January 1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

basement 'stairway was required along with the alteration of .a side door and the installation of handrails. .Mr.' Duvall, further noted ,that a physical exhibit had.been submitted for the handrails. The motion passed unanimously. Mrs. Sporleder moved to return ;to the agenda. Mr.'Fine seconded the motion. . The motion passed unanimously. B. National Register'Nominations 1.' 16581 -Chandler. Boulevard - Reservoir Caretaker's -Residence Mr. -Duvall stated that the. Commission was reviewing a. National Register Nomination that. did not originate from the Commission, it was submitted_by Glory June Greiff and prepared on behalf of the owner, Peter Dekeiver. Mr. Duvall noted that the owner could not be, present,, however, he had telephoned Mr: Duvall to express his approval of the nomination. Mr.' Duvall presented the staff report and circulated photos. He then noted that the house had been moved from its original location to a lot -a few miles down the same road. He also noted that the little pergola was too severely deteriorated to survive the move, however, it has been thoroughly documented and it is the owners intention. to reconstruct that feature. Mr. Fine asked if he was going' to., rebuild the terrace. Mr. Duvall stated 'that he :did'. not believe the owner • intended to do so.. Mr. Oxian asked if the light had been moved, with the house. ' Mr. Duvall stated that -it had been moved with the house. Mr. Fine asked Iif :the nomination included the newly" constructed garage. Mr. Duvall stated that he did not recall if it did or not. Mr. Fine noted that, the garage should be included: in the nomination. Mr. Duvall: stated that the garage has the same approximate relationship to the house with the same -roof, line.configuration as the garage at the previous site': -Mr. Fine moved to make a favorable recommendation for the nomination with- addition that the newly constructed garage be included in the nomination and .send this to the County Commissioners as well. as the State .Review Board for their review:" Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. �. C. Second reading of 214 West -Jefferson Mr. Duvall presented, the staff report and circulated photographs. He•noted that' the, owner, Mr. Moerleiri,and his -architect Mr..-Kil were present.. Mr. Oxian moved that the nomination . be sent down to the'_ Common Council based. on the three criterions that it .meets. He also stated, that even though the building is -only rated a contributing 10 it is still historically significant. Mr. Borkowski_ seconded the. motion. Mrs. Sporleder asked what made up the buildings structure. Mr. Duvall stated that it was "a brick -barring wall_ structure with wood framed floors. Mrs. 'Sporleder asked if -the wood framing posed any serious fire hazards. Mr. Kil, the owners architect, ,stated 'that they did meet with the building commissioner and have applied to have the'fire escape be the buildings second. form of, egress.,. He. further noted that there are plans to install a sprinkler system. He then, discussed the proposed alterations and restoration that was planned for.the building. Mr.. Kil stated_ that the owner also would like to pursue the nomination to the state level. Mr. Kil- noted that he has had, initial- conversations with ..the state in which the state showed concern over it'being a border line building. Since this'. conversation the owner has done some extensive historical research on the building in hopes'of•strengthening their -case. Mr.-Oxian asked -if Mr: Duvall had, looked at 'the original criteria for the downtown Multiple Resource District. Mr. Duvall. stated that he, had not •pursued that issue. Mr. Fine stated that, he had talked to Mr.'Hurdis,_from the State Historic Preservation Board, about the possibility of placing, this _structure in the Multiple Resource District. Mr. Hurdis told Mr. Fine that the criteria required that each buil-ding had to be individually eligible. Mr. Fine went on to state that 3