DRC raises scale and massing concerns over proposed rear additions and garage at 215 Fourth Avenue South
Loading...
Summary
Applicant Kevin Coffey proposed demolishing a rear accessory structure and adding rear additions plus a new accessory building at the circa‑1890 contributing property at 215 Fourth Avenue South.
Kevin Coffey presented a proposal that would demolish an existing accessory structure and add rear additions and a new accessory building for the contributing circa‑1890 house at 215 Fourth Avenue South.
City staff said the house is a contributing building and noted the accessory structure appears on aerial imagery by 1999; the historic Sanborn map shows an accessory building historically in the rear but smaller than what is now proposed. Staff said it is unclear whether the historic footprint was larger or smaller and that the proposed additions do not read as subordinate in visibility, roof form and massing according to the guidelines.
The applicant said the additions were arranged to preserve portions of the backyard and avoid using the entire lot; he also said the existing garage appears to date from the 1970s or 1980s and that the new garage is intended for office/storage rather than an accessory dwelling.
DRC members raised multiple concerns: - Combined side projections: Commissioners said the proposal effectively projects from both sides of the main façade in a way that reads large behind the house. DRC interpreted the guideline about side additions (generally one side not exceeding one‑third of the façade) as intended to avoid visually overpowering the historic form when combined on both sides. - Roof complexity and perceived second story: The proposed rear roof forms and the size of the dormer/upper additions give the impression of a second story mass at the back, which several members said is out of scale with the historic house and visible from multiple viewpoints. - Garage siting and driveway pattern: Multiple members suggested typical historic placement for outbuildings is at the end of the driveway; the committee recommended exploring relocating or re‑siting the new garage to reduce paving and preserve backyard green space.
Several commissioners recommended pulling the addition closer to the center/rear and reducing side projections, simplifying roof forms (hip rather than strong gables) and ensuring the new work is clearly subordinate to the historic mass. Commissioners also asked the applicant to provide clearer photographic context, historic images (the staff identified a 1920s photo in archives), and aerial imagery to show how visible the additions would be from the street.
No formal approvals were requested or granted. Staff and commissioners asked the applicant to return with reduced massing options, clearer site context (photos and aerials), and consideration of moving the garage to the end of the driveway to meet the guidelines’ intent.
