Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition And Replacement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board splits on fate of 1920s house at 1803 Second Street; approves variances for new house after reconsideration and design changes
Summary
After intense public comment and expert reports saying the house was structurally unsalvageable, the Historic Preservation Board on Jan. 10 approved variances to allow a new single‑family house at 1803 Second Street, but only after a formal reconsideration and a directive that the applicant refine the garage/street facade.
The Historic Preservation Board spent lengthy discussion on Jan. 10 over an application to demolish an existing contributing house at 1803 Second Street and build a new single‑family home, ultimately approving three variances after a contentious exchange and a formal reconsideration.
City staff and two structural engineering reports concluded the existing wood‑frame building had suffered extensive structural and water damage and could not be economically preserved. The applicant submitted revised plans in response to board comments given at an earlier hearing, including a revised ground‑floor treatment, a stone‑clad flush garage door to reduce glazing at the street level, and adjustments intended to keep a large street‑side tree in place.
Opponents told the board the small 1920s contributing house was one of the last of its type in the neighborhood and urged preservation. Longtime neighborhood commentator Jack Finglass said the building could be repaired or reconstructed and warned that approving demolition weakens the historic district. "This is an attempt to sweep this building under the rug," Finglass told the board.
The applicant's team presented engineering reports concluding the structure's framing, water damage and mold rendered it unsafe and unsuitable for restoration; they described multiple design iterations that responded to board feedback. The design team and owner noted site constraints, a specimen street tree, and required on‑site parking as drivers of the chosen layout.
Board members divided over the project's preservation implications and whether reconstruction should be required. After an initial motion failed, the board voted to reconsider. Following a further round of discussion the board approved a motion to move forward with the applicant's previously submitted (December) design with the garage door treatment adjusted to a less‑glazed panel/screening approach and then voted separately to grant the three variances the project requires: lot area, lot width and a variance to a street‑facing setback on Meridian Avenue. Staff noted the lot is legally substandard in width and area, creating hardship arguments for the variances.
Roll calls were recorded during the votes. On the final motions to approve the design approach (with adjusted garage presentation) and to grant the three variances, the board recorded majority votes in favor and instructed staff to work with the applicant on conditions and final order language.
Votes and formal actions: After a successful motion to reconsider, the board approved returning the application to the previously presented December design with revised garage treatment (motion passed by roll call). The board then approved variances for lot area, lot width and the Meridian Avenue street‑facing setback (motion passed by roll call).
