My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 10 17
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 10 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:15 PM
Creation date
10/20/2011 8:55:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2011 10 17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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 />August 15, 2011 <br />Page 5of 9 <br />Commission Comments <br />Lewis stated there were a lot of unknowns but the exposed stone shows it matches the <br />existing stone foundation of the house. <br />Fasick added the social history is strong but the architectural integrity is hard to determine <br />because it is covered and might not qualify. <br />Poppitz stated he believed there was enough evidence to show the stone wall is still there. <br />Fasick stated the HPC can landmark a structure based on social history alone. <br />Koertje stated it would be similar to an historical structure with modern siding covering the old <br />siding. <br />Lewis stated she believes the applicant who stated he can see stones within the cracks of the <br />stucco. <br />Tofte asked what would happen if there is a huge section of missing stone. <br />Dressler stated the mason could repair it. He stated the stone is local so finding replacement <br />stone to match would be easy. <br />Fasick asked if the original landmark would have included thiswall would we have approved it. <br />Koertje answered in the affirmative. <br />Lewismoved and Popptizseconded a motion to approve the request as presented by staff. <br />Approval is based on social and architectural integrity. <br />Name Vote <br />Mike KoertjeYes <br />Heather LewisYes <br />Jessica FasickNo <br />Florian Speier Yes <br />Peter Stewartrecused <br />Laurel TofteYes <br />Steve PoppitzYes <br />Motion passed:5 to 1 <br />PUBLIC HEARINGGrantRequest –1117 Jefferson Avenue <br />– <br />McCartney presented the packet material. <br />Koertje asked if staff had a preference of which contractor to use. <br />McCartney answered Olde English. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.