My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 04 15
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2024 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 04 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2024 6:29:21 PM
Creation date
5/9/2024 11:43:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
4/15/2024
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.
/
140
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 />February 12, 2024 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />There was further discussion about the maximum allowable height for the proposed <br />structures. <br />Brackett Hogstad clarified that the Commission could only judge the proposed height <br />based on its impact on the historic structure. <br />Anderson said that it did look odd that there were three separate structures, and noted <br />that three different dwelling units would not be allowed on a lot of that size. <br />Beauchamp asked whether the second structure would be considered a primary <br />structure. <br />Brackett Hogstad said yes. <br />Beauchamp noted that the code required that no part of an accessory structure be within <br />10 feet of a primary structure, and that the proposal appeared to violate this. <br />Brackett Hogstad said that the 10 foot requirement was for commercial uses, and that <br />the residential distance was 5 feet. She noted that there were some issues with the PDF <br />version of packet, and that the proposal met these requirements. <br />Anderson said that he was leaning towards approval, though he was open to other <br />opinions. <br />Haley said that she appreciated that this was brought to the full Commission. <br />Keller said that the proposed design fit in fairly well with the neighborhood, and was <br />historically appropriate. <br />Haley said that because the historic building would be left untouched, the proposed <br />design would preserve the landmark. She appreciated that the design would differentiate <br />and distinguish it from the newer structures, and that the applicant focused on minimizing <br />their impact. <br />Motion to approve Resolution 1, Series 2024 was moved by Burg and seconded by <br />Anderson. The motion was adopted by a vote of 7 to 0. <br />b) 1213 Jefferson Avenue Probable Cause <br />Staff Findings: <br />Brackett Hogstad introduced the presentation for the probable cause application. She <br />said that form of the front portion of the house was intact, though there had been a rear <br />extension and an attached garage added around the 1960s or 1970s. There had also <br />been changes to the sidings and railings. The house was approximately 76 years old, <br />was in the minimal traditional style, and met the architectural and social significance <br />criteria. <br />Staff Recommendation: <br />Staff recommended a finding of probable cause. <br />Commissioner Questions of Staff. <br />None were heard. <br />Questions of Applicant: <br />None were heard. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.