My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 06 15
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 06 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:18 PM
Creation date
6/29/2015 10:17:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2015 06 15
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
388
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 />April 27, 2015 <br />Page 6 of 9 <br />Stewart recommended placing the roofing definition and the Austin Niehoff <br />reconstruction budget on the next agenda. <br />Fahey stated she was under the impression funds were given at time of <br />landmarking and asked why we can give them more money. <br />Trice stated she believed Fahey was asking about the $5,000 signing <br />bonus. The remainder of the HPF funding can be given at any time. <br />Fahey asked data showing how much money has been given to the Austin <br />Niehoff house. <br />Watson stated he would like to see the verbiage for the roof amendment on <br />the next agenda. <br />Trice stated the next agenda was pretty full. <br />Watson told him he insisted on this and stated "the citizens run the city, not <br />the staff ". He then polled the commission to see if they would like to see the <br />Austin Niehoff data on the next agenda. <br />Haley stated she did not feel there was enough time. <br />Stewart stated it would be nice to get the background material if possible. <br />He also recommended talking about the HPF budget. <br />Watson recommended placing that as the last item on the agenda and <br />discuss if time allows. <br />Discussion — Historic Structure Assessment Standards <br />Trice presented the information included in the packet. She stated Stewart <br />provided information from the state historic guidelines as to what should be <br />provided in an historic structure assessment. <br />Fahey asked if the commission was presented with Stewarts findings. <br />Trice stated the information was included in the packet. She then asked the <br />commission if all of the items listed could be done for $900, as well as <br />stating other questions. She stated she isn't sure if an architect can cover all <br />that is listed. <br />Watson stated an assessment by a mechanical contractor and a structural <br />engineer is very valuable. He stated the electrical component is very <br />important. He added an architect does not necessarily provide each <br />element. <br />Trice then asked if this could all be done for $900. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.