August 1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A • Sporleder indicated that she wasn't convinced that a metal roof would be lighter then the existing shingle roof and she felt that the metal roof would be more expensive then' -the conventional shingle roof. Mr. Duvall stated that with the differences in material and construction needs the metal roof would be far lighter then the conventional roof. Mr. Borkowski noted when he hada metal roof placed on his pole barn that its price was comparative with that of the cost of a shingle roof. There was much discussion over the current state of dilapidation for which the entire structure was in and its over all construction. Mr. Hubner interjected that the figures the owners had, showed a definite weight difference in favor of the metal roof. He also showed concern that if something wasn't done soon the building would be lost. Mr. Fine moved to approve the application per the staff recommendation. Mr. Borkowski seconded the motion. Mrs. Sporleder requested that there be more information on the actual weight differential. She also felt that replacing the roof with a metal roof was too much of a change and took away from the buildings integrity. The motion passed with 6 yes votes and 1 no vote, that being Joann Sporleder. 3) 1997-0709 - 1501 East Wayne Street - Remove and fill in rear pantry door covering the outside with lattice work that matches the existing porch lattice. Mr. Duvall presented the staff report and circulated photographs. He noted that the applicant was present. There was some clarification as to which door was under question. Mrs. McLane further explained their need to close in this door. Mr. Oxian suggested the applicant simply leave the door inside and wall • around it so that the door is there if any future owner wishes to use it. McLane explained that the doors hardware protruded past the interior walls and would prohibit them from making the wall flush. Mr. Oxian stated that the hinges and knob could be removed and stored and the door could be wedged into place. McLane noted that they would not have a problem with encasing the door. There was some discussion over possible future maintenance problems and rotting that could occur by leaving the door _there. Mr. Talley noted that his transom that was encased for years rotted. Mr. Wiener moved to approve the application as applied and later, after further discussion, amended his motion by requesting the door be left in place and encased with lattice work on the exterior side. Mr. Fine seconded the amended motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4) 1997-0714 - 1208 Lincolnway East - placement of a business sign in front yard. Mr. Duvall presented the Staff Report and circulated photographs. He noted that the applicant was present. After some discussion about the size and location of the sign Mr. Talley moved to approve the application. Mr. Borkowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5) 1997-0715 - 713 West LaSalle - Erect a front & rear yard fence. Mr. Duvall presented the Staff Report and circulated photographs and product literature. Mr. Fine moved to approve application, per staff recommendation. Mr. Talley seconded the motion. Mrs. Sporleder questioned if the motion included the privacy fence in the backyard. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Duvall interjected that the commission may want to look at the guideline • prohibiting front yard fences as it is in direct conflict with the first guideline that it should be true to context. Front yard picket fences were found to be very prevalent in the concerned time era. Mr. Talley expressed similar concern over these inconsistencies. Mr. Oxian stated that the commission could vote to change the guidelines. There was some discussion over city ordinances that pertained to fences. Mr. Oxian suggested I that a