Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 11 18

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 21 st, 2019 Page 4 of 12 from the 1940s, which took the floor -area ratio and compress it into a much smaller area in the back of the house. This would allow the front of the house to maintain its original character in form and mass. Johnson explained that the proposed bump -outs helped to alleviate the lack of space on the main level. He stated that the intention was to preserve as much of the roof as possible. He noted that the original house primarily remained intact. The plan was to add back to the house what it was originally and that it would remain a single-family structure, as it was historically. Everything was intended to be compatible but differentiated from the original structure and there was no intention to recreate parts of the house. He noted that it was very difficult to do these kinds of projects without destroying some historic elements. He had done 10 alteration certificates to various degrees and had found that the additions and the original structures would not be severed completely. Ulm asked if the replacement dormers would be the same position and sizing as they were currently and if the plane of the roof was going to continue like it was but with new framing. Johnson confirmed and added that they were planning to remove them with the framing intact and replacing them. The windows were salvageable. Dickinson invited Mr. Johnson to explain why the application proposed demolition and reconstruction. Johnson replied that shoring up the existing roof would not be feasible the way it was constructed now. Also, the way the shed roofs tie into the existing roof structure presents some problems in terms of insulation and construction. It would be easier to do it out of a truss that would allow more precision. They were also not sure what the roof could hold up. The plan went with the worst -case scenario of not being able to save the roof. He added that during the assessment process, he thought that the roof was not original to the house. Haley asked for clarification that the plan was to keep the first 10-15 feet with the hopes of preserving the first 22 feet, pending findings during the exploratory construction stage. Johnson confirmed. Dunlap asked staff about the finding that there was no differentiation between what was original and what was not. Selvoski responded that what was in red was more than the proposed landmarked area of the first 10 feet, yet the horizontal siding did not distinguish between where the old and new construction begins. Zuccaro read the criteria that explained best practices for distinguishing new and old construction. Typically the addition was disconnected if possible, even with a minor 5