My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 09 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 09 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:21 PM
Creation date
9/19/2019 9:35:10 AM
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.
/
79
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
approve the assessment grant. This request was from a new applicant who planned to <br />use the structure as a single-family unit. <br />Klemme noted that she was not at the previous meeting but she had read the staff <br />report and did not need the full presentation. <br />Haley wanted to make sure that the assessment be thorough since it was a larger <br />structure than typical residential structures. <br />Selvoski replied that staff felt the same way and that the applicant had been <br />communicative so far. <br />Dunlap asked if there was any process to ask for more funds for an assessment. <br />Selvoski replied that there was nothing written in about providing more money for a <br />larger residential structure. <br />Dickinson stated that if the assessment ended up costing more money, the grant was <br />still providing a substantial amount toward the total assessment and he would be <br />surprised if a more expensive assessment prevented the applicant from having a <br />thorough assessment. <br />Haley agreed that the possible amount above the $4,000 grant would be part of the <br />usual expenses in buying a house anyway. <br />Dunlap moved to find probable cause and Dickinson seconded. Roll call vote. All in <br />favor. Motion approved unanimously. <br />ITEMS FROM STAFF <br />Alteration/Demolition Updates <br />Selvoski explained that staff and an HPC subcommittee approved two alteration <br />certificates for roof replacements, one at the Austin-Niehoff House at 717 Main and one <br />at the Center for the Arts at 801 Grant, with the rationale that the proposed materials <br />were a reasonably good match to the current materials, the work would not alter the <br />general appearance, and replacing the roof would help preserve the landmarked <br />structure. <br />Staff and a subcommittee approved one demolition request for 536 La Farge based on <br />the rationale that the structure has been modified over time and therefore had little <br />architectural integrity, making it unlikely to be eligible for landmarking. <br />Klemme asked what to do when a subcommittee could not make a decision on an <br />application. <br />Selvoski replied that a subcommittee member could always request to have a full <br />hearing. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.