My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2010 11 15 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 11 15 APPROVED
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:24 PM
Creation date
2/28/2011 9:11:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2010 11 15 APPROVED
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 2 of 10 <br /> <br />Lewis answered affirmatively. <br />Tofte asked if the applicant was going to landmark the property. <br />McCartney stated the applicant did not intend to landmark at this time. <br />Jacque Blanchard, applicant and owner, stated his purposes for the project and his <br />reasons for not wanting to landmark at this time. <br />Lewis asked the applicant if the proposed tin was still a financial issue for him. <br />Blanchard answered yes. <br />Lewis asked if Blanchard was still interested in funding for the placement of the tin. <br />Blanchard stated it is hard to determine because he was unsure of what restrictions <br />landmarking would bring. He did not want to risk being the first commercial business to <br />landmark. <br />Poppitz stated having another business in town with tin finish would be great. <br />Koertje asked, aside from the tin being shown on the concept plan, are the other <br />architectural elements going to be included. <br />Blanchard stated, aside from the tin, everything else would be included. <br />Public Comments – <br />John Leary stated the proposal is very exciting but it has changed. He stated the <br />applicant should still consider landmarking. He added the tin is very important and the <br />HPF could be used for the funding source. <br />Michael Menaker stated the building does not need to be landmarked to receive <br />funding. He stated the project should be allowed to move forward with a condition the <br />applicant get a pricing for tin siding. <br />Commission Questions and Comments <br />Lewis stated this was a project of merit: <br /> <br /> Applicant has voluntarily brought back design elements without requesting <br />funding. <br /> <br /> She agreed with Menaker in that the applicant should bring back the pricing for <br />tin at a later date. <br />Poppitz stated his agreement with Lewis and added the tin will probably be a very costly <br />element. He also stated the design was great. <br />Tofte stated a couple of concerns: <br /> <br /> The applicant has made a lot of changes in one year. Without landmarking how <br />would we be sure the building would not change more. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.