Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 20, 2009 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br />responded to Mr. Seeber's comments noting that size and mass guidelines are not the <br />purview of this Commission, but rather a conversation for the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Stewart stated he felt this home was eligible for landmarking as a part of a district, but <br />not as an individual landmark. <br /> <br />Muckle agreed with Stewart that the building is likely eleigible for landmarking as a part <br />of a district. She noted the importance of the vernacular buildings to the character of the <br />community. She reemphasized that asbestos abatement may not be expensive and that <br />the owner should consider saving the building with an addition. <br /> <br /> <br />Whiteman stated that without specific costs to review it is difficult to make a He <br />added his concern regarding the loss of vernacular buildings in Old Town. He as <br />Ramsey if he would be interested in applying to use the newly creat Historic <br />Preservation Fund for this project. <br /> <br />Ramsey stated that he still thinks that his best option is to scrape the sit nd start from <br />scratch given the state of the foundation and the roof line the existing home. He <br />added that he always gives consideration to character wh ,,!~.igning for Old Town and <br />he hopes to build something that will compliment surroundirlttwo-story structures. <br />He added that if there is concern about the size home on the lot, that an addition <br />could create a bigger footprint on the lot than a . He stated that he didn't want <br />to take Preservation Fund money and that while h stand what the Fund is <br />supposed to do, he feels that he shouldn't take citiz money for a project where he is <br />increasing the value of the lot. <br /> <br />Stewart stated that Ramsey had a p <br />being conducive to an addition bec <br />could possibly make for an insensitiv <br /> <br /> <br />out the roof lines of the existing home not <br />gable runs parallel to the street and that <br />tion. <br /> <br />Whiteman stated that the' <br />profit but to encourage 0 <br />than demolishing and buil <br /> <br /> <br />of the Preservation Fund is not to give people an extra <br />rehabilitate older homes which can be more expensive <br />w. <br /> <br />Muckle m <br />the home a <br />owner to find <br /> <br /> <br />nts or questions, Whiteman closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />to accept the staff recommendation to place a 180-day stay on <br />b eligible for landmarking as a part of a district and to work with the <br />y to put an addition on the home rather than scrape it. <br /> <br />Koertje seconded the motion. <br /> <br />A roll call vote was taken: <br /> <br />. Muckle - yes <br />. Whiteman - no <br />. Tofte - yes <br />. Koertje - yes <br />. Lewis - yes <br />. Stewart - yes <br />