July 2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sporleder: It's considered non-contributing, however, just to make the point that it is an addition that is not a gabled end addition. Zeiger: Sure, it's a matter of size. I think that its a matter of the overall size of the addition. It changes what the length of that addition, so that's all that I was picking up on Joann. Klusczinski: Maybe with sensitivity to all of the changes, it might be in our best interest to entertain a motion to amend the current C of A, detail the changes that would be favorable to the Commission, and then the petitioner would have the opportunity to say whether or not he's willing to go along with that. Zeiger: I'd make a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, 2007-0605, I'm trying to read the C of A here, with the understanding that the window could be moved around to the north elevation from the rear, and with the roof and details as presented in the original C of A which would be a gable end roof instead of a mansard low hip. My motion is to approve the brick per the C of A in front of us. Peterson: One aspect too may be what you're doing, there are some things that may be a deal breaker for various Commissioners. Obviously, they want to move forward. If the motion is [unclear on recording] whether or not they move the window or not or whether or not they use gable or hip, I guess maybe if those are issues that you want to leave to them to handle or those are in a sense part of the motion that you won't, if your intent is not to vote on it if it doesn't have the gable roof, that's kind of how I read that motion. You're kind of going back to the original. That's how I read that motion, to clary what those points are for people and be sure that those are in fact deal breaking points. Zeiger: I don't know what the deal breaking points are for other Commissioners, but I'm just saying that the gable roof is more appropriate than the low hip. Sporleder: You're not saying that the low hip is totally wrong? Zeiger: I believe that the low hip is not as in keeping as the original C of A. That's my opinion. Sporleder: That's not my question, Todd. My question is if it's wrong for the building. Zeiger: I believe that this, what is proposed this revised low hip is not in keeping with the design of the addition. I think that you'd more likely see a gabled addition rather than a low hip. I don't like the lack of match on the rise and run on that, it looks awkward to me. It just does not fit from an aesthetic. Sporleder: We're dealing with aesthetics then, basically? Zeiger: No, I'm dealing with... Sporleder: Because the gable end doesn't look right to me. Zeiger: Then you can vote on my motion that I'm putting on the table. My motion is to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness it is, did they include moving the window in the original or not? Hostetler: Yes. Zeiger: So, I'm making a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness as originally submitted, which includes relocation of the window from the east elevation to the north, the gable design for the roof structure, and the brick facing on the addition. My motion would include allowing the applicant to select a lap siding in either cedar or cement board or a manufactured type of siding to be painted as they so desire. Klusczinski: Very good. Chase: I'll second that. Klusczinski: Second. Any discussion? All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (Aye is heard) Moved: Zeiger Second: Chase To amend 2007-0605 Approved 5-1 Sporleder opposed The motion carries, amended, with one in opposition. So now we have a new Certificate of Appropriateness. Is the petitioner willing to compromise? Haupert: Sounds good to us. Agreed. Klusczinski: Now we have to entertain a motion to vote on the amended Certificate of Appropriateness.