Owner seeks to remove flood‑plain garage, add low‑visibility addition behind contributing stone house

Daniel Kiedis (building owner) and his architects returned to the DRC with a site plan showing the accessory garage in the floodplain and a proposal to demolish that structure and add a new, visually subordinate addition behind the principal stone house. The team said the existing accessory building is in poor condition and that reuse in place would force costly floodplain‑raise requirements or limit options for parking and ADA access.

Staff noted that the historic guidelines strongly discourage demolition unless one of several narrow criteria is met — loss of integrity, economic hardship, or demonstrated structural instability supported by a qualified engineer or architect — and said the application did not include those supporting reports. Staff also reported archival imagery indicating the accessory was present on mid‑century maps, which complicates the contributing/non‑contributing designation and asked the applicant to provide clearer historic documentation and structural assessments.

Commissioners agreed the accessory’s presence in the floodplain complicated its reuse, and several members said a raised accessory structure could look worse than replacement; Mary (speaker 9) said that raising the structure often produces an awkward historic result. Commissioners asked the design team for clearer floodplain overlays, the exact footprint and coverage math, and more contextual renderings showing the proposed addition’s relationship to the street and neighboring properties.

Next steps: Applicant to provide structural substantiation for demolition criteria (if claimed), clearer floodplain overlays and site sections, and revised plans showing how the addition will remain outside the floodplain and how parking and ADA access will be handled.