My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 02 12
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2024 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 02 12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2024 6:05:58 PM
Creation date
2/29/2024 11:31:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/12/2024
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
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 />October 16, 2023 <br />Page 5 of 13 <br />Beauchamp asked what a new construction grant would cover, and whether it could <br />potentially be appropriate for the current application. <br />Haley said that it would cover a new addition to the house, so it would not be appropriate <br />in this instance. <br />Haley suggested that the Commission could approve the grant request with an additional <br />allowance up to the grant maximum to allow the applicant to consider changing the front <br />fagade. <br />Anderson asked how much extra the Commission could add to the grant. He noted what <br />the extra money would need to cover. He thought it would not be more than around $3500. <br />Beauchamp did not think the added cost would be significant, so they would not need to <br />increase the grant amount to the maximum. <br />Haley said that the increase would need to be checked by Staff. <br />Anderson suggested adding up to $3,000 without further review of the Commission, or <br />more if the applicant returned and requested it. <br />Burg asked whether the Commission should consider adding a contingency to the grant. <br />Anderson did not think it would be necessary above this proposed increase. <br />Burg said she thought the structure had a lot of things going for it, and would like to <br />incentivize the owner to restore it to its original design by approving the extra funding. <br />Anderson said that he was leaning towards approving the grants, but would like to <br />request the suggested modifications. <br />Haley said that she wanted the property to be the best it could be, and wanted the owner <br />to feel supported by the City in doing more than the minimum. <br />Motion to approve the Alteration Certificate with the condition that the applicant consider <br />restoring the front window was moved by Anderson and seconded by Beauchamp. The <br />motion was adopted by a vote of 7 to 0. <br />Brackett Hogstad wanted to clarify if the motion asked the applicant to consider restoring <br />the design of the front window to what was shown in the photograph from the 1920s, and <br />if the alteration certificate was approved as is if the applicant decided that changing the <br />windows was not feasible or that they did not want to do it. She asked if they could include <br />a clearer framing of the instruction from the Commission in a new motion. <br />Haley asked whether the Commission should ask for more information from the applicant. <br />Brackett Hogstad said that they could continue the application and ask for more <br />information. <br />Haley noted that there were a lot of moving parts, and it made it very difficult to decide <br />on the application without the applicant being present. <br />Brackett Hogstad asked if the Commissioners had any issue with the porch. <br />Dalia said that he did not have an issue with the porch. <br />Berg said that her only recommendation for the porch was to consider not including the <br />railing if it was not required by code. <br />Brackett Hogstad suggested that the Commission could either continue the application, <br />or deny them and take it through a subcommittee process. <br />Anderson said that he would rather not deny then try go some other route, he would <br />rather continue the issue. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.