My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2009 06 15
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2009 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2009 06 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:13 PM
Creation date
6/12/2009 11:09:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2009 06 15
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
<br />Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 18, 2009 <br />Page 5 of 9 <br /> <br />Wood stated that the Planning Commission is interested in modifying the design <br />standards as well. <br /> <br />Stewart stated that not only should the Commission be interested in preservation <br />but we should also be interested in preserving the town character. <br /> <br />Koertje stated that he thinks design review should only happen on landmarked <br />structures. He also agreed that character is a big issue in town. <br /> <br />Whiteman asked staff if there was anything additional the mmission needed to <br />do to move the resolution forward to Council? <br /> <br /> <br />Muckle asked what was happening with the conservation easement issue? <br /> <br />Whiteman answered that the loophole for the <br />the structure must be located within a histo . <br />of landmarking, we still cannot create a <br />district. He asked the Commission if the <br />district? He also asked if we have "back-do <br />district? <br /> <br /> <br />ervation easement states that <br />strict. For building hat fall short <br />ent unless there is . toric <br />ted to create an officia toric <br />"ourselves in creating a historic <br /> <br />The Commission had general discussion re <br /> <br /> <br />structures that aren't 50 <br />to be 40% vote of the property <br />historic district. Muth continued to <br />te a neighborhood district of <br />% support. <br /> <br />Muth reminded the C .on that HPC <br />years old. She als there <br />owners in the des ted dist to cre <br />state that one way to approach this is to <br />clustered structures that can achieve the <br /> <br /> <br />Commission could include the historic district as a <br />next agenda (June 15, 2009). <br /> <br />Whiteman sta <br />with City Counci . <br /> <br />conservation easements would still be a worthy discussion <br /> <br />Muckle stated that she appreciated all of the efforts that went into the text <br />revIsions. <br /> <br />Muth asked if Koertje and Whiteman would still be available for the June 2, 2009 <br />Council meeting? They both acknowledged they would. <br /> <br />Discussion/Direction/Action - 2009 Preservation Awards <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.