Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves COA and variances for 230 North Lakeside Drive with modified conditions
Summary
The board approved a certificate of appropriateness, a 10-year ad valorem pre-construction tax exemption, a base flood elevation variance and a lot-coverage waiver for a 2,621 sq ft addition at 230 North Lakeside Drive, removing one staff condition on dormer window head heights and directing additional design work with staff.
The Historic Resources Preservation Board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness and related requests for a project at 230 North Lakeside Drive, a contributing property in the Old Lucerne Historic District. Staff presenter Anne Hamilton described the proposal as a largely compatible addition designed in the frame-vernacular style and recommended approval of the ad valorem tax exemption, historic waiver for lot coverage and a variance from base flood elevation requirements.
Hamilton said the house likely dates from between 1918 and 1925 and recommended several conditions including lowering the second-floor dormer head heights by 6 inches and eliminating the column surround, sidelights and transom on a secondary entry so the primary historic front door remains visually dominant. "So we do recommend approval, for all of the portions of the application, including the ad valorem tax exemption, historic waiver and base flood elevation variance," Hamilton told the board.
The applicant's architect, Caleb Lauks, said the team was willing to work with staff on the secondary entry design but raised practical concerns about lowering dormer head heights to 5 feet from the finished floor; he proposed raising the dormer pitch or keeping the windows as drawn for structural practicality. Public commenters supported the design; after discussion the board moved to approve HRPB project number 25-00100152 with staff-recommended conditions but to remove condition number 5 (the window-head-height reduction) and to direct staff and the applicant to work together on condition 4. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.
