My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 12 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 12 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:16 PM
Creation date
1/18/2013 2:18:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2012 12 17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
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 />October 15, 2012 <br />Page 2of 8 <br />Stewart stated he was appreciative of the recommendation and stated Aaron Dejong, <br />the City’s Economic Development Director, may be able to help. <br />Koertje stated he believed a loan program would help stretch the HPF funds.He <br />recommended to research existing programs in other municipalities to gain some <br />examples. <br />Robinson stated staff would start to work on guidelines for sucha program. <br />More discussion ensued regarding the benefits of a loan program. <br />Pre-filing Conference–1013 Jefferson <br />Robinson gave a presentation regarding the request. He explained the owners are interested <br />in landmarking but are concerned a landmarkingwould prohibit them from expanding. They <br />wanted to hear what the HPC had to say. <br />Stewart asked if staff has already had discussions with the property owners. <br />Robinson answered in the affirmative. <br />Derek Green, owner, stated they are interested in landmarking the structure and have future <br />intentions of adding onto the structure. He stated they did not have any set dates on the <br />addition. <br />Stewart stated there were incentives in place to assist in the future addition. He added <br />additions should be done in a sensitive manner, to not destroy any of the historical elements of <br />the structure. A good example is to add on beyond or behind the front façade to preserve the <br />street facing element.He stated the building appeared to have architectural integrity. <br />Fasickasked if a column was missing from the porch. <br />Green stated he believed it was but it was hard to see in the 1948 Assessors photo. <br />Lewis stated she did not believe a column was missing based on its architectural style, which <br />usually was asymmetrical. <br />Lewis stated another helpful document is the social history of the structure –it would either <br />help or detract from the historical character. She stated the HPC will be looking at both the <br />architectural and social history of the structure. <br />Koertje asked if the side windows were original. <br />Green stated he was not sure they were. He would like to update all of the operable windows. <br />Koertje reminded the owner the HPC could not make a decision tonight, but he stated this <br />structure definitely appears to be a candidate for landmarking. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.