My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2009 07 20
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 Minutes 2009 07 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:24 PM
Creation date
10/1/2009 11:15:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2009 07 20
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 />July 20, 2009 <br />Page 6 of 9 <br /> <br />McCartney stated there are some exceptions already in the Old Town Overlay <br />District for front and side setbacks that might be considered. <br />Williams asked Johnson if the stay were placed on the historic structure, would <br />Johnson feel comfortable moving forward. <br />Johnson stated he would like all or nothing. <br />Whiteman asked if they would be able to build something on the other parts of <br />the property if the historical structure were placed under a stay. <br />Johnson stated it was hard to say because they weren’t that far in design yet. <br />Whiteman stated to the Commission they could move forward on a “good faith” <br />option, release stay in hopes the applicants retain all that they can of the historic <br />structure. <br />Williams asked if the Commission released a conditional approval can they allow <br />for the deconstruction of the other non-historic structures. <br />Stewart stated it did not appear the landmarking criteria applied to this structure. <br />Stewart then stated restoration should be considered and, if done right, the <br />structure might be considered for local funding. Stewart stated he supports a <br />conditional stay to allow for demo of non-historic structures and soft strip of <br />historic structure so that additional research can be done. Stewart did state he <br />had a big issue with relocating the structure. <br />Lewis stated she would be okay with partial demo, but stated the porches should <br />remain. <br />Muckle asked the architect if he intended on keeping the porches. <br />Johnson stated he would try and allow them to remain. <br />Whiteman stated the motion should be for a conditional stay, deconstruct outside <br />of the 14.5 foot by 20 foot historical structure. The deconstruction will not include <br />the porches. <br />Muckle stated that Johnson could come back next month to give an update. <br />Johnson agreed. <br />Lewis recommended the Commission should designate a liaison. <br />Muckle stated she would remain as the liaison for this project. <br />Commission Action: <br />Whiteman called for a motion. <br />Koertje drafted a motion for a partial 180 day stay of the original 14.5 foot by 20 <br />foot historical structure, to be identified by the architect. Anything outside of the <br />historical structure could be demolished (including the garage), however the <br />porch must remain. Soft stripping of the historical structure is permitted. Lewis <br />seconded the motion. <br />After a voice vote of 6 to 0, the conditional stay was passed (8:28 p.m.) <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.