My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2021 09 20
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2021 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2021 09 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2022 3:02:09 PM
Creation date
2/3/2022 2:56:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
9/20/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Quality Check
2/3/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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 />20 September 2021 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />Bauer noted that all the replacement windows would be 3 over 1 in this proposal. <br />General agreement that this proposal was the point of the matching grant and the amount <br />seemed reasonable. <br />Klemme moved to approve Resolution 8, Series 2021, and Commissioners Burg and Dunlap <br />seconded. Motion approved unanimously by roll call vote. <br />ITEMS FROM STAFF <br />Bauer shared subcommittee deliberations for 801 Main Street and details about the upcoming <br />plaque ceremony. She noted that there would be a joint session at the October 18th meeting to <br />update the commission on the updates to the Old Town Overlay. <br />Dunlap asked if 809 Main had been forward to the full commission and Planner Bauer replied <br />that it had not as of yet. <br />Bauer presented two historic structure assessments, the first for 724-728 Main Street. She <br />described the changes to the structure over time and the scope of work for structural elements <br />that would need to be addressed to preserve the building, including reviewing the foundation <br />support systems and the floor framing. The second structure was 928 LaFarge and Planner <br />Bauer presented changes over time and the scope of work for structural work, including <br />removing the vinyl siding and reviewing the crawlspace walls. <br />Haley asked if the assessments had included structural engineers. <br />Josh Johnston, with DAJ Design at 922A Main Street, stated that they had a structural <br />professional visit the house and make the recommendations regarding structural work. He noted <br />that they couldn't go in and specify each item with a house of this size but they could observe <br />that the soil had been compromised, giving them an idea of what to look for without getting too <br />specific. The engineers for assessments were not hired to say here's what needs to be done on <br />a specific level, more to look at what needs to be addressed and reviewed. <br />Klemme appreciated Planner Bauer's presentation and staff packet and Chair Haley agreed and <br />added that it was helpful to see these projects again. <br />Dunlap asked whether the Assessment should include the structural engineering element, as <br />per the Commission's previous conversations. He noted that this was a little vague even though <br />structural engineers were involved in both projects. <br />Klemme replied that the assessments had made note of the issues but that it wouldn't be until <br />the applicant wanted grant money that the Commission would need more specifics about who <br />the applicant had talked to. <br />Bauer noted that some assessments did include written narratives from the structural engineer <br />in addition to the structural engineering comment within the assessment. Structural engineers <br />would go further into detail for project applications rather than at this stage. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.