Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Signed Minutes - July 15, 2019

Home Browse Search

Mr. Crumlish clarified that the exterior location was selected as it is the utility portion of the building, an d it is alley-facing. The utility company will not allow the meters to placed inside the structure. This cement block addition structure is a later addition. Mr. Garner stated that it would be better placed on this addition as opposed to attached to the original brick. Commissioner Gelfman stated that the Commission has approved fiberglass windows. Inspector Szaday clarified that the Commission has approved fiberglass, but it is unknown how they will hold up over time as of yet. Mr. Crumlish stated that the windows come in a number of different colors. Commissioner Ponder illustrated that the original windows appear to have been a reddish color. Commissioner Molnar noted that the Commission doesn’t have much information regarding the property’s history, and he is understanding that the near neighborhood is in need of assistance. This project could provide a much-needed injection of capital in the neighborhood. Commissioner Molnar illustrated that a number of structures in the near vicinity of this structure have been demolished since the depiction of the 1960 Sanborn map. Commissioner Molnar stated that he could be a little more lenient on the windows given the scope of the project, and remand the colors of the replacement windows to staff – that the white is not attractive. Commissioner Ponder asked about leniency regarding a contributing apartment bu ilding. Commissioners Hertel and Gelfman responded that because it is contributing, it should be held to the standards. Commissioner Gelfman asked about specific windows, and their color. Administrator Feasel clarified the recommendation that was put forth by staff, that 1) no alternatives were presented for the existing windows as to rehabilitation, 2) no alternative replacement windows were considered. Administrator Feasel spoke about the Hotel LaSalle restoration, where original windows were rehabilitated, and aluminum-clad replacement windows were installed. The absence of cost comparison makes it somewhat difficult for the commission to assess the project as is. Is restoration feasible? Commissioner Gelfman suggested that this discussion should be tabled to allow for other alternatives. Commissioner Molnar asked if the delay would cause construction delays. Mr. Crumlish stated that the delay would not hinder the construction timeline. Commissioner Hertel explained the options in front of the Commission: either table for more information, or deny and wait for a reapply. Mr. Crumlish asked for clarification on the installation of storm windows. Inspector Szaday clarified that rentals are required to have screens. Commissioner Ponder expressed her desire to have more information. Commissioner Molnar expressed that he would like to see a little bit more information. Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification as to what will go over the entrance doors. Mr. Garner explained the lack of information as to what was above the doors, and that the proposed doors are what is believed to be the best fit. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: N/A Commissioner Hertel made a motion to continue COA#2019-0703A, section 1 “Windows”, so that the applicant can return with information about restoration, as well as other materials that could be utilized for the windows. Seconded by Commissioner Ponder. Five in favor, none opposed. Vote: 5 – 0. Motion to continue COA #2019-0703A, section 1, “Windows” is passed. Commissioner Ponder made a motion to approve COA #2019-0703A, section 2, “Doors” as applied. Seconded by Commissioner Molnar. Five in favor, none opposed. Vote: 5 – 0. Motion to approve COA #2019-0703A, section 2, “Doors” as applied is passed. Commissioner Hertel made a motion to approve COA #2019-0703A, section 3 “Vents”. Seconded by Commissioner Brazinsky. Five in favor, none opposed. Vote: 5 – 0. Motion to approve COA #2019-0703A, section 3, “Vents” as applied is passed.