The commission addressed a proposal for a special certificate of appropriateness for a significant addition to a property located on Santiago Street in the Santiago Street Historic District. The property, recognized for its Mediterranean revival architecture, presented a request for a second-story addition above the existing garage, coupled with alterations and site work. A variance regarding the minimum rear setback was also requested. The staff expressed a general comfort with the proposed addition, emphasizing the importance of minimizing its impact on the historic garage structure.

The architect for the project explained the rationale behind the proposed addition, noting the owner’s desire for more space in anticipation of family visits. The addition was designed to be constructed over the newer garage structure, rather than expanding the existing footprint, allowing the family to stay in the house during construction. The architect stressed efforts to differentiate the new construction from the original historic garage using architectural elements like a thickened wall. This was intended to enhance the historic character rather than detract from it.

Board members raised concerns about the visual impact of the proposed addition, particularly its size and scale compared to the original structure. The architect assured that the addition’s design aimed to be visually cohesive with its surroundings, contributing approximately 600 to 650 square feet. Despite the concerns, the board approved the issuance of a special certificate of appropriateness and the variance request, albeit with conditions related to the roof design and rear setback.

In another significant case, discussions centered around a proposed addition to a residence on Obisa Avenue within the Obisa Avenue Historic District. The proposed height of the addition sparked debate among board members, with concerns that it could overshadow the main structure. A motion to approve the design with specific conditions failed, leading to an alternative proposal that included a one-foot reduction in height. This motion passed with a majority, allowing the project to proceed under the new conditions.

Concerns were voiced about the rapid loss of historically significant homes, particularly those from the 1950s, which are now considered important assets. The board discussed the necessity for more efficient processes to identify and designate historic sites, rather than treating each site individually. There was a call for advocacy within the community to emphasize the importance of preserving historical elements, alongside a need for realtors to better inform potential buyers of the preservation status of properties.

The commission also tackled procedural issues, particularly the accuracy of meeting minutes and the interpretation of motions. There was an emphasis on ensuring that minutes accurately reflect the board’s decisions, with suggestions for amendments if discrepancies are noted. The timeline for appeals following board actions was confirmed as ten days, and the importance of clear communication regarding future meeting schedules was highlighted.

In addition to these discussions, the commission considered practical aspects of meeting management, such as the introduction of time limits for presentations. However, there was dissent regarding this proposal, particularly for contentious designations where more time might be necessary to ensure thorough discussion. The commission agreed that while time limits might be established, they should not impede necessary discourse, with plans to revisit the issue in future meetings.