My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2010 09 20 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 09 20 APPROVED
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:24 PM
Creation date
11/5/2010 10:44:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2010 09 20 APPROVED
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 />September 20, 2010 <br />Page 6 of 11 <br /> <br />Chase answered it was forced air. <br />Muckle asked what the condition of the siding was. <br />Chase stated it was not wood, but there is wood siding underneath. She stated the <br />walls are drafty. <br />Ann Marie Spear addressed the commission. She stated this structure appeared to be <br />in good condition and it should not be torn down. <br />Commission Questions and Comments <br />Lewis stated this structure does meet the criteria for landmarking, for the following <br />reasons: <br /> <br /> Good architectural form <br /> <br /> Not many alterations <br /> <br /> Windows can be restored to original openings. <br /> <br /> Foundation could be fixed at a fairly reasonable cost. <br /> <br /> Social history is strong. <br />Muckle stated she agreed with Lewis. <br />Stewart stated this structure could contribute to potential district. He stated this social <br />history connection to the Grain Elevator is strong. <br />Tofte agreed with Stewart. <br />Koertje stated the architectural integrity is fairly strong. He stated the social history is <br />interesting. <br />Koertje asked for a motion. <br />Muckle made a motion to place a 180 day stay on the demolition permit, based on the <br />architectural integrity and social history. <br />Stewart seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 – 0. <br />Lewis added she would volunteer to help the applicant with any design assistance. <br />Public Hearing – Demolition – 2245 East St. <br />Koertje opened public hearing. <br />McCartney presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. He stated the <br />applicant, RMCS, is requesting to demolish an existing house, and all out building <br />structures on the property located at 2245 East St. <br />Rick Brew, co-owner of RMCS, spoke regarding his request. He stated the demolition <br />request stems from a previous submittal received by staff in 2007 for an annexation and <br />planned unit development (PUD) plan. The PUD is for a 350 unit housing development. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.