My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 09 17
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2012 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 09 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:16 PM
Creation date
9/13/2012 9:32:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2012 09 17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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 />August 20, 2012 <br />Page 2of 10 <br />Jean Morgan restated her interest in notifying those individuals who are interested in <br />demolishing their house just in case someone is interested in relocating the structure. <br />She also inquired how to extend the borders of our area of influence for which the HPF <br />could be used, such as the Hecla-Casino Mine. She would like to see the building be <br />relocated to Community Park. <br />Stewart asked staff if a sign is required on a property which is about to be demo’d. <br />Robinson stated it would only be posted if there was a public hearing. <br />Stewart then commented on expanding the boundaries of the HPF. <br />Koertje stated a request such as this would require a vote by the citizens to reopen the <br />Ballot for amendment. <br />John Leary stated there requires a 4 year time period for which a Ballot may be <br />amended by Council. <br />Pre-filing Conference–none <br />Public Hearing –GrantRequest –1005 La Farge Avenue <br />Robinson presented staff’s report for the grant request. He discussed the specifics <br />being requested in the scope of work and how they represent the priority items listed in <br />the structural assessment. <br />Watson asked how the 7% contingency was established by staff. <br />Robinson answered it was established because it was left over from the $20,000 they <br />are permitted. <br />Watson then asked what the largest grant ever received for a residential property. <br />McCartney answered one of the first grants received was for a window replacement and <br />restoration project. <br />Stewart asked if this proposal is for a grant only or is this also for a certificate of <br />appropriateness. <br />McCartney stated it should be for both the grant and certificate of appropriateness. <br />Robert Qualls stated the contractor chosen for this project was chosen after a series of <br />interviews. <br />Tucker Qualls stated he agreed with Stewart that the structural assessment did not <br />have certain details he had wished, such as a structural review of the roof. He then <br />gave details on the scope of work and how it reflects the building assessment. <br />Phil Barlow stated he does have more detailed drawings if they are interested. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.