Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 16, 2023 <br />Page 3 of 13 <br />Discussion by Commissioners <br />Beauchamp said that he had hoped to ask the applicant about whether the railing was <br />included for aesthetics or for code related reasons, but the applicant was not in <br />attendance. He would prefer not to have the railing. <br />Haley agreed, but noted that the installation of a railing would be reversible. <br />Anderson noted that the materials, shape and profile were not from the same time frame, <br />and this was of concern to him. <br />Haley questioned whether the Commission should be paying to replace non -original <br />windows, and wondered whether it would be wasteful. <br />Dalia asked whether the age of the current windows were in line with the period of <br />significance in the application. <br />Burg said that the application referenced the Victorian era, so it would not apply to the <br />current windows. <br />Anderson said that whilst the windows had been there for a significant period of time, <br />they did not fit the style of the originally landmarked house. <br />Burg asked whether the house would still qualify for landmarking if the alterations were <br />not approved. She also asked what order the resolutions needed to be approved in. <br />Haley said that the landmark would be on the existing structure. <br />Anderson asked whether the applications could be separated, as they seemed to be <br />bundled together. <br />Haley noted that even if they were approved tonight, the applications would still have to <br />go before City Council, or that the applicant could withdraw the application. <br />Dalia asked Burg whether her question was about what the Commission could do about <br />the windows or the railing if they landmarked the property before approving the <br />alterations. <br />Burg clarified that her question related to whether the property would still be eligible to <br />be landmarked if the windows and railing were installed first. <br />Brackett Hogstad added that the social significance included that the same family had <br />owned the property for the last 75 years. <br />Dunlap noted that many of the windows appeared to be from different eras <br />different styles. <br />The Commissioners discussed the different sizes and shapes of the windows. <br />Haley noted that Staff said that changing the shape of the windows would cause <br />with the interior design. <br />Brackett Hogstad said that it was her understanding that changing the window <br />could cause structural issues, and noted that there would be a cost issue. A <br />proposal would trigger a much high cost for the applicant. <br />Burg said that the applicant specified that the windows would <br />would be more in line with the historic style of the house. <br />and of <br />issues <br />shape <br />larger <br />be made of wood, which <br />Anderson said that this would reduce the longevity, and increase the maintenance <br />required for the windows. <br />Haley said that the Commission had landmarked similar homes before, and that she <br />thought it would be eligible given the 75 years of ownership by the same family. She <br />added that the shape of the house had remained the same, regardless of the changes to <br />