My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 09 17
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 09 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:16 PM
Creation date
9/13/2012 9:32:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2012 09 17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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 20, 2012 <br />Page 5of 10 <br />Watson seconded. <br />Stewart stated he would like to applicant to modify the request for the railing <br />improvements. <br />Koertje allowed the amendment. <br />Motion carried 4 to 0. <br />Public Hearing –Landmark Request –733 Pine <br />Robinson presented the information in the packet. <br />There was discussion regarding the building assessment. <br />Stewart asked if there are any ethical questionregarding this application since the <br />applicant previously served on the HPC. <br />Robinson stated the applicant only needs to disclose his past membership of HPC. <br />Poppitz stated he purchased the property prior to resigning the HPC. He then asked if <br />he had anysay in who is hired for the building assessment. Poppitz then stated he was <br />wondering whether he could get reimbursed for previously done work, or work that is <br />going to be done. <br />-none <br />Public Comments <br />Comments <br />Stewart stated this building is beautiful and has both architectural and social history, <br />and should qualify for landmarking. <br />Koertje asked if the applicant is fine with the house being named the “Thomas House”. <br />Poppitz answered affirmative. <br />Stewart stated the application was done very well and thanked staff for the information <br />included in the packet, including the addition of the architectural survey being completed <br />for the Jefferson Survey. He then asked staff to expand on the “whereas” components <br />of the resolution. <br />Koertje agreed and gave reasons,based on the criteria, as to why this application <br />should be approved. <br />Watson agreed. He added this structure also embodied community benefits. <br />Fasick stated this was a great example of Queen Anne architecture. She then asked if <br />the applicant knew what the original color was. <br />Poppitz stated he would be interested in finding out. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.