Ben and Carrie Modlin vs. Historic Preservation Commission (COA#2019-1007A)

Home Browse Search

Major landscaping items,trees,fencing,walkways,private yard lights,signs(house numbers)and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures such as:gazebos,patio decks,fixed barbecue pits,swimming pools,tennis courts,green houses,new walls,fountains, fixed garden furniture,trellises,and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way. 2.Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings,and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that arc causing deterioration to the buildings historic fabric should be removed. However,trees and plant materials that must be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. Front yard areas should not be fenced except in cases where historic documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in character with the buildings style, materials,and scale. 3.Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items,trees,fencing, walkways,outbuildings,and other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped. The installation of unsightly devices such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be viewed from public thoroughfares. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Staff supports the removal of the secondary doors. However,staff would prefer: 1. the doors were replaced with appropriately sized windows with matching trim, 2. wood siding(matching the existing)is installed in lieu of LP Smartside. Prepared and recommended by Adam Toering Historic Preservation Specialist Approved by Elicia Feasel Historic Preservation Administrator PETITIONER COMMENTS: Mr.Nevarez stated that there was a mistake regarding the proposed siding,and that the proposed siding to be replaced would be wood matching the existing wood in both shape and reveal. Replicating the existing siding would be no problem.The house has five entrance doors—it was a multi-unit house,with two doors in the front,one on the side,one on the back, and one on the back side. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that she understood removing the northern extra door but removing the side door where the decorative porch is causes some concern. The bracketed,decorated porch would look strange were you to remove the entrance there,especially if it were a blank wall,but also would look weird if you put in a window. Commissioner Gelfman asked whether the present door was original to the house. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that she didn't think the door was original,but that this was the location of a door to the house originally. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko reiterated that she had concerns about removing the door entirely, or replacing it with a window,as it would look strange. Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification on which doors would be removed. Commissioner Ponder expressed concerns regarding the other administrative approvals that had been approved for the property, specifically that the new property owners have initiated any of those projects yet and looked forward to asking the property owner about that information. Commissioner Annis stated she would ask about clarification as to how the siding would be installed with the trim but stated she would ask the property owner in open discussion. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko clarified that you would remove the frame,and then`feather'the boards in so that they are different length. Commissioner Stalheim stated that he would only want windows to be installed if there was evidence that a window existed in that space before. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that it depends on the building,and that in examples that she knows of,the blank wall would have looked out of place had a window not been installed. Commissioner Hertel asked staff if there was any evidence of window existing in any of these openings before. Specialist Toering clarified that the 1932 Assessor Card referenced that the property was already subdivided at that time. The Historic Sites and Survey Card indicates in the`history'section that the family that constructed the house had long used it as a multi-family dwelling. The earliest example of the Sanborn fire insurance maps indicate that it is a multiple unit house. Staff believes that the house was originally constructed to be a multi-unit house.