Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2011 01 10

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 10, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Speier stated, for landmarking, it is important to consider the changes over time because it shows the progression of the building. Tofte stated she is having a hard time landmarking the changes being proposed on the attached drawings. Lewis stated the building does not qualify architecturally but it might qualify socially. However, the question still remains if there is enough of the original building for the social significance to apply. Koertje stated architectural and social significance are the twin pillars of landmarking – they both need to be considered for it to be eligible. Fasick stated she believed the building could still be considered eligible if only one, either social or architecture, were found to comply. Poppitz argued if the building could even be considered socially significant. Fasick stated the false front is the most important element of the building. Once the demo permit was released to allow for the proposed changes to the façade, then landmarking the building probably does not make sense. Koertje, Poppitz, Lewis and Speier all agreed. Fasick also stated the façade is the only aspect the Commission has been discussion. The footprint appears to have remained the same over time. The Commission discussed the idea of the footprint and stated how many changes have happened over time. It was concluded there have been several changes to the footprint. Blanchard discussed the age of the roof and mentioned a fire that occurred in the mid 1970’s. Tofte agreed and told a story about the fire. Koertje closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Koertje made a motion to not recommend landmarking for the building, stating there have been too many modifications to the building for it to be considered architecturally significant. Poppitz seconded the motion. Motion was approved unanimously. Conservation Easement