Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2011 09 19

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes September 19, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Tussey stated Phoenix Restoration had quoted $19,428 and it takes a week to complete, therefore the building is not useable for one week. Stewart stated the goal is to make the building comfortable to occupy. Burt from Renewal Anderson made a presentation to explain the benefits of new windows. Lewis asked if the exterior trim of the window is included in the new window. Burt answered affirmative. Koertje asked if the passerby would notice if there were new windows. Burt stated they would not, unless they came up to the window. Stewart stated, based on the historical images provided, it appeared the original trim had been changed. Tussey stated they had rotted out. Stewart asked what ‘U value’ the new windows had. Burt stated .28 to .29 U value. The lower the number the better. Tussey stated Phoenix Restoration said they could only get .4 U value. Lewis discussed her design assistance with the applicant and stated she is willing to release since the applicant’s have done so much research to try and save windows. Stewart stated he appreciated the applicant’s hard work and prefers repair over replace when feasible. He stated he would be willing to release if the replacement windows had divided lights. Koertje discussed the demo criteria and eligibility as a landmark. He stated he is in favor of replacing the windows and would prefer to see dividing lights. Lewis stated the true divided light windows would only be important for street facing windows. Stewart stated at least 3 windows face the street. Tussey stated it is approximately $100 per window to add divided light. He added they would do the divided light on the street facing windows. Lewis moved and Fasick seconded a motion to release demo permit adding the street facing windows should be divided light.