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 6 of 8 <br /> <br />Eric Tussey stated he likes the project and thinks it is an improvement of what is <br />currently onsite. <br />Jessica Fasick stated she liked the project but didn’t believe it would comply with <br />landmark criteria. <br />Koertje stated he would work with staff to determine the process and procedure. <br />Blanchard stated the potential stay, on the future partial demolition request, is the most <br />important aspect of project, more so than landmarking. He asked HPC if they liked the <br />project. <br />Koertje stated the HPC liked the concept, but wasn’t sure about the cut out. <br />Muckle asked if the applicant had checked for original tin. <br />Blanchard said he had but would be willing to check again. <br />Lewis recommended landmarking so the HPC could review façade and make further <br />recommendations. <br />Stewart returned when discussion of 817 Main Street ceased. <br />Update/Discussion/Action – Demolition Definition – Amendment to LMC <br />McCartney presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. He stated staff <br />(McCartney and Troy Russ, Director of Planning and Building Safety) had met with <br />Heather Lewis and Peter Stewart to discuss demolition review when windows, doors <br />and other architectural features were involved. <br />Lewis added the discussion focused on creating an expedited review process for those <br />architectural features and stated the group did not believe a social review is necessary <br />for these elements. <br />Koertje asked if old photos would be necessary. <br />McCartney stated staff could provide those from the Carnegie Library files. <br />Koertje also stated a concern about requiring an architect or planner on each <br />subcommittee because it might make a lot of work if we only have one professional staff <br />members. <br />Tofte stated she appreciates the involvement of staff because they can provide the <br />design professional aspect during the review.. <br />Stewart stated review of newer materials (including windows and doors) would not even <br />require a subcommittee review. <br />th <br />Lewis stated there is a meeting with the DBA this week (Wednesday, October 20) and <br />HPC’s input would help with DBA discussion. <br />Koertje stated he was fine with the way the process was presented. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.