|
exterior and interior of the landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the landmark shall be responsible for
<br />this documentation.
<br />E.Moving
<br />The moving of landmarks is discouraged,however,moving is preferred to demolition. When moving is necessary,the owner of
<br />the landmark must apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
<br />F.Signs
<br />No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to the structure. Billboards and super-graphics will also be
<br />disallowed. Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business.
<br />G.Building Site and Landscaping
<br />These standards apply to both A and B)
<br />I.Required
<br />Major landscaping items,trees,fencing,walkways,private yard lights,signs(house numbers)and benches which
<br />reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures
<br />such as:gazebos,patio decks,fixed barbecue pits,swimming pools,tennis courts,green houses,new walls,fountains,
<br />fixed garden furniture,trellises,and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and
<br />neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way.
<br />2.Recommended
<br />New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs,
<br />drawings,and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration
<br />to the buildings historic fabric should be removed. However,trees and plant materials that must be removed should
<br />be immediately replaced by suitable flora. Front yard areas should not be fenced except in cases where historic
<br />documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in character with the buildings style,
<br />materials,and scale.
<br />3.Prohibited
<br />No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items,trees,fencing,
<br />walkways,outbuildings,and other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and
<br />development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped. The installation
<br />of unsightly devices such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be
<br />viewed from public thoroughfares.
<br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends allowing for the replacement of original siding.Staff does not recommend
<br />the proposed replacement siding because it does not conform to Group B Standards with additional consideration for the
<br />Notable rating of the property.Staff recommends a replacement siding that more closely resembles the original in style,size,
<br />and texture,preferably wood shiplap.Staff recommends that all trim around the windows,the roof gable,and the brackets
<br />replicate the original.
<br />Prepared by
<br />Elicia Feasel
<br />Historic Preservation Administrator
<br />and
<br />Adam Toering
<br />Historic Preservation Specialist
<br />PETITIONER COMMENTS:
<br />Mr.Modlin stated that the costs as summarized in the staff report were incorrect. The cedar siding was$40,000 for$70,000
<br />plus,and that more detailed information was requested. Mr.Modlin estimated that it would cost$17,500 to paint.
<br />Mr.Modlin had Danny Kimmel estimated that it would cost$23,000 to paint the cedar siding. From the tongue-and-
<br />groove estimate was for labor and installation,and that was a$43,000 estimation from Mastercraft construction. Total
<br />for wood siding would be$117,000 or so.
<br />Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification,as she believed that Mr.Modlin had been doing the installation.
<br />Mr.Modlin confirmed,yes,that they were asked to give more of an estimate if they were to hire the project out. Mr.Modlin
<br />estimated that it would take 350 man hours to paint,at a value of approximately$17,500; Danny Kimmel estimated it
<br />would cost$23,000 to paint. To install the siding,Mr.Modlin estimated$40,000,Mastercraft estimated$43,000.
<br />The painting estimate did not include tax.
<br />Commissioner Stalheim asked if the vapor barrier was included in the cost.
<br />Mr.Modlin confirmed that vapor barrier was included,but it does not include the mesh underlayment layer. The reason wood
<br />was included was to show the massive cost difference. Just the wood alone is a financial hardship. They cannot
<br />afford the wood,they cannot afford to have it installed,they cannot afford to have it painted.
<br />Commissioner Hertel asked if Mr.Modlin is updating his application.
<br />Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that they were not updating the application,they were clarifying that there were three cost
<br />estimate options and not five.
|