My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012_March15_Minutes
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Historic Preservation Commission
>
Minutes
>
2012
>
2012_March15_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/4/2012 1:20:00 PM
Creation date
9/4/2012 1:19:59 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />require a building permit. <br /> <br />Ms. Davison stated that when an applicant has asked for review, it is an opportunity to <br />make suggestions. <br /> <br />Ms. Ghasedi stated that the members can give suggestions as a courtesy, but does not <br />want a situation in which every business that comes in and wants to put a sign up, for <br />example, would have to wait 30 days to get on an HPC agenda. <br /> <br />Mr. Myers asked if adding an exterior element to the building would be the same as <br />adding to the building. He mentioned that antennas and cell towers have been viewed <br />as additions to buildings in the past. <br /> <br />Mr. Wesenberg asked about how heavy the equipment is. <br /> <br />Ms. Ghasedi stated that when code was written they did not consider items such as <br />surveillance cameras. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith asked if it makes a difference that they do not appear to be permanent <br />installations. <br /> <br />The HPC members agreed that they would only make advisory comments regarding the <br />proposed surveillance cameras. <br /> <br />Mr. Lai agreed that advisory comments would be made that way any concerns with <br />appearance would be on the record. <br /> <br />Ms. Ghasedi stated that compatibility with existing building elements should be <br />considered. <br /> <br />Ms. Schmidt stated that they would review the request as submitted as an advisory <br />consultation offering comments with no intent for a motion, just comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Myers asked about proposed finish and potential for exposed conduit. <br /> <br />The applicant stated that with the corner mounts proposed there is the possibility of <br />exposed conduit. He stated they could paint the conduit or penetrate the wall so not all <br />conduit would be exposed. There are options. <br /> <br />Mr. Myers stated that for exposed fasteners, even the finish, he recommended a dark <br />bronze or black finish. He mentioned that other buildings with cameras often conflict <br />with the building façade or other elements. If a corner mount is used, it should be <br />installed right on the corner. If not a corner mount, it should be centered over a building <br />element. It should be designed to fit with existing building elements. <br /> <br />The applicant stated that information is to be presented to building owners. He added <br />that a lower mount can capture more on the street. The preference would be to install <br />on streetlights, but that is not permitted. He stated they intend to match any paint to the <br />existing buildings so it blends. <br />34 <br />Page of <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.