My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012_May17_Minutes
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Historic Preservation Commission
>
Minutes
>
2012
>
2012_May17_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/4/2012 1:25:03 PM
Creation date
9/4/2012 1:25:02 PM
Metadata
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
<br />Ms. Schmidt stated that another item was the bollards; the bollards around the existing <br />lights at each end of the crosswalk. <br /> <br />Ms. Schmidt stated that in her opinion there was not much historical value to the <br />bollards and the purpose was more for protecting those waiting to cross. <br /> <br />Ms. Schmidt stated that the general design approach for the project was good; that it <br />captured the civic quality, fit the purpose of the Historic District, and that the design <br />team was going in a good direction. She added that there were some details still to be <br />discussed. <br /> <br />Ms. Schmidt stated this was an application for design review for conformance with <br />district standards and asked if the Commission was at a point to make a motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith asked what was being approved; if it was the concept. He added that they <br />had identified areas for follow-up. <br /> <br />Mr. Myers asked why the Commission would approve 60% drawings. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith stated there was not enough information to vote on. He added that it seemed <br />there were a lot of outstanding questions to be resolved and he felt that more <br />information was needed to vote. <br /> <br />Ms. North stated there was a lot of valuable information shared but not a lot to vote on. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith stated he did not want to vote it down because the design team had done a <br />good job. <br /> <br />Mr. Hubbman stated they still had things to figure out and gather more information. He <br />stated they did not want to get into a mode in which they are just interacting every <br />month but would rather get information to the Commission while still making progress <br />and come back to the Commission next month or whenever necessary to resolve the <br />issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith suggested postponing a decision on the issue until further guidance on the <br />issues discussed tonight. He added that scheduling could be up to the design team. <br /> <br />Ms. Schmidt stated that the items listed seem like they could be answered. <br /> <br />Mr. Myers asked about when the 90% drawings would be complete. <br /> <br />Mr. Nittler stated they are shooting for completion of the 90% drawings on July 15 and <br />the final drawings on August 15. <br /> <br />Mr. Hubbman asked if there was a way for the roundabout to be ahead of the rest of the <br />development. <br /> <br />Mr. Nittler stated he cannot say for sure that the roundabout could move ahead earlier <br />than the other items; but they should be able to address the issues discussed tonight. <br />810 <br />Page of <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.