March 1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?_ i 1d4na }hK:`t"t?ti-i .'�Tl t_Y .mit __.i T_ini�eln• .!a. _v--_ _c• Cl assi c 2ueen Anne -ori ni na i ' 1� 1L 1 t af: a sing -le fami 1 P _27 e rr: and later altered to accommodate several- t e,:ants _ A't erat_o :s are major: the building is covered with asbestos shingle siding, with the criminal wood clapboard underneath; alum-inum storms have been installed. The Sites and Structures inventory has the rating recorded as "R" or "Reference". g} gitPl�ron"text; the building originally stood between single family residences of a similar era and style. These have since been demolished, moved, or altered beyond recognition. Buildings of similar volume, style, and appearance exist several lots to the south within the district boundaries and also on the other side of Lincolnway East. RECOMMENDATIONS The staff asserts: that the majority of proposals in this application are not appropriate as they are -not in keep'na with the Edgewater Place Local Historic District standards and compromise what remains of the b i'cing's hiStoric fakir, r. Proposal 1: This proposal is not in keening with the standard ( TT staff recolTLnends against the window alteration. -- - <� Proposal 2a: The general form and design of the proposed porch is in keeping with the standards (II.D) and with the character and style of the building. The proposed full length front porch is as characteristic of the style as the existing truncated version. The staff recommends that any approved alteration scheme for the porch include the retention of the clapboard wall/balustrade and half-length tapered box columns as they are important characteristics of both the porch and building on the whole. Proposal 2b: This proposal is not in keeping with the standards as sited above (II.C). Alteration of the existing window openings and introduction of two more entries to the front facade would greatly alter the building's character, style, and scale; it would also make for an awkward facade composition despite being partially concealed by the extended front porch. The staff recommends that the additional entries be placed at the rear facade. The commission approved a certificate for this property in December of 1991 that called for the demolition of a large rear vestibule/porch; the commission required that the facade be secured until the owner had the funds to rehabilitate the newly exposed rear wall. Placing the additional_ entries along this facade would not only be appropriate in the context of this review, but in light of the previous case. Placing the