My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 02 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2014 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 02 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:17 PM
Creation date
2/28/2014 12:58:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2014 02 10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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 Nlinutes <br />January 13, 2014 <br />Page 4of11 <br />Brew stated they do have someone in mind but have not hired anyone yet. <br />Stewart reminded the HPC of the criteria for moving or demolishing a structure and read from <br />the criteria. <br />Public Comment — None <br />La Grave asked if the discussion could go structure by structure. He recommended discussing <br />1341 Cannon first. He stated this structure does not qualify as a structure eligible for <br />landmarking. <br />Stewart stated the structure does not have architectural or social significance. <br />Stewart then announced 1000 Griffith. He stated there appears to be additions on all sides of <br />the structure. <br />Watson stated the structure has been so modified there does not appear to be much left. <br />Haley stated there is not a strong social history on this structure either. <br />Stewart introduced 1004 Griffith. He stated this structure appears to have more architectural <br />integrity. He is happy the structure is going to be retained, even though it is going to be <br />relocated. He added it was relocated before to this current area. He stated he believed it <br />would be potentially eligible for landmarking. <br />Haley asked if the building is still considered contributing if it were moved to its current location <br />in 1972. <br />La Grave stated it depended upon what we considered contributing. He felt as though the <br />relocation of the building, within the existing neighborhood, is still considered contributing. <br />Fahey stated there are a great number of structures which have been relocated. <br />Echohawk asked the applicant which would come first, demolition of the other structures or <br />relocation of this structure. <br />Brew stated he would probably demo 1000 Griffith and 1341 Cannon first and then relocate <br />1004 Griffith. <br />La Grave asked what guidelines we can create to protect the relocation of the structure. <br />Robinson stated it can be contingent through language provided in the resolution. <br />La Grave asked how soon the project might happen. <br />Rick stated he could imagine starting demolition in 45 days, but they would probably not do <br />anything until the PUD is approved. <br />Haley asked if they had a cost ceiling for when they might decide not to relocate the structure. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.