Letter: Wine Bar Should Be Allowed to Replace Window
To the Editor:
I am writing in response to the recent voting down of my landlord’s request to replace the broken and cracked transom window in the front of my wine bar located at 1137 Main Street.
It is my belief that the commission has overstepped its authority. While the sign does have historic significance it is no longer useful due to its unrepairable damage. The window has several cracks and one corner is completely missing. The previous business had since put a piece of painted wood over the top of the window which currently displays the name of the prior business.
This building is privately owned, and privately rented. The building is not listed on the historic register. My heat bills to heat the first floor – just over 1200 sq ft at 62 degrees are over $500.00 a month. The majority of that is attributed to the cracked window. We have offered to remove the window done by professionals and donate it where it can be displayed for people to view and appreciate – unfortunately this offer was also rejected by the short sighted commission. It then would be replaced with a new energy efficient window – which too would bring back some originality to the building being that the piece of painted plywood currently occupying the space would be removed.
According to Kyle Kerns, a business can only display 1 sign on the front of each building. Wouldn’t the etched window with a business name also be considered a sign, just as the current plywood sign is, therefore making my sign against ordinance if the window cannot be removed? Contradicting I think..
I chose to relocate my business to downtown because I value and foster historic architecture and buildings. I however, cannot continue to have these incredibly expensive utility bills forced on me by a short sighted, backwards thinking, and incompetent commission. Perhaps the commission should start paying the bill….
President, Indulgence Wine Bar
1137 Main Street, Stevens Point