My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2010 07 19 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 07 19 APPROVED
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:24 PM
Creation date
9/10/2010 8:38:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2010 07 19 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 />July 19, 2010 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br /> <br />Williams agreed with the others but stated the second floor window (the <br />additional window) should be removed and restored to single window. <br />Muckle agreed with Williams comment regarding the window. <br />Muckle made a motion to approve the application based on architectural and <br />social significance. Lewis seconded the motion. Kerotje added a friendly <br />amendment to state the application is for the original house footprint only – <br />motion does not landmark the later additions. The motion carried 5 – 0. <br />Public Hearing – Landmark Application – 1131 Jefferson <br />Koertje opened public hearing. <br />McCartney presented staff report and PowerPoint presentation. McCartney <br />closed by recommending approval of case because the structure had <br />architectural and social significance. <br />Muckle asked staff if there were any recent photos. <br />McCartney stated staff had mistakenly not included recent photos, but assured <br />the Commission the house looked almost exactly the same as the 1948 <br />Assessor’s photo. <br />Janice Hoffman, applicant, presented her case and stated the following: <br /> <br /> House has not changed – doors and windows are all the same. <br /> <br /> House material is currently stucco and stucco is the original material used <br />at time of construction. <br /> <br /> She would like to get the drainage corrected around the foundation. <br /> <br /> She has no plans for future additions or alterations. <br /> <br /> Would like entire structure landmarked. <br /> <br />Koertje asked Hoffman if she had any preference for the name of the house <br />(presented as Jacoe House). <br /> <br />Hoffman stated she did not have a preference but stated Connaroe House might <br />be better. <br />Public Comments – none heard <br />Koertje closed the public hearing <br />Commission Questions and Comments <br />Muckle stated the social significance is strong. She also stated the architectural <br />integrity is great. A 1932 era landmark would be great to have in town. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.