My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2010 10 18 APPROVED
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 Minutes 2010 10 18 APPROVED
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:24 PM
Creation date
2/28/2011 9:09:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2010 10 18 APPROVED
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />October 18, 2010 <br />Page 5 of 8 <br /> <br />Koertje asked if the applicant knew the price of the tin. <br />Blanchard answered it was in the range of $15,000 to $25,000. <br />Tofte asked if the applicant had done all of the improvements to date. <br />Blanchard answered in the affirmative. <br />Tofte asked the cost of the second floor deck. <br />Blanchard answered it depended on whether structural steel was needed or not. <br />Tofte asked the applicant if he could move forward with most of project and add tin at <br />the end. <br />Blanchard said it would all need to happen at once. <br />Koertje stated he liked the concept and asked staff what would be required to process <br />the request. <br />McCartney answered demo review, landmarking, alteration certificate, grant request, <br />plan unit development and special review use. He stated all of the process items could <br />run concurrently. <br />Muckle stated she really liked the project but was on the fence about the cut out on the <br />façade. <br />Blanchard stated the cut out was very important for his proposed use. <br />Tofte stated the cut out may eliminate landmark. <br />Lewis stated she was willing to overlook cut out because it could be considered a post <br />modern interpretation. She stated landmarking would also permit HPC to provide <br />design assistance. <br />Koertje reminded the HPC the application could be approved through a Conservation <br />Easement. He then asked staff if the request would comply with Downtown Design <br />Standards. <br />McCartney answered some elements do comply and some don’t. <br />Public Comments <br />Jean Morgan offered some design alternatives to save the façade. <br />Dana Echohawk stated it was a wonderful idea but was concerned about the cut out in <br />the façade. <br />John Leary stated he was very excited about the project and considered it “uplifting”. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.