HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION
March 06, 2015
Agenda Item No: 10
HDRC CASE NO: 2015-087
ADDRESS: 138 E HOLLYWOOD AVE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NCB 6388 BLK 8 LOT 52, 53, 54, W 10 FT OF 51 & E 15 FT OF 55
ZONING: R5 H
CITY COUNCIL DIST.: 1
DISTRICT: Monte Vista Historic District
APPLICANT: Diane Hays
OWNER: John Hayes, Amy Hayes
TYPE OF WORK: Demolish addition, construct a 1,395 sq.ft. rear addition and garage modifications
REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting conceptual approval to:
1. Demolish existing small rear addition.
2. Construct a 1,395 sq. ft. rear addition. The addition will be clad in stucco to match the color of existing brick. It will have composition roof that will match the existing in type and material.
3. Garage modifications to include: create two garage bays in the front elevation and enlarge existing opening to accommodate larger vehicles, create a rear garage door opening to allow access to alley and construct new apron, and construct new trellis in front of the garage.
4. Repair existing driveway and expand width of driveway near garage entrance.
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.
9. Outbuildings, Including Garages
A. MAINTENANCE (PRESERVATION)
ii. Materials-Repair outbuildings and their distinctive features in-kind. When new materials are needed, they should match existing materials in color, durability, and texture. Refer to maintenance and alteration of applicable materials above, for additional guidelines.
B. ALTERATIONS (REHABILITATION, RESTORATION, AND RECONSTRUCTION)
i. Garage doors-Ensure that replacement garage doors are compatible with those found on historic garages in the district (e.g., wood paneled) as well as with the principal structure. When not visible from the public right-of-way, modern paneled garage doors may be acceptable.
Historic Design Guidelines, Chapter 3, Guidelines for Additions
1. Massing and Form of Residential Additions
A. GENERAL
i. Minimize visual impact-Site residential additions at the side or rear of the building whenever possible to minimize views of the addition from the public right-of-way. An addition to the front of a building would be inappropriate.
ii. Historic context-Design new residential additions to be in keeping with the existing, historic context of the block. For example, a large, two-story addition on a block comprised of single-story homes would not be appropriate.
iii. Similar roof form-Utilize a similar roof pitch, form, overhang, and orientation as the historic structure for additions.
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.
B. SCALE, MASSING, AND FORM
i. Subordinate to principal facade-Design residential additions, including porches and balconies, to be subordinate to the principal façade of the original structure in terms of their scale and mass.
iv. Footprint-The building footprint should respond to the size of the lot. An appropriate yard to building ratio should be maintained for consistency within historic districts. Residential additions should not be so large as to double the existing building footprint, regardless of lot size.
v. Height-Generally, the height of new additions should be consistent with the height of the existing structure. The maximum height of new additions should be determined by examining the line-of-sight or visibility from the street. Addition height should never be so contrasting as to overwhelm or distract from the existing structure.
3. Materials and Textures
A. COMPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
i. Complementary materials-Use materials that match in type, color, and texture and include an offset or reveal to distinguish the addition from the historic structure whenever possible. Any new materials introduced to the site as a result of an addition must be compatible with the architectural style and materials of the original structure.
ii. Metal roofs-Construct new metal roofs in a similar fashion as historic metal roofs. Refer to the Guidelines for Alternations and Maintenance section for additional specifications regarding metal roofs.
iii. Other roofing materials-Match original roofs in terms of form and materials. For example, when adding on to a building with a clay tile roof, the addition should have a roof that is clay tile, synthetic clay tile, or a material that appears similar in color and dimension to the existing clay tile.
4. Architectural Details
A. GENERAL
i. Historic context-Design additions to reflect their time while respecting the historic context. Consider character-defining features and details of the original structure in the design of additions. These architectural details include roof form, porches, porticos, cornices, lintels, arches, quoins, chimneys, projecting bays, and the shapes of window and door openings.
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.
iii. Contemporary interpretations-Consider integrating contemporary interpretations of traditional designs and details for additions. Use of contemporary window moldings and door surroundings, for example, can provide visual interest while helping to convey the fact that the addition is new.
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
FINDINGS:
a. The main house and garage, designed by architect Will N. Noonan were built in 1925 in the Colonial Revival style. According to the Monte Vista Historic District survey, both structures are contributing to the district.
b. The existing small rear addition is likely not original or of historic age. Demolition will not cause an adverse effect to the historic structure.
c. Consistent with the Guidelines for Additions, new additions should be located at the side or rear of the building to minimize views from the street. The proposed addition is set back behind the main house and is in keeping with the guidelines.
d. The proposed addition will match the roof form of the historic structure which is consistent with the Guidelines for Additions. However, the proposed metal roof on the small transition between the existing house and the addition does not relate to the style or materials of the main house. A roof that is all clad in shingles would be more appropriate.
e. According to the Guidelines for Additions, a setback or recessed area should be utilized to provide a clear distinction between the old and the new. As presented, the west wall of the addition is flush with the west side of the original house which is not consistent with the guidelines. In addition, the proposed brick cladding on this new wall will blend in with the existing wall which will further conflict with the guidelines.
f. The Guidelines for Additions recommend that the footprint should respond to the size of the lot, an appropriate yard to building ratio should be maintained for consistency within the districts, and residential additions should not double the footprint of the existing building. The proposed addition will add approximately 1395 sf. to the existing footprint of approximately 2003 sf. Although the addition is consistent with the guidelines in footprint size, the lot to building ratio will be much lower than adjacent properties. As presented, the rear wall of the addition is encroaching on the rear setback which may require a variance.
g. Materials that match existing in type, color, and texture should be used according to the Guidelines for Additions. Although the proposed stucco is consistent with the guidelines, the proposed brick cladding on the west side of the addition does not clearly identify the addition as new and should be avoided.
h. Consistent with the Guidelines for Additions, new additions should be designed to reflect their time while respecting the historic context. Architectural details that are in keeping with the architectural style and are simple in design should also be used. Some of the proposed detailing such as brackets at proposed porches and garage trellis should be simplified so that they are clearly identified as new elements.
i. According to the Standards for Rehabilitation #10, new additions should be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic structure would be unimpaired. As presented, construction of the proposed addition will include the removal of several original brick walls. The proposed addition will significantly alter the rear elevation of the original house and due to removal of original elements such as walls and windows its construction will not be reversible.
j. The front of the existing garage has been previously modified by enclosing the original door opening. The proposed changes to the door openings will not cause an adverse effect and are in keeping with the style of the main house. Consistent with the guidelines, new garage doors should be compatible with those found on other garages in the district. The proposed front garage doors are consistent with the guidelines.
k. Consistent with the Guidelines for Exterior Maintenance and Alterations, creating new entrances on a façade visible from the public right of way should be avoided. Although the proposed new garage door will face the alley and will not be highly visible, the installation of the front door will significantly impact the rear elevation of the historic garage and should be avoided.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Staff recommends approval of item 1 as submitted based on finding b.
2. Staff does not recommend approval of item 2 as submitted based on findings c-i. Staff recommends the following:
a. The footprint of the addition is reduced to allow for a similar building to lot ratio of adjacent properties
b. Existing brick walls are incorporated into the new layout and removal of historic features such as windows as walls is minimized
c. A setback and different materials are incorporated along the west side of the addition so that it can be clearly identified as new
d. Detailing is simplified so that it can be clearly identified as new
3. Staff does not recommend approval of item 3 as submitted based on findings j-k. Staff recommends the modifications to the front elevation only.
4. Staff recommends approval of item 4 as submitted.
CASE MANAGER:
Adriana Ziga