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 7 of 14 <br />Watson stated there could be classes such as wood, siding, windows, etc. <br />Fahey stated she is mainly wanting to consider a "like- for - like" definition <br />such as same siding, same window size, and making sure they can be <br />reversible. <br />Watson stated when you replace a window it isn't just the glass but the <br />casing, sash, material, cladding, etc. He stated a change to the windows <br />changes the look of the house. He stated replacing asphalt shingles is an <br />easier one to consider. <br />Fahey stated she understood about the windows, but the other items on the <br />"type of work" on the miscellaneous permit would make sense. <br />Stewart stated the HPC could create criteria for certain siding to be <br />removed, certain windows to be removed, porch repair "like- for - like ", create <br />character areas for certain parts of town so it can be understood as to what <br />elements could be removed. <br />Mary Therese, consultant, presented. She addressed the current <br />discussion and stated character defining elements could be called out <br />during the landmarking process. <br />Stewart stated most of these happen on non- landmarked structures. <br />Koertje stated Mary Therese is mainly speaking to alterations to an existing <br />landmark. <br />Mary Therese then presented how other similar communities handle these <br />issues. She stated some communities review based on minor and major <br />alterations. Minor is staff review and major is a public hearing. She stated <br />a definition of demolition would help. <br />Watson stated the most important step for us is to make sure we create a <br />process that the lay person can understand. He asked if we should attack <br />this as tiers and begin with roofing, and move up from there to maybe <br />siding. <br />Mary Therese cautioned the commission from becoming the "taste police ", <br />rather use outreach to send out a message that preservation is a big deal so <br />they understand the difficulty in creating a user friendly process. <br />Fahey stated she does not believe they are establishing what you can and <br />cannot do, but rather to create an easier process for those who want to <br />provide general maintenance on a structure that is over 50 years old. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.