January 2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Though staff and the Commission have found additions to be appropriate to certain historic landmarks, staff finds this proposal inappropriate to the historic character of this farmhouse. It should be remembered that the Landmark Guidelines state "the Commission [HPC] has the authority to determine the architectural merits ... of any proposed treatment, renovation, or addition to a historic landmark (Page 3)." Upon consulting the local landmark preservation standards, staff has found the addition is inappropriate for the following reasons: A.) According to the local landmark standards, "a modification which involves the removal of a part of the landmark should be considered under demolition (page 3 section C.);" and "Historic landmarks shall not be demolished (page 4 section D)." The proposed addition plan calls for the demolition of the summer kitchen addition and the enclosed porch addition. These additions are contributing elements to the house and singular examples of a particular period in the home's evolution. [Refer to staff comments above.] B.) Also, the proposed addition design does not employ i.) the proportions of the existing building, ii.) the ratio of wall space to window opening, and iii.) the dimensions of the window opening used for the original building or either of the contributing additions. Instead, the proposal seeks dual double hung windows, square single light windows where elongated double hung windows currently allow much light to enter the house, and casement windows. The addition would have much more wall space without windows compared to the existing and original design of the house (See page 3 section Q. C.) The addition design does not reference the existing structure's proportions, wall to window opening ratio, and historic character defining features (page 3 section C; page 4 section 2) D.) If a future owner were to remove the addition, restoration of the existing configuration, and exterior walls and window openings would be impossible. On a more practical note, though the present configuration of the rear portion of the house does present awkward rooflines and massings, it does provide as much ventilation and sunlight as possible to the rooms of the house. For the reasons above, staff recommends denial of this application: the demolition of the summer kitchen and enclosed porch addition, the removal of contributing window openings, and the construction of the proposed addition. D.QSm`T �� G�,I �R vim° •�-v liS �.1� "Y C��Ii�G�� orkvSN% /V.wto,40.-Q 4 0-' � o'� e��.�: cam, G,,.�c�C� � o� ,v�,�>✓�.st., ��-