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 5 of 8 <br /> <br />Lingo then went over the details of the review by the State Historic Preservation Office <br />(SHPO). She stated how discussions went with SHPO and how they are reconsidering <br />as to whether structures in this neighborhood are considered contributing and whether <br />this subdivision could qualify as a state historic district. <br />Lingo then gave details of specific properties and how they have retained their integrity. <br />Lingo stated there were 3 directions to go on this subdivision: <br /> Local landmark historic district, <br /> State historic register district – requires 100% approval of the owners. No design <br />review required by the state. <br /> National Register – requires 50% of the owners. No design review required by <br />state or federal government unless requested. <br />Stewart asked if properties on the National Register were eligible for local funding. <br />Koertje stated the properties would be required to have a local landmark designation <br />before they were eligible for local funding. <br />Koertje asked if 804 Walnut was always a residence or was it a store at one point. <br />Lingo stated the structure was a store at one point and was also a church, prior to <br />becoming a residence. <br />Stewart asked where we are in the process and when the grant would be closed out. <br />Lingo stated the project will be completed in maybe 3 or 4 weeks. She stated <br />discussions are still happening at the State level to ensure they allow for more <br />structures to be considered contributing. <br />Stewart asked if we were to go to a national register nomination what would we need to <br />do. <br />Lingo said we are currently below the tipping point for a national register, but if we were <br />to go towards a formal nomination the first step is to get the neighborhood on board. <br />Then there would be a formal nomination based on the information established in the <br />survey. It would be sent to staff, then the state board, then to the national level. <br />Fasick asked for clarification as to what Lingo considered contributing. She asked if the <br />areas could be cut up to create smaller districts. <br />Lingo stated it could be cut up, but it would be best if we could keep these into a much <br />larger district. <br />Fasick asked if the survey would be online for people to review. <br />Robinson answered in the affirmative.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.