May 1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M. ■ question. The motion was approved unanimously. • Mr. Oxian then moved to the shrubbery plantings. Mr. Talley moved that the commission approve the proposed shrubbery. Fr. Bullene seconded the motion. Hearing no discussion, Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Oxian then moved to the issue of the doors. Mrs Hostetler moved that the commission approve the proposed storm door replacement. Mr. Talley seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian inquired about the size of the glass panel in the proposed door. Mr. Craft indicated the purpose was to better display the entry door. Hearing no more discussion, Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion was approved unanimously. Mrs. Choitz asked for further clarification of the character of the proposed entry door. Mr. Duvall indicated that it was to be a standard colonial six -panel steel door and briefly discussed why this was at variance to the guidelines. Mr. Craft indicated that there was to be no glazing except for a peep -hole. He also indicated that he felt it was appropriate to the neighborhood character and expressed concern for security and weatherization. Fr. Bullene inquired about the non-contributing rating of the building. Mrs. DeRose indicated that this would not affect the application of the standards. Fr. Bullene discussed some elements of the design which he felt made the proposed door compatible with the building. Mrs. Choitz observed that the house was but nine years away from eligibility for a contributing rating and stated that she would at least want the door stored on site as the day, might come that someone would seek to restore it. Mr. Craft indicated that there would be no problem in so storing the door. Mr. Oxian asked what other door styles were found on the street. Fr. Bullene stated that this was the kind of • consideration which he was pursuing earlier. Mr. Duvall stated that he had not undertaken the study of the door characteristics of the streetscape but that there are a surprising number of non-contributing houses of this type in the neighborhood which combine traditional massing with contemporary detail. He further noted that certain affectations of colonial revival were already present in the building under consideration such as the fixed shutters at the casement windows on the second story. Mrs. DeRose pointed out that there was not certain knowledge of the originality of the present door and that restoration of a prior condition might serve to support replacement. Mr. Duvall indicated that this door was probably original to the house. Mr. Craft indicated that by his observation, the present door was atypical of the more contemporary houses on the street. Mr. Borkowski allowed that the owners concern was not primarily with the number of panels but with the effectiveness of the door for security and thermal efficiency. Mrs. Choitz moved that the commission approve replacement of the existing door with steel six panel type with the stipulation that the existing door be stored on the premises. Mr. Talley seconded the motion. Hearing no more discussion, Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion was approved unanimously. 3) 1996-0301, 105 South Main Street (Third County Courthouse) Mr. Duvall read the Staff comments and distributed drawings and specifications. Following Mr. Duvall's comments, Mr. Oxian reported for the Landmarks committee that they had met with the project engineer the previous week and were prepared to recommend for approval of the project provided that elements of the original materials be salvaged and made available for display • and interpretation. Mr. Borkowski moved for the Landmarks committee that the proposal be so approved. Rick Keller, representing Ken Herceg & Associates made a presentation including photographs of existing conditions, portions of representative materials, and information regarding the proposed replacement materials. The project includes replacement of the dome sheathing, restoration of the