December 2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

windows in would be like putting rectangles into a trapezoid. Within S years you'd be replacing 41 everything again. It would be like throwing good money after bad because its not really solving the fundamental problems going on there with the house. I don't think that its going to cause a hardship to the owner because aluminum clad windows are exactly the same price as the all wooden windows which could be primed... Joann, I did.. Sporleder: The total cost is more for the wooden windows, as you have outlined. Hostetler: Thirteen dollars is not a significant hardship for a primed wooden window. Sporleder: That's just primed, it doesn't include the paint. Zeiger: Madame Chair... Hostetler: So there's not a significant dollar difference percentage wise that would present a hardship from goingfrom aluminum clad to regular wooden window. Its also against the guidelines, these windows are not beyond repair, and they should be preserved simply because of the status of this landmark in the neighborhood. Patrick: Thank you. Sporleder: I have a question. Several people have stated that this is a local landmark, I didn't know it was a local landmark, I thought that it was just part of a historic district. When did we make it a local landmark? Patrick: (Reading from staff report) Local landmark, Chapin Park local historic district. Klusczinski: A plaque from Peter Nemeth is affixed to the front door. Sporleder: Ok, thank you. Peterson: As a Robert's Rules of Order here...a motion is on the table to approve it, but that motion has failed, and the Commissioners have all stated their reasons to against it. As a point of order, we now need a motion to off cially deny it, and each Commissioner can simply incorporate what they previously said with their vote, as apart of their denial this time. Patrick: I'll entertain a motion to deny this Certificate of Appropriateness. Klusczinski: I move to deny Certificate of Appropriateness 2006-1108-A. Zeiger: I'll second that. Patrick: Now do we each have to state our reasons again? Peterson: [unintelligible — away from microphone] Zeiger: Todd Zeiger, my reasons as previously stated flow into this motion please. Chase: Mary Jane Chase, same. Klusczinski: Tim Klusczinski for comments previously noted. Patrick: For comments previously noted. The inappropriateness for this particular landmark, the potential detriment to this house, and the lack of hardship shown. Peterson: Let the record show that you are voting for the denial. Patrick: I am, against. Thank you. Riley: I'm voting nay. I feel that it is a hardship for the applicant and I think that if I understand it correctly, he can't put in Marvin windows and be wood and be painted and they will look from the outside as it should, and he's willing to save the old windows for a time later when there's another homeowner and they want to put them back in, then it can be done. Choitz: I thought that I did this once. Patrick: We're doing it again. Choitz: Well, I'll say it quite the same way. I am ... opposed to.. Sporleder: No, you want to vote yes. Choitz: Why? Sporleder: Because it is a negative motion. Choitz: Oh yes. Oh, I don't know. You've got me confused to the point that... Patrick: Counselor? Peterson: Do you vote to deny this application? Choitz: Yes, I did vote to deny the application. Peterson: For the reasons that you previously stated? Choitz: And the statements that I made before still stands. Is that ok? Patrick: Yes. Thank you Counselor. Thank you Martha. 12