My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 02 07
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2011 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 02 07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2024 12:33:37 PM
Creation date
2/8/2011 12:34:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2011 02 07
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
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 />January 10, 2011 <br />Page 2 of 7 <br />Koertje asked staff if they were using the fact the owner didn’t want to landmark as one <br />of the criteria in recommending for the conservation easement. <br />McCartney explained the staff report format and stated the owner did not want to <br />landmark, but was interested in having a conservation easement. He reminded the <br />Commission a landmark cannot be placed on the property without the owner’s consent. <br />Speier asked about the landmark process. <br />McCartney and Koertje explained. <br />Tofte asked how the building can be considered protected if the HPC allows for a cutout <br />on the top part of the façade. <br />Koertje answered Tofte’s questions. <br />Lewis and Poppitz asked if the HPC action of releasing the previously requested <br />demolition permitnegates the need for a landmark review. <br />McCartney stated releasing a demo permit does not make a decision on the actual <br />landmark, rather if the structure is considered eligible for landmarking. <br />Koertje agreed. He added a demo review does not, in itself, release a structure from <br />having to go through a landmarking procedure. <br />Speier stated he believed the Commission needs to decide on the landmarking first. <br />Fasick asked if the arch or the marquee ever existed together. <br />McCartney showed pictures to illustrate they probably did not exist together. <br />Jacque Blanchard, applicant, reviewed the concept for the conservation easement and <br />concluded by discussing his understanding of how the building elements progressed <br />over time. <br />Lewis asked if the window opening was the same as the original opening. <br />Blanchard answered affirmatively. <br />Lewis asked if the foundation was okay. <br />Blanchard explained how the foundation was originally non-existent then added at a <br />later date. <br /> – None <br />Public Comments <br />Commission Comments / Questions <br />Landmark <br />Poppitz stated there appears to have been too many changes to the structure and the <br />façade for it to be considered for a landmarking. <br />Tofte asked what is being requested for landmarking. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.