Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />22 February 2021 <br />Page 4 of 10 <br />Haley observed that age -wise the addition was eligible for landmarking, but that it was not a <br />strong contributing addition. She thought the new addition was sensitive and was smaller in <br />length and the wraparound to the north side was less intrusive. She asked the Commission for <br />comments on the north side and the window -to -door change. She noted that once the addition <br />was added the north door would be the only door to the addition. <br />Barsch confirmed. <br />Haley asked if the door -to -floor -area ratio was up to Code. <br />Zuccaro stated that he did not know if there were any such ratios for residences. <br />Barsch added that there was a door that came a lot closer to the north property line, but there <br />was a door going onto the deck that had egress. He stated that there was no need for another <br />egress. <br />Haley stated that generally doors and windows should not be interchanged, so she was looking <br />for a reason to possibly add a door. <br />Dunlap stated that he thought they were fortunate to have someone put in the preservation <br />effort for this church that the Commission was interested in saving. The minor change on the <br />north side he did not see as a big drawback to the proposal. <br />Burg asked about the skylight location. <br />Barsch stated that the skylight was over the open two-story stairwell and it harkened back to <br />pitched factory light windows. He shared that they were trying to do more of an architectural way <br />of bringing light into he stairwell as opposed to just adding skylights. He stated that they had a <br />cleaner look and appeared more like a roof light rather than a skylight with a dome. <br />Haley asked if there would be much of a distinction between the skylight and the roof. <br />Barsch replied that he did not think the windows would show up much. <br />Haley replied that it was not ideal but the skylights could be removed in the future, meaning that <br />it was not a major change to the structure. <br />Barsch stated that they were keeping the roof framing and that the lights would be more of a <br />surface application. <br />Haley stated that the door in the corner needed to have historic reasoning to have due diligence <br />because it went against some of the Commission's general practice. She stated that because it <br />was on the north side of the building and because it was sensitive she thought it was within the <br />guidelines. <br />Burg said that if the door were on the south side it would be more drastic, but as long as the <br />south side was maintained, having the door on the north side was more palatable. <br />Haley added that taking off some of the decking would balance it out. <br />4 <br />