Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRC questions scale of rear addition and garage at 212 Lewisburg Ave; staff says addition does not read subordinate
Summary
The Design Review Committee reviewed revised plans for an addition and a new accessory garage at 212 Lewisburg Ave and told the applicant the rear addition still reads as the same scale as the historic house; staff said the proposed addition is not sufficiently subordinate to the principal building.
Design Review Committee members reviewed a revised application for an addition to the principal building and a new accessory structure (garage) at 212 Lewisburg Ave. Don (applicant representative) reported the proposed accessory structure sits at the end of the existing driveway, the driveway would not be altered, and the accessory footprint is 847 square feet, “less than 50% of the existing building footprint.” The applicant said changes were made to reduce the addition’s apparent volume and to keep the addition at the rear of the house.
Staff told the committee the accessory structure placement, orientation and size “appear to be appropriate” but noted the accessory dormers must be moved down from the ridge and that dimensions are needed to verify distances from exterior walls. For the principal building addition staff said the design “does not appear to be subordinate” to the historic building because the new ridgeline is the same as the historic ridgeline; staff recommended additional measurements and called out concerns about the return to a two‑story reading rather than a one‑and‑a‑half story subordinate addition.
Committee members agreed unimproved elevations and the long parallel-line drawings make the addition read as a two-story mass. Mary said the design “does not read as an addition” because the ridge ties into the original and suggested pulling the connector down and emphasizing a lower connector or stepped ridgeline so the addition appears subordinate. Bridal and others favored option B for fenestration (smaller double-hung windows rather than large picture windows with transoms) and encouraged the applicant to explore bringing eave lines down or using shed dormers and crossing gables to gain headroom without creating a full two-story appearance.
The applicant said the lot topography complicates the design — the house is on a plinth and neighboring houses sit closer to Lewisburg — and that some solutions might require custom windows or alternate roof geometry. Commissioners and staff asked for window specifications (double hung vs. casement), foundation details, gutter/downspout specs, chimney dimensions, and explicit height measurements so the committee could re-evaluate subordination and compatibility with nearby properties.
No formal action was taken; the committee provided detailed guidance and requested a revised submission addressing height, window choices and the reading of the addition as subordinate to the historic building.
