DDRC denies porch enclosure at 3111 Lakewood Avenue, allows staff approval if enclosure is primarily glass

The Design/Development Review Commission denied a certificate of design approval for a porch enclosure at 3111 Lakewood Avenue, citing conflict with Section 5 of the Earlwood Protection Area guidelines, and amended its action to allow staff to approve a revised design if the applicant makes all porch bays primarily glass.

City historic preservation staff told the commission the house is a 1940 brick bungalow and that the applicant's design used large areas of solid Hardie board cladding on two of the four porch bays, which would “detract from the existing architectural form and design of the building and create a false sense of historical development.” Staff recommended denial and offered to accept a deferred staff review if the enclosure used primarily transparent materials on all bays.

Applicant Dimitri Kislev, who identified himself as the property owner, said he and his wife wanted an enclosed entry to store shoes and outerwear and argued that the porch is small (about 66 square feet) and that a small solid back wall (he described it as roughly a 5-by-8 wall, about 40 square feet before a transom) was needed to mount a hanging rack. Kislev told the commission he had increased the proposed transparent area to “over 66%” in response to staff comments and praised staff communications: “the staff was excellent, so kudos to them.”

Commission members pressed on precedent and visibility. Staff noted that existing approvals in the Earlwood Protection Area generally require porch enclosures to preserve the appearance of a porch by using primarily transparent infill (glass or screening) so the space continues to read as a porch rather than a fully enclosed room. Members suggested alternatives — larger windows, sidelights flanking the door, or freestanding racks inside the porch — and emphasized that a solid Hardie-clad bay visible from the right-of-way risks making the porch read as interior space rather than a porch.

A motion to deny the certificate of design approval was made and then amended to permit the applicant to work with staff to revise the design; the amendment authorized staff to approve the modification if all porch bays were made primarily of glass. The commission voted yes on the amended motion.

The decision means the applicant may either (a) withdraw the current proposed permit and submit revised plans with primarily transparent infill for all porch bays for staff review and possible approval, or (b) appeal the DDRC decision within 30 days to a court of competent jurisdiction. The record shows the DDRC preferred a design that retains the porch’s “void” quality through transparent materials and that staff may approve a conforming revision without returning the case to the full commission.

Votes at the meeting: the amended denial (with staff-approval path) passed unanimously.