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 3 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br /> She is concerned the history of the building is trying to be recreated. <br /> <br /> She cannot agree with the cutting out of the façade. <br />Koertje stated this could be considered a structure of merit, like Leary stated. He had <br />the following comments: <br /> <br /> He cautioned the commission on commenting on items not relevant in the <br />request. The request is for a partial demolition of the roof and front façade. <br /> <br /> This isn’t a true demo so the criterion is different. <br /> <br /> The building might qualify as a landmark, mainly through social significance. <br /> <br /> He does not agree with the cutout of the front façade but understands its <br />importance. He added he hopes this doesn’t start a trend. <br /> <br /> Placing a stay on this request would not serve a purpose. <br /> <br /> Not bothered by removal of roof due to its limited visual impact. <br /> <br /> Not in favor of placing a stay. <br />Lewis stated she agreed with the landmark potential of the building but did not believe a <br />stay was necessary. <br />Koertje stated the applicant could still consider landmarking to fund the placement of the <br />tin. <br />Tofte asked the other commission members if they thought the cutout would ruin any <br />chances for landmarking. <br />Lewis stated her opinion was the current status of the façade is no more landmarkable <br />than if the cutout was done. She stated the other improvements may better the <br />chances of a landmark. <br />Poppitz agreed with Lewis’ statements. <br />Tofte is still concerned about proposed treatments to the false front. She discussed <br />other rooftop patios that have been successful without a cutout in the façade. <br />Koertje requested a motion. <br />Lewis made a motion to release partial demolition of the structure, with the following <br />conditions: <br />1. Partial demo must comply with the design concept provided in the meeting <br />packet. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.