Tuesday, November 1, 2016

126 E. Mira Monte Ave: A Picture Says A Thousand Words

Mod: And two pictures? Well, at least a thousand and one.


Read the sign. They are asking for a permit to "... allow the demolition and reconstruction of the roof and exterior walls"

As anyone can plainly see, the roof and exterior walls are already gone.


sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

66 comments:

  1. I went by yesterday and yep, it is gone. The owner still hasn't answered the question of what he did with the windows and woodwork inside. When I toured the house that all looked in good shape. I believe the PC will be irate but will the CC back them? Felikian got what she wanted, Salesian got off with a slap on the wrist. What will happen to this guy? Harabedian? If your listening...this guy, like Salesian knew what he was doing. It wasn't a mistake that the city should forgive. You set a precedent already. Don't let it happen again! Makes me wonder what other perks the owner has received from the city. Yea, I say boycott his restaurant if he goes to the PC with a bunch of lies and half truths. It's really the only thing citizens have to deal these days. For those who disagree, property rights go both ways. Laws are there for a reason. When you break them you need to pay the price.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its really sad to see this house and knowing what it used to look like. There are so many ways to restore a house like that without gutting it completely. Obviously, the present owners didn't care about the house and didn't care about the community's desire to preserve it. Something went horribly wrong and have every faith that our Planning Commission will get to the bottom of it.

      Delete
  2. They destroyed this house. Illegally. For the owner to say otherwise is offensive.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 4:14, What was the slap on the wrist that Salesian received? Anything less than tearing down the illegal structure is unacceptable. By letting him slide, the city gave the go ahead for anyone else's project, build, demolish, whatever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He did pay a fine, there is a codicil that they can never rent the property, the bathroom and SQ was lessened and there were a few other things. Yes, it should have been torn down and we have Harabedian to thank for seeing that that wasn't done. It's sad that after all that he still got re-elected.

      Delete
  4. What restaurant? I'll tell all my friends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Only Place In Town is the owners restaurant.

      Delete
    2. Oh no. How could they!

      Delete
  5. If these codes are not enforced then all we've been getting from City Hall is lip service.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the exterior walls were gone, the house wouldn't be there. The siding has been removed from the outside, nothing illegal about that, as that was in the approved CUP and plans. The interior of a home is not regulated or restricted by any ordinance, and the submitted/approved demolition plans shows removal of most interior walls. Like the sign says, they are requesting permission to reframe the house.
    All the plans are on line under the planning commissions agendas from 2015.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where's the roof pal

      Delete
    2. Was the historical review done before you reached this level of demolition?

      Delete
    3. You can't sugar coat it. This was the very house that triggered the outcry for the emergency demolition moratorium and look what's now been done to it with no oversight whatsoever. Who signed off on this?

      Delete
    4. Fill the chambers to overflowing on Thursday and send a message so that other people don't take it upon themselves to flagrantly disregard the rules and regulations. This owner should be taken to the town square and flogged at noon time.

      Delete
    5. 6:38A They removed more than the allotted amount.

      Delete
    6. If you re-frame the house, what exactly would be left. Where's the historical survey that demonstrates the home has no historical significance?

      Delete
    7. What would be left if you don't reframe the house? Should it be allowed to fall on its own. Worse yet, should it fall on the occupying family. What's more important. Safety or posterity. And if they are suggesting to rebuild it like it was, leaving the river rock walls in place, what argument can you possibly make that replacing failing lumber is wrong. I know you don't believe them, or the engineer or the building official. The realtor pictures should be what's used to make decisions of safety. That and angry mobs.

      Delete
    8. The stop work was put on the house because they wrecked the place. They turned the pace into a public safety hazard.

      Delete
  7. As of two weeks ago, when I drove by, now one of the two chimneys is down as well. Travesty that cannot go unpunished! Find all the purloined materials and rebuilt. To think that the 1907 heart redwood that would have been a good portion of this structure was termite ridden is a fabrication. At the lumber yard today you will never find wood as good as that was. It needed to be salvaged and reworked into the new plan. If you don't like a house as is why buy it? That is the real question. A lot is not just a lot because you like the size and location with a house of historical merit. Buy something else! Somewhere else!

    ReplyDelete
  8. As of two weeks ago, when I drove by, now one of the two chimneys is down as well. Travesty that cannot go unpunished! Find all the purloined materials and rebuilt. To think that the 1907 heart redwood that would have been a good portion of this structure was termite ridden is a fabrication. At the lumber yard today you will never find wood as good as that was. It needed to be salvaged and reworked into the new plan. If you don't like a house as is why buy it? That is the real question. A lot is not just a lot because you like the size and location with a house of historical merit. Buy something else! Somewhere else!

    ReplyDelete
  9. The owner of this house is doing what the prior owners of the Blacker House (in Pasadena) did. Strip out (and most likely sell) all those fixtures and woodwork. Then do whatever else they want.

    Pasadena did something about that. Will Sierra Madre?

    http://articles.latimes.com/1985-06-06/local/me-6922_1_blacker-house

    ReplyDelete
  10. If an old building is falling down and someone comes along and rebuilds it to original design and looks what is wrong with that it will last a lot longer than the other old dilapidated unsafe building would. see that in a lot of historic places. Once the integrity is lost what do you do, slap some plaster over the wrinkle that makes it good till you get in the shower, doesn't work for long. Fix it right or .. . . . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The building wasn't dilapidated. Stop making crap up. Laws were broken here. Time to pay the piper.

      Delete
    2. Come on 8:13. Get real. The previous pictures don't lie. The interior was magnificent. One of the finest Craftsman homes I've seen and I've seen plenty. Who would gut something like that. Foundations and other things can be carefully dealt with if that was needed. This buyer destroyed this house, violated our rules and gave everyone in the community that wanted to preserve this home the middle finger as they did it.

      Delete
  11. So many have put their faith in the updated General Plan, updated codes, zoning. But what does any of that matter if it is not backed up by enforcement? And why is it the Planning Commission has to be the place where punishments are administered? Doesn't city hall have a mechanism that carries out that function? Somebody is passing the buck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What laws and codes do you want enforced? Currently the maximum fine is $1,000.

      Delete
    2. Plus 2 years of not being able to do anything with the property. It will sit there like an eyesore monument to the stupidity of the owners.

      Delete
  12. What ever happens fix it quick, getting tired of seeing these projects go on for ever making the neighborhood look rundown while the rest of us keep our place up and looking good. We neighbors suffer because another neighbor didn't keep their place up. NOT RIGHT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now there is a strategy. If you can't get city approval for your project, tear the place apart so that the neighbors demand that it get fixed.

      Delete
  13. The 3 people leaving City Hall have always passed the buck. Now we get to pass them our bucks for life, great system.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So many of us have put our faith in city hall 8:15, only to be let down. Hope they hire people who will take better care of the city. Bruce with the bad water, Police Chief with poor recruiting now we have half a PD who isn't trained for our city and a city manager that has not done a good job. Only good job she does is smile at you and try to make you feel special, she should have worked for a PR firm "not a city Manager".

    ReplyDelete
  15. I can see that the owners may be a bit over zealous, and directions were not clearly understood by the hired de constructed workers. Yes; Redwood is the favorit food of termites, especially the "White Redwood" , which was a cheeper and plentiful material back years ago.
    Yes; I like the zuchinni bread at the Only Place in Town.
    No; I am not voting for the one that is under investigation for the illegal placement of her Government Server in her homes basement; she" brook the laws and needs to pay for them".
    Shocking to view the shell of the house; but it is a rebuild, not a tear down.
    I am looking forward to the owners moving forward and enjoying their rebuild. It's a lengthy and expensive process, but it will be a rewarding process.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The owners of the Darling Craftsman broke the law, too. Are you schizophrenic?

      Delete
    2. con·jec·ture
      kənˈjekCHər/Submit
      noun
      1.
      an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
      "conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied"
      synonyms: speculation, guesswork, surmise, fancy, presumption, assumption, theory, postulation, supposition; More
      antonyms: fact
      an unproven mathematical or scientific theorem.
      "the Goldbach conjecture"
      (in textual criticism) the suggestion or reconstruction of a reading of a text not present in the original source.
      verb
      verb: conjecture; 3rd person present: conjectures; past tense: conjectured; past participle: conjectured; gerund or present participle: conjecturing
      1.
      form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
      "he conjectured the existence of an otherwise unknown feature"
      synonyms: guess, speculate, surmise, infer, fancy, imagine, believe, think, suspect, presume, assume, hypothesize, suppose

      Delete
    3. Spin - what 10:11 is engaged in. The question is why.

      Delete
    4. Redwood is not the favorite food for termites. It is actually one of the woods resistant to termites.

      Delete
    5. redwood is not structural lumber and this house was not built with redwood. You must be referring to the interior or the siding

      Delete
    6. Redwood repels termites, especially old growth, which was used in 1907 as structural wood, as is the case with my house. Very dense wood that stays in prime condition for centuries. Also true 2 by 2's, and 4 by 4's not even able to be found these days. It is so sad to see this irreparable loss, I couldn't go to the meeting.
      Also, I really don't want these owners to walk away from this project. They demolished (illegally, despite what they understood from city employees, if you re-read Sierra madre's Historic Preservation Code) and now they must re-build.
      I will never go to the Only Place In Town again, just because the owners have not been responsible and sensitive community members.
      Someone in City Departments, or the Planning Commission needs to step up and take responsibility and MAKE A STATEMENT of explanation, so this never happens again. This situation has left all of our beloved structures at risk.

      Delete
  16. Are you confident that you have "all the information" to make your conclusion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. It isn't rocket science.

      Delete
    2. I'am not a Rocket Scientist; but I don't see any law broken. The owners or workers moved ahead of Schedule on the Permit.

      Delete
    3. That is your opinion. If that is what you think, so be it.

      Delete
    4. The decision will be made by the Planning Commission. Not in the comment section of the town blog. Post whatever you like. Don't let some spin doctor tell you what you're allowed to say.

      Delete
  17. To most of you: Please, please, please NEVER serve on a jury. Explain to the judge that you need only hear a few allegations before reaching a decision. The judge will know what to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People are entitled to their opinions. No matter what you say.

      Delete
  18. So you have viewed the demolition plan, the signed construction plans, the engineer's report and done a physical inspection of the framing, and came to the conclusion, without any doubt, that the owner is guilty?
    Of course, your answer will be snarky, maybe even witty, but it doesn't change the fact, that you are doing nothing but making assumptions. At the expense of someone's character, family, livelihood and that of their employees. You don't care, I get it, but what does that say of your character.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Based on what happened to the last buyer, this owner should have not bought this house if their intention from the beginning was to gut it. Its the most egregious thing I have seen in a long time. This should not have happened when we passed a demolition ordinance. That should have been triggered long before it got to this point. The house has effectively been demolished already and without triggering the ordinance.

      Delete
  19. I always wanted to be a doctor

    ReplyDelete
  20. It comes down to this. Everyone knew about the uproar when the previous owner tried to demolish the house. The Kefales's are not out of town buyers who can plead ignorance of what happened before. Surely their realtor, Luther Tsinoglou who is a local realtor must have known. Surely the city knew what happened before and how this house was the reason for the demolition moratorium and later the permanent demolition ordinance that was put in place to safeguard against potential historic homes from being demolished or even significantly altered. This house had incredible and pristine 1907 Craftsman details. No buyer in their right mind would come in and tear all that out. The Bill and Anastasia Kefales should not have bought this house. They certainly made no attempt to save it. It was just a money maker for them. There is a certain arrogance in doing what they did knowing how so many people felt about the Henry A. Darling House.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Demolishing one house isn't enough for me to boycott the steak and Havarti roll at Only Place. Maybe two. Not sure.

    ReplyDelete
  22. They should be forced to rebuild it, on the same river rock foundation, without destroying the fireplace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good luck finding all of the destroyed woodwork and fixtures.

      Delete
  23. For the love of Zeus's white flowing beard, will you people just go read the discretionary demolition ordinance. They can remove anything they want from the inside and cover the walls with avocado green and petunias. We as a city don't have a say in that, and that's a good thing. I don't want the city telling me what I can do in my house either. I have a feeling they wouldn't let any of us inside to see it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why the stop work, Pinocchio?

      Delete
    2. The city says they didn't give permission to remove the roof. The plans say otherwise.
      And if you can't attempt to make a point without name calling, maybe you should go take a nap.

      Delete
    3. Why the stop work? You've been asked about a dozen times now.

      Delete
    4. Can you not read the comment right above yours? Or perhaps the 3 other times I have outlined it over the past 4 days? Would you like me to write it in Greek?

      Delete
    5. Are you billing the owners for your hours?

      Delete
    6. 6:39 - you might as well write them in Greek. They'd be just as indecipherable. The asshole broke the law. End of story.

      Delete
  24. I just want them to rebuild it, so it looks like it did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well they're certainly off to an awful start.

      Delete
  25. I want-I want-I want. I want you to also take a nap. Chill out. Take a breath. Wait to to hear from the Planning Commission.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you ever attended a PC meeting? If a hot topic is being discussed no one has gotten out of line. They listen to what is being said by the head of the department, the board members and the petitioner. If the petitioner can not verify his facts then people will get up and voice their opinions. This is a blog. A place where people can blow off steam. It may not be as polite as you'd like but it serves its purpose. No one has to take a nap just because you say so. Many of the reports are available on line or you can go in and ask to see them. So some have knowledge before hand. They do their research. Did you? It's not a question of "I want." It's a question of making sure the right things, according to the law get done. That will never get done as long as people sit idly by and wait. I hope you will be there Thursday.

      Delete
  26. Welcome to Arcadia

    ReplyDelete