HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION
March 18, 2015
Agenda Item No: 12
HDRC CASE NO: 2015-094
ADDRESS: 1203 E CROCKETT ST
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NCB 1373 BLK 1 LOT E 49 FT OF 9 & 10
ZONING: RM4 H
CITY COUNCIL DIST.: 2
DISTRICT: Dignowity Hill Historic District
APPLICANT: Aurora Morales
OWNER: Aurora Morales
TYPE OF WORK: Construct front porch and window modifications
REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for approval to: 1. Build a 30x6 ft porch across the front elevation of the house. The posts and railings will match the ones used at the back porch and carport. The roof will be clad in shingles to match the house and will tie to the house below the existing roof eaves. The skirting will be hardi plank to match the house. 2. Install a window on the front elevation.
APPLICABLE CITATIONS:
Historic Design Guidelines, Chapter 2, Guidelines for Exterior Maintenance and Alterations
6. Architectural Features: Doors, Windows, and Screens
A. MAINTENANCE (PRESERVATION)
i. Openings-Preserve existing window and door openings. Avoid enlarging or diminishing to fit stock sizes or air conditioning units. Avoid filling in historic door or window openings. Avoid creating new primary entrances or window openings on the primary façade or where visible from the public right-of-way.
B. ALTERATIONS (REHABILITATION, RESTORATION, AND RECONSTRUCTION)
i. Doors-Replace doors, hardware, fanlight, sidelights, pilasters, and entablatures in-kind when possible and when deteriorated beyond repair. When in-kind replacement is not feasible, ensure features match the size, material, and profile of the historic element.
vii. Non-historic windows-Replace non-historic incompatible windows with windows that are typical of the architectural style of the building.
7. Architectural Features: Porches, Balconies, and Porte-Cocheres
B. ALTERATIONS (REHABILITATION, RESTORATION, AND RECONSTRUCTION)
v. Reconstruction-Reconstruct porches, balconies, and porte-cocheres based on accurate evidence of the original, such as photographs. If no such evidence exists, the design should be based on the architectural style of the building and historic patterns.
Historic Design Guidelines, Chapter 3, Guidelines for Additions
1. Massing and Form of Residential Additions
A. GENERAL
iv. Transitions between old and new-Utilize a setback or recessed area and a small change in detailing at the seam of the historic structure and new addition to provide a clear visual distinction between old and new building forms.
4. Architectural Details
A. GENERAL
ii. Architectural details-Incorporate architectural details that are in keeping with the architectural style of the original structure. Details should be simple in design and compliment the character of the original structure. Architectural details that are more ornate or elaborate than those found on the original structure should not be used to avoid drawing undue attention to the addition.
Historic Design Guidelines, Chapter 4, Guidelines for New Construction
1. Building and Entrance Orientation
A. FAÇADE ORIENTATION
i. Setbacks-Align front facades of new buildings with front facades of adjacent buildings where a consistent setback has been established along the street frontage. Use the median setback of buildings along the street frontage where a variety of setbacks exist. Refer to UDC Article 3, Division 2. Base Zoning Districts for applicable setback requirements.
FINDINGS:
a. The house at 1203 E. Crocket first appears on Sanborn maps in 1911-1924. The Craftsman style house originally had a wraparound porch on the southwest corner. Sometime after 1952, the porch was enclosed and the front door was relocated to a gabled wing. The reintroduction of a front porch was recommended by the HDRC as a way to mitigate for some of the previous alterations. New front porches are typically not recommended in locations for which there is no historic precedent. However, given the circumstances in which the former porch was enclosed by a previous owner, and that the current owner is seeking to restore the façade to a more historical appearance, a new porch may be appropriate.
b. This request was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on February 10, 2015. The committee member present worked with the applicant to design a porch that followed nearby examples. The committee recommended that the number of columns should be reduced to three, that the porch roof be a simple shed originating below the existing roof eaves, and that a double window be installed where the former door was located in order to balance the façade. The applicant was agreeable to those recommendations. Options for the porch skirting were also discussed.
c. The case received conceptual approval on February 18, 2015 with the stipulations that the number of columns be reduced to three, the porch roof be a simple shed originating below the existing roof eaves, and that a double window be installed where the former door was located in order to balance the façade.
d. Consistent with the Guidelines for Exterior Maintenance and Alterations, existing window openings should be preserved. In addition, non-historic windows should be replaced with new windows that are typical of the architectural style of the building. Although the proposed window modifications will alter the existing window opening, this opening is not of historic age and the proposed enlargement will not cause an adverse effect. However, the proposed multi-light windows are not typical of the Craftsman style and are not consistent with the guidelines. Using one-over-one wood windows would be more appropriate.
e. The Guidelines for Exterior Maintenance and Alterations recommend that doors are replaced in-kind when possible when deteriorated beyond repair. The proposed front door is not in keeping with the architectural style of the home and is not a commonly found type of door in a historic district.
f. According to the Guidelines for Exterior Maintenance and Alterations, new porches should be constructed based on accurate evidence of the original. If no such evidence exists, the design should be based on the architectural style of the building. Although the proposed shed roof may be appropriate in this case, the installation of the porch will obscure the existing brackets on the front of the house which should be avoided.
g. The Guidelines for New Construction recommend that new facades align with the front facades of adjacent buildings where a consistent setback has been established. The proposed front porch appears to align with adjacent houses and is consistent with the guidelines. However, it might encroach on the front setback which may require a variance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff does not recommend approval as submitted based on findings a-g. Staff recommends the following:
a. The drawings are revised to a level of 80% completion that will show specific details for porch members
b. The porch roof is revised so that the existing brackets remain in place
c. Detailed information for the proposed windows is submitted
d. A historically appropriate front door is used
CASE MANAGER:
Adriana Ziga