My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2010 06 21 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 06 21 APPROVED
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:24 PM
Creation date
9/10/2010 8:37:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2010 06 21 APPROVED
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />June 21, 2010 <br />Page 4 of 8 <br /> <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 />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 />Spears answered she wanted to protect the property so that no one could build <br />anything else on it. <br />Poppitz stated this was a nice example of a 1950’s bungalow. <br />Lewis asked Spears what she thought of the name. <br />Spears stated she was fine with the name. <br />Public Comments – none heard <br />Koertje closed the public hearing <br />Commission Questions and Comments <br />Lewis stated her excitement about preserving a 1950’s bungalow and said the <br />house was in really good condition. <br />Koertje agreed and stated it is nice to have this era represented. <br />Stewart stated it was a great era and the quality of construction was very good. <br />Lewis stated she didn’t want to landmark the property. <br />Stewart agreed, but stated maybe she could pursue a conservation easement. <br />Koertje stated he did not believe there was enough information to landmark the <br />property. <br />Spears stated she was fine with only landmarking the structure. <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 – 0. <br />Update/Discussion/Action – 701 Main Street <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.