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

Home Browse Search

• Commissioner Gelfman indicated that she would guess that the windows existed on the left side of the porch,but that the right side of the porch was probably not a window. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko indicated that there did not appear to be much objection on the part of the Commission members regarding the removal of the door that is facing to the south on the front porch. Specialist Toering stated that"as early as 1906,Nathaniel O.Troyer,clerk at Studebaker,and his wife are listed living at the address with the Zollers[who built the house]." The history goes on to indicate that Mr.Zoller had served in the Civil War and had been a sailor on a sailing ship. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko clarified that removing the door,the siding should be feathered in,and the side porch poses different questions. Mr.Nevarez stated that the house had multiple units,and the side door was an entrance to provide access via a stairwell to the upstairs unit. He further stated that the area where that stairwell was previously(the interior has been gutted, including removing the stairwell)will be where the kitchen of the house will be constructed,and that having openings on the kitchen walls poses layout problems. Mr.Nevarez stated that he is converting the house into a single-family home. The three different units are being eliminated and the floor plan is being extensively altered. Commissioner Annis stated that you could`fur'the wall on the inside to create a solid surface but keep the exterior door for cosmetic reasons on the outside. Commissioner Gelfman asked Commissioner Annis to clarify why the door should be left. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that the exterior door(and attached porch)are important to the aesthetics of the house. Commissioner Annis stated that it is important to the form of the house and if you take the door out and leave the wall,it would look strange. Mr.Nevarez stated that the porch area was an addition,and he would like to remove it and improve the look of that side of the house. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that she did not feel comfortable making a judgement on the side porch door,as she was lacking information about the back of the house,how many phases or what additions were there,and she could not assess what this porch was doing,if it is original,or what it is doing,unless she visited the property. Mr.Nevarez stated the he believed the door was made to provide an entrance to the upstairs unit. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if the house was built as a single-family home. Specialist Toering stated that the house was at least a duplex when first constructed. Mr.Nevarez reiterated that the house was possibly a triplex,and even a quadplex at some point in time. Commissioner Hertel discussed the rear addition and how it was attached to the structure,and how the construction of that addition may have led to the construction of the other door. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that perhaps there was already an addition,and it was expanded into the present larger addition;evidence of this can be found in that the trim on those additions matches the trim elsewhere on the house. There's a lot going on with the house and she would feel more comfortable deciding having more information. Commissioner Gelfman suggested that the Commission table the door until the next meeting so that Commissioners could come to the property and see,to allow the Commission to make an educated decision. Commissioner Gelfman stated that the Commission could,at this time,review the front entrance door removal projects. Mr.Nevarez mentioned he would also like to remove one of the rear doors. Commissioner Stalheim indicated that the application specifically mentioned removing the front two doors but does not mention the rear doors. Specialist Toering stated he understood that the application was for the removal of two of the front doors on the street facing facade. Mr.Nevarez apologized. Commissioner Gelfman commented on one of the pictures of the structure included in the packet that showed the property a few years ago. Commissioner Hertel asked Mr.Nevarez if they planned to make the house look like it used to look. Mr.Nevarez indicated that the color palette would change,that the primary colors of the house would be green,light blue,and dark blue. Specialist Toering showcased the Sanborn Fire insurance map from 1899 that show the house in its current overall configuration. That if the Sanborn map is to be trusted,then the additions happened within the first four years of the structure's construction. Specialist Toering indicated that he believed that the structure was built as a multi-unit house in the overall configuration you see today. The history of the property indicates that the rear structure—sometimes referenced as an outbuilding—that building's footprint changes a lot. There are two houses on this lot. Mr.Nevarez asked if the rear structure was`historic.' Specialist Toering indicated that,from a legal perspective,both structures on the parcel are protected historic structures. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko indicated that Mr.Nevarez should return with another application to remove the door at the rear of the structure,and that the Commission would probably favorably approve that when it was received for review. Commissioner Hertel recommended that when Mr.Nevarez comes back with his next Certificate of Appropriateness application,that the fee is waived. Commissioner Gelfman agreed. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: