My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 07 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2012 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 07 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:16 PM
Creation date
7/11/2012 11:02:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2012 07 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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 />June 18, 2012 <br />Page 6 of 10 <br />Lewis volunteered. <br />Committee Reports – None <br />Update on Demolition requests <br />Robinson stated these are the only two we have, but we are soon to have others <br />because we have <br />Stewart then asked about 816 ½ Main Street work. <br />McCartney answered they had a permit to work on the roof and windows. <br />Discussion then ensued regarding the degree to which the building is being renovated <br />and whether this should have triggered a full review. <br />La Grave asked if there is any way for staff to review these permits closer. <br />Stewart agreed. <br />Lewis stated there have been some accidental demolitions in the past and the City <br />should provide more involvement. <br />Discussion continued regarding steps that need to be taken to make sure thereis more <br />oversight on each project. <br />Discussion/Comments on Planning Department Review <br />Empire Sign <br />Robinson presented the attached memo. <br />Stewart stated this brings up an interesting issue that most signs are owned by the <br />tenant and not the building owner. <br />Watson asked if this were the case here. <br />Robinson stated the owner of the building owns this sign. He added staff has already <br />had already met with the owner. <br />Speier stated his objection to anyone interested in removing this sign. <br />La Grave stated about how a tenant incurs maintenance costs for a sign. <br />Speier recommended we place this on the Google Map under endangered places. <br />Stewart agreed and stated this is a concern. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.