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

Home Browse Search

requirement for it to be more appropriate to the original house since we do have it documented in photographs. I do agree that the insulation and the innards of the wall need to be properly replaced. Commissioner Ponder:The estimates were worrisome: 1)one estimate showed the contractor wasn't going to remove the material in the wall,2)there were differing opinions as to what was salvageable. Commissioner Gelfman asked the Commission as to the details of the work as it was proposed the previous month,and that there seemed to be some discrepancies with how the work could be completed. Commissioner Hertel expressed concern that,were the Commission to approve the vinyl,and mandate a better product when the vinyl fails,that there wouldn't be compliance in the future. Commissioner Stalheim clarified that he believes that the purpose is to save the structure as a whole,a discussion should be had on what components are most valuable. Commissioner Hertel agreed with Commissioner Stalheim and stated that the insulation and the animals—those should be addressed. Options were discussed for ways that that could be executed. Commissioner Stalheim stated that it again appears beyond repair. Commissioner Annis stated that two sides had already been completed. Commissioner Hertel expressed concern as to whether minimum maintenance was executed. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko expressed that these problems did not just come up immediately,that they were evident from when the structure was purchased in 2012;that"if you postpone making a plan,and suddenly it is an emergency,and it is too expensive to do the right thing"and not follow the Standards. Commissioner Annis expressed that she agreed with Commissioner Stalheim,that financial hardship is a consideration and the Commission should attempt to control what happens next. Commissioner Gelfman expressed that this was not a comparison of apples to apples,and that the estimates are hard to compare. Commissioner Deegan expressed that he agreed,that a lived-in building is better than a degrading building. Commissioner Deegan expressed that he supported this position based upon the distance from the street,the seemingly imperceptible difference in the siding is not perceptible at that distance,the maintenance of the property up until 2012 was spotty at best,and that worse things were installed,that the summation of all these things is not ideal,that wood siding would be preferred,but lived-in,with a family is preferable to the alternative. Commissioner Gelfrnan noted that the structure is rated as Notable,expressed that finding a solution that is like-in-kind is what the Standards and Guidelines require. Commissioner Gelfman expressed dissatisfaction with the estimates and had hoped that the cost would be broken down by the projects. Further,the salvageable estimate discrepancies complicate the discussion. Commissioner Stalheim noted that the Hoover proposal did not include sheathing,which either means it is included,or it is an additional cost. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko exclaimed that in her experience,removing wet insulation from the walls is manageable to do by property owner themselves. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko further stated that she felt that problem areas are usually easily identified,and that the proposals are somewhat of a`blank check'to fix those problems. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko referenced historic preservationist Bob Yapp's position that removing vinyl or aluminum siding typically results in less that 15%material that needs to be replaced. Commissioner Stalheim clarified that half the house has already been resided,and that only half the house still has the original siding. Commissioner Gelfrnan stated that the proposed material to be installed could be installed by the property owner,whereas wood siding may require more of a craftsman to install. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that she had never installed vinyl siding,so she was not aware of how hard it was to install by comparison. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: N/A Commissioner Gelfman asked the applicants to further explain their position: Mr.Modlin stated that they called the contractors on the list provided by HPC Staff and the quotes were received were the only two contractors who responded. They were not happy with the estimates that they received,as they did not quote as how Mr.Modlin had hoped to quote to satisfy the Commission's concerns. The quote in question ended up being for labor only. Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification regarding the quoted cost for"chimney demolition." Mr.Modlin stated that it was added in the quote. Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that the Modlins are not changing their application to include chimney demolition. Administrator Feasel clarified that the contractors did not do what the Modlins had wanted them to do. Administrator Feasel further clarified that the contractor list supplied by the HPC Staff is not curated and was inherited. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko expressed concern as to the one contractor's estimate that included siding over the wet detritus and insulation. This would not be ideal. Mr.Modlin stated they requested to get quotes,these two contractors responded,that they provided them. Mr.Modlin stated that installing wood siding can be cantankerous at times,and that"90%of all wood siding warranty issues are derived from improper installation." This quote is from'Buffalo',the manufacturer of the wood siding.