01/14/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Schock noted a district map, which Mr. O'Malley confirmed was the most accurate district delineation that the city has. The title of the map was map #2 of at least four maps. There is a 3 ring binder, which is part of the inventory which contains the maps. Mr. Schumann noted that all of the property on Butternut was considered by the Commission to be in the Historic District. Mr. Schumann said he and Mr. Thomas visited the home in question. Mr. Thomas explained that the building was not falling down. Mr. Thomas sited the home in a brochure sent out by the Commission some years baclc and felt that the home is worthy of existing as part of the community. Mr. Schumann noted that the home is about 1800-2000 square feet. It has real plaster walls, knotty pine walls, fire place, and a split Dutch door. It does need cosmetic work, but loolcs structurally sound. It has a plaster finished basement, little exposed bloclc. It does need a roof. There is a roof valley between the house and the added garage. It is colonial revival style, with the history the barn being turned into a home. Mr. Schock read the letter from Steve McQuillin. (See attached) Mr. Laslco stated that the home in question did not meet the criteria in accordance with 165.05A. He noted each of the criteria in the Landmark category and that the home in question did not meet any but one of those listed. 165.11A3 addresses buildings within the Landmarks district. He sited the code which states that the building should have an economically productive use. The Landmarks Commission recognizes that it is not static and adaptive reuse of the buildings should be significant to the character and district of the city. Given all of the modifications, the home has lost significance to the city. Objectively, the home does not rise to the level of preservation, in which case it would be appropriate for demolition. Mr. Herwiclc stated that the same principal could be applied to any building under scrutiny, in which case it should be looked at in a broader sense. Mr. Lasko noted they are dealing directly with a historic district. Mr. Orlowski said the Commission should consider how the development might change the nature of the district. Mr. Schoclc proposed a motion to decide on historic importance, however Mr. O'Malley stated that the Commission should evaluate the historic significance as a factor but no motion was required. Mr. Schock withdrew his motion. Tom Liggett of Arcus Group Architects said that the building was analyzed as to whether it could be retained or redone. The development plan will remain the same and the traffic study is still being conducted. The same consultants have reissued a letter for the traffic, malcing the same analysis. Mr. Liggett did provide a walk through to confirm the character of the home and the proposed development. The barn that was moved to the location is a 40x 28 foot structure. The front wall is mostly windows as is the back of the hoine. A very small dining room and lcitchen are connected. There is a step down into the new structure which was added on to the barn. The garage is awkwardly attached to the home. There are four very small bedrooms and the closets are utilitarian in their placement. The home was generally occupied for five years at a tiine, no more than fourteen years. The turnover of the home indicates its utilitarian use, with very little historic value and little value or interest in today's economy. To integrate the home into the development, it would have to be completely reconstructed, scaled back to a one or one and a half bedroom home. 2