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 5 of 10 <br />Tofte asked staff what type of foundation the structure had. <br />McCartney answered it appeared to have CMU block. There was a crawl space under <br />the house the applicant used as storage. <br />Lewis stated the social history was fairly weak. <br />Koertje stated the commission could place a shorter stay on the building so the <br />applicant could receive design assistance. <br />Poppitz asked if the building could be relocated. <br />Koertje stated relocation was a possible option. <br />Stewart stated the architecture was actually interesting. He agreed a shorter stay would <br />allow the applicant to explore alternatives. <br />Lewis stated there is some architectural integrity. However, she stated she was <br />struggling with the stay due to the proximity of the right-of-way. <br />Tofte stated there might be other out buildings worth looking at. <br />Lewis stated she did not believe the out building appeared to be integral or important. <br />Koertje recommended a 60 day stay to allow additional time for review of the submittal. <br />Lewis stated she was willing to work with the applicant on design ideas. <br />Koertje requested a motion. <br />Stewart made a motion to release partial demolition of the structure, with the following <br />conditions: <br />1. Place a 60 day stay on the application. Triggered by submittal date of October <br />12, 2010. <br />2. Have this item on the January agenda for an update. <br />Tofte seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 – 0. <br />Update/Discussion/Action – Landmark Alteration Certificate/Incentive Grant - 501 <br />South Street – <br />McCartney presented the staff report. He stated the applicant, Barbara Butterworth, is <br />requesting a Preservation and Restoration Incentive Grant to renovate the structure to <br />improve and prevent additional water damage. McCartney suggested the items be <br />approved by level of priority. <br />Barbara Butterworth stated she is using Columbine Construction as the contractor <br />because they have done work on her house before. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.