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 5 of 8 <br /> <br />Troy Russ, Director of Planning and Building Safety, gave a presentation stating <br />the process for which staff is taking regarding the requested improvements on <br />701 Main Street. The proposed improvements include: <br />. Some new windows and doors. <br />. New siding on one wall. <br />. Modification of the roll up doors. <br /> <br />Russ gave an update as to the recent interpretations the City Attorney, Sam <br />Light, had provided regarding demolition. <br /> <br />Stewart stated this should go through a demo review pr <br />changes to the front of the building. He also stated h <br />building had much architectural integrity. <br /> <br /> <br />mitment of the HPC to process this <br /> <br />Muckle stated the HPC should do all they can <br /> <br />Russ stated there are some contradictio <br />regarding architectural classification ver <br /> <br />Chad Sholders, applicant, stated <br />makes their job very difficult. <br /> <br />Muckle stated the process should <br /> <br />Sholders asked to h <br /> <br />Koertje stated S <br />application as s <br /> <br />Ga . <br />mo <br /> <br />werPoint regarding the recommended <br /> <br />Stewart state <br />the maximum he <br />be an issue when a <br />second floor. <br /> <br />rontage requirement is a good element and he believed <br />quirement (to second floor) is good. He stated there could <br />uilding has a false front - how would staff measure the <br /> <br />Poppitz recommended to add the word "primary face" when speaking of corner <br />lots. <br /> <br />Russ stated staff is actually recommending the secondary frontage be allowed a <br />l' of sign area for every linear foot of building (1 to 1 ratio) and primary frontage <br />receive a 2 to 1 ratio. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.