1807 Enoree Avenue

DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT HISTORIC AGENDA EVALUATION SHEET Case # 5 ADDRESS: 1807 Enoree Avenue APPLICANT: Asheley Scott, 1x1 Design, agent TAX MAP REFERENCE: TMS# 11306-06-04 USE OF PROPERTY: Residential REVIEW DISTRICT: Wales Garden Architectural Conservation District NATURE OF REQUEST: Request for a Certificate of Design Approval for an addition FINDINGS/COMMENTS: This two-story brick veneer house was built c. 1920 and features a hip roof and a front porch supported by square brick columns. The overall form of the house is a two-story central block with one-story wings to each side and full façade front porch. While the overall form of the house has remained constant since original construction there have been changes minor changes to cladding and detailing. As documented in Sanborn maps, as well as “For Sale” advertisements for the home in 1922 and 1945, the east and west wings of the house were a sleeping porch/screened porch and a sunroom, respectively. Sometime after 1945 the screened porch was fully enclosed to resemble the west wing sunroom creating a more symmetrical front façade. The house is situated to the east side of the lot, creating a large side yard. The applicant is proposing to construct a side addition to the house within this side yard area. The overall form of the proposed addition mimics the form of the house with a taller central block flanked by wings. The addition would add approximately 838 heated square feet to the house. The applicant has suggested that the uniquely shaped lot allows for a side addition without a negative impact on the pattern of the district. However, lots within Wales Garden do not follow a regular pattern, creating irregular sized lots throughout the district. Additionally, side additions have only been allowed in historic districts on a couple of occasions. These few side additions were both very small and located far back from the principle façade and in one case was allowed due to a unique lot that would not accommodate a rear addition. In this case, however, the lot is large enough to allow for an addition to the rear. While the guidelines accommodate the need for additions to historic houses, careful consideration should be paid to the location, size, and detailing of additions so that they do not detract from the existing architectural form and design of the building. 1 Walling March 2017 PERTINENT SECTIONS FROM THE GUIDELINES: Section VIII: Guidelines for Additions It is often necessary to increase the space of a building in order for it to meet the owners’ changing needs. While additions are permitted, they should serve to reinforce and not detract from the existing architectural form and design of the building. Guidelines 1. Site additions so that they do not detract from or obstruct important architectural features of the existing building or those around it, especially the principal façade. The historic house has a simple and symmetrical massing that has been a consistent feature since its original construction. The proposed addition is attached to the west wing of the house. The addition replicates the form of the historic house as a large central block with smaller wings projecting from its east and west sides. The east wing of the addition acts as a hyphen, connecting to the historic house. While the hyphen is set back from the front corner of the house by about three feet, the central block of the addition is set almost in line with the house. The repetition of the house’s massing at this highly visible location detracts from the historic symmetry of the house and is not in keeping with the guidelines. Furthermore, the addition extends the 55’ wide house an additional 44’ to the west. This increase in width of the house by 81% not only detracts from the original composition of the house but also disrupts the pattern of houses along the street. Generally, houses within the 1800 block of Enoree measure between 55’ and 65’ in width and have relatively simple massing. While the widest house on the block measures closer to 75’ in width, this width is original to the structure and not the result of later additions. Creating a highly elongated primary façade with complex massing detracts from the existing house and those around it and is therefore not in keeping with the guidelines. 2. Design additions using materials and detailing compatible with the original structure. Width, Massing, and Scale The addition repeats the historic massing of the house at a slightly reduced scale, adding 44’ in width to the 55’ wide house. The width of the addition and its repetition of massing creates a complex composition along the principle façade that reads more like a secondary house than a natural extension of the original form. Its considerable width combined with its composition of massing, prominent location, and overall scale creates an addition that is in competition with the house rather than complementing it. These details are therefore not compatible with the house and are not in keeping with the guidelines. Window Placement The relationship between the windows and rooflines of the addition is not compatible with the original structure. While the location of the windows on the addition appear to line up with the windows on the main house, the amount of wall space between the tops of the windows and the eaves varies from the addition’s center block, to the addition’s wings, to the historic house. The elevation provided by the applicant shows that the eaves of the wings are situated above the front porch eave and that the windows on the first floor have several courses of brick above them; in reality, the eaves of the wings and the front porch are along the same plane and the windows are situated just below the eaves with only a frieze board above. Adjusting the provided elevation to show actual conditions would require the roof of the hyphen to lower, creating a smaller window that would not align with or relate to the other first floor windows. Because of the design of the addition, the need to accommodate multiple rooflines makes compatibility in the relationship of window, wall, and roofline 2 Walling March 2017 difficult to achieve. Since this detail is not compatible with the original structure it is not in keeping with the guidelines. Materials The wings of the addition are different from the original brick structure through the use of a lapped wood or similar siding. While material change is often used to differentiate old from new and wood lapped siding is a common material in the district, the guidelines call for materials and detailing that are compatible with the original structure. As an extension of the primary facade, a brick veneer would be the most appropriate material for the addition; however, if the addition were moved to the rear of the house other options such as wood or fiber cement board siding may be considered. Other details and materials such as the architectural shingle roof, brick foundation, and 5/1 aluminum clad windows are compatible with the original structure and in keeping with the guidelines. 3. Limit the size and scale of an addition so that it is clearly subordinate to the original structure. Each wing of the addition measures approximately 10’ wide by 16’ deep and the central block is approximately 24’ wide by 21’ deep; altogether the addition elongates the principle façade an additional 44’. With the original historic portion of the house measuring approximately 55’ wide, a 44’ wide addition is of considerable size, increasing the width of the house by 81%. While the design does follow the massing and scale of the historic house, this replication creates an addition that reads more like a secondary house than subordinate addition. Its considerable width combined with its composition of massing, prominent location, and overall scale creates an addition in visual competition with the historic house and is therefore not clearly subordinate. 4. Design dormer additions to be subordinate to the overall roof mass and in scale with those that may have been used originally in the neighborhood. Not applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff finds that the addition is not in keeping with Section VIII of the guidelines and recommends denial. 3 Walling March 2017 1807 Enoree Avenue, photo by staff Side yard location of proposed addition, photo by staff 4 Walling March 2017 1923 Sanborn (above) and 1956/1969 Sanborn (below) showing the constant overall form of the house since original construction. For Sale Advertisements, The State 1922 and 1945 5 Walling March 2017 Spacing between eaves and windows varies Eave would likely shift downward making a smaller window that would not align with other first floor windows Actual eave location 6 Walling March 2017 Size comparison of proposed addition with adjacent houses 7 Walling March 2017 February 1, 2017 Ms. Rachel Walling City Planner Planning and Development Services 1136 Washington Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 RE: DDRC Application: 1807 Enoree Avenue Dear Rachel: Please consider the enclosed materials and information the application for 1807 Enoree Avenuee to the DDRC for the March 2017 meeting. In general, the scope of work proposes an addition to the existing house. This is a lot, typical of many in the Wales Garden district that appears to have been two lots, combined at a time in the past, leaving an atypical configuration. Attached you will find the DDRC application, letter of agency for 1x1 Design to act on behalf of the property owners, and supporting plans, elevations, and pictures. Referencing drawing SK-0, you will see the existing lot layout along with the proposed footprint of the house, garage, pool, and proposed addition.

Load more