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 3 of 8 <br /> <br />Romero gave a detailed analysis of the additions. He then added the garage was <br />probably built in the 1950’s based on the cinder block design. He stated there wasn’t <br />any asbestos found in the garage. <br />Haley asked if the porch was an addition. <br />Romero was unsure, but stated it was probably added before the 1940’s. <br />Watson brought up the idea of saving the structure by moving the structure to a corner <br />of the property. <br />Griffin asked the square footage of the house. <br />Romero gave the square footage amount (not understandable). <br />Griffin stated if they retained the house there were preservation incentives. <br />Public Comments <br />Jean Morgan asked how many stories it was. <br />Mumm stated it was going to be two stories with a partial basement. <br />Commission Comments <br />Koertje stated the structure does have value and this community does value its <br />character. He then addressed the criteria in the LMC and how they relate to this <br />structure. He stated he believed the age and social requirements definitely comply. He <br />added he was unsure if the architectural elements qualified, primarily due to the loss of <br />the windows. <br />Watson stated he believed the structure had a nice original form. He added the cost of <br />preservation would primarily involve the removal of the stucco. He believed the <br />asbestos mitigation would cost between $30,000 and $40,000, and it would have to be <br />done regardless if the structure were retained or demolished. <br />Romero stated the asbestos abatement was estimated at $36,000. <br />Haley stated she agreed the changes to the windows are substantial, but she believes <br />the form is still there. She added the community does value these types of structures. <br />She is worried about getting rid of these bungalow designed structures because there <br />aren’t many of them left. <br />Stewart stated he believes the shape and form is strong, and the social history is strong <br />as well. He believes the window replacement could be overcome with a good <br />preservation plan. He added he believes a stay is needed so time can be taken to <br />discuss the benefits of the HPF.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.