Laserfiche WebLink
Staff recommended that the HPC approve the proposal as submitted; the proposal fulfills district <br />standards that suggest the replacement of original materials and proposes the removal of <br />nonhistoric, inappropriate siding. <br />• Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve the proposal as submitted. Mrs. Choitt seconded the motion. <br />Mr. Eide asked the owner, Jay Tidmarsh, whether he intended to remove the shutters. Mr. Tidmarsh <br />replied that the shutters would be removed as they were not original to the structure. <br />Mr. Oxian asked that the structure be "rerated" when the project was complete. <br />Motion passed unanimously. <br />6. 1081 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD <br />1121 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD <br />Mr. Holycross read the staff report concerning the proposal: the installation of streetlights in <br />the front yards of two properties (1081 RSD and 1121 RSD), the lights to consist of twelve foot <br />(12') "Hollowspun" concrete poles and thirty inch (30") "Octagonal Junior" fixtures with 100 watt <br />metal halide lamps, or replicas of these features. <br />The staff recommended that the HPC disapprove the proposal as submitted for the following reasons: <br />1. the plan would disrupt the historic placement of streetlights along this section of Riverside <br />Drive; as reported in Ed Talley's report, the lights are historically incorrect due to the original <br />intention of those who installed them: to have lights only on the south side of the street along <br />this stretch of Riverside Drive; 2. introducing two randomly placed streetlights would disrupt the <br />intended rhythm of the lights as originally conceived and installed; 3. the introduction of large <br />streetlights in shallow front yard lawns would be inappropriate in scale with the houses. The staff <br />recommended that owners retain yard lights to allay safety concerns. <br />Mr. Eide stated that he was most concerned with the placement of only two lights on the street; he <br />asked Mr. Talley whether there was a plan to install others in the future. <br />Mr. Talley stated that there was also a third pole in his possession and that "due to an unfortunate <br />happenstance there were no more poles available." He had been "literally inundated" with offers from <br />people who had such poles and who were willing to donate them. He also had been in contact with a <br />company that could "remould" replacement poles. <br />Mr. Eide asked for the "master pian" for lighting on the street; he remained concern that installing <br />poles at random would be inappropriate. <br />Mr. Talley said the proposal was to "do a staggered installation in the... entire district ... and [to] <br />install..." appropriate poles elsewhere. "The neighborhood" as polled had shown interest in such a <br />plan and also wanted cast-iron poles. He questioned the historic argument against such a plan as the <br />neighborhood wanted them. He then explained the original intentions of the designers as he <br />understood them. <br />Marty Murphy (1121 RSD) stated that his position was that the neighborhood needed more lighting and <br />that it would be most appropriate that some sort of historic lighting was employed. <br />Mr. Eide stated that the proposal did not accomplish that goal. Mr. Talley replied that they "had <br />...many roadblocks" and then discussed at length the previous plans to install new lighting in the <br />district. <br />Marsha Stephenson (RSD Liaison) stated that there was some difference of opinion in the neighborhood <br />