Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Addition Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies second‑story addition for contributing house at 1185 Almeria after staff finds multiple compatibility issues
Summary
The Historic Preservation Board denied a proposal to add a second floor and other alterations to a contributing 1951 minimal‑traditional house at 1185 Almeria Drive, citing conflicts with multiple Secretary of the Interior Standards and local compatibility criteria.
The Historic Preservation Board denied an application to add a second floor, a cantilevered porch, new loggia and other alterations to a contributing minimal‑traditional residence at 1185 Almeria Drive after staff recommended denial under multiple Secretary of the Interior Standards and local compatibility criteria.
Architect Daniel Kahane of Smith and Moore Architects said the house would retain several existing features (including original gable elements and decorative coins) while creating a new two‑story gabled expression at the building’s eastern corner and a set‑back second story clad in painted wood siding. The design team characterized the proposal as an Anglo‑Caribbean vernacular approach that draws on local precedents and preserves certain original elements, such as porch columns and gable vents.
Staff opposed the project, concluding the proposed work would remove or obscure historic character‑defining features, introduce conjectural features drawn from other architectural styles (Monterey, Craftsman and Mid‑Century modern elements), and alter the house’s horizontal massing. The staff report cited failures to meet Standards 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Secretary of the Interior Standards and additional compatibility criteria for new construction and alterations in the municipal code.
During the board’s discussion, several members said the design was skillfully executed but inconsistent with preserving the contributing structure. One board member noted that similar Monterey‑style elements exist elsewhere in the city, but a majority agreed with staff that the proposed alterations would create a false sense of historical development and would not preserve the house’s existing character. The board voted to deny the certificate of appropriateness.
Why it matters: The decision reinforces the board’s care to protect contributing properties by denying large additions that would significantly change a structure’s historic character rather than adapt more modestly.
What’s next: The applicant can revise the design for resubmittal or pursue alternatives that more closely retain the house’s existing materials, fenestration, and horizontal massing.
