730 Saint Ferdinand St.

Description: Final detail review including minor design changes since previous approval of new construction of a 2,100 SF two-story, single-family residential building on a vacant lot. 

Previous ARC & Commission Recommendations: 

12/07/22: The Commission voted to grant conceptual approval with the details to return for additional ARC review once further developed.

11/15/22: The ARC voted to recommend conceptual approval with the final details to return for additional ARC review once further developed.  The ARC also agreed that:

• The materiality of the recessed area at the 2nd floor balcony and front entry door could be further simplified, for example, by replacing the proposed stucco with wood.

• The proposed wood roof soffit appears materially too busy and may be problematic for long-term maintenance and the applicant should consider alternative material such as metal to relate better with the other proposed cladding materials.

• The slope of the larger portion of roof should be increased to create more vertical emphasis and so the pitch and roof form are more sympathetic to the surrounding historic context. This can be achieved by increasing the height at the left side and/or by reducing the height at the right side.

• The column at the left side of the entry stair should be removed as it appears unnecessary and would provide additional clearance for parking in the driveway.

• The applicant should consider extending the 1st floor columns up to the 2nd floor, so they become the newel posts of the 2nd floor balcony.

10/18/22: The ARC voted to defer this application for additional review. The ARC also agreed that:

• The formal moves may be competing with the material selection and the overall design appears busy and seems to lack a visual hierarchy. The ARC recommended the applicant should consider refining the material selection. For example, the side elevations could have a single material palette with a change only at recessed areas. The applicant could also consider utilizing a single dominant material, so the overall design is more compatible with the existing historic context.

• The strong horizontal orientation of the massing is successful but could further benefit from additional verticality. For example, the three-bay portion can be further developed to have more vertical emphasis and the second-floor porch can be extended across the façade.

• The pitch of the single-sloped roof could be increased by raising the wall height at the left or right side of the building to further help counter the dominance of the horizontal proportions.

• The proposed off-street parking space appears too car-oriented, and the applicant should consider additional screening or enclosure for this area, such as side walls or a semi-opaque gate so this area appears more like flexible/occupiable space from the street.

• Additional 3D perspective views taken from street level should be included with the updated materials for the next review. 

06/14/22: The ARC voted to defer this application for additional review. The ARC also agreed that:

• The use of historic language and elements in a non-traditional manner with the proposed massing appears discordant. 

• The building appears to be very wide, and the overall massing should be reconsidered. For example, the camelback walls could be shifted in at the left side to align with the first-floor walls below. This would create a more traditional massing with an increased side yard area that could accommodate an exterior porch or additional garden space. The camelback could also be shifted forward such that the portion of side-gable roofing is removed.

• Traditional camelbacks typically do not have gable shingles or eave overhangs and are generally more limited in their exterior detailing, so they are subordinate to the main building.

• The street-facing clerestory windows proposed for the camelback appear inappropriate and the size and type should be reconsidered.

• The recessed front entry alcove condition and stairs as proposed are odd and should be reconsidered. For example, the entry door could be relocated to the right side with the stairs rotated 90 degrees to allow access to an entry porch.

Context Photos:

Current Drawings:

Previous Drawings - 11/15/22:

Previous Drawings - 10/18/22:

Previous Drawings - 06/14/22:

Street View: