February 1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

their first meeting with the developers had ended with a seven day recess of discussion which was quickly followed by demolition activity without consultation. He noted that one rarely finds a pristine antique. He stated that although lie understood the concerns of business, he was very troubled by the blatant disregard for the commission in this case. He found Mr.. Fedder's conclusions in regard to .criteria and historical parallels to be poorly informed. Based on his meeting with Mr. Fedder and Ralph Williams Associates and discussions with the Army Corps and DNR/SHPO that if the designation of this property is recommended to the County Council by the commission it may well result in an impediment to .the Army Corps 404 permit. lie also is under the impression that some of the structures which were in place at the time of the committee's meeting with the developer were removed but that the integrity of the ponds including some of its architectural edging remains and part of a footbridge. Within the mission, powers, and duties of the Historic Preservation Commission, he felt those remains to be worth saving. As a member of that committee, he moved for approval of the recommendation of Blake Gardens as a Local Landmark -to the County Council. This motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Oxian asked the commission for other motions, and hearing none, he stated that: he felt the developer owed the commission a debt. He recommended that the developer should commit to placement of a plaque indicating the history of the site and the gardens. He asked for objections to this proposal from the commission and heard none. Mr. Fedder indicated for Ralph .Williams Associates that he would provide a letter to the commission indicating compliance with this request for a memorial plaque affixed to aforementioned wall which is to remain. Mr. Oxian indicated that the • commission would provide text for this plaque. Mr. Fedder indicated that the developer could probably accept this and would provide a letter to this effect. He reiterated that he found no evidence in his correspondence with the SiIPO of this site being listed on the State or National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Oxian moved to approve his above recommendation. Mrs. Hostetler. seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of- G to 1 with Mr. Talley voting nay. B. Certificates of Appropriateness 1) 521 River Avenue Mr. Duvall read the Staff report and circulated photographs. The owner was not present. Mr. Oxian noted that there- was evidence in the photographs of re -roofing. Mr. Duvall replied that the proposed glass block was a part B of an application which included re -roofing as part A. The Re -roofing had been approved by Staff as an in-kind replacement and a COA issued. Mr. Talley asked if this was rental property. Mr. Duvall indicated' that it was not clear. He recalled the commission's having entertained an application for oversidi.ng a couple of years earlier and had believed it to be a rental at: that time. However, this is the given address for the owner at this gime, and from this he surmised it to be Mr. Hursey's home. Mr. Duvall had not been able to reach the applicant by phone as the number given on the application was a business which had stated Mr. Hursey no longer was employed. there. Mr. Fine asked whether the block was to be recessed or flush. Mr. Duvall indicated that this was not specified in the application. Mr. Talley stated that it had been allowed in the past to cover material which however was being conserved in • place. He further stated that this appeared to be a case where the owner was not fully cognizant of the intentions and requirements of the district. Mr. Oxian stated that the commission had never approved installation of glass block. Mr. Talley moved to deny the application. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.