June 1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

building between the two existing buildings. The clearedgreenhouse site would be seeded, and perhaps lightly landscaped. Mr. Pastor read the staff recommendation. He said he had inspected the property several times and decided that the greenhouse was actually an architectural detriment to the district. The structure did, however, have some historical value; it exemplified the way the home place and the work place were once integrated. For this reason, he recommended postponing demolition until ways of adapting and re -using the greenhouse could be considered. Mrs. DeRose pointed out that the owner, according to the recently -passed demolition standards, must prove that the building was unusable without extensive rehabilitation. Mr. Holycross said he considered the building unfit for use without radical rehabilitation. He commended Mr. Pastor's analysis, but said he partly disagreed with it--i.e., he recommended that demolition be allowed, with the stipulation that the building be appropriately replaced so as to fill the gap left in the streetscape. Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve the demolition. and said she agreed with the survev rating of "noncontributing." Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian said that demolition was therefore to be approved under part "A" of the demolition standards. The motion was unanimously approved. C. 1017 Riverside Drive --Local Historic District Mr. Pastor described this house as a c. 1904 American Foursquare, rated C/9, and owned by R. J. Bennett. Mr. Bennett proposed to replace a rear entry vestibule with a bathroom. Mr. Bennett said he considered the new bathroom a distinct improvement to the property, which now had only one bathroom. There was no way to incorporate the bathroom into the existing vestibule. Also, the vestibule needed repair. The exterior structure of the house would be maintained, he said, and the existing overhang, except for a slight difference in pitch, would be replicated. He believed that giving an identical roof pitch to both house and addition would make for a top-heavy look. The existing vestibule door, Mr. Bennett continued, was unusually narrow. In order to use standard framing, he wished to widen the door opening by 2". Mrs. Choitz moved to approve the proposal. Mrs. SDorleder seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian said that no motion should be made until the staff recommendation had been given. Mr. Pastor said the proposal was generally in keeping with the standards, but recommended closer attention to two details: 1. The orientation of the entry steps would be 3