Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Questions/Comments from Commission members and responses from the applicant included: <br /> <br /> <br />-A question was asked about finish for the proposed pre-finished metal on the one-story portion. <br />Mr. Diggs stated that the intent was to have a color that matched the proposed cast stone, which <br />was to closely match the existing limestone. He added that it was not meant to look just like the <br />stone, but to not stand out to much with a different color. He stated that there would also be a <br />smooth-faced EIFS material included in portions of this façade. He added that metal was <br />discussed, but there was concern about color change and fading over time, but the EIFS would <br />provide a similar look to other historic parts of the building. <br /> <br />-It was pointed out that the one-story portion was shown to extend out from the existing building. <br />The applicant was asked to explain the relationship of this building with the street. Mr. Diggs <br />stated that the intent was for it not to be a larger mass extending out that much which was why <br />only the one-story portion was extending out. He stated that part of it had to do with the <br />practicality of access inside between the existing building and the proposed addition. He also <br />stated that they wanted this addition to act as an anchor and by bringing it forward, with the <br />proposed glass; it was inviting but did not threaten the mass of the existing building. <br /> <br />-A question was asked about the addition to provide an entrance to the public for community use. <br />Mr. Diggs confirmed that was correct and it would have a conference room and possibly be used <br />as a polling center. <br /> <br />-Commission members also discussed the three-story brick portion of the addition and that it was <br />to be set back from the existing building. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Ms. Marin to recommend approval of the proposed addition as <br />submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Myers and carried unanimously. <br /> <br />4. Other Business <br /> <br />4.a. Discussion Request for Proposals for Conservation of Gates of Opportunity within the <br />University City Civic Complex Historic District <br /> <br />Mr. Greatens stated that there were two Requests for Proposals (RFPs) distributed, both <br />pertaining to the Gates of Opportunity, one for conservation of the bronze and one for <br />conservation of the structures. He stated that staff was seeking HPC feedback prior to the RFPs <br />being finalized. He added that the RFPs were mentioned at the September 2013 meeting to bring <br />them was in progress. <br /> <br />Questions/Comments from Commission members and responses from the applicant included: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />-A question was asked about the bronze conservation and that there was a provision for periodic <br />maintenance for the bronze. Would there be a bid for continued maintenance? Also, there was <br />no mention of maintenance in the proposal for the pillars themselves. It seemed that the need for <br />rehabilitation was related to the lack of maintenance would like to see if preventative <br />maintenance could be proposed and perhaps funds appropriated in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Greatens stated that a recommendation from HPC was not requested at this time, but would <br />be required when repair and maintenance was ready to move forward. <br /> <br /> <br />-A question was asked about the timeframe for the project. It was stated that it was yet to be <br />determined. <br />tm; <br /> šE <br /> <br />