This is a simple, vernacular building, no less important, however, than one of high style. The proposed alterations and the addition are for the most part appropriate.
But, there are precedent setting issues in three areas, namely, windows, differentiation between the addition and the original building and the question of whether Hardi-Plank siding is proposed for the addition. I would urge deferral of this application until drawings are provided which address these issues as recommended herein.

1. WINDOWS:

HDH at page 82, second sentence, recites that "Windows are a major character-defining feature on residential buildings" and it is with this precept in mind that this analysis is undertaken. HDH at page 84, paragraph 7 says "Avoid changing the number, location, size or glazing of a building's windows by cutting new openings, enlarging existing openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening".
The proposed window work at the original building violates most if not all of these admonitions.
However, the paragraph titled "Alterations/Additions for the New Use" on page 65 of the Secretary's Guidelines, under the treatment Rehabilitation, may provide some relief in the case of cutting in new windows and in some cases, replacement.
It says "Some exterior and interior alterations to a historic building are generally needed to assure its continued use, but it is most important that such alterations do not radically change, obscure or destroy character defining spaces, materials, features or finishes." It continues by saying that "Alterations may include ... cutting new entrances or windows on secondary elevations."

A. ORIGINAL BUILDING

The affected elevations are secondary, located on the right and left side of the original building

Proposed Work - Right Side: Two of the three original 2 over 2 windows are to remain, but the third on the first floor is to be replaced by a similar 2 over 2 window but it has an arched top.

Comment: The third window should not be replaced unless it is not repairable. If replaced, the replacement should be in kind using historic materials. An arched frame is not compatible with the historic character of the building as it is a new design and not compatible with the buildings historic appearance. Also, page 83 of Guidelines, under Not Recommended, warns against: "introducing a new design that is incompatible with the historic character of the building and, further warns not to "install new windows, including frames, sash and muntin configuration that are not compatible with the buildings historic appearance or obscure, damage or destroy character defining features".

Proposed Work - Left Side: The first floor octagonal window near the front door is to be replaced with what appears to be a slider or a casement window and a similar window, where one does not now exist, is proposed for the second story. Both are small. The existing 2 over 2 window on the second story is to be blocked in and the side by side 2 over 2 windows of the first floor are to be replaced by an glazed, arched triple set of 2 over 2 windows.

Comment: Cutting in a new window in lieu of the octagon and cutting in a new window where one does not exist on the second story are acceptable under "Alteration/Additions for the New Use" of the Secretary's Guidelines. However, so that there is balance, rhythm, context and compatibility, their size and shape should be similar to the existing second floor window of the left side of the building, which should be retained or replaced in kind if it cannot be repaired.

The introduction of the glazed, arched triple set window is not compatible with the historic character of the building and is not contextual. See Comment to Proposed Work - Right Side above. Instead, a triple set window should be installed. It should be similar in size, shape, muntins and glazing to the three other herein recommended windows of the left side of the building.

B. NEW ADDITION

Proposed Work - Right Side: Two, 4 over 4 windows are proposed for each of the first and second floors and a smaller 2 over 2 is proposed for the first floor. Comment: Proposal is acceptable as historic shapes and materials are compatible and window differentiation from original building is adequate. Proposed Work - Left Side: Two, 4 over 4 windows and a small 2 over 2 window are proposed for the first floor and a small, double set of 2 over 2 windows is proposed for the second floor. Comment: Changes to the floor plan will not result and, so that there is balance, rhythm, context and compatibility with the right side of the original building, the proposed windows should be deleted and new ones installed, which mirror the location, size, shape, muntins and glazing of those of the right side of the building.

2. DIFFERENTIATION

The fourth paragraph, on page 112 of the Secretary's Guidelines for New Additions to Historic Buildings, recommends "designing a new addition in a manner that makes clear what is historic and what is new" and there is similar language on page 76 of the HDH.

While there are differences in fenestration and the type of windows, there are many similarities between the original building and the addition, particularly in terms of materials and historic shapes. I do believe a little more differentiation is needed.

For example, further offsetting the footprint of the addition to break the wall plane between the existing building and the addition might work. Now, it is only 1'6" on the right side and 1 ' 1 " on the left side. Other possibilities include using different traditional materials, such as brick, or changes in the same building material, such as in color and/or in size, etc.

HARDI PLANK

The right side and rear elevation drawings submitted at the March 10, 2003, ARB meeting appear to specify wood siding for the addition as does the rear elevation drawing of this submission. The staff report states that Hardi Plank siding is proposed for the addition.

If so, it should not be approved for the addition. Hardi Plank does not meet any of the four circumstances warranting the use of substitute materials for historic materials, as wood siding is an available material.
Also, PB 14, dated 8/28/02, titled New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings, Preservation Concerns, states at the bottom of page 4 that "To meet the NPS preservation standards, a new addition must be compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the building to which it is attached or its particular neighborhood or district".

Here, the original building is constructed of wood siding which is being restored. Clearly Hardi Plank, a cement based material, is not compatible nor contextual with the wood siding of the original building and, therefore, it is not appropriate. Wood siding is the appropriate material for the addition.

PFO-4/ 14/03