My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 04 18
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2011 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 04 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:15 PM
Creation date
6/9/2011 4:20:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2011 04 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 21, 2011 <br />Page 5of 9 <br />Stewart stated the presumption was a landmark application would come before the <br />HPC.He continued to state according to the 1948 Assessors photo the windows, doors <br />and building outline are the most significant element of the building. If altered it would <br />significantly alter the architectural integrity of the structure. <br />Lewis asked if a building could be considered a landmark on social significance only. <br />McCartney answered in the affirmative, stating the Alley Cat Conservation Easement <br />was based purely on the social significance of the building, since the architectural <br />integrity had been impacted. <br />Koertje stated the following: <br />The PUD development will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. <br />The only positive aspect of the 2007 approval was the condition that Joe’s <br />Market, the building in question, was to be landmarked. <br />The proposed modifications to the façade would change the character of the <br />structure. <br />The building, as it currently stands, would be eligible for landmarking. <br />I am in favor of placing the maximum stay on this structure so that alternatives <br />could be recommended through design assistance. <br />If landmarked, this structure would be eligible for funding. <br />Tofte askedwhen the windows were replaced. <br />Lehman stated in 2004. <br />Poppitz stated he agreed with Koertje’s comments. <br />Speier stated he agreed with his fellow commissioners.He added enlarging the <br />windows in 2004 made sense for business, but this change would be too aggressive for <br />this building a impact the historical integrity of the building. The building is too narrow <br />for two doors. <br />Lewis agreed, and added there is a stronger case for landmarking if left alone. <br />Stewart agreed with Speier. <br />Stewart asked for a motion. <br />Lewismade a motion to place the maximum stay –6 months from application –based <br />on all comments provided by the HPC. <br />Poppitzseconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. <br />Poppitz volunteered to provide design assistance. <br />Discussion–Barker House letter of support <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.