My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 09 23
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 09 23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:19 PM
Creation date
10/12/2015 9:06:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2015 09 23
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
130
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 />August 17, 2015 <br />Page 8 of 11 <br />Fahey stated she would prefer not to have the marquee, new copy in the sign <br />area and the recessed archway. She said her issue is there was money used to <br />put the marquee up. <br />Fasick asked if we own the marquee can we sign it. <br />Fahey stated that is not the issue. She said the Conservation Easement should <br />be used in perpetuity and this proposal negates our decision. <br />Watson stated since the original Conservation Easement was a complete <br />reconstruction, he is not as attached to the original design. <br />Fahey said he issue is only about the money. <br />Watson said you would like the concept if money was paid back. <br />Fahey said she thinks that would be a very strange precedent. <br />Russ stated we aren't asking for a specific recommendation at this point. It is <br />more for feedback so the applicant can proceed with their application. <br />Fasick stated, other than the kick up with the money, she is in favor of the <br />removal of the marquee, but does have a problem with removing the Rex. She <br />said it might make more sense to add the word "theater" behind "Rex" so it <br />removes any reference to the previous Rex Restaurant. <br />Watson stated how do you identify the restaurant with staying with the historic <br />elements of the building. <br />Haley stated she is fairly persuaded by the architectural significance being the <br />shape of the sign to allow for businesses to change their copy. Her biggest hang <br />up is the words "Rex" are actually part of the Conservation Easement. In <br />hindsight they should have only done the shape of the sign. <br />Russ stated we haven't had a chance to work with the applicant on design <br />options, but he agrees with retaining the screen shape and allowing buildings to <br />change within. <br />Haley asked if the Empire sign kept the shape but hanged the text. <br />Trice answered in the affirmative. <br />Haley said she agrees the shape of the mesh should be the historic component. <br />Watson recommended the Conservation Easement should be drafted to allow for <br />easier future modifications. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.