Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Additions Accessory topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
1008 Fair Street proposal scaled back; DRC says addition should read subordinate to one‑story federal form
Summary
Applicant presented a rear den extension, attic dormer and accessory‑structure changes at 1008 Fair Street; the DRC generally supported lowering the addition under the main roofline but asked the team to simplify massing and use window patterns that match the historic house.
Jacob Lane presented a revised design for a rear den extension, a storage dormer in the attic and a larger accessory structure (detached garage) at 1008 Fair Street. The latest design pulled the den extension below the main ridgeline so it no longer sat above the house, and the applicant said the team was seeking storage headroom in the attic with a small dormer.
Staff raised concerns that, although the addition is lower than the primary ridgeline, the addition’s complexity of roof forms, wide glazing bands and transom‑style windows make it appear architecturally heavier than the simple one‑story federal historic house. The guidelines encourage additions to be subordinate and to read as enclosed porches when appropriate. Commissioners recommended simplifying the addition’s massing, reducing tall transom rows and adopting window proportions consistent with the principal building (taller, narrower sashes), and asked the applicant to ensure the addition’s materials and fenestration relate to the main house.
On the accessory structure, staff said proposed front‑facing stoops and elaborate gables for the garage are uncommon and may make the outbuilding read like a small house. Commissioners urged that the accessory structure be simplified, use window patterns that echo the principal house and be visually subordinate in detail and scale. Several commissioners suggested carrying over simpler window patterns and avoiding ornate porch forms on the outbuilding.
The applicant said he may explore demolishing and replacing the accessory structure if research confirms it is not historic; staff will review permit and Sanborn map records for the garage’s construction date. The item will return with refined massing, simplified fenestration and revised accessory‑structure drawings for a future review.
Why it matters: The DRC wants additions to clearly read as secondary to the main historic building and to avoid accessory structures that compete with the primary house in massing and detail.
Next steps: Applicant to return with simplified addition massing, window pattern choices that match principal elevations, and a clarified plan for the accessory structure (repair, replace or rebuild), plus any research records on the garage’s age.
