My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 02 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2015 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 02 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:18 PM
Creation date
2/13/2015 3:20:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2015 02 09
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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 />January 12, 2015 <br />Page 7 of 11 <br /> <br />Mary Terese stated the meeting was widely attended and there was a balanced attitude, more <br />so than in any other community, which means there was not a polarity of interests. She stated <br />it was a surprise to see a post WWII ranch listed as one of the top 3 structures in town. <br />Echohawk asked what the agricultural complex example was. <br />Mary Terese stated that is the red barn south of Community Park. <br />Stewart stated the report is great raw data. <br />Mary Terese then spoke to the upcoming schedule and what are the next steps. She <br />discussed what worked, what didn’t work and what might need to be changed. <br />Stewart asked about a study session with Council. <br />Trice stated that will be in April. <br />Mary Terese presented the list of ongoing issues that will be addressed in the Preservation <br />Master Plan. <br />Stewart stated this is a great list because it will allow us to discuss the elements that need to <br />be addressed. <br />Mary Terese stated this is a 20 year plan so it won’t have to be done too often, unless you <br />want to do amendments on your own. <br />Fahey stated the list does look substantial and inclusive but she doesn’t see a lot of things <br />coming from the public. She believes the list appears to be more from staff, consultant and the <br />commission. She hopes we can see more items from the public before we get to City Council. <br />Trice stated the March 2nd public meeting will pose the question to the public so we can hear <br />from them. <br />Watson stated we should create categories to thin down the list. For example, there are <br />process and code issues we can do sooner rather than wait for the Preservation Master Plan <br />to be adopted. <br />Discussion ensued where the commission recommended minor modifications to the wording of <br />the report. A statement was made the report needs to emphasize the HPF and the benefits <br />that fund brings to the community. Other statements were made to the intent of the master <br />plan. <br />Mary Terese asked about timing of this report. <br />Trice stated the next time to discuss this will be February 3rd with City Council. <br />Some of the commission were upset they didn’t have more time to review this purpose and <br />vision document to discuss and redline.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.