My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 12 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 12 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:21 PM
Creation date
12/31/2019 11:32:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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 />November 18th, 2019 <br />Page 4 of 8 <br />Dickinson added that the assessment could identify some interesting historical elements <br />that could be saved for the City. He asked that the applicant take care to see what came <br />up in the demolition process, even if they did not assessment. <br />Smith replied that they were hoping to find things in the walls. <br />Klemme noted that Mr. Johnson was very familiar with the assessment process and the <br />last assessment had come in at a number below the grant maximum. <br />Haley asked for public comment. Seeing none, she opened commissioner discussion. <br />Ulm asked if 90 days was enough to do everything the Commission had just mentioned. <br />Dunlap asked if they could add 30 days and if the HSA were completed beforehand <br />they could lift the stay. <br />Ulm asked staff if 90 days was long enough. <br />Selvoski replied that applicants had gone through the assessment process very quickly, <br />but that was probably not possible in all cases. 120 could give more breathing room. <br />Dickinson stated that if they released the demolition, the possibility of going through the <br />process was probably decreased. He thought that if the applicant wanted to do the <br />assessment, they could start it in December. The 90 days could get them to look into <br />the process, which they could continue past January 1st if they wanted. He thought 90 <br />days was plenty to look into the process for the applicant. <br />Klemme asked if the applicant would have to wait for another meeting to get the <br />assessment going. <br />Selvoski responded that they could come to the December meeting and ask for it, and <br />they would pause long enough to do it. If they didn't want to do the assessment, they <br />wouldn't. <br />Haley asked if anyone had any issues with the 90-day stay. <br />Dickinson stated that a 0-day stay and a request to do the assessment would be the <br />same timeline as the 90-day timeline if the applicants wanted to look into the process <br />and the assessment. <br />Smith stated that the 120 was fine with them, they just wanted to get in before the <br />abatement costs got more expensive. He thought the HSA sounded like a good idea, <br />especially since it was good for the City. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.