My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 09 16
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 09 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:09:17 PM
Creation date
9/17/2013 10:41:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2013 09 16
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 />July 15, 2013 <br />Page 2 of 8 <br /> <br />Stewart stated typically a demolition permit is required but there is a demolition by <br />neglect ordinance. <br />Koertje stated the ordinance is related to landmarked structures. <br />Pre-filing Conference – None <br />Public Hearing – Demolition Request – 825 Lafarge <br />Stewart opened the item. <br />Robinson presented the information provided in staff’s report stating the structure has <br />retained most of its form but all of the windows have been removed. He stated the <br />social history is fairly strong as well. He added the existing garage is also being <br />included in the demolition request. He stated staff is recommending a 180 day stay. <br />Questions of Staff <br />Koertje asked if the garage was included in the social history report. <br />Robinson stated it was not. <br />Griffin asked if there was any idea of when the garage was built. <br />Robinson stated it was hard to tell. <br />Traci Mumm, applicant, made a brief presentation, stating the structure has asbestos so <br />they want to demolish and rebuild. <br />Stewart stated the asbestos has to be removed regardless if the structure is demolished <br />or retained. <br />Griffin asked the contractor about the condition of the foundation. <br />The contractor, Greg Romero, stated the foundation is not complete, it is a <br />“hodgepodge” of foundation techniques from poured concrete to timber logs holding it <br />up in place. He then asked what the purpose of the 180 day stay was. <br />Stewart gave details regarding the purpose of the stay. <br />Romero asked if the opportunity exists for the structure to be given to the City. <br />Stewart stated there is an opportunity, but the City does not have a property to receive <br />the structures. <br />Haley asked how many additions have been done to the structure.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.