Laserfiche WebLink
2) 302 Sunn7• s i de - ERAS <br />Owner proposes to replace original slate roofing ►,.ti th GAF <br />S1 ate 1 i ne asphal t roof shingles and w i th appropriate repairs <br />to the decking. Oviner• also proposes to replace gutters with <br />half -round galvanized steel and dovjnspou is with materials <br />similar to existing. Mr. Her•endeen moved to approve variance <br />for removal of original slate and replacement with proposed <br />material , as v.1el 1 as staff rev i evi on site wi th the contrac,tor- <br />a.s. to the appropriateness of retaining the slate on the <br />_. i dev,al 1 s of the dormers; Mr. N i mtz seconded; Mrs. Cho i tz <br />against; motion approved. <br />3) 115 N. St. James Ct . - Central High School - LL <br />The proposal for Part 2 - Certificate of Appropriateness was <br />tabled for further information at the July 18, 15186 meeting. <br />The proposal includes the removal of the Vo-Tec building and <br />povter•pl ant and construction of a ne►,i parking lot awi th <br />additional landscaping on west side of building in context <br />with original plan (see staff report - Appendix B) . <br />Staff recommended consideration of the fol 1 ot,,ti ng three <br />options: <br />Option I <br />Maintaining the Vo-Tec and povterplant buildings vii th the <br />recommendation that parking be developed on the first floor <br />and mothbal 1 i nc► of the second floor. <br />Option II <br />Al1ou;ting demolition of the Vo-Tec and powerplant buildings <br />with preservation of the smokestack twi th mitigation measures <br />(see staff report - Appendix: B) . <br />Option III <br />Retaining the povierpl ant on site along with the smokestack, <br />and allowing the demolition of the l.o-Tec building, with <br />mitigation measures for Vo-Tec building. <br />Mr. Ox i an questioned Pis. Pitts-Ma.n i er, A_.sn` t . City Attorney, <br />whether the specific provisions of the historic landmark <br />standards take precedence over the provisions in the <br />ordinance regarding demolition of landmarks. Ms. <br />Pitts-Manier stated that in deciding a Certificate of <br />Appropriateness the hpc must consider the three provisions <br />indicated in the ordinance (e.g. 1. appropriateness of <br />proposed demolition of the historic landmark; 2. potential <br />hardship costs; and 3. detriment to the public vlelfare and <br />safety.) in addition to the provisions of the standards. <br />August 15, 1988 PAGE 2 <br />