Plan to 'lop off' 8 feet of McKennan Park house isn't enough, lawyer says

The lawyer for a McKennan Park couple who won a lawsuit over the size of their neighbors’ home argues the plans to remodel the home do not comply with a judge’s order.

The plans submitted to the Sioux Falls Board of Historic Preservation show that Josh and Sarah Sapienza propose to reduce the height of their home by 8.5 feet, which would make it compliant with a formula used to determine the height of structures in historic districts, including the McKennan Park Historic District.

Renderings obtained by the Argus Leader show the Sapienzas would remove the gabled roof, replacing it with a flattened roof.

More: 'Monster house:' How we got here

But the plans, says lawyer Steve Johnson, fail to address other standards found in the federal rules, which include nearly a dozen requirements that also address massing, size and scale of structures, their width and proportion to other buildings in the area.

“They really don’t do anything except lop off eight-and-a-half feet from the roof. That’s really the bottom line,” said Johnson, who represents Pierce and Barbara McDowell.

Earlier this year, the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld a ruling from Judge John Pekas that the home built in 2015 by the Sapienzas violated standards established for new buildings in historic districts. Following that ruling, in March, Pekas gave the Sapienzas six weeks to submit plans to the Sioux Falls Board of Historic Preservation showing how the couple planned to comply with those standards.

Diane deKoeyer, the city’s liaison to the board, said Thursday that the plans were received and mailed to the board’s members on Wednesday. The board meets next week and will have to decide whether the structure as modified meets historic standards and complies with Pekas' decision.

Previously: McKennan Park neighbors' dispute headed to court

A lawyer for the Sapienzas was not immediately available Thursday.

Unlike the height requirement – which says buildings can’t exceed 10 percent of the average height of other historic buildings – the other requirements are more subjective. For example, with regard to massing, the requirement says in part: “The overall visual appearance of new construction may not dominate or be distracting to the surrounding historic landscape.”

The width requirement is also subject, stating that “new buildings or additions to existing buildings must be similar to adjacent historic buildings.”

The plan submitted by the Sapienzas show the home has a width of 46 feet, 6 inches.

But Johnson argues that simply removing 8.5 feet is not enough to comply. He said either the house should be moved or torn down. The home immediately south is 39 feet 9 inches, and the McDowell home, immediately to the north, is 39 feet, 8 inches. Another home on the block is 45 feet 6 inches, and another home in the neighborhood is 75 feet 7 inches.

The application submitted to the board includes the opposition from the McDowells through an expert witness report by architect Spencer Ruff. In the nearly four-page report, Ruff argues the house doesn't fit in the neighborhood.

"The massing of the Sapienza residence when viewed from McKennan Park, the sidewalk and Second Avenue creates the most visual impact on the eye," Ruff writes. "Massing, size and scale have a direct relation to the visual impact a building such as the Sapienza residence makes in the surrounding historic landscape including the adjacent McDowell residence and therefore should have been the most important design consideration in the design of the Sapienza residence."

Ruff was an expert witness for the McDowells during their trial.

Johnson said the house can't remain on the property.

“Either the law means something or it doesn’t,” he said. “If it can’t be made to conform, it obviously has to go. It can be demolished. It can be picked up and moved. That’s up to them.”