June 2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Staff reviewed a few guidelines to determine its recommendation for this project: the inconspicuousness of the proposal "when viewed from a public way" and the compatibility of the project to the historic character of the site and the neighborhood. Regarding the first guideline, the proposed project is indeed not viewable from East Wayne Street North, but would be quite prominent to the neighbors on both sides of the Jones' residence. From a historic preservation standpoint, the second guideline of historic compatibility is more important in this case and more complicated to access. The design of the additions is lovely in itself. It has a layering of rooflines as seen from the west elevation and a rhythm created by the proportional windows in the screen porch and the entry addition. The proposed porch and portico makes use of the wood pilasters from the front entry as a reference of the home's Georgian character. Yet, the pilasters are not the only character defining elements of this home. The district guidelines ask owners to seek actual historic evidence from the original status of their own homes when envisioning changes. Instead, many original, defining elements will be removed, covered or distorted by this addition: the brick flat -arched framed windows, the cut stone keystones, the stone lintels, and over half of the rear exterior brick structure. The addition sacrifices the stately arrangement of the rear two-story gabled extension. The visually weaker, less steep roofline of the addition's shed roofs challenges the residence's rear verticality. The roofline and the additions also change the scale and relationship of this rather compact and rectangular structure to its lot by extending the home in a more horizontal and inharmonious manner. It also creates a more formal rear entry that is out of character with the typical, more functional back entrances of this development. The addition employs an incongruous roofline slope, window types, and wood construction. It adds a structure of materials of lesser quality (wood rather than brick) and hides much of the original brick as previously stated. Furthermore, the plan seeks to add elements that are neither from the Georgian Colonial style nor the Colonial Revival style connected to this home. Although the architect has argued for the shed roof as a reference to pent -roofed Georgian Colonials from the middle colonies (Pennsylvania), this is a stretch. The shed roofs are a design necessity to retain the second -story windows or a comfortable room height in the additions. Colonials from the middle colonies tended to be of stone materials and the pent roofs did not project so far beyond the structure as to take on the character of a lean-to. Sun porches are a common feature among Colonial Revival houses. They tended to have flat roofs, simple yet elegant detailing and were situated as symmetrical wings off the main block of the home. The French doors and the bay window, though they are pleasing design elements,.are not in keeping with the period of historic significance for this residence and its Colonial Revival style. Though this plan does well to seek Colonial references, they are off the mark concerning this home's character. Concerning the specific proposals: Staff recommends approval of the removal of the: 1.) Currently rusty metal railing, 2.) Weather beaten and mossy back awning, Both are not original to the home and are not connected to the home's period of historic significance. 3.) Modern timber landscape boxes, 4.) And cement patio. Though not in the proposal, the project would also remove the modern timber landscape boxes and a portion of the cement patio as seen in the photos. The flower boxes are of no historic significance to the residence. The patio has an interesting grid pattern that would be easily replicated.