My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 02 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2013 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 02 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:16 PM
Creation date
2/15/2013 2:47:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2013 02 11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
126
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 />January 14, 2013 <br />Page 4 of 9 <br />Fasick stated the loss of the bay window is a big loss. She added the other additions to <br />the east have removed any of the architectural integrity. She stated the social history is <br />not enough for her to recommend integrity. <br />Koertje stated, based on the criteria, it is somewhat doubtful if this structure qualifies as <br />an individual landmark. He stated the social history is strong, but the alterations to the <br />structure make it very difficult to recommend approval. He added he does not <br />recommend a stay on this application. <br />Watson asked for more detail from the owner as to the quality of the house. <br />Dupuis stated there isn’t anything structural that would make us consider preserving this <br />structure. The foundation is actually on cinder block. <br />Watson stated he believes the architecturalintegrity is not there. The social history is <br />great, but it isnot enough to landmark this structure. <br />La Grave believes the structure has lost its integrity. <br />Fasick asked if the tree could remain. <br />Dupuis stated the trees will be staying. <br />Stewart stated he agrees with his fellow commissioners on the lack of architectural <br />integrity. <br /> – none <br />Public Comments <br />Koertje made a motion to release the demolition permit, due to the lack of architectural <br />integrity. Fasick seconded the motion. <br />Motion carried 6 – 0 <br />Fasick asked the owner to use as much sensitivityas possibleon theredevelopment of <br />the structure. <br />Discussion – Loans from the HPF <br />Koertje presented the redrafted memo that will be presented to City Council. He <br />included information from the Fort Collins program. He also included questions <br />presented by the HPC at the January meeting. <br />Robinson stated he had given the language to the City Attorney but has not heard back <br />from him yet. <br />Stewart stated this memo is written very well and is very clear. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.