Laserfiche WebLink
Bureau, said the purpose of the proposal was to <br />convert the garage to a training and staff <br />development area. She said the house itself was <br />becoming crowded. <br />Mr. Pastor said the proposed changes were not <br />strictly within the letter of the standards. <br />However, since the house had been much altered, <br />he felt the building's style and character <br />wouldn't be compromised by the project. He <br />therefore recommended approval, but suggested <br />using model S944 instead of NE 9118 for the <br />reduced garage door opening, and model S1900 <br />instead of NE900 for the replacement entry door. <br />Ms. Strycker said she had no objection to <br />changing the style of door; she did, however, <br />need a steel door, for security. Mr. Pastor said <br />the replacement models would be made of steel. <br />Mr. Oxian asked why it was necessary to replace <br />the smaller door, which, he felt, had some <br />historical value. Ms. Strycker again mentioned <br />security concerns, and said the old door wasn't <br />in very good condition. <br />Mr. Herendeen said the door's deteriorated <br />condition had been documented. Mr. Oxian said <br />he was merely suggesting storing the door, not <br />retaining it in its place. Mrs. Strycker agreed <br />to store the door. <br />Mr. Herendeen moved to approve the door <br />replacements. Mrs. Choitz seconded the motion. <br />Approved unanimously. <br />Mr. Oxian directed the Commission members to <br />follow the new COA procedures and to raise their <br />hands to indicate their votes. This was not <br />necessary, he added, in the case of unanimous <br />votes, but was important in cases where there was <br />some disagreement. <br />Mr. Welsheimer moved to approve the door <br />replacements. as recommended by Mr. Pastor. Mrs. <br />Choitz seconded the motion; approved unanimously. <br />2. 1326 Lincolnway East--Lincolnway East Local <br />Historic District <br />Mr. Pastor described the two structures on this <br />property as a 1917 American Foursquare and a c. <br />1920 greenhouse. Both were rated <br />"noncontributing." Ms. Strycker would again be <br />representing the petitioner. <br />The proposal was to demolish the greenhouse. <br />According to assessor records, he said, the <br />building, originally a place of business, was now <br />gutted. Its most distinctive feature was a <br />deteriorated portico of vaguely art deco style. <br />He distributed copies of Ms. Strycker's <br />statement of intent to demolish, and noted that <br />the statement lacked a description of her plans <br />for the property, once the greenhouse had been <br />removed. He asked Ms. Strycker to elaborate on <br />any such plans. <br />Ms. Strycker said the Youth Service Bureau <br />planned within the next few years to erect a new <br />2 <br />