My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2009 09 21
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2009 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2009 09 21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:14 PM
Creation date
10/28/2009 12:30:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2009 09 21
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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
<br />Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 20, 2009 <br />Page 7 of 9 <br /> <br />Update/Discussion/Action - Programming of Historic Preservation Fund, <br />next steps <br />Whiteman asked staff to brief the Commission as to why the application was on <br />the agenda. McCartney stated it was placed on the agenda on Commission <br />direction so the application format could be discussed and finalized. <br /> <br />The Commission discussed the specific elements of the draft application that was <br />presented to them by staff. They went page by page and element by element to <br />determine how the application should look. Some of the topics discussed were <br />as follows: <br />. Muckle recommended there should be no deadlin <br />incentives. <br />. Lewis stated there should be a limit on the a <br />so that they do not request for too much m <br />. The Commission discussed establishin <br />$25,000 at one time. <br />. McCartney reminded the Commis " <br />than likely have to pay taxes on <br />. The Commission discussed whethe <br />considered. It was decide that acces <br />. The Commission decide ve scon <br />recipients - the process s sim <br />. The Commission decided to <br />application. Ko d Whit <br />criteria to ne The <br />sconng s~ <br />. The Com <br />integrity on <br />. M <br /> <br /> <br />pply for the grant <br /> <br />t can be requested <br />element. <br />no more than <br /> <br />ill out criteria for their <br />n back some draft <br />ot want to include a points <br /> <br />terior improvements and structural <br />ts. <br />e ission should create a Guide to <br />t can be applied for. <br />d to create a list of eligible costs and <br /> <br />land ark" is to be discussed at next meeting. <br /> <br />The final irect staff to bring a revised application, based on the <br />comments re II as a draft Guide to Programs to the meeting in <br />August (Augus ). <br /> <br />Update/Discussio /Action - Downtown Design Guidelines and Old Town <br />Overlay Regulations <br />Whiteman opened the discussion by recommending a meeting date should be <br />chosen for the upcoming joint meeting between two HPC representatives and <br />two Planning Commission (PC) representatives to discuss the Downtown Design <br />Guidelines and Old Town Overlay Regulations. <br /> <br />Williams, one of the HPC representatives, stated he could not do Thursday <br />nights because he has class. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.