BAR CASE #2005-0256: Additions and Alterations, 519 South Lee Street

Thank you, Chairman Hulfish and members of the Board. I am Michael Hobbs, speaking on behalf of the Old Town Civic Association.

This Board’s Design Guidelines correctly recognize that “the character of the historic districts is primarily defined by its residential structures.” It is especially important, therefore, that proposed additions or alterations to residential structures in the historic district—particularly those where the structure itself is of historic character—be held to the highest standard of compliance with the City’s applicable policy.

Additions to residences in the Old and Historic District are governed by the Old Town Small Area Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Design Guidelines. All of those sources seem to us to be directed toward two overarching principles:

(1) first, that any proposed addition be compatible with and respectful of the historic heritage and character of the existing structure, and

(2) second, that the proposed addition as well be compatible with and respectful of the historic heritage and character of the neighborhood of which it is a part.

These principles—respect for the existing structure, and respect for its neighborhood—apply both as to the mass and scale of the proposed addition, and as to the architectural design and materials to be employed. Thus, a proposed addition of modest scale may nonetheless fail to meet the test if the proposed materials are incompatible with the house or its neighborhood. Nor should an addition be approved, even though it uses appropriate materials, if its mass and scale are out of proportion to the existing structure or its neighborhood.

The governing documents are replete with examples of these two basic principles. Thus, the Old Town Small Area Plan states that early buildings are to be “protected from unwarranted demolition and exterior architectural modifications out of keeping with the character of individual buildings or their surroundings.” The Zoning Ordinance states that new additions are to be “in harmony with their historical and architectural setting and environs.” The Introduction to the Board’s Guidelines on residential additions summarizes that “additions must be designed so that they are compatible with both the architectural character of the existing house and the immediate neighborhood.” The specific guidelines state, for example, that “the design of an addition should respect the heritage of the historic building to which it is attached as well as adjacent buildings” [Style]; that additions to the height of the roofline should be approved “only if the significant architectural character of the house and blockface are preserved” [Height]; that residential additions “should reflect the building massing prevailing along the blockface” [Massing]; and that “additions to residential structures should not overwhelm the existing structure or neighboring buildings” [Form].

We believe that the addition proposed here fails to meet both tests. It adds more than 50% to the footprint of the existing structure. It almost doubles the apparent mass of the structure as viewed from the north elevation. Most importantly, by enclosing the existing, modest porch and adding a second story and roofline only slightly less than that of the existing structure, it appears from the perspective of South Lee Street almost as if a second new residence had been built, adjacent to the existing house and of comparable scale.

So substantial an addition is of particular concern where, as here, it is proposed in a block where the nearby 18^th and early 19^th century residences have heretofore been largely undisturbed—and where, because this blockface fronts on the park that extends from Wolfe to Gibbon Street and down to the river, any addition that is significantly out of character with the neighborhood would be prominently visible, not only from this block of South Lee Street, but from a much wider area.

If the historic character both of the existing structure and of its immediate neighborhood can not be protected now, then when? If not here, then where?

We urge you to deny this request; or at the very least, to defer it for further restudy as recommended by the staff, with a clear expression from the Board that yet another iteration at a future Board meeting that does not address the difficulties in the previous and present proposals in a serious and substantial way will not be approved.

Thank you for your consideration.