HARB continues review of backyard storage shed at 56 Charlotte Street, directs relocation and design changes
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The board continued an application for a prefabricated storage shed at 56 Charlotte Street and directed the applicant to provide revised plans showing a relocated position (southwest corner), foundation details, material/finish options to blend with the property, and a 3-foot setback.
The Historic Architectural Review Board on Jan. 16 continued an application from the owner of 56 Charlotte Street for a small backyard storage structure, directing the applicant to provide revised drawings showing a different location and additional construction details.
Staff described the application and recommended the board consider whether the proposed shed would be compatible with the house and the district. Staff advised that "a more inconspicuous location may mitigate the overall impact of the shed's installation" and suggested moving the structure to the southwest corner of the lot so it would not be clearly visible from rights-of-way.
The applicant described the structure as a small, temporary building (8-by-10) intended for storage for the restaurant that occupies the property. The owner said the prefabricated unit had "no foundation" in its proposed configuration and called it a practical, low-cost option. "It is temporary ... 2 b on the bottom, sitting on the page. No foundation," the applicant said when describing the proposed unit.
Board members repeatedly expressed concern that a stock, Home-Depot–style prefabricated shed would be incongruous in the historic district if left visible from the street or neighboring courtyards. Several members urged either relocating the structure to the recommended southwest corner behind existing fencing, using weathered wood or stucco to match the courtyard and fence materials, or building a simple framed and clad potting-shed that would blend with the surroundings. The board also asked for clarity about foundation options because of potential archaeological issues.
The board voted to continue the application to the Feb. 20 HARB meeting and asked the applicant to return with a site plan, basic plans and elevations, and a description of foundation type and materials. The board noted the shed must meet a 3-foot setback from property lines if placed in the suggested corner.
Why it matters: board members said the Abbott/Charlotte Street area has visually significant courtyards and porches; the material, location and permanence of even small accessory structures affect public viewscapes in the National Historic Landmark District.
The motion to continue passed by roll call: Paul Weaver — yes; Brad Beach — yes; Linda Potter — yes; Catherine Duncan — yes; Erin McDonald — yes.