My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 03 18
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 03 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:09:16 PM
Creation date
3/20/2013 2:08:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2013 03 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
152
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 11, 2013 <br />Page 5 of 10 <br /> <br />Mark Zaremba, applicant, presented. He stated his hope is this project can become an <br />archetype of how this type of projects can be handled. He would like the ability to keep <br />the footprint as is, but be allowed to do a second floor addition after the structure has <br />been landmarked. <br />Stewart asked Zaremba where the split of the landmark request is. <br />Zaremba said his request would allow him to expand the commercial 20 feet into the <br />residential area. <br />Fasick asked what color the structure would be. <br />Zaremba stated he would leave that up to this board to decide. <br />Fasick asked if Zaremba understood how an addition may work if the building were <br />landmarked. <br />Zaremba stated he has spoke with staff but realizes it is up to the HPC. <br />Watson stated it would be great if the front façade could be brought back to look like it <br />once did. He added it might be difficult on trying to landmark a portion of the rear <br />building and then try to add on the second floor. <br />Lewis agreed with Watson’s comments. <br />Discussion ensued regarding grant amounts and what they could be used for. <br />Discussion ensued regarding the specifics of how the addition would work while <br />preserving the façade. <br />Watson recommended to table this request for further discussion, based on the <br />unknowns of the request. <br />Stewart stated one way to proceed is to landmark the commercial component and then <br />come back for further landmarking. He asked staff if there was a time limit for this <br />application. <br />Robinson read the time requirement from the code. <br />Discussion continued about the details of the request. <br />Zaremba approached the board asking for the commercial portion to be landmarked so <br />the project can move forward. <br />Discussion ensued about funding the new construction. It was decided to continue this <br />item until March.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.