My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 03 16
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 03 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:18 PM
Creation date
3/27/2015 10:02:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2015 03 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
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 />February 9, 2015 <br />Page 2 of 10 <br />None heard. <br />Probable Cause Determination — 1401 Cannon <br />Watson stated staff has requested this item be continued. <br />Trice stated the applicant had to work this evening and wanted to move this item until March to <br />further discuss with staff. <br />Stewart made a motion to continue the item to March. <br />Haley seconded the motion. <br />Update from Staff <br />Location of Public Notices <br />Troy Russ, Director of Planning and Building Safety, spoke in regards to the public <br />notification process. He gave a background of the regulatory devices, in the LMC, <br />governing public notification and a background of how the public notification process <br />has been modified over the past few years to improve public outreach. He stated if the <br />board does not believe the current public notification process is adequate a modification <br />to the LMC must be forwarded to City Council. He then showed examples of the <br />different public notification signs the Planning Department currently uses. <br />Russ continued by discussing a public notification issue which was brought to staff's <br />attention during the Empire Sign review and showed how staff modified the public <br />notification for this specific project. He explained the LMC authorizes staff the ability to <br />modify the public notification process on an individual basis. <br />Watson thanked Russ for putting the report together and for the clarification. He stated <br />he believed the placement of signs, on a case by case basis, makes sense. <br />Stewart thanked Russ for the policy direction and believes most concerns were <br />addressed. He said he believed there was some inconsistency with the Empire project <br />but appreciates the efforts staff took for this project. He recommends regardless of the <br />sign, he recommends using yellow on all signs and using the same font for all signs. <br />Fahey agreed with Stewart and was curious if there could be more clarification of <br />posting residential properties as opposed to commercial /office. <br />Watson stated he agrees there is a difference between residential and say Main Street <br />due to the proximity of the buildings to the property line. <br />Haley asked if the 24 X 36 was in the same color. <br />Russ answered in the affirmative. <br />Public Comment <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.