Agenda Packet 11.7.24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HEMA No. 2024-02 – The Dinsmore House (222 S. Cypress Avenue) November 7, 2024 Page 6 4 6 3 5 Standard 8 does not apply, as there are no known archeological resources on-site, and the work will not require grading or excavation that may uncover any archaeological resources. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. As conditioned, the project complies with Standard No. 9. As discussed above, while the project would alter or remove some character-defining features and historic materials, the work is proposed to make as few alterations to the historic fabric, such as siding, trim, fascia, and window surrounds to the extent necessary to restore/replace the existing vinyl windows and repair damaged and weathered features. The proposed windows, which are principally one-over-one hung wood- sash windows featuring “horns” or “lugs” are compatible in style and materials with a residence with Queen Anne- and Greek Revival-style architectural features, and will be fitted into existing openings so as to match proposed windows to the historical window dimensions to the extent those dimensions are known. While there is not sufficient information to visually distinguish the proposed windows from their no-longer-extant historic counterparts, that the new windows would replace several stylistically inappropriate existing vinyl sashes would help substantially restore the historic character of the property to be in compliance with the overall objectives of this Standard. The building addition proposed for legalization also conforms generally to Standard No. 9. It is generally consistent with the overall design and materials of the building in that it is characterized by horizontal-wood-plank siding and simple wood door and window surrounds, similar to elements found throughout the residence. In addition, the unpermitted addition is also differentiated to the original construction of the residence, which is accomplished principally through its pent roof (a roof form not found elsewhere on the building). The pent-roof form, in combination with the addition’s relatively small footprint, also helps to subordinate it to the historic building. The roofline emerges, and descends, from just below the north-façade eave of the one-story at the rear of the building, giving the addition a lower vertical profile than any other mass making up the building. As such, the addition is subordinate not only to the larger one-story gabled mass to which it is directly appended, but also to the two-story building overall. Finally, consistent with National Park Service Guidance, the addition was erected on a less-visible elevation the building that faces the property’s interior and the private property directly to the north (Weeks and Grimmer 2017). That the addition is generally obscured from public view helps to lessen its visual impact on the historical integrity of the building.