My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2012 02 13
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 Minutes 2012 02 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:25 PM
Creation date
7/16/2012 1:37:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2012 02 13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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 />February 13, 2012 <br />Page 5 of 7 <br /> <br />Poppitz asked if the proposed garage will be setback from the front of the house. <br />Preston answered in the affirmative. <br />Public Comments – none heard <br />Commission Comments <br />Stewart stated the house does have architectural integrity and could be landmarked. He <br />stated he was concerned with the massing and scale of the proposed house; however it is nice <br />it will be located in the back of the property. He stated he would like to see the front porch <br />restored to the original open porch instead of a Victorian design. <br />Preston stated he agreed and he would like to reuse the existing columns of the front porch. <br />Lewis stated she agreed with Stewart; the house does have integrity. <br />La Grave stated it did not appear as though the original form of the house is being retained in <br />the proposed drawings. <br />Preston stated it is hard to say. He added the two large trees are being retained. <br />Fasick stated she felt the dormers are making the elevation confusing. <br />Koertje asked for a clarification of which portions of the original structure are going to be <br />retained. <br />Preston stated they are planning to retain the front two gables which face Walnut. <br />Speier stated there isn’t much difference between demolition and what is being proposed. <br />Lewis reminded everyone the primary question to be answered is whether the structure is <br />eligible for Landmarking. She added she believes a stay should be placed on the structure <br />and design assistance should be offered. <br />Koertje asked the applicant what his timeline was. <br />Preston stated he was not in a hurry, but definitely wanted to do the right thing. <br />Koertje stated Lewis was right, the structure is eligible for Landmarking based on the criteria <br />used for demolition requests. <br />Stewart stated his agreement with Lewis and Koertje. <br />Lewis made a motion to place a 180 day stay on the structure at 801 Walnut Street because <br />the structure could qualify for Landmarking based on architectural integrity and social history. <br />She added design assistance should be provided. <br />Poppitz seconded the motion. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.