Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Relocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board asks for mover plan and lot-split clarity before deciding on relocation of 1928 house at 42630 Sixth Street
Summary
A proposal to relocate a 1928 contributing Spanish Mission home on the same parcel and split the lot was continued after board members asked for a structural‑moving plan, assurance about character‑defining features, and clarity on lot geometry and a nearby median.
The Historic Preservation Board on Feb. 25 continued a proposal to relocate a contributing 1928 house (described in the application as Spanish Mission/Spanish eclectic) on a large parcel at addresses listed including 42630 Sixth Street.
Design R Architects presented a plan to move the wood‑frame, stucco building west by about 39 feet to create two lots: one roughly 65 feet wide intended to accommodate a detached garage accessed from the alley and one narrower lot that would contain the relocated historic building. The applicant described demolition of later non‑original roof‑over‑patio elements, an interior demolition permit already in place, and contractor communications indicating Brownie (structural movers) could perform the lift and move using standard ledger boards, steel beams, cribbing and dollies.
Staff recommended approval with conditions focused on documentation of interior and exterior materials, preservation practices during the move, and pedestrian connectivity. Board members expressed concern about several points: potential damage to character‑defining features during relocation; whether the relocation would produce an out‑of‑character new lot size that would invite incompatible infill; lack of a written mover stabilization plan; and whether median geometry would force relocation. Board members suggested asking the mover to provide a stabilization plan and asked planning/engineering staff to clarify whether lot split options could avoid moving the house.
The board moved to continue the case to March 25, directing the applicant to return with a structural mover’s stabilization plan for character‑defining elements, a minimum building envelope for the relocated house (or alternative lot-split geometry), and staff to report on median/traffic constraints and any permitting/bonding options other municipalities use to insure relocations. The motion carried.
