Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Holycross added that the placement of a transom window above <br />the entry was the owners preferred design but they had also <br />submitted two possible alternate designs. He further stated that <br />District standards required that "porches reflecting later_ <br />architectural styles and that are important to the building's <br />historical integrity be retained" and that "enclosing porches <br />for heat conservation should be done in a manner that does not <br />alter the architectural or historical character of the <br />building." <br />Staff recommendation stated that the proposal sought to alter a <br />portion of the structure that was not historic; enclosing the <br />porch in the proposed a manner would not affect the building's <br />historic integrity; casement windows were appropriate as was the <br />choice to use matching siding. However, the proposed elliptical <br />window was not appropriate as it would introduce a design <br />element not found elsewhere on the historical facade, altering <br />the building's architectural character. Mr. Holycross <br />recommended that the HPC approve alternate plan #1 as submitted <br />by the owners -- the same plan without the transom window. <br />Mrs. Sporleder pointed out that the proposed window was not an <br />"elliptical window" but was a "half -round" window.; an <br />elliptical, arched transom window would be historically correct <br />for this structure. <br />Mr. Holycross agreed that the proposal was more correctly a <br />"half -round;" he restated that he considered the window <br />inappropriate. <br />Mr. Herendeen asked if the owners were opposed to an alternate <br />plan. Mr. Holycross answered that the owners' preferred design <br />would include the half -round window and added that the facade <br />could not "easily" be seen from the street. <br />Discussion ensued concerning possible ways to satisfy the owners <br />request in an historically -correct manner. <br />Mrs. Eide stated that he was inclined to give the owners their <br />choice of either alternate proposal. <br />Mrs. Sporleder moved to offer the owners their choice of either <br />submitted alternate proposal or to allow them to confer with a <br />Commission member in order to find an appropriate transom <br />window. <br />Mr. Herendeen volunteered to meet with the owners if so needed. <br />Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion. <br />No further discussion. Motion approved unanimously. <br />3 <br />