934 Port St, 2632 N Rampart St.

Staff Recommendations: 

This property has been continuously cited by the HDLC for deteriorated stucco since at least 2013. The previous owner applied to retain the removed stucco; however, the Commission deferred this request in February 2014 for sixty days to allow additional time to complete a cost analysis and explore re-stuccoing options. The previous owner took no further action, the deferred request was never heard, and the application was marked as expired due to inactivity in 2018. The previous owner also applied to reinstall stucco to match the existing, and a CofA was issued in March 2015; however, the owner again took no further action, no work was completed, and the application was marked as expired due to inactivity in 2019. 

In February 2019, the HDLC observed that the property was listed for sale and sent a letter to the previous owner noting the existing violations and advising that any prospective buyers should be informed that they would be responsible for correcting the violations upon purchase. The current owner purchased this property in June 2020, and in May 2021, the HDLC opened a new Demolition by Neglect violation under this new ownership. The owner is now requesting retention approval for the delaminated stucco to remain at the N Rampart Street side, with new stucco to match the existing installed at the Port Street side. 

FEMA survey research indicates the building was constructed between 1850 to 1860 and it first appears on the 1887 Sanborn map. Given the age of the masonry building, it very likely utilizes softer “lake” bricks or similar materials and almost certainly originally featured a smooth, lime-based stucco coating. This stucco coating was an integral component of the exterior building envelope and was intended to protect the vulnerable underlying bricks from deterioration. 

However, based on the rough and textured appearance of the current stucco, it is highly likely that the original stucco was replaced or overcoated with a textured "spatterdash" application. This technique, which became popular in the early-20th century as a low-cost modernization and waterproofing measure, is also problematic. Spatterdash coatings typically contain a high proportion of Portland cement as the binder, combined with coarse sand or small aggregate to produce a heavily textured surface, and were often applied as an overcoat onto earlier stucco. These mixes are significantly harder and less permeable than traditional lime-based stuccos, which can trap moisture within the wall assembly and accelerate deterioration of the underlying masonry and mortar. This coating does not appear to have been installed on the Franklin Street side of the primary building or the Burgundy Street side of the rear accessory.

In areas where the stucco has been removed or failed, the original visible brick and mortar are in generally poor condition. The mortar joints exhibit powdering, erosion, loss of profile, and displacement, and numerous instances of inappropriate mortar repairs are visible. Several bricks are spalled or eroded, and extensive brick replacement is evident at both street-facing elevations, particularly where earlier window openings were infilled and around the first-floor door and window openings on the North Rampart Street side. The uncoated side and rear elevations exhibit weathering and surface loss consistent with long-term exposure following the removal of a protective stucco coating. Open joints, mortar loss, and irregular repointing suggest that these walls were likely originally coated with stucco rather than historically left uncoated.

While Staff appreciates the applicant's proposal to install new stucco at the Port Street side, the request to retain the delaminated stucco at the front elevation does not meet the HDLC Design Guidelines, which specifically prohibits the removal of historic stucco from masonry surfaces exposing the soft underlying brick to the elements, and prohibits maintaining the appearance of delaminated stucco. Based on this, the poor condition of the original masonry and mortar, and due to the extent of inappropriate masonry and mortar repairs visible, Staff recommends denial of the request for retention of the delaminated stucco.

Furthermore, Staff has concern that the remaining portions of Portland-cement spatterdash stucco are incompatible with the historic masonry substrate and may be causing ongoing deterioration by trapping moisture within the wall assembly. Additionally, the uncoated masonry walls exhibit advanced signs of mortar deterioration, particularly at the Franklin Avenue side and should be repaired and coated. For these reasons, Staff recommends that the non-historic spatterdash stucco be carefully removed from the entirety of the building and replaced with a compatible smooth-finish lime-based stucco in accordance with the HDLC Design Guidelines and NPS Preservation Brief 22.