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 8 of 13 <br />Stewart seconded the motion. <br />Motion approved 6 to 0. <br />Stewart made a motion to approve the Alteration Certificate, with a condition to move <br />the north facing wall south by 3 feet, or make the walls of the connector all glass. <br />Koertje seconded the motion. <br />Watson asked the applicant how they felt on the condition placed on the resolution. <br />Koertje asked staff if any condition on the resolution can change. <br />Trice stated City Council could modify the resolution. <br />Johnson stated it would be difficult to push the connection back, and all glass would not <br />make sense for the functionality. He asked if it would be okay to make the top portion of <br />the wall glass. He ensured the commission the corner of the existing structure is not <br />being masked. He believes too much discussion is being placed on the materials and <br />not enough discussion on the scale and form. <br />Stewarts aid the overall design is great. They are requesting a detail that would make <br />this a greater design. He believes the step back of the connector is not lost space <br />because the space could be found in other locations. <br />Fasick stated she liked the idea Johnson had of placing more glass on the top portion of <br />the connector. <br />Johnson stated they would much rather have the resolution as presented, but would be <br />open to the conditions. <br />Murgallis stated it is important for her to have the connection as designed, specifically <br />because they have existing basement stairs they need to contend with. <br />Discussion ensued as to what should be done if the applicant requests the resolution <br />from the packet be voted upon. <br />Trice recommended the motioner should remove their motion so a new motion can be <br />made to vote on the resolution from the packet. <br />Stewart consented his motion and Koertje consented his second. <br />Watson made a motion to approve the proposed resolution. <br />Fahey seconded the motion. <br />Motion approved 6 to 0. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.