My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 07 20
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 07 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:18 PM
Creation date
7/22/2015 3:02:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2015 07 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.
/
257
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 />June 15, 2015 <br />Page 5 of 14 <br />Stewart agreed by stating it has "adequate" architectural integrity, mainly <br />because the windows have been modified. He added the social character is <br />exemplary. <br />Fahey stated another observation she made is it is on a prominent corner of <br />town and is across the street from another local landmark. <br />Echohawk agrees with the others and commended Bridget Bacon for her <br />excellent social history. <br />Watson agrees and states the information regarding Vaughn being included <br />in a video at the museum is pretty amazing. <br />Stewart stated he agrees with staff's choice for the name. <br />Watson made a motion to approve the application for landmarking. <br />Koertje seconded the motion. <br />Motion approved 6 to 0. <br />Public Hearing — 936 Parkview Demolition <br />Trice presented staff's report and stated the property has architectural and <br />social significance. She states staff recommends a full 180 day stay be <br />placed on the demolition permit. <br />Renzo Verbeck, the owner and applicant, presented and stated he has <br />refurbished other structures in town and this structure is not worthy saving <br />because there are very costly repairs. <br />Watson asked if he had any costs to provide in regards to renovations. <br />Verbeck could provide costs for repair, but does not have them with him. <br />Watson asked if any of the historic /zoning incentives would encourage you <br />to save the structure. <br />Verbeck stated staff has already discussed them with him and he is not <br />interested. He has rebuilt other structures in town and this structure is not <br />worthy to rehabilitate. <br />Stewart asked what he thought the construction cost for a new build would <br />be. <br />Verbeck stated it would probably be $200 -$300 per square foot. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.