Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 12 13

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes November 15, 2010 Page 3 of 10 She is concerned the history of the building is trying to be recreated. She cannot agree with the cutting out of the façade. Koertje stated this could be considered a structure of merit, like Leary stated. He had the following comments: He cautioned the commission on commenting on items not relevant in the request. The request is for a partial demolition of the roof and front façade. This isn’t a true demo so the criterion is different. The building might qualify as a landmark, mainly through social significance. He does not agree with the cutout of the front façade but understands its importance. He added he hopes this doesn’t start a trend. Placing a stay on this request would not serve a purpose. Not bothered by removal of roof due to its limited visual impact. Not in favor of placing a stay. Lewis stated she agreed with the landmark potential of the building but did not believe a stay was necessary. Koertje stated the applicant could still consider landmarking to fund the placement of the tin. Tofte asked the other commission members if they thought the cutout would ruin any chances for landmarking. Lewis stated her opinion was the current status of the façade is no more landmarkable than if the cutout was done. She stated the other improvements may better the chances of a landmark. Poppitz agreed with Lewis’ statements. Tofte is still concerned about proposed treatments to the false front. She discussed other rooftop patios that have been successful without a cutout in the façade. Koertje requested a motion. Lewis made a motion to release partial demolition of the structure, with the following conditions: 1. Partial demo must comply with the design concept provided in the meeting packet.