My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2010 05 17 APPROVED
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 Minutes 2010 05 17 APPROVED
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:24 PM
Creation date
7/19/2010 10:41:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2010 05 17 APPROVED
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 />May 17, 2010 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />Russ stated if the HPC wants to clarify this it would require the normal public <br />hearing process in front of both the Planning Commission and the City Council. <br /> <br />Stewart noted the way a street facing façade is addressed is paramount to this <br />conversation. The façades of the buildings in the commercial downtown are far <br />more important to the character of downtown than the parts of the buildings are <br />not visible from the street. <br /> <br />Muckle asked if the Planning Staff could get an interpretation from the City <br />Attorney on how the language should be interpreted. <br /> <br />Koertje stated his support for amending the ordinance to clarify the language. He <br />asked if draft language could be presented at the June meeting for the <br />Commission to review. <br /> <br />Update/Discussion/Action – List of Contributing Resources Downtown <br /> <br />Stewart stated the DDG specifically refer to “contributing” and “noncontributing” <br />buildings and in the DDG those categories of buildings are expected to meet <br />different development criteria based on those classifications. He stated the City <br />needs a clear list of what is contributing and what is not to better apply the design <br />guidelines. <br /> <br />Stewart added the City Attorney’s interpretation is if a building is to be classified <br />as contributing and therefore be held to a higher standard in the DDG, then there <br />needs to be a public hearing process creating the list of what is contributing <br />informs owners of the process and the implications. <br /> <br />Koertje asked who would make the classifications, the HPC? <br /> <br />Stewart stated is the real question and added perhaps the building surveys done <br />in 2000 could be used as the basis. <br /> <br />Muckle noted the 2000 survey is not comprehensive and did not survey all of the <br />commercial buildings. She added the issue is also “contributing to what?” <br />Normally buildings contribute to a district, which is not the case in downtown. <br />Also, she noted errors have been found in the surveys and can make them <br />difficult to use. <br /> <br />Russ stated in the short-term the surveys can provide some baseline information. <br /> <br />Koertje asked if this topic could be explored further at the June meeting. <br /> <br />Committee Reports – Design Assistance <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.