My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2020 01 13
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2020 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2020 01 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2021 2:45:15 PM
Creation date
10/19/2021 7:44:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
1/13/2020
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Quality Check
10/19/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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 />January 13th, 2020 <br />Page 3 of 9 <br />Selvoski replied that it was likely not part of the original structure. <br />Dunlap asked if the actual grant amount would be based on receipts. <br />Selvoski replied that it would and that the grant amount was not to exceed $40,000. <br />Haley invited the applicant to speak. <br />Andy Johnson, DAJ Design, 922A Main Street, thought that the project would be a good <br />model for historic preservation and restoration. The home contained a number of <br />indictors about what was there before that would help guide the restoration process, <br />though the age and size of the home would make it a large restoration process. <br />Johnson noted that removing the asbestos would reveal the shape and size of the <br />original windows. Johnson added that they were working with Shield Construction out of <br />Englewood. <br />Ulm appreciated removing the railing off the front porch, but he wondered if that would <br />create a code violation. <br />Johnson replied that they were right on the bubble and it would depend on what the <br />finish elevation and material would be. <br />Ulm asked for more details on the design and construction of the windows. <br />Johnson replied that he would encourage the homeowner to choose a product based on <br />longevity. He thought that mimicking the design of the windows was more important <br />than mimicking the historic materials to ensure longevity. <br />Ulm asked Mr. Johnson to report back about the options for new windows. <br />Johnson replied that he would. He added that window replacements should increase <br />efficiency. <br />Haley asked for additional questions of the applicant and for public comment. Seeing <br />none, she asked for commissioner comment. <br />Klemme stated that she was happy that the homeowner and Mr. Johnson were working <br />together. <br />Haley summarized that the landmarking criteria had been met and she was in favor of <br />landmarking. Klemme seconded. <br />Felicity suggested naming the structure the Damiana House. Dunlap seconded. <br />Resolution 1, Series 2020 approved unanimously by voice vote. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.