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 7 of 11 <br />McKinley stated it was discussed but never pursued. <br />Echohawk asked if the house could be reoriented on the lot. <br />Stewart stated it could be possible. <br />La Grave stated he was compelled by the applicants statements the cost to save the structure <br />would be unreasonable. He stated the addition behind the existing structure would be <br />overbearing. He stated he is leaning towards releasing the permit. <br />Haley stated she believes it is worth having a discussion with a design consultant. <br />Stewart agreed and stated he would rather exhaust all options. <br />Eric Finstra, realtor for the project, stated he agreed with La Grave stating retention of the <br />structure would not be in the best interest for this property. <br />Stewart stated there are several factors we put into our decisions. The demo review is more <br />speculative because we have to look at the potential for landmarking. <br />Finstra stated there are other structures being presented tonight which have more eligibility <br />than this structure. The addition put on this structure is approximately 50% of the size of this <br />house. <br />Haley stated we also look at social history as well, and your house has a strong social history. <br />La Grave addressed Finstra by stating each property is dealt with on a case by case basis and <br />the outcome may be based on other circumstances. <br />Watson made a motion to release the demolition permit because the structure would be costly <br />to retain and might be enveloped by a large addition. <br />Echohawk seconded the motion due to lack of future significance. <br />Motion to release the demolition permit approved 5 to 2. Haley and Stewart voting no. <br />Discussion — 2014 Goals <br />Stewart introduced the item, stating these are goals to be presented to City Council at a study <br />session. <br />Robinson stated the study session has been moved to March 11th. <br />Watson voted to push this item until the next meeting. <br />La Grave agreed. <br />Stewart asked for volunteers to work on the goals. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.