My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 10 20
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 10 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:18 PM
Creation date
10/23/2014 12:54:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2014 10 20
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
249
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 />September 25, 2014 <br />Page 5 of 8 <br />Watson asked staff was vote is needed with only 4 members. <br />Robinson stated a majority is required. He added you can also put conditions on your <br />approval if so needed. <br />Watson asked La Grave if there is any condition you can apply that would alleviate your <br />concerns. <br />Haley asked the applicant to run through the presentation again so we could better <br />understand the demolition request. <br />Johnson went through the presentation showing what is existing, what is being removed <br />and what is being added. <br />Watson stated the information on the 1948 card appears to be correct, which shows you <br />are requesting to remove a later addition. <br />Haley stated the presentation further explains what the time of significance is. <br />La Grave states he doesn't understand why we are saying the additions are part of the <br />significance because it shows evolution, but then we are saying it is okay for them to <br />remove the additions. He stated eh doesn't understand the arbitrary way we are <br />establishing what is significant and what is not significant. <br />Johnson explained how the design was established based on "cleaving lines" which are <br />structural components that show a true delineation of change. He stated the additions <br />were reactive architecture. <br />La Grave stated he agreed and that is what makes this structure unique. <br />Johnson stated he understands but we had a similar circumstance with another <br />structure on Main Street. <br />La Grave stated he was struggling with that structure as well. <br />Speaking towards the presentation, Echowhawk stated she sees the yellow portion as <br />being additory but is questioning the green. She asked La Grave if the green portion <br />were retained would he be more relieved. <br />La Grave stated he would. <br />Watson asked if La Grave would agree with an addition being placed over the green <br />portion. <br />Johnson stated it couldn't happen structurally. <br />Echohawk asked to see the existing Lafayette side photograph again. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.