My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 01 10
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 01 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:15 PM
Creation date
2/8/2011 1:15:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2011 01 10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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 />December 13, 2010 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />McCartney statedonly if the codes have changed during the time of the extension. <br />Stewart stated the following: <br />3 years time extension is not appropriate for all projects. Time allowance should <br />be changed to 6 to 12 months. <br />I like the idea of being able to review what the buildingis being replaced with. <br />Muckle agreed with Stewart and added the following: <br />Permit should not run with land, only with owner. Non transferrable. <br />Include a denial process in the flow chart. <br />Curious how stay process is handled. <br />Stewart stated he agreed withMuckle regarding the permit should not be transferrable. <br />Koertje agreed the permit should not run with the land. <br />Lewis stated her primary worry was the time period extension. <br />Koertje stated there should be a process which allows a minor demolition to stop at <br />Subcommittee review. <br />McCartney stated this element is currently being considered. <br />Stewart added a minor demolition should be permitted as long as it follows the <br />Secretary of Interior standards. <br />Koertje recommended the HPC have a study session with theCity Attorney regarding <br />this issue. <br />Update/Discussion/Action – 1131 Jefferson Avenue – Grant Update <br />Janice Hoffman, owner of 1131 Jefferson Avenue, gave an update of the work being <br />performed on her house. The HPC had asked Ms. Hoffman to come to this meeting to <br />give an update onthe construction of the carport. <br />McCartney stated Mike Jones, Chief Building Inspector, had visited 1131 Jefferson <br />Avenue and stated the carport complies with building codes. <br />Updates/Discussions/Action – Plaques <br />Stewart discussed the following topics: <br />Spoke to 5 different companies <br />Described the various types of plaques on the market <br />Should each plaque include name of house, year built and year designated. <br />Koertje asked the Commission if they thought the plaque should be redesigned. <br />Public Comment <br />Janie Hoffman stated the year built should be a primary element of the plaque. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.