September 2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -10- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 3. 2004-0804; 68286 Miami Road; Demolish summer kitchen & contributing porch addition,.remove windows; build addition onto back of farmhouse. JOHN OXIAN: I am sure the owners knew that this house was'a landmark when they purchased it. I cannot find in our preservation plan or anywhere else that allows the removal of that much of a landmark. I feel that this whole proposal should be voted down and that the owners come back with something a lot more reasonable than what they are proposing now.' KAREN HAMMOND-NASH: Landmark status was requested for this property by a woman who had lived there, and whose family had lived there, for many years. She had actually wrote to John, as president of the commission, saying that she wanted to make her property a local landmark before she either died or sold the property, so that the property that she had worked so hard to preserve would not be thoughtlessly or randomly altered by a subsequent owner. At her death when the property in fact was auctioned, David Duvall wrote to the auctioneer, and provided materials for the auctioneer to provide to all prospective bidders regarding the historic character of the house and the legal restrictions upon alterations to it. He has had correspondence with at least one subsequent owner about the denial of permission to side the house. The staff noted in the photographs submitted with the application that the windows appear to be mostly new vinyl windows; which was not approved. The staff's principal concern with the proposed addition is that it involves just too much demolition of the original structure. When I spoke with the homeowner, in fact this afternoon, regarding this, she told me that their architect had intentionally designed the addition to remove as much original wood as possible and replace it with new wood because they thought that it would be easier to paint. Clearly we have an architect who is not clear as to what the landmark and preservation guidelines are, in spite of the fact, that some time ago Julie sent the owner a book of standards. JOHN OXIAN: I went to that auction, so I know the auctioneer mentioned it. I was the one that told David Duvall to send a letter to the auctioneer informing him of this information. I always attend any landmark auctions just to make sure that the auctioneer gets up there and mentions it; or usually they call on me to mention it. JOANN SPORLEDER: Are we giving the owners any instructions then, that any additions to the back will not be acceptable or just this particular one? JOHN OXIAN: I told Karen to call the owners back today and see if they would be willing to come up with some alternative methods. I feel that this should be voted down by the commission, because (1) it would remove too much of the historic structure, (2) it,would destroy the characteristic and distinctive footprint of ,the building, and in addition to these two primary reasons, (3) it would probably entail the removal of significant trees. CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously. 3