Laserfiche WebLink
visibility walking all the way around. It creates an architecturally unsatisfactory corner when <br />you turn the corner from brick to vinyl. It looks to me like those 1950's and 1960's stock houses <br />with the brick across the front and the vinyl wrapped around the rest of it. I just don't think that <br />the appropriate way to handle an addition to such a historic structure. <br />Zeiger: Is that a question for the petitioner, or a statement? <br />Sporleder: lam making the statement that I really don't, I understand what the petition is, I <br />mean I understand what that says. I also understand what it says in the standards and I think <br />that the standards should be adhered to. <br />Klusczinski: Ok, any other questions? <br />Choitz: I would just like to see an addendum on this for what we've been talking about, of some <br />kind in the process of all this that it would become a part of this C of A. If we're going to vote on <br />it as it is, it seems like it's to in some ways delete some of the things that are on here, or change <br />them anyway to a certain extent. If we're voting this particular certificate, I'm just wondering if <br />we should have some other means of describing all of these things. These are all good points, <br />there are all things that we need to give some thought to, and certainly have an understanding of <br />what they're trying to get done. If there are things that actually do change this, I think that it <br />would be good to have all of that all on one certificate. <br />Zeiger: Just a clarification, are we still under questions for the petitioner? Can we ... I'd suggest <br />that the Chair would continue on the agenda. <br />Klusczinski: Absolutely. <br />Zeiger: Thank you. <br />Klusczinski: I'm opening public hearing. Any member wishing to speak in favor of the current <br />petition? Hearing none, I recognize any member of the public wishing to speak in opposition. <br />Also hearing none, I close public hearing. Any additional comments? <br />Haupert: In order to get this C of A I'm sure that myself and the home owner are very willing to <br />amend any points that you think are necessary versus ... I'm thinking right off of maybe vinyl <br />versus wood siding, or maybe even looking at, although cost is prohibitive, complete brick <br />Maybe just the ends in wood in vinyl. If that's going to hold things up then we need to look what <br />will help us move the project through. <br />Zeiger: I have couple of questions or just comments to the Commission members to address what <br />we've been talking about just from my perspective, I don't have trouble moving that window <br />around the corner at this point, for what it's worth, its on the back of the building on a side that <br />can't be seen. From my standpoint, the window relocation is not an issue. Welcome to design by <br />committee, and I understand, but I really prefer the gable over that mansard, low hip roof. I <br />don't think that I ever really recall an accessory building or additions to historic properties <br />having these low hipped roofs. They generally have a gabled end on them, and you aren't able to <br />match the rise and run on the main house and so you end with a funky different sloped hip on that <br />addition which, for me, visually doesn't work. To the right of the single garage door you have a <br />certain width at that corner of the brick there is a certain width, but it's not mirrored on the other <br />side of the double garage door, and that hip isn't centered on that over those doors. From my <br />standpoint, I really do like the gable with all due respect to my fellow Commission members and <br />volunteers who met. Mr. Sporleder, I appreciate your time, but just from a standpoint of what I <br />typically see on historic buildings, and additions that 5/12 pitched gabled roof really seems to be <br />more in keeping with the design of the building. I don't think that we need a committee to move <br />the window and as far as siding is concerned- if we're going to make a recommendation that it <br />all matches, I would suggest all wood, cement board or man-made sort of lap siding of some sort. <br />Haupert: Sure, sure. <br />Zeiger: That would be in keeping then with an addition to a building like this as well because its <br />an accessory kind of building. That's what I have to say to the Commission members as far as <br />my read on this application. <br />Klusczinski: Any other comments? <br />Sporleder: May I respond to Todd? The current addition that was put on, I don't know when, <br />oh, 1963 does have a hipped roof on it. <br />Zeiger: And is considered non-contributing. <br />7 <br />