My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 10 18
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2010 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 10 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2024 12:51:47 PM
Creation date
10/26/2010 2:34:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2010 10 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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 />September 20, 2010 <br />Page 10 of 11 <br />Stewart stated the state assessment grant was now up to $15,000. He continued to <br />state $15,000 added to the $30,000 being requested is a fair amount. <br />The commission further discussed the details of the grant request. <br />Stewart recommended the grant amount should not exceed $40,000. If the state grant <br />is included, the amount could reach $55,000. <br />Koertje asked for a motion. <br />Stewart made a motion to approve the assessment request and stated it should not <br />exceed $40,000. <br />Lewis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 4 to 0 (Muckle had left <br />the meeting during this discussion). <br />Update/Discussion/Action – Commercial Incentives <br />McCartney presented memo. <br />Stewart stated there should be two criteria: <br />1. Incentives for landmarks <br />2. Incentives for structures of character <br />Koertje added if not eligible for landmark, then a conservation easement could be used. <br />Tofte asked who would decide which structure complies with criteria for “structure of <br />merit”. <br />Stewart stated the commission would be the group to decide. <br />Koertje asked what the next steps were – should the commission meet with the <br />downtown owners. <br />Stewart recommended a “road show” or workshop. <br />Koertje volunteered to work with Stewart on this. He did not believe this needed to be <br />brought back to the commission. <br />Stewart recommended taking this to the business retention and development (BRaD) <br />group and the Downtown Business Association (DBA). <br />Update/Discussion/Action – Plaque Prices <br />McCartney presented the memo included in the packet. <br />The commission discussed whether the plaque should be bronze or laminate. <br />Stewart stated he liked the bronze example with the relief. <br />Lewis and Tofte agreed. <br />Stewart stated the design should be recognizable. <br />Koertje recommended to continue the request and bring back a sample of the laminate. <br />Tofte recommended the commission review the bronze plaque at Memory Square. <br />Update/Discussion/Action – Preservation Awards <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.