My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 05 20
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 05 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:09:16 PM
Creation date
5/29/2013 11:33:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2013 05 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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 />April 15, 2013 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br />Koertje stated this structure qualifies for a stay based on the criteria established for <br />demolition reviews. He stated the social history is strong, the architecture is strong, and <br />the structure is over 50 years old. <br />Haley stated she believed this structure was a great representation of what the area <br />was and she believes the structure should be retained if at all possible. She reminded <br />the applicants there are State and National benefits that may be applied for to retain this <br />structure. <br />Fasick recommends a stay as well. She stated she agrees with Watson the structure <br />could be relocated on the lot. <br />Watson stated he would volunteer to work with the applicant on design assistance <br />because he believes this structure could be a good accessory structure. <br />Haley asked if there was a way to place interpretive signage on the property, next to the <br />sidewalk, if they demolish the structure. <br />Watson stated more benefits of retaining the structure. <br />Koertje asked Watson if he would be willing to offer design assistance. <br />Watson stated he would be willing to do so. <br />Discussion ensued about the variance process. <br />Koertje made a motion to place a full stay on the application and asked for the item to <br />be brought back each month to see if there has been any advancement on the design <br />assistance. <br />Haley seconded the motion. <br />Motion carried 4 – 0. <br />Ramsey discussed the specifics of trying to keep the structure on the property. <br />Stewart came back in the meeting. <br />Discussion – Loans from the HPF <br />Koertje stated he had not had a chance to meet with anyone regarding the coordination <br />of this program. He initially contacted Chase Bank and they said they did not have the <br />staff available to help. <br />McCartney informed the HPC the Finance Director stated he did not have the staff <br />available to process this program in-house. He added we could do some internal brain <br />storming, and maybe include the City Attorney as well.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.