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 4 of 4 <br />Dunlap stated that one of the hopes they had was to accept or reject grant proposals that <br />requested rehabilitation work and asked if that too much to expect from an assessment. <br />Bauer replied that they were following the questions asked in the assessment and that's where <br />the engineers' answers came from. They could ask other questions if the Commission wanted. <br />She added that there were grants from the state that existed for this kind of work. <br />Haley asked if Dunlap wanted cost estimates or more detail. <br />Dunlap replied that estimates would be ideal but might not be possible. On the other hand, he <br />stated that maybe they were a little vague on what they were expecting from the engineers and <br />maybe that's why the engineers' answers were vague. <br />Haley summarized that Planner Bauer gave a synopsis of the report but the assessment that <br />had been submitted was more detailed and she stated that that might be helpful to see the <br />assessment itself. Other commissioners noted this was in the packet. <br />Klemme stated she felt good about the level of information and asked Planner Bauer for more <br />detail in the next meeting's presentation. <br />Haley noted that the staff packet showed all that information and added that any amounts in <br />assessments would not reflect constant changes in pricing. She added that there was also a lot <br />of work that had to go into figuring out the crawlspace issues, for example, and the assessors <br />would not mess with that if they didn't end up doing anything. <br />Dunlap stated that he was talking about the fact that both assessment said that they needed <br />more structural work. He agreed with Chair Haley that it was about making sure they were <br />getting their money's worth on the assessments to better understand the extent of comments <br />stating that further assessment was required. <br />UPDATES FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS <br />Dunlap asked about having an ongoing table of projects to be available to the public. He gave <br />the example of the status of different landmarking efforts. <br />Discussion ensued on how to keep updated on ongoing projects. <br />Klemme stated that staff updates on ongoing projects could be helpful in the agenda and Chair <br />Haley suggested a single document that had that information. <br />ADJOURN <br />Burg motioned to adjourn and Klemme seconded. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote. <br />Meeting adjourned at 7:44 PM. <br />14/1 <br />Andrea Klemme, Vice Chair <br />Lynda Haley, Chair <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.