Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3.c. 745 Interdrive Street <br /> <br />Questions/Comments from Commission members and responses from the applicant included: <br /> <br /> <br />-Concern was expressed by HPC members about the addition of the staircase in the back of the <br />building and that the full design was not yet available for review. It was stated that it should be a <br />historically compatible structure. Mr. Leipziger stated that the proposal was still under National <br />Park Service review. He stated that since it was in the rear of the building and not visible from <br />the street, they were told it would not have to match other structures historically. <br /> <br />-A question was asked about encroachment into parking spaces. Mr. Leipziger stated that no <br />parking spaces would be removed. <br /> <br />-A question was asked about the existing fire escapes. Mr. Leipziger stated they would be <br />removed and the openings blocked in. He added that the National Park Service was allowing <br />two additional one-bedroom units which was why the staircase would be necessary and it was a <br />suggestion from the National Park Service to remove the existing staircase and add the new one. <br /> <br />-Would there be only one entrance for the two new units? Mr. Leipziger stated this was correct. <br /> <br />-HPC members expressed concern about the lack of detail in the drawings for the proposed <br />staircase, access from the street, and no proposed walkway leading to the proposed rear units. <br />Mr. Leipziger stated that most people would enter these units from the alley side. <br /> <br />-Another concern expressed by HPC members was the two new one-bedroom units creating <br />only had access to the alley. <br /> <br />-The HPC members agreed that more details were necessary prior to taking any further action on <br />the project. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Ms. Marin to postpone a recommendation for 745 Interdrive Street until <br />the next regularly scheduled Historic Preservation Commission meeting. The motion was <br />seconded by Mr. Hamilton and carried unanimously. <br /> <br />3.d. 726 Westgate Avenue <br /> <br />Mr. Leipziger stated this building would have the same number of units, an improved entrance <br />from the front, landscaping improvements, and tuck-pointing. He stated that the clay tile parapet <br />would be removed and replaced with a metal cap. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Mr. Myers to recommend approval of the proposed renovations to 726 <br />Westgate Avenue. The motion was seconded by Ms. Marin and carried unanimously. <br /> <br />3.e. 736 Westgate Avenue <br /> <br />Mr. Leipziger stated the renovations for this building were similar to the renovations at 726 <br />Westgate. <br /> <br />Questions/Comments from Commission members and responses from the applicant included: <br /> <br /> <br />-A question was asked about the historic windows and if they were subject to review from the <br />National Park Service. Mr. Leipziger stated they were and it was one of the main elements they <br />reviewed. <br />tm; <br /> šE  <br /> <br />