Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic board approves carport at 326 Pedro Street with stucco façade condition
Summary
The Historic & Architectural Preservation Board approved a certificate of architectural compliance for a new 18-by-18 carport at 326 Pedro Street with a condition that the front façade be stuccoed to match the house; the decision followed testimony on accessibility needs and review of historic precedents.
The Historic & Architectural Preservation Board approved a certificate of architectural compliance for a new carport at 326 Pedro Street (PLR2600010), imposing a condition that the carport's front façade be stuccoed to match the existing house.
At the reconvened quasi‑judicial hearing, an applicant and his son described renovations and chronicled why the carport is necessary, including mobility concerns: “a sheltered place large enough to enter and exit the car while involving a wheelchair or a walker would be extremely, important,” the homeowner said, explaining his wife’s prior falls and need for safer access. Staff presented a revised site plan and elevations showing the 18-by-18 carport and stuccoed support posts, and the applicant displayed historic photographs of nearby covered entries the board could use as precedent.
Board members questioned details of the design and visibility from the street, asking whether the carport would connect to the main house, how structural diagonals and beams would appear, and whether visible wood framing could be wrapped or stuccoed. The applicant’s representative described the structural approach — “two 6-by-6 posts” supporting an LVL beam and diagonal braces for lateral support — and said wrapping and stuccoing were options though more expensive.
Harry Klinkhammer, historical resources manager, reminded the board that the Secretary of the Interior Standards are recommendations, not mandates, and advised that additions be distinct and removable so the original fabric can be restored in the future. Staff said the board could add a condition requiring stucco across the top face and that staff could administratively approve a revised plan implementing that finish.
A motion to approve PLR2600010 with the stipulation that the front façade be stuccoed to match the house carried on a roll‑call vote (majority yes; Barrack recorded a no vote). Staff asked the applicant to return with refined plans for final review, noting the submittal still appeared to be a design in progress.
