My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 02 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2015 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 02 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:18 PM
Creation date
2/13/2015 3:20:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2015 02 09
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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 />January 12, 2015 <br />Page 3 of 11 <br /> <br />wishing to have the house retained if they ever sell. She believes the house has an <br />interesting past, including the addition done in 1930. <br />Watson thanked her for her contribution. He then asked if they were going to do <br />anything with their garage. <br />Valentine stated they might consider placing a 3 car garage in the area that we have. <br />She stated they would keep the existing garage as a shed. <br />Stewart asked about the reasonable condition of the house and if there is any work that <br />needs to be done. <br />Valentine stated the house is in awesome condition but the back entry stairway and <br />enclosed porch might need some assistance, such as insulation. She also stated the <br />front porch might need some assistance as well. <br />Leary stated he was in support of this request and believes this house should become <br />an example of how a house can be adequately added onto and still be livable. <br />Leslie Julian, neighbor, states she is in support of the landmarking and is glad it isn’t <br />being scraped. <br />Commission Discussion and Motion <br />Fahey stated she believes this is a wonderful house and is very appreciative of the <br />action. She agrees with Leary about the additions. <br />Koertje agrees with Fahey. <br />Echohawk stated she was happy the entire property is being considered. <br />Stewart stated this application meets the criteria of architectural and social integrity. He <br />emphasized the siting of this house on the property is also unique and adds to Old <br />Town diversity. <br />Stewart made a motion to approve this application based on its compliance with the <br />criteria. <br />Fahey seconded the motion. <br />Koertje added a friendly amendment to state the landmark includes the other structures <br />on the property. He then asked if the name, Atkins House, was acceptable. <br />Valentine asked if it makes a difference as to what the house is named. <br />Stewart stated usually it is associated with the most significant person who owned the <br />property.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.