My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 08 17
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 08 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:18 PM
Creation date
8/21/2015 12:00:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2015 08 17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
123
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 />July 20, 2015 <br />Page 6 of 13 <br />taken to ensure the building may remain in good condition. He also believes the <br />property, being located in the commercial zone district, is under - utilized and the addition <br />will make the property a valuable contributor to the vitality of Downtown. <br />Sherri Murgallis, owner, stated she was very happy with the design of the addition. She <br />stated she loves the old building and believes it is important to maintain the structure. <br />She said it is bittersweet to take out the back yard, but she believes it is important to <br />preserve the building so it will stay as a contributor to the community. <br />Public Comments — none heard <br />Commission Questions /Comments <br />Stewart stated this is a fantastic project. He said the new building is respectful of the <br />existing structure. He also supports the landmark request and the grant application. He <br />does have questions about the new construction grant. He stated the biggest question <br />is whether the buildings have to be attached. <br />Johnson stated owner would like to have a connection between the existing commercial <br />space and new structure. They will be sharing the crawl space for storage. He thought <br />it was important to have the connection to be one story, as low as possible, and be <br />constructed with different materials so it appears as a different structure altogether. <br />Stewart asked if the connection could be pushed back 8 feet to expose more of the <br />corner of the building. <br />Johnson stated the desire is to keep the connection as functional as possible. <br />Stewart stated he likes the existing garage because we are trading enclosed parking <br />with surface parking. <br />Johnson stated it is difficult to attain all of the desirables, especially preserving a <br />structure while making the property more usable, with such a small property. <br />Fahey asked if Johnson had looked into putting in a new foundation. <br />Johnson stated the cost comparison between repair and lifting the house for a new <br />foundation is quite varied. <br />Fasick asked why the new addition comes closer to the right of way than the existing <br />structure. <br />Johnson stated the future development of South Street, especially with the pedestrian <br />underpass, makes South Street act more as a frontage road and therefore should have <br />pedestrian oriented design. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.