My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 05 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2020 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 05 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/18/2020 8:58:54 AM
Creation date
5/15/2020 10:58:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
5/11/2020
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.
/
119
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 />February 24th, 2020 <br />Page 6 of 14 <br /> <br />Moore asked if there was the opportunity to negotiate the different pieces of the <br />proposals to make sure that the house was landmarked. <br /> <br />Ulm replied that there was room for movement, but the Commission was bound by <br />national and state regulations about what is considered proper renovation and <br />preservation. He noted that the La Farge property would not have been landmarkable <br />because of changes that had been made to it earlier on. <br /> <br />Haley replied that the Commission’s job was not only to landmark homes and to <br />maintain the integrity of the program according to the national standard. <br /> <br />Haley added that national preservation standards helped the Commission apply the <br />same standards to different properties. <br /> <br />Parris noted that the Commission need to discuss the three applications separately. <br /> <br />Moore stated that he wanted the Commission to ask him as many questions as possible <br />so he could understand what the Commission needed to know. <br /> <br />Haley asked if the door was a deal-breaker for the applicant. <br /> <br />Dickinson replied that the door would not be the same anyway because it was too <br />narrow. She noted that the porch expansion was a deal-breaker and the windows were <br />not. Not getting the door change might be. She stated that the chimneys did not even <br />work but she was keeping them and she wanted the house to look like the house she <br />bought. <br /> <br />Haley asked how ADA codes worked with historic doors. <br /> <br />Selvoski replied that there was no requirement that doors had to be swapped out. <br /> <br />Haley asked if ADA could be used as a reason to expand the door. <br /> <br />Selvoski replied that that would be up to the Commission. <br /> <br />Haley observed that the door would adding another wall, changing a square home into a <br />different shape. <br /> <br />Dickinson replied that the house kitty-corner to this house had the same configuration. <br /> <br />Klemme noted that there were steps leading up to the porch so there would not be <br />wheelchair access for that entrance, anyway. Other commissioners noted that a <br />temporary ramp could be added. There was a discussion about potential ramp options. <br /> <br />Haley closed applicant questions and asked for further public comment. Seeing none, <br />she opened commissioner discussion.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.