March 1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

page 3 were equally significant. Nowhere in landmark or district standards is the front of a structure deemed more important than the sides and back. Mr. Eide said the committee recommendation was an attempted compromise between the owner's wishes and and the landmark standards. A glazed 1 -leaf door would preserve the original opening. Mr. Kahle said he wanted to let more light into the kitchen wing. A single -leaf door did not suit his intentions_ He pointed out that the house already had five doors. He felt a double door would look better than the door the committee recommended. Mr. Herendeen said a double -door would change the basic design of the house. The committee's recommendations were intended to preserve the stylistic integrity of the house_ Mr. Kahle rejected the committee's recommendations and indicated that he would rather forego the project altogether. Mr. Oxian advised him that he had two choices; to forego the project or to appear before the County Council to argue his case. Mr. Herendeen moved to approve the committee recommendations for parts c. and d. of the proposal --.—Mr . Eide--secondedthemotion --Mrs Sporleder abstained, saying she did not yet adequately__,qrasp the Problem. Mr. Welshe_imer also abstained. Motion approved. e. Remove rolling metal door and adjacent metal entry door at south side of cinderblock garage; replace with Clopay brand door to fit entire masonry opening. Mr. Pastor reported that the Committee deemed this appropriate, but recommended a slightly different style of door --one with recessed panels --which would be more compatible with the style of the structure. There was no price difference. Mr. Kahle said he didn't care which style of garage door was chosen. Mrs. Sporleder moved to allow the owner to decide which of the two styles of door to install; Mr. E_ide..,. seconded the motion. Approved unanimously_. f. Remove wood panel entry door with 1/3