Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 15, 2012 <br />Page 4of 8 <br />Poppitz stated he is willing to remove the vinyl siding and restore the wood windows. <br />He stated the original siding is underneath the vinyl siding and he has experience <br />restoring historic homes. <br />Stewart stated this building was located in the 2000 Architectural Survey and it was <br />considered eligible for a local landmark. It would be difficult to overturn our consultant <br />on their finding. Available grant moneyshould not be the deciding factor on <br />preservation. <br />Lewis stated she agreed but would encourage the applicant to consider some <br />restoration projects. <br />Fasick stated there is a social connection in the architectural criteria that this structure <br />complies with. <br />Koertje stated he appreciates Stewart’s comments regarding the 2000 Architectural <br />Survey but they did not operate on the same criteria as we go by. He stated he <br />believes this structure does have a strong social history. <br />Watson stated he believed the architectural integrity could be strong if it wasn’t <br />underneath vinyl siding. If the siding were restored it would have more integrity. <br />Stewart asked staff if this application included a grant as well. <br />Robinson stated no. <br />Lewis stated the recent funding limitations do put a cloud over this residence. <br />Koertje stated he believes the criterion does support landmark eligibility. He asked if <br />the applicant were in agreement to name the house “The Guenzi House”. <br />Poppitz agreed. <br />Koertje recommended that staff add additional language to the resolution to accentuate <br />the social history and the give more credence to the architectural integrity. He then <br />made a motion to approve the request for landmarking. <br />Stewart asked for a friendly amendment to the resolution in regards to the preservation <br />efforts to restore the siding and the windows. <br />Fasick seconded the motion. <br />Motion was approved 4–1, with Watson voting against.Watson stated his nay was <br />primarily due to the vinyl siding. <br />Discussion –Grain Elevator RFP <br />