Laserfiche WebLink
FREE RECORDING PURSUANT TO <br />GOVERNMENT CODE § 27383 <br />Resolution No. 2024-XX <br />Page 5 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />materials with a residence with Queen Anne- and Greek <br />Revival-style architectural features, and will be fitted into <br />existing openings so as to match proposed windows to the <br />historical window dimensions to the extent those dimensions <br />are known. While there is not sufficient information to visually <br />distinguish the proposed windows from their no-longer-extant <br />historic counterparts, that the new windows would replace <br />several stylistically inappropriate existing vinyl sashes would <br />help substantially restore the historic character of the property <br />to be in compliance with the overall objectives of this <br />Standard. <br /> <br />The building addition proposed for legalization also conforms <br />generally to Standard No. 9. It is generally consistent with the <br />overall design and materials of the building in that it is <br />characterized by horizontal-wood-plank siding and simple <br />wood door and window surrounds, similar to elements found <br />throughout the residence. In addition, the unpermitted <br />addition is also differentiated to the original construction of the <br />residence, which is accomplished principally through its pent <br />roof (a roof form not found elsewhere on the building). The <br />pent-roof form, in combination with the addition’s relatively <br />small footprint, also helps to subordinate it to the historic <br />building. The roofline emerges, and descends, from just below <br />the north-façade eave of the one-story at the rear of the <br />building, giving the addition a lower vertical profile than any <br />other mass making up the building. As such, the addition is <br />subordinate not only to the larger one-story gabled mass to <br />which it is directly appended, but also to the two-story building <br />overall. Finally, consistent with National Park Service <br />Guidance, the addition was erected on a less-visible elevation <br />the building that faces the property’s interior a nd the private <br />property directly to the north (Weeks and Grimmer 2017). That <br />the addition is generally obscured from public view helps to <br />lessen its visual impact on the historical integrity of the <br />building. <br /> <br />viii. The project, as conditioned, complies with Standard No. 10. <br />The addition proposed for legalization could be removed <br />without impairing essential form and integrity of the historic <br />property and its surroundings. Visual observation and <br />background research indicates the addition was made to the <br />building at what was then the north façade of the rear porch. <br />Although available documentation may not reveal the precise <br />design of the building at this location, the original plane and <br />cladding materials of the wall at this location are known, and <br />  <br />    <br />