Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 03 16 CANCELLED

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 24th, 2020 Page 7 of 14 Dunlap stated that the weathervane on the addition acted like it was historic but was not. Selvoski replied that the addition off the back was part of the alteration certificate. General agreement that the structure met the criteria for landmarking. Ulm stated that the application met all the criteria and he supported the landmark application. General agreement. Moore added that the numbers for moving the windows and doors were not included in the grant request. Klemme referenced the national standards on accessibility. She interpreted those standards to meet that creativity was necessary to meet ADA standards, which for her meant that she could not get behind moving the door proposal Parris asked how wide the porch would be with the extra foot and a half. The applicants replied that it would be 8 feet. Dunlap thought that there could be a way to hide the door structurally so that the changes would not alter the overall structure of the house. Ulm asked if the drip line on the porch would also be 4 inches shorter. The applicants confirmed. Dunlap suggested the following conditions: - Maintain current window size and placement. - Remove the weathervane from the addition. - Move and expand the door as proposed. Ulm stated that since the porch could be accessible, the 3-foot door was a good recommendation. He did not have any problems with the rest of the proposal except he wanted to leave the door where it was. Klemme echoed Commissioner Ulm's recommendations for conditions, as did Chair Haley and Commissioner Parris. Dunlap asked for other commissioners' opinions about the weathervane. Parris agreed that it was more of an old-fashioned ornament, but since it was on the new section that was clearly with different materials and would not be mistaken for part of the original structure. 8