My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2020 11 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2020 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2020 11 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2021 2:45:16 PM
Creation date
10/19/2021 7:45:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
11/16/2020
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 />16 November 2020 <br />Page 4 of 9 <br />Parris stated that she liked the design and was excited to see the windows on the north side. <br />She reflected that over the summer it had been clear that it qualified for an HSA but the bay <br />window was a hang-up for landmarking. Her one reservation was the windows on the south side <br />of the front because they looked really similar in the rendering to the historic windows. She <br />noted that Alteration Certificates usually came to the Commission for additions, not rehabilitation <br />projects. Looking at this as a rehabilitation project, it was appropriate, as long as there was <br />caution about creating a false sense of history. <br />Haley stated that the windows were very similar and she wondered if the size alone would be a <br />big enough difference. Overall, the design was much better than what she expected. The <br />suggested putting the plaque on the original portion of the structure. She thought that the <br />proposal did as much as it could without ripping off the addition, which she added she did not <br />think was necessary. <br />Klemme stated that if the Commission was considering the alteration as a rehabilitation and not <br />an addition, then the roof should be closer to the original. <br />Haley and Commissioner Klemme discussed different views of the roof. <br />Zuccaro stated that it could be a condition in the motion that the windows be differentiated. <br />Haley asked if anyone on the Commission felt strongly enough to make a condition. She asked <br />Mr. Johnson for differentiation ideas. <br />Johnson stated that the pitch of the roof would not allow shingles and he did not think that the <br />roof would be highly visible. He noted that the three windows were already differentiated <br />because three windows in a row was not a historic design choice. He also stated that it was <br />important to differentiate that section. <br />Klemme stated that she was okay with the design as it stood. <br />Dunlap stated that he thought the differing sizes of the windows would help differentiate the two <br />eras of windows. <br />Keller stated that the metal roof was a subtle distinction that was enough to make a difference <br />without having to change the windows. <br />Dunlap made a motion to landmark 541 Jefferson, to be named the Hayes' House. Parris <br />seconded. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. <br />Klemme made a motion to approve the Alteration Certificate for 541 Jefferson. Keller seconded. <br />Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. <br />601 Lincoln Avenue: A request to Landmark the structure at 601 Lincoln Avenue and approve <br />a Preservation and Restoration Grant and an Alteration Certificate. <br />• Applicant: Andy Johnson <br />• Staff: Rob Zuccaro, Planning Director <br />Staff and the applicant requested a continuance to the December 21st meeting. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.