Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 04 27

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 16, 2015 Page 4 of 11 the east) are considered rehabilitation. Both of these uses are for the new commercial use of the building. • The view corridors have been preserved. • Considered reusing the shed but the structure is too far gone and not much left to preserve. By removing the shed they can further increase the viewshed corridor. • They want to restore the auger and the hopper. Watson recommended we go through the public hearing portion, allow discussion, then we can go through the planning commission submittal. Stewart asked what the extent of the glass will be on the port cochere. Hartronft pointed towards a drawing to explain how the glass will be incorporated in the port cochere. He stated the glass will be used to enclose the port cochere. Haley asked if the glass would e fully reversal. Hartronft stated all of the additions they are proposing are reversible. Fasick asked why the east addition is actually not a box car. Hartronft stated a box car is not a good architectural element because they are not designed to be fully useable. Fasick asked for additional details of the how the addition will act as a box car. Hartronft stated the only thing the addition won't have are the wheels. Otherwise it will be designed to look just like a box car, including hardware and ladder. Fahey stated the landscaping will hide the fact there aren't any wheels. Public Comment Jeff Meyer, 470 County Road, is in support of this project. Discussion Fahey asked if we are voting on the eligibility of landmarking. Watson asked if the board would want to group all of the elements together or vote on them separately. Trice stated each item should be voted on separately. Watson recommended speaking about the landmarking first, then alteration certificate, then demo. Landmarking