My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 12 15
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 12 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:18 PM
Creation date
12/29/2014 11:02:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2014 12 15
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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 />November 17, 2014 <br />Page 4 of 10 <br />Trice stated the stay tonight would expire in February, during which staff would work <br />with the applicant to determine how best approach the issue, such as landmarking the <br />structure and getting funding for the maintenance. <br />Stewart stated if the stay expires the applicant can also demolish the sign as well. <br />Echohawk asked if the historic structure assessment was in progress. <br />Cohen answered yes. <br />Fahey asked if the assessment was for just the sign or the whole building. <br />Cohen stated the whole building but stated it included the sign. He stated he is still <br />awaiting a bid on what it will take to improve the sign. <br />Haley stated most of her questions are based on what can be done to save just the sign <br />but having the assessment is important. <br />Stewart recommended the board should determine if the structure is eligible. <br />Haley stated she believes that was established when they gave the applicant funding for <br />an assessment. <br />Stewart recommended making a motion to place the full 180 day stay on the <br />application. <br />Haley seconded the motion. <br />Motion passed unanimously by voice vote. <br />Stewart recommended to establish a subcommittee to research alternatives. <br />Haley stated she would be willing to assist. <br />The board agreed to have Haley and Stewart provide design assistance. <br />PUBLIC HEARING — 817 Main Alteration Certificate (Continued from 10/20) <br />Watson asked if anyone needed to recuse themselves. <br />Stewart stated he has a professional relationship with the applicant. He will come back <br />after the application. <br />Watson asked what the vote procedures are now that there are only 4 members. <br />Trice stated it would have to be a majority. <br />Trice presented the information provided in staffs report. She explained the existing <br />conservation easement that governs the street facing facade and how any changes to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.