Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition And Addition City Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues COA for demolition and new second‑story addition on City Park Avenue, asks for more design detail
Summary
A request to demolish a non-historic second-floor addition and construct a new cantilevered second story on a City Park Avenue property was continued so the applicant can provide more detailed plans addressing rooflines, cornice transitions, gutters and material choices.
The commission continued a COA application (COA 82400623680) for demolition of an existing second-floor addition and construction of a new second‑story addition at a property on City Park Avenue.
Applicants Joseph Carriva and Joseph Hill described the proposal: demolish the existing second-floor addition and build a new, cantilevered second story with true exterior board-and-batten siding, Marvin Ultimate casement windows, CertainTeed shingles in a dark color and 5-inch case-style gutters. HPO staff said commissioners at a prior hearing were split on whether the existing second floor was historic; several commissioners indicated the existing second floor is non-contributing and therefore demolition with an appropriate replacement might be supported.
Commissioners raised detailed design concerns: how the new roof would tie into multiple existing rooflines; how the proposed cantilever would meet the first-floor cornice and window bay on both sides; appropriate differentiation between new work and historic fabric; compatibility of the proposed shingle color/type with the approved shingle list; and how to resolve transitions to avoid water infiltration. Several commissioners recommended on-site photos and a site visit to better study roof transitions. Commissioners also suggested exploring a limited flat-roof option for the top of the addition only after careful consideration of water control and flashing details.
Staff recommended continuing the application so the applicant could revise plans and provide clearer elevations and construction details. The motion to continue was made and passed on a voice vote.
Why it matters: The commission seeks to preserve the visible character of historic buildings and wants to ensure any new addition is differentiated, compatible and will not damage historic details or create long-term maintenance issues.
