Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessibility And Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant proposes covered breezeway and rear pergola at 1002 Fair Street to improve accessibility
Summary
At an August Design Review Committee session, applicant Jeff Fleishauer described plans for a covered walkway linking a converted accessory structure and the main house and an unseen rear pergola; staff said the proposal generally meets guidelines but asked for refined roof/column details and documentation of ADA clearance.
Jeff Fleishauer, the applicant for work at 1002 Fair Street, presented revised plans for a covered walkway between the main house and a new accessory cottage and a pergola at the rear of the property.
Fleishauer told the committee the covered walkway is intended to allow his wheelchair‑dependent relatives to reach the cottage in wet weather: "we have ... modified the plans ... where we tried to show where the covered walkway would go from the house out to the new cottage area ... so the girls could get from the cottage to the house in inclement weather since they're wheelchair bound." He said the scheme is intended to be functional and visually unobtrusive.
Staff said the historic‑district design guidelines do not directly address breezeway connectors to historic accessory buildings but do address new accessory structures and advise that connectors be simple, subordinate and minimize visual length and expanse. Staff noted the proposed pergola is located behind the house and "not visible from street view," and described the rainwater garden and pea‑gravel drain as compatible with guidelines.
Committee members praised the accessibility rationale while asking for clarification of technical details. Commissioners asked whether the breezeway width met ADA passing space requirements, and Fleishauer acknowledged portions did not match the 1990 ADA requirement for locations where two wheelchairs must be able to pass. Commissioners and staff encouraged the applicant to provide drawings that show roof lines meeting and indicate how columns and rafters are detailed so the addition reads subordinate to the historic house. Tyler and Mary both recommended pulling supporting posts back slightly from the historic corner so the original silhouette remains readable.
Staff asked the applicant to return with a scaled elevation and a clearer drawing of the roof junctions, and several committee members said refined column trim and a drawing of the final profile would help the voting meeting. Fleishauer agreed to supply the additional details.
The committee did not take a vote at the DRC session; staff indicated the DRC feedback will be included in the formal application materials for the Historic Zoning Commission voting meeting.
Why it matters: The proposal balances an accessibility need for residents with historic‑district preservation goals. The committee signaled it is willing to support a subordinate, well‑detailed connector but wants specific drawings showing roof junctions, post placement and ADA clearances before approval.
Next steps: Applicant to provide a scaled drawing of roof lines and column details, and staff will carry DRC comments into the record for the Historic Zoning Commission review.
