively reveal a style.

•  The north porch and the west porch were added after 1960.
  •  Staff Response: The north/west porch additions are located on the rear elevation, were completed in a manner consistent with the Secretary’s Standards, and are not visible from the public right of way.  

•  The original wood windows have been replaced with aluminum-clad wood windows.  
  •  Staff Response: The original plans do not specify a material. The City presently supports aluminum-clad wood windows as a compatible replacement for traditional wood windows.

   

•  The original doors have been replaced throughout.
  • Staff response: The recently installed front door and the north side door (not visible) were not permitted by the City. The Council should consider whether the door replacement has resulted in an overall loss of integrity of the resource.

•  The original brick chimney was stuccoed over in 2023.
  •  Staff response: The recently completed chimney work was not permitted by the City. The Council should consider whether the chimney work has resulted in an overall loss of integrity of the resource.

   

•  The garage interior has been remodeled.
  •  Staff response: Interior changes to the garage are not relevant; this analysis is limited to exterior features only.

   

•  The Context Statement says that many of the early Carmel houses feature “a detached garage, usually front-gabled, sided with board-and-batten, entered via an arched vehicular door, and set close to the street (52).” The former garage on Camino Real has a front gable with a wing, and although it is sided with board-and-batten, it was entered through a rectangular door, not an arched door, and was located at the southwest corner of the lot, not “close to the street.”
  • Staff response: Comment considered by Staff, but not deemed relevant. The main residence, not the garage, is the primary resource on this property.

   

•  The home lacks the distinctive half-timbering of the Tudor Revival style.
  • Staff Response: See analysis is D.3 above, specifically, McAllister’s definition of the style: “decorative (i.e. not structural) half-timbering present on about one-third of examples.” McAllister, pg. 449.

   

•  The roofs on the Camino Real house are pitched at slightly more than 30 degrees, which according to Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York, 2013), is at the lower end of a normal slope, which range from 30 at 45 degrees.
  •  Staff Response: There are also three roof slopes that are distinctly elongated, resulting in a sweeping, asymmetrical appearance. 

Architectural historian Kent Seavey authored a peer review of Dr. Kirk’s evaluation; the peer review (Attachment 5), dated December 28, 2023, offers support for Dr. Kirk’s assessment. His primary comments are followed by staff responses in italics.

•  The building is not a good example of the Tudor Revival style; rather, it is a Minimal Traditional style, found in Carmel in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s.
  •  Staff Response: The Carmel Historic Context Statement says the Minimal Traditional style begins in 1935; the subject property was designed in 1933. The Context Statement also states that Minimal Traditional homes have wood siding, rather than stucco.

   

•   The building lacks enough particular design distinction.
  •  Staff Response: This comment should be considered by the Council. See staff analysis D.3.

City Council Options

Council Option #1: Uphold the April 15, 2024 decision by the Historic Resources Board, list the property on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources (Attachment 1) and direct staff to record the Resolution of Historical Resource Designation (Attachment 7) with the County of Monterey. Staff will then process the Design Study for the after-the-fact alterations.

Council Option #2: Reverse the decision of the Historic Resources Board and issue a Determination of Ineligibility (Attachment 8). Should the Council determine the property is ineligible for listing, specific findings must be adopted identifying why it is ineligible for listing. Staff will then process the Design Study for the after-the-fact alterations.

Environmental Review: Staff recommends that the listing of the subject property on the Carmel Inventory be found to be “not a project” pursuant to section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. Listing the subject property on the Carmel Inventory, or finding the property ineligible for listing, does not grant any permits or entitlements approving a project that would result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment.