My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 10 15
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2018 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 10 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:20 PM
Creation date
6/13/2019 12:41:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
83
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 />September 24, 2018 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />Trewitt stated that the proposal got rid of the sill on the north side and the height of the <br />opening was coming up slightly to reflect the openings on the two-story building next <br />door. <br />Chuck Thomas stated that he liked the fenestration and the storefront appearance. He <br />also liked that the facade was different from the one next to it. <br />Fahey liked the idea of bringing it back to the original appearance. The proposal was a <br />nice way to get the older look without the exposed cinderblocks. She also thought the <br />windows were similar to the original. <br />Ulm stated that some people might think it was contemporary, but he thought the <br />application brought the structure back to the start of the machine age, especially as <br />shown in the 1970s photos. He did not have a problem with the 8-inch lap as it was <br />appropriate for the commercial and retail uses of the building. He noted that the metal <br />accents might drip onto the sidewalk and create rust stains. <br />Haley agreed that the 8-inch siding was a good reminder of what the building used to <br />be. <br />Dickinson commented that the goal of having the item in front of HPC was to get official <br />feedback on the Commission. First, he thought it was a step in the right direction from a <br />historical standpoint regardless of his aesthetic opinions. Second, 720 and 726 Front <br />seemed like a single building from a pedestrian perspective, so seeing it visually <br />differentiated from the two-story building was a good move. Third, the updates would <br />help the building be enhanced for use instead of demolished. <br />Ulm added that by simply preserving the structure instead of replacing it with something <br />larger helped to preserve the scale of the street. <br />Parris stated that it was a thoughtful design in that it tied into the building next to it <br />visually and worked within City guidelines. <br />Zuccaro stated that staff was asking for the Commission to make a motion as a group <br />based on whether the Historic Preservation Commission believed that the application <br />met the relevant historic criteria regarding downtown. He suggested making a motion <br />attending to those policies specifically. <br />Chuck Thomas moved to recommend approval of the building as presented based on <br />the historic criteria. Fahey seconded. Voice vote. Passed unanimously. <br />ITEMS FROM STAFF <br />Demolition & Alteration Certificate Updates <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.