My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 12 19
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 12 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:15 PM
Creation date
12/22/2011 9:02:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2011 12 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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 />November 21, 2011 <br />Page 2 of 7 <br />McCartney reminded the HPC this property had gone for a demo review in 2009 and a <br />stay was put on the house. Stay was based on architectural significance and social <br />history. Stay, and application, has since expired. <br />Longtain asked if the architectural significance was due primarily to age. <br />Stewart answered not necessarily. He stated the house has the original shape and <br />form, windows and door openings. <br />Speier volunteered to provide design assistance. <br />Discussion/Action – Commercial Incentives / Draft Guide to Programs <br />McCartney presented. <br />Koertje asked if staff had any suggestions for dollar amounts for new construction, as <br />requested by City Council. He stated new construction could be similar to the work the Rex <br />Theater requested. <br />Stewart then presented a grant table he created which had proposed grant amounts written in <br />the table. <br />The HPC discussed the grant table, making specific mention to requiring matching funds <br />above a certain amount. <br />Speier asked if new construction meant that the HPC pay for new architectural features or is it <br />to limit mass. <br />Stewart answered he believed it was intended to limit mass, height and Floor Area for new <br />construction. He stated new construction is a hard thing for the HPC to consider because our <br />purview is preservation of existing structures. <br />Speier stated he was concerned about allowing funding for new construction. He stated the <br />Rex was more character preservation than new construction. <br />Koertje stated new construction should not be eligible for incentives. He added structures of <br />merit will need to be included in the table as well. He also stated the grant table is very helpful. <br />Stewart acknowledged the amendments and stated the grant table was to be used as an <br />executive summary. <br />McCartney offered to formulate a grant fund exercise similar to what had already been <br />completed. The exercise would show how many grants could be applied for with the <br />recommended grant caps. <br />Public Comment <br />John Leary stated his understanding was the HPF was created to provide more incentives for <br />the commercial structures to landmark. He also stated the following: <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.