6B - Handouts - Landmark Alteration Certificate for 1710 Hillside AveDear Members of Landmarks Advisory Board, 3 April 2007
As the owners of the property adjacent to 1710 Hillside Road, we appreciate this
opportunity to express our objections to the current plans for a new house at the site,
which the Board will be reviewing on April 4th.
The Roof.
1. The camber of the roof is too shallow. It would be acceptable were it steepened by
10°-20°.
2. The roof overhang (more than 12") is not in keeping with anv other houses in the
District.
3. The bargeboards (apparently less than 6") give the roof a mean appearance. Their
thinness is disguised by the rendition of shadow in the architectural sketches.
A steep-roofed, one-storey house with dormer windows for the attic bedrooms, similar in
design to tlle existing houses, would be far more satisfactory.
The Balconies.
"['he balconies witll their cedar shake trim are reminiscent of inotels, or condominiums,
and appear to be pasted on merely to break-up the 65' long frontage. There are no similar
balconies in the district.
The Trees.
According to the plans the well-established trees and dense vegetation bordering the road
will be removed, and only one or two trees will be planted in front of the house. The
large area of stucco would benefit from tnore trees being planted along the north
elevation and this would help restore the original rural character of the road.
~~ 40 - _
~er
Retaining Walls?
The construction of retaining walls outside the stnictural perimeter is implied by the
representation of windows opening to east and west. We assume that these retaining
walls constitute an integral part of the house fi~nction, and as such must also comply with
the Historic District Guidelines for Hillside road. In the following diagrams we illustrate
conservative estimates for the size and location of these retaining walls, based on the
mapped contours of the site and Mr. Heuston's dra~vings.
South
North
TIIe retaining wall shown to the west end of the house (B) starts at a height of 5' at the
NW corner, and rises to 15 ' at the SW corner. It rises a further 10' southward, to meet
the south retaining wall thar slopes down 5' to the sotith side of the SE corner, where it
steps down 10' tapering to less than 5' on the east side of the building. Due to its 25'
height we place a safety railing above it with an elevation of 3'6". The highest part of this
wall is 1 foot above the height of the house, and the mandatory railing is therefore 4'6"
above the height of the house.
TOP East elevation of the building as depicted by Mr Heuston. Y~.M... ..~ vV...v.
BOTTOM Same elevation showing implied retaining walls.
A= historic wall; B= inferred retaining wall; C= 3'6" safety railing
D=Red terrain profile at the east end of proposed house
E=terrain profile at west end of the proposed house
they must be at least 5 feet and possibly as much as 10 feet, as implied by Mr Heuston's
east elevation which shows the ground fullirag 10' to the south of his house. In either case,
because their construction is an integral part of the proposed dwelling, retaining walls
surrounding the proposed structure would require a setback variance.
2. Although a smaller retaining wall may be possible*, we consider that a retaining wall
and safety rail similar to that shown in Figure 2 must be considered an integral part of the
design of the house, and thus violates the building code height restriction.
3. The constn~ction of the western retaining wall will endanger an >SO-year-old juniper
tree, tlirough root destruction, soil-destabilization during construction, and due to a
permanent lowering of the water table resulting from drainage channels presumably to be
installed behind the retaining wall. This would violate the historic guideline
safeguarding existing established vegetation.
4. The appearance of the house shown in the north elevation is deceptive. It does not
show the retaining walls. The construction of retaining walls comparable in height to
the house would violate historic district guidelines.
*We note that the retaining walls can be eliminated using the house itself to retain the 20-
35° slope of the hillside. This would ensure that the house conforms to the existing
topography as do all the other houses in the District.
Roger and Krysia Bilham
3 April 2007
c
-f~t~~ ~~~.:;~~~. ~~. ~~~,,~,~-~~~~:~~ ~ ~~~:~~~~:~,,,,~.~
~{ ~~'( ~~, ~Ja~
~ / ' r
l~ ~~ ~ l~ ~- ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~
~ ;-~ ~~~~ ~~~%~ ~~
T~ ~
t"/~~t~4 ~P ~ ,l~~~I ~~~
~~p ~
f~P~~~ ~~ ~~~-~ ~ ,~~.~,~~l~~~J
s~~~ ~~~~~~
~
QE r ~~ ~~ /~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ r~~ .~ . ~~~~~ ~l~! ~;
~
~ ~'~~°~~~ `~''~ , C,v e s ~' '~~~= ~ tl~ ~~~~~~1~,~,«~z ~
~
~ /~/p /j ~ l ; J ~ ~'1 ~c~l~_ -' ~/~i~J ~/ J ~ ,
~~ /~~~'
!
, ~
~
~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~~ ~l ~ , ,~~ l ~ ,~~, ~
l~ ~a ~ ~ 2~ ~~~:: ~~ ,~~-~ ~ ~
~~~~. f~P S~~~~,cQit~z J~"l, i C~' / G~,~~ ~~; f-~ ~~t~l~
~~
~~c~ ~~'j2 c~ ~1~; c ~t1l2 ~~-~ ~i ~i7~
~ .
S~ G~ C~C~~
~/
~
~,~-~ ~/~" i~~ ~~ ~~~,
~
i; i~+ ii~-~,,~<<,~.~,
I;~~ulcler, (:~~Inr:uln ti11.i11?
t3U3) ~-+~-~~11+