My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2008 05 19
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2008 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2008 05 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:22 PM
Creation date
2/20/2009 11:20:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2008 05 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 />May 19, 2008 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />Lewis stated that she understands the issues when looking at saving an older home as <br />she lives in one herself. She noted that the question on the table is addition versus <br />replacement. <br /> <br />Tofte noted her concern that the owner has not fully investigated the costs of <br />rehabilitation and addition. She added that without that information no informed decision <br />can be made. She stated that the lot size appears to be large enough to support an <br />addition, so it should be considered. <br /> <br />Hancock stated that he lives in this community and wants to build a home that will fit in <br />with the neighborhood and do right by the community. <br /> <br />Lewis closed the public hearing and returned the discussion to Commission questions <br />and comments. <br /> <br />Lewis stated her understanding of such homes stating that her home is also built on a <br />rubble foundation. She noted that there are incentives that give additional square <br />footage and FAR to help make such a building compatible with modern living. <br /> <br />Koertje noted the four criteria on which the decision is to be based: <br />1. The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark. He <br />noted that the home has a high degree of architectural integrity and that <br />the trim, windows, and porches could easily be restored to their original <br />state. He stated he thought the building is eligible for landmarking. <br />2. The relationship of the building as a potential contributing structure to a <br />potential historical district. He stated he thought it could clearly be a <br />contributing building for a historic district. <br />3. The reasonable condition of the building. He noted this is the single <br />biggest issue. <br />4. The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. He stated that <br />without more information on what exactly the repair costs would be, there <br />is just not enough information to work with. <br /> <br />Lewis added that she too sees a great deal of integrity in the building. <br /> <br />Koertje stated that he is supportive of an addition that retains the street façade <br />he encouraged the owner to consider it. <br /> <br />Koertje made a motion to stay the demolition permit for 180 days as the site is <br />eligible for landmarking both as an individual structure and as a part of a historic <br />district. <br /> <br />Koertje also encouraged the owner to work with an architect to maintain the <br />façade and place a two-story addition on the rear of the building. He noted that <br />the Commission’s Design Review Committee would be willing to help with any <br />plans and that the Commission would be willing to work on how best to apply the <br />square footage and FAR incentives. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.