Historic Preservation Commission
Staff Report
August 3, 2022
FILE NO: MINCOA-18644-2022
A request to appeal the denial of Minor Certificate of Appropriateness (MINCOA-18644-2022), to legalize an unpermitted 6-foot high vinyl fence on a property located in the Hacienda Park Historic District.
ADDRESS: 418 Kenoak Place
APPLICANT: Gail Titus
PROJECT PLANNER: Lynda Ramos, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project is exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15268, 15061(b)(3), 15331, and 15301 of the California CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal, u pholding Staff’s decision to deny file no. MINCOA- 18644-2022 and adopt Resolution No. 2022-012.
CRITICAL ISSUES:
Six-foot high vinyl fence was installed without a permit. Vinyl fencing is not consistent with the 1999 Historic Guidelines.
PROPERTY ARCHITECTURE AND BACKGROUND:
The property is located on Kenoak Place, east of White Avenue, and south of the Interstate 10 freeway.
The home was identified in the Hacienda Park Historic Survey as a Craftsman Bungalow constructed in 1909 (Attachment 2). The Hacienda Park Historic Survey records the property as follows:
“This two-story Craftsman home features a front-facing primary gable and large wall dormers on the sides.
Each gable/dormer features a large vent with horizontal louvers. The east elevation features a window popout covered by a shed roof, and the west elevation features a brick fireplace. Siding includes narrow clapboard on the first story and shingles on the second story. Unusual features on the front elevation indicate possible modifications, and include a front door wi th fluted pilasters and a broken pediment, as well as a ATTACHMENT 4
August 3, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No. MINCOA-18644-2022 Staff Report
small wrought -iron balcony above the front door. It is unknown whether a front porch ever existed.
Additional features include twelve -over-one double hung windows, multi -pane casement windows and highly decorated faux roof support beams. An apparent addition on the rear of the house features a shed roof and wood siding.”
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES:
1. Dormers
2. Window Popouts
3. Window/door trims
4. Shingle/clapboard siding
5. Rock foundation
DISCUSSION OF CRITICAL ISSUES
1. Six-foot high vinyl fence was installed without a permit.
On May 17, 2022, Code Enforcement Staff responded to the location regarding a complaint of a new fence without a fence/wall permit. Code Enforcement Staff observed a six -foot high vinyl fence wall installed along the front and western property line. A Minor Certificate of Appropriateness (MINCOA) was not obtained for the installation of the new fence. On May 18, 2022, a citation notice was mailed to the property owner and on June 14, 2022 the owner applied for a MINCOA with the Planning Division to legalize the vinyl fence (Attachment 3). On June 16, 2022, Staff reached out to the owner, letting her know that vinyl fencing is not permitted in the Historic Districts. Staff gave the owner two options: 1) to modify the fence material or 2) apply for a Major Certificate of Appropriateness. The owner proceeded with keeping the fence material as proposed and, therefore, staff denied MINCOA 18644-2022 on June 29, 2022. On July 21, 2022, the owner filed for an appeal (Attachment 5).
2. Vinyl is not a permitted fencing material.
The 199 9 Historic Guidelines for fence/wall alterations and installations state that repair or replacement of historic fences or walls should be accomplished with like materials and designs and that if historic fences or walls are already in place, they should be maintained in their original state to the greatest extent possible. In addition, the 2021 Historic Guidelines Architectural Styles Chapter outlines that wood fences are typical for the Craftsman Style. Vinyl fencing is not listed in the style as an acceptable alternative for fences and walls. In addition, both S taff and the Commission have consistently denied vinyl as an appropriate material in historic districts.
August 3, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No. MINCOA-18644-2022 Staff Report
APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance provides that the Commission is guided by the following areas in addition to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitat ion.
2021 Historic Design Guidelines – Guidelines for Craftsman Architecture
1999 Design Guidelines – Guidelines for Fence / Wall Alterations and Installations on Historic Properties
Section .503-I Fences, Hedges and Walls of the Pomona Zoning Ordinance
DESIGN REVIEW:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance provides that the Commission is guided by the following areas in addition to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff has reviewed the project as it relates to these standards as well as any applicable design guidelines. Staff’s analysis is below:
1. Height. The height of any proposed construction shall be compatible with the height and bulk of surrounding structures and in conformance with the maximum allowable height for the applicable zoning district.
Not Applicable to this project.
2. Proportions of Windows and Doors. The proportions and relationships between doors and windows shall be compatible with the architectural style and character of the surrounding structures, and be of an appropriate material.
Not Applicable to this project.
3. Relationship of Building Masses and Spaces. The resulting relationships between proposed structures and created spaces, or b etween remodeled structures and created spaces, shall be consistent with the shapes and setbacks of existing adjacent structures.
Not Applicable to this project.
4. Roof Shape. The designs of the roof shall be compatible with the architectural character and s tyle of the surrounding structures. Gables, turrets, and other roof forms shall be incorporated when appropriate to accomplish design compatibility with adjacent structures.
Not Applicable to this project.
August 3, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No. MINCOA-18644-2022 Staff Report
5. Scale. The scale of the structure shall be compa tible with the architectural character and style of the existing buildings. The new building shall blend in with surrounding buildings through the sensitive use of proper scale and materials.
Not Applicable to this project.
6. Directional Expression/Facades. Facades in an historic district shall blend in with other structures with regard to directional expression. Structures in an historic district shall be compatible with the dominant horizontal and vertical expression of surrounding structures.
Not Applicable to this project.
7. Architectural Details. Architectural details, including materials and textures shall be treated so as to make any new construction compatible with the architectural style and character of the historic district.
As previously discussed, t he vinyl fence material is not compatible with the craftsman architectural style of the building , per the City’s historic preservation guidelines . Therefore, the project does not meet this finding.
8. Architectural Rhythm and Articulation. All proposed struc tures or facade remodeling shall show sufficient and rhythmic repetition of architectural details so as to be compatible with the facade articulation of existing adjacent buildings.
Not Applicable to this project.
9. New Additions/Construction. New additions and adjacent related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Not Applicable to this project.
10. Mechanical Equipmen t. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view with appropriately designed screens, parapet walls, landscaping or any other form of screening which the commission or the planning and development services manager may deem acceptable. The design, style, color and texture of the required screening method shall be compatible with the existing or proposed building/facade design.
Not Applicable to this project.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
The Historic Preservation Ordinance provide that the Commission be guided by the latest Rehabilitation Standards contained in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Staff reviewed the project for compliance with the applicable standards below:
August 3, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No. MINCOA-18644-2022 Staff Report
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
Not Applicable to this project. The property was historically a home and will remain as a home.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
The removal of an existing wood fence that was replaced with a vinyl fence altered the historic character of the property. Further, the Historic Design Guidelines states that repair or replacement of historic fences or walls should be accomplished with like materials and designs and that if historic fences or walls are already in place, they should be maintained in their original state to the greatest extent possible. In addition, the 2021 Historic Guidelines outlines that wood fences are typical for the Craftsman Style. Vinyl fencing is not an alternative material to wood that has been allowed in historic districts. Therefore, the project does not meet this standard.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time , place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
The use of vinyl instead of wood for a fence creates a false sense of a historic feature. Vinyl is not a permitted fence material nor appropriate for the architectural style, time and period. Vinyl fencing is not an alternative material to wood that has been allowed in historic districts. Therefore, the project does not meet this standard.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
The home use to feature a wood fence and it was replaced with a vinyl fence, therefore not preserving the historical significance. Therefore, the project does not meet this standard.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
Historically, wood fencing has been installed on the property line with the exception of the eastern property line, which is a masonry stucco wall. In addition, this fencing was identified in the Hacienda Park Historic Survey. Since it was not preserved, the project does not meet this standard.
August 3, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No. MINCOA-18644-2022 Staff Report
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Google street views show that there use to be a wood fence in the front and side property line that was water damaged and deteriorating in 2019. The replacement of this fence to vinyl does not match the design, color, materials of the old fence. Therefore, the project does not meet this standard.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
Not Applicable to this project. Chemical or physical treatments are not proposed.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
Not Applicable to this project. No archeological resources are being disturbed.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compati ble with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Not Applicable to this project. No new construction is proposed.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Not Applicable to this project. No additions are proposed.
REQUIRED FINDINGS:
The findings required in Section .5809-13(F)(6) of the Pomona Zoning Code for Certificates of Appropriateness are contained in the attached resolution (Attachment 1). Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that it does meets the findings required in Section .5809-13(F) (6).
August 3, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No. MINCOA-18644-2022 Staff Report
1. The proposed change will not adversely affect any significant historical, cultural, architectural, or aesthetic features of the concerned property or the historic district in which it is located.
The proposed six-foot high vinyl fence is not compatible to the Craftsman architectural style and is located on the western property line. Because the fence is visible from the public right of way, the proposed change will adversely the historical, archite ctural, and aesthetic features of the subject property and the Hacienda Park Historic District in which it is located. Therefore, the project does not meet this finding.
2. The proposed change is compatible in architectural style with existing adjacent c ontributing structures in a historic district.
The use of vinyl instead of wood for a fence creates a false sense of a historic feature. Vinyl is not a permitted fence material nor appropriate for the architectural style, time and period therefore not com patible to the Craftsman architectural style as vinyl is not historically accurate to the period and style . Fencing that is appropriate for the Craftsman style is made out of wood. The adjacent, neighboring contributing structures also have wood fences; therefore, this change would not be compatible. Therefore, the project does not meet this finding.
3. The proposed change is consistent with the architectural style of the building as specified in subsection 5 herein, Design Review.
As mentioned in Findin g #2, the proposed six -foot high vinyl fence is not compatible to the Craftsman architectural style and the fence was built without a permit. The property use to have a wood fence installed and was replaced with a vinyl fence which is not a historically ac curate to the Craftsman style. In addition, the Historic Guidelines for fence/wall installations require that all new fence and walls should be compatible in material and design with the period and style of the primary historic structure. Therefore, the pr oposed change not consistent with the architectural style of the building, as specified in subsection 5 herein, Design Review.
4. The scale, massing, proportions, materials, textures, fenestration, decorative features, and details proposed are consistent with the period and/or compatible with adjacent structures.
The proposed vinyl fence will impact the scale, massing, proportions, materials, textures, fenestration, decorative features, and details proposed as it is not consistent with the period of adjacent structures or the existing Craftsman Bungalow structure. The adjacent, neighboring contributing structures also have wood fences; therefore, would not be compatible.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the appeal, upholding Staff’s decision to deny MINCOA-18644-2022 and adopt Resolution No. 2022-012.
August 3, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No. MINCOA-18644-2022 Staff Report
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff has determined that this project is exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section s 15331 – Historical rehabilitation and Section s 15268 (Ministerial Projects), 15061[b][3](General Rule Exemption), and 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared and is attached (Attachment 7).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 2022-012
2. Historic Survey
3. Site Plan
4. Decision Letter
5. Code Enforcement Photos
6. Appeal Letter
7. Notice of Exemption
8. Craftsman Style Pages from the Pomona Guide to Historic Preservation
HPC RESOLUTION NO. 2022-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF POMONA, CALIFORNIA UPHOLDING THE DECISION TO DENY A MINOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ( MINCOA 18644 -2022) TO LEGALIZE AN UNPERMITTED 6-FOOT HIGH VINYL FENCE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 418 KENOAK PLACE IN THE HACIENDA PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF POMONA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the applicant, Gail Titus, installed a six-foot high vinyl fence without a Minor Certificate of Appropriateness;
WHEREAS, the subject property is a “contributing” structure located within the Hacienda Park Historic District, which was designated as a historic district by the Pomona City Council in 2003;
WHEREAS, the contributing structure at the site was originally built in 1909;
WHEREAS, any new fence or wall installation requires Planning staff approval of Minor Certificate of Appropriateness prior to the installation;
WHEREAS, the applicant, Gail Titus, submitted an application for M inor Certificate of Appropriateness (MINCOA 18644-2022) to legalize an unpermitted six -foot high vinyl fence at 418 Kenoak Place;
WHEREAS, the Planning Staff determined that the project does not meet findings as described in Section .5809 -13(F)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance to approve a Minor Certificate of Appropriateness;
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Pomona, has, after giving notice thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on August 3, 2022 concerning the requested Minor Certificate of Appropriateness (MINCOA 18644-2022); and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered in the case presented at the public hearing.
NOW T HEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Pomona, California, as follows:
SECTION 1. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby determines that, pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the En vironmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is ministerial, so the project is exempt under Section 15268. The project is also covered by HPC Resolution No. 2022-012
MINCOA 18644-2022
418 Kenoak Place
the general rule exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), which applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environ ment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The project is also covered by CEQA under Section 15331, Class 31 - Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation Activities and Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
SECTION 2. Section .5809-13(F)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance requires t hat to make findings to approve a Major Certificate of Appropriateness. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed change will not adversely affect any significant historical, cultural, architectural, or aesthetic features of the concerned property or the historic district in which it is located.
The proposed six -foot high vinyl fence is not compatible to the Craftsman architectural style and is located on the western property line. Because the fence is visible from the public right of way, the proposed change will adversely the historical, architectural, and aesthetic features of the subject property and the Hacienda Park Historic District in which it is located.
2. The proposed change is compatible in architectural style with existing adjacent contributing structures in a historic district.
The use of vinyl instead of wood for a fence creates a false sense of a historic feature. Vinyl is not a permitted fence material nor appropriate for the architectural style, time and period therefore not compatible to the Craftsman architectural style as vinyl is not historically accurate to the period and style. Fencing that is appropriate for the Craftsman style is made out of wood. The adjacent, neighboring contributing structures a lso have wood fences; therefore, this change would not be compatible.
3. The proposed change is consistent with the architectural style of the building as specified in subsection 5 herein, Design Review.
As mentioned in Finding #2, the proposed six -foot high vinyl fence is not compatible to the Craftsman architectural style and the fence was built without a permit. The property use to have a wood fence installed and was replaced with a vinyl fence which is not a historically accurate to the Craftsman st yle. In addition, the Historic Guidelines for fence/wall installations require that all new fence and walls should be compatible in material and design with the period and style of the primary historic structure. Therefore, the proposed change not consistent with the architectural style of the building, as specified in subsection 5 herein, Design Review.
HPC Resolution No. 2022-012
MINCOA 18644-2022
418 Kenoak Place
4. The scale, massing, proportions, materials, textures, fenestration, decorative features, and details proposed are consistent with the period and/or compatible with adjacent structures.
The proposed vinyl fence will impact the scale, massing, proportions, materials, textures, fenestration, decorative features, and details proposed as it is not consistent with the period of adjacent structures or the exi sting Craftsman Bungalow structure. The adjacent, neighboring contributing structures also have wood fences; therefore, would not be compatible.
SECTION 3. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby upholds Staff’s decision to Deny Major Certificate of Appropriateness (MAJCOA 18644-2022) to legalize an unpermitted six-foot high vinyl fence.
SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and forward the original to the City Clerk.
APPROVED AND PASSED THIS 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022.
____________________________________
JENNIFER WILLIAMS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Geoffrey Starns, AICP, LEED AP BD+C
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SECRETARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
CITY OF POMONA)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
HPC Resolution No. 2022-012
MINCOA 18644-2022
418 Kenoak Place
ABSENT:
Pursuant to Resolution No. 76-258 of the City of Pomona, the time in which judicial review of this action must be sought is governed by Sec. 1094.6 C.C.P.
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Other Listings
Review Code
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: 0 Not for Publication
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a location map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date --------- ----
c. Address 418 KEN0AK DR
d. UTM (Give more than one fr large and/or linear resource Zone ____ _ T R 1/4 of
City: Riverside
mE/ ----- mN
1/4 of Sec
Zip
B.M.
----------
e. Other Locational Data: Contributing--------'----------------------------------- * P 3 a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition.alterations, size, setting, and boudnaries) This two-story Craftsman home features a front-facing primary gable and large wall dormers on the sides.
Each gable/dormer features a large vent with horizontal louvers. The east elevation features a window popout covered by a shed roof, and the west elevation features a brick fireplace. Siding includes narrow clapboard on the first story and shingles on the second story. Unusual features on the front elevation indicate possible modifications, and include a front door with fluted pilasters and a broken pediment, as well as a small wrought-iron balcony above the front door. It is unknown whether a front porch ever existed. Additional features include twelve-over-one double-hung windows, multi-pane casement windows and highly decorative faux roof support beams. An apparent addition on the rear of the house features a shed roof and wood siding.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 --=-----==---=----==---------==---------* P 4. Resources Present: � Building O Structure O Object O Site O District O Element of District O Other (isolates, etc.) *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") P5b. Description of Photo:
(View, dale, accession #)
*PS. Date Constructed: 1909 ------
Age and Sources: [&] Historic
D Prehistoric □ Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
Pomona CA
*PS: Recorded by: (name, affiliation, and address)
*P9. Date Recorded:
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Other Activity
*Attachments: NONE O Location Map O Sketch Map O Continuation Sheet O Building, Structure, and Object Record 0 Archaeological Record O District Record O Linear Reature Record O Milling Station Record O Rock Art Record 0 Artifact Record O Photograph Record Other (Lisi)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
City of Pomona
MINOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
DECISION LETTER
ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that it does not meets the findings required in Section .5809-13(F) (6).
1. The proposed change will not adversely affect any significant historical, cultural, architectural, or aesthetic features of the concerned property or the historic district in which it is located.
The proposed six-foot high vinyl fence is not compatible to the Craftsman architectural style and is located on the western property line. Because the fence is visible from the public right of way, the proposed change will adversely the historical, architectural, and aesthetic features of the subject property and the Hacienda Park Historic District in which it is located.
2. The proposed change is compatible in architectural style with existing adjacent contributing structures in a historic district.
The proposed six-foot high vinyl fence is not compatible to the Craftsman architectural style. Fencing that is appropriate for the Craftsman style is made out of wood. The adjacent, neighboring contributing structures also have wood fences; therefore, this change would not be compatible.
3. The proposed change is consistent with the architectural style of the building as specified in subsection 5 herein, Design Review.
As mentioned in Finding #2, the proposed six-foot high vinyl fence is not compatible to the Craftsman architectural style and the fence was built without a permit. The property use to have a wood fence installed and was replaced with a vinyl fence which is not a historically accurate to the Craftsman style. In addition, the Historic Guidelines for fence/wall installations require that all new fence and walls should be compatible in material and design with the period and style of the primary historic structure. Therefore, the proposed change not consistent with the architectural style of the building, as specified in subsection 5 herein, Design Review.
4. The scale, massing, proportions, materials, textures, fenestration, decorative features, and details proposed are consistent with the period and/or compatible with adjacent structures.
The proposed vinyl fence will impact the scale, massing, proportions, materials, textures, fenestration, decorative features, and details proposed as it is not consistent with the period of adjacent structures or the existing Craftsman Bungalow structure. The adjacent, neighboring contributing structures also have wood fences; therefore, would not be compatible.
APPEALS
This decision will become final on Tuesday, July 19, 2022, unless an appeal is filed with the Planning Division prior to this date. The applicant or any member of the public may file an appeal. There is no cost to file an appeal for a Minor Certificate of Appropriateness. Appeals may be filed with the contact listed in this letter.
The Pomona Guide to Historic Preservation
2-35
CHAPTER 2: POMONA’S HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE
CRAFTSMAN ARCHITECTURE
1895-1920S
The Craftsman style was also known as the Arts and Crafts style and it evolved from Arts and Craft movement that originated in England in the late 1800s. The Craftsman style developed as a contradiction to the ornamentation of the styles of the Victorian era that preceded it. It was the fi rst style that emphasized natural materials and functionality. It was also one of the fi rst styles to integrate indoor spaces and the natural environment of the outdoors.
Craftsman details were simple, in stark contrast to the gingerbread of the Victorian home. The wood was stained, instead of painted, and the homes featured built in cabinets, buff ets and benches. The moldings and other trim work was simple shapes, which could create complex designs. Fireplaces were also either natural materials such as brick or rock or tiled with simple stained wood mantles, in contrast to the marble and stone fi replaces of Victorian homes.
The Craftsman style fl ourished in Southern California, with some of the best examples of the style in located in local neighborhoods and the craftsman variation of the bungalow is the dominant home style in Southern California’s historic neighborhoods. Cities such as Pomona, Monrovia, Riverside and Pasadena have entire neighborhoods of Craftsman style homes and Craftsman Bungalows. The most famous Craftsman style architects were Charles and Henry Greene, better known as Greene and Greene Architects. The best collection of their work is in several neighborhoods in Pasadena, including the Gamble House.
CHARACTER -DEFINING FEATURES
• Exposed timbers in porch and rafters
• Clapboard or shingle siding
• Asymmetrical facades
• Informal plans
• Low scale and massing
• Low-pitched gable roofs
• Large porches
• Simple detailing
• Brick, rock or stone foundations
2-36
PRESERVING POMONA
MASSING AND PLAN
• Two stories
• Articulation used to break up the mass including
porches, second fl oor sleeping porches, or second
stories setback from the fi rst.
• Rectangular in plan, although there are a few
examples of L and U-shaped plans.
• Horizontal orientation.
• Window placement, roofs, porches, and trim
elements used to accentuate the horizontal nature
of the building.
FACADES
• Wood siding or shingles for exterior walls.
• Siding is used on most of the building and shingles
are used as an accent in some cases.
• Rock foundations and bases, on occasion brick and
a cut stone were also used.
• Emphasized local materials, especially in the
foundation.
• Simple and large exposed attic vents on the gable.
• Simple roof and rock or brick chimneys.
PAINT COLORS
• 3 to 5 colors.
• Body color typically dark earth tones, usually
browns or greens.
• Trim Colors were typically in contrast the base color. • Darker buildings used lighter colors, earth tones
such as beiges and tans.
• Lighter buildings using darker trim colors.
• Window frames and end rafters would be a third
accent color, closer in shade to the base color.
Exposed roof and porch beams would typically be
painted dark brown.
• One alternative to the color scheme would be
mixing color palettes.
• For example, a maroon base, an olive green trim
and a dark brown window frame.
ROOFS
• Low pitched gable roofs, or variations of the gable
roof such as a cross gable.
• Large overhangs, both at the bottom of the roof
structure and at the gable ends.
• Rafters are always exposed.
TRIM AND ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
• Brackets, beams or similar elements to give the
appearance of holding the roof up.
• Elements may actually be structural, but in many
cases, they are purely decorative.
• Door and window trim are simple boards (usually
1x4’s or 1x6’s), with the horizontal trim extending
beyond the vertical trim pieces.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
• Door were wider than normal, 36-42” minimum. 48”
also fairly common.
• Simple stained doors, could include stained or
beveled glass panels.
• Glass sidelights with either stained or beveled glass to match front door on larger buildings.
• Windows were typically individual casement, double
or single-hung wood frame windows. Stained glass
windows used as accent an interior or exterior feature.
PORCHES
• Large porches.
• River rock or brick columns
• Combination of rock columns and wood posts
possible.
• Clinker brick used in combination with regular brick, or river rock.
• Wood posts would be left exposed as would any
wood beams.
• Used on higher end craftsman homes, paired down
for the Bungalow.
FENCES AND WALLS
• Fences de fi ned space but joined man-made elements
with natural ones.
• Wood Fences and arbors typical.
• Stone or brick columns to match building possible.