My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 07 19
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2010 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 07 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2024 1:03:35 PM
Creation date
7/15/2010 11:13:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2010 07 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
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 />June 21,2010 <br />Page 4 of 8 <br /> <br />Muckle asked if Spears knew anything more about the contractors. <br />Spears said no but added they were very good and very detailed. <br /> <br />Koertje mentioned the application stated she would like to designate the structure <br />and the property. He asked the applicant why she wanted to designate the <br />property. <br /> <br />Spears answered she wanted to protect the property so th <br />anything else on it. <br /> <br />Spears stated she was fine with the name <br /> <br /> <br />Commission Questions and Com <br /> <br />Poppitz stated this was a nice example of a 1950's <br /> <br />Lewis asked Spears what she thought of the n <br /> <br />Public Comments - none heard <br /> <br />Koertje closed the public hearin <br /> <br />Lewis stated her excit <br />house was in really <br /> <br />Koertje agreed <br /> <br />lity of construction was very good. <br /> <br />she could pursue a conservation easement. <br /> <br />lieve there was enough information to landmark the <br /> <br />fine with only land marking the structure. <br /> <br />Lewis made a motion to approve the application based on architectural <br />significance, it represents style and period of mid century architecture. Stewart <br />seconded the motion. Koertje asked if there was any discussion regarding the <br />name of the structure. Lewis suggested to keep the name as is. The motion <br />carried 6 - O. <br /> <br />Update/Discussion/Action - 701 Main Street <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.