May 1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• clearstory, reconstruction of the cresting, replacement of the flagpole, resetting of the stone entry steps and repointing and non-abrasive cleaning of the masonry. Fr. Bullene cautioned that lighting the dome from below would be difficult and require special attention. Mr. Talley complimented the engineers on the thoroughness and sensitivity of their design work. Fr. Bullene expressed his concern that the aging be uniform for both the masonry and the dome. Mr. Keller observed that the mould process would replicate the aged texture of the existing dome. He further noted that the copper elements would have an aging agent applied as well. Mr. Oxian indicated that he%/have preferred to see it shine for a while. Hearing no more discussion, Mr. Oxian called the question indicating that all features of the project which had been discussed would be included in the one motion. The motion was approved unanimously. 1996-0306, 1414 East Wayne Street Mr. Duvall read the Staff comments reminding the commission of the previous hearing regarding this site. Fr. Bullene moved that the commission approve the application. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. Hearing no more discussion, Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion was approved unanimously. 1996-0307, 1724 East Wayne Street Mr. Duvall read the Staff comments and distributed photographs and material specifications. He noted that the applicant and his contractor were present. Mr. Talley moved that the commission approve the application. Mr. Borkowski • seconded the motion. Mr. Dik, the contractor, indicated that the windows should be indistinguishable at a distance. Mr. Duvall observed that the proposed windows are the type where muntin inserts are placed between the panes of glass. Mr. Talley moved for approval of the application. Mr. Borkowski seconded the motion. Hearing no more discussion, Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion was approved unanimously. B. Second Reading of Recommendation for Local Landmark Designation 1. 130 Park Lane Mr. Duvall indicated that he had received telephone correspondence this day from Denise Scott of Memorial Properties indicating that notification had reached their office only on this day and that they had been unaware of the first reading. Mr. Duvall allowed that they may not have received notice due to the difficulties in scheduling the February meeting after his accident.rMr. Talley allowed that he had not sent this notice after conferring with Mr. J"'"` Oxian wherein they had together determined that notice was not required.'Mrs. DeRose indicated that this determination was technically correct but that the issue could remain problematic if Memorial Properties chose to use the issue for legal entanglement,, to Common Counsel. She recommended that in the absence of emergency, �'i e` issue be tabled and notice given. Mr. Talley indicated that he felt the structure to be threatened with demolition at this time. Mrs. Choitz and Mrs. Hostetler concurred in this opinion. Mr. Oxian recommended that the proposal be tabled. Mr. Talley indicated his discomfort with the past history of Memorial's property activities leading him to find an emergency. Mr. Talley moved for approval of the recommendation to establish • the Local Landmark. Mrs..0 the motion. ,s�5onded Mr. Duvall then read the Staff comments. Mr. Talley asked if it were necessary or possible to stay demolition in the interim period. Mr. Oxian indicated that the commission did not have such powers. Fr. Bullene sought clarification that we were sending forward a potentially weak nomination on the basis of a perceived threat. Mr. Oxian indicated that he felt the offering of the house