DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT HISTORIC AGENDA EVALUATION SHEET Case # 3
ADDRESS: 526 Santee Avenue
APPLICANT: Elliott Wilson, owner
TAX MAP REFERENCE: TMS# 11308-09-09
USE OF PROPERTY: Residential
REVIEW DISTRICT: Wales Garden Architectural Conservation District
NATURE OF REQUEST: Request for Certificate of Design Approval for exterior changes
FINDINGS/COMMENTS: This is a c. 1930s rectangular, two-story, brick veneer duplex that features a hip roof and six over six windows with a soldier course above first floor openings and a stone belt course below the second floor windows. The building has two main entryways, one centered on the front façade and accessed via a portico and the other on a one story wing centered on the south elevation. The entryways feature identical detailing; they both include nine lite doors with transoms and sidelights flanked by brick pilasters and until recently they were both rectilinear elements of the building that featured flat roofs behind parapets as well as decorative diamond tile details and coping which aligned with the stone belt course. However, in late February 2017 staff noticed that work was being done to the roofs of the portico and wing without permit or approvals. Due to ongoing concerns over the leaking flat roofs, new low sloped roofs with wide overhangs were installed on the building. To install this new roof without interfering with the windows, the original parapets were removed which resulted in the loss of historic material including the coping, six or seven courses of brick, and the decorative diamond tiles which were all significant stylistic elements of the house.
PERTINENT SECTIONS FROM THE GUIDELINES: Section VII: Guidelines for Maintenance and Rehabilitation Roof Pitch/Material Roofs are highly visible components of historic buildings. They are an integral part of a building’s overall design and often help define its architectural style. The most common residential roof types are gable, hip or a combination. Where existing roofing material is non-original, the existing roof may be retained, replaced in a manner known to be accurate based on documentation or physical evidence, or treated in a contemporary style. 1. Preserve the original roof form in the course of rehabilitation. The original roof form was a flat membrane roof that was hidden behind the parapets of each entryway. The new roofs are low sloped but have very visible eaves when viewed from the public right-of-way. Additionally, the parapet wall was
1 Walling April 2017 removed from each entryway to accommodate these new roofs. Changing the hidden flat roof by removing the parapet to accommodate a visible roof with overhanging eaves is not in keeping with this guideline.
2. Preserve historic roofing materials when technically and economically feasible. The most recent membrane roof had been replaced in the building’s lifetime and was thus not original to the building.
3. Replace deteriorated roof surfacing with new material, such as composition shingles or tabbed asphalt shingles, in dark shades that match the original in composition, size, shape, color, and texture. The membrane roofing was failing and causing leaks into the building. As a feature not visible from the public right-of-way, the replacement material for the roof need not match the original membrane roofing. Alternatives such as low sloped metal roofing with proper drainage could keep the roof a hidden element behind the parapet while also addressing the issue of water mitigation and not including the removal of historic materials. The replacement roofing chosen is an asphalt shingle roof visible from the public right-of-way. This new visible roof does not match the original composition of the roof and is not in keeping with this guideline.
4. Retain or replace where necessary: dormer windows, cupolas, cornices, brackets, chimneys, cresting, weather vanes, and other distinctive architectural or stylistic features that give a roof its essential character. The fact that the roof was hidden behind the parapet was a distinctive stylistic feature that gave character to the roof and the house as a whole. Removing the brick coursing, coping, and decorative tile feature at the parapet to accommodate a new roof is not in keeping with this guideline.
Staff has discussed the possibility of rebuilding the parapet walls with the applicant. While staff is sympathetic to the issues related to improper water mitigation, they are also confident that a good solution could be found that does not involve the removal of significant historic features and materials.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff finds that the proposed roof at 526 Santee Avenue is not in keeping with Section VII of the guidelines and recommends denial. Staff also recommends that the parapets be rebuilt to reflect the original form and details of the entryways while also including proper drainage, with all details deferred to staff.
2 Walling April 2017
Original front and side entryways, 526 Santee (photo from Google Maps)
Current front and side entryways, 526 Santee (photo by staff)
3 Walling April 2017
Current front and side entryways, 526 Santee (photo by staff)
Detail of new roof at front entryway (photo by staff)
4 Walling April 2017
Adjacent houses (Google images)
5 Walling April 2017
The following images were submitted by the applicant
6 Walling April 2017 Submitted by the applicant
7 Walling April 2017 Submitted by the applicant
Image of entryway at adjacent house
8 Walling April 2017 Interior photos submitted by the applicant
9 Walling April 2017 Interior photos submitted by the applicant
10 Walling April 2017 Interior photos submitted by the applicant
11 Walling April 2017