My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 12 13
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 Agenda and Packet 2010 12 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:15 PM
Creation date
1/10/2011 10:26:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2010 12 13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
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 />November 15, 2010 <br />Page 2 of 10 <br />Lewis answered affirmatively. <br />Tofte asked if the applicant was going to landmark the property. <br />McCartney stated the applicant did not intend to landmark at this time. <br />Jacque Blanchard, applicant and owner, stated his purposes for the project and his <br />reasons for not wanting to landmark at this time. <br />Lewis asked the applicant if the proposed tin was still a financial issue for him. <br />Blanchard answered yes. <br />Lewis asked if Blanchard was still interested in funding for the placement of the tin. <br />Blanchard stated it is hard to determine because he was unsure of what restrictions <br />landmarking would bring. He did not want to risk being the first commercial business to <br />landmark. <br />Poppitz stated having another business in town with tin finish would be great. <br />Koertje asked, aside from the tin being shown on the concept plan, are the other <br />architectural elements going to be included. <br />Blanchard stated, aside from the tin, everything else would be included. <br />Public Comments – <br />John Leary stated the proposal is very exciting but it has changed. He stated the <br />applicant should still consider landmarking. He added the tin is very important and the <br />HPF could be used for the funding source. <br />Michael Menaker stated the building does not need to be landmarked to receive <br />funding. He stated the project should be allowed to move forward with a condition the <br />applicant get a pricing for tin siding. <br />Commission Questions and Comments <br />Lewis stated this was a project of merit: <br /> Applicant has voluntarily brought back design elements without requesting <br />funding. <br /> She agreed with Menaker in that the applicant should bring back the pricing for <br />tin at a later date. <br />Poppitz stated his agreement with Lewis and added the tin will probably be a very costly <br />element. He also stated the design was great. <br />Tofte stated a couple of concerns: <br /> The applicant has made a lot of changes in one year. Without landmarking how <br />would we be sure the building would not change more. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.