My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 12 13
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 12 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:15 PM
Creation date
1/10/2011 10:26:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2010 12 13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
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 15, 2010 <br />Page 8 of 10 <br />Stewart stated the application is put together fairly well and appreciated the breakdown <br />of the labor and materials. He added the drainage issues should require a drawing to <br />be reviewed by staff. <br />Brucker stated he could provide staff with a drawing. <br />Lewis stated the commission could only approve a portion of the work and ask for <br />additional information on other items. <br />Koertje recommended moving forward with items A through D, H and L and place a hold <br />on items E and F. Item E should be reviewed by staff and item F should require <br />additional drawings. <br />Lewis agreed and asked what category the grants should be drawn from. <br />Koertje replied the drainage and carport can come from the regular grant. Paint would <br />have to come from $5,000 incentive grant. <br />Popptiz stated he agreed. <br />Koertje made a motion to approve items A through D, H and L. He stated items C, D, <br />and L could be covered by the $5,000 incentive grant. He also added staff should <br />review items E and F and bring them back in December and that no contingency will be <br />included in this request because the work has already been done. <br />Stewart seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 – 0. <br />Update/Discussion/Action – Cemetery Landmark <br />McCartney discussed the memo included in the packet. <br />Dean Johnson, Parks Superintendent, presented and stayed to answer questions. <br />Tofte asked how other municipalities landmarked their cemeteries. <br />Johnson stated he was not sure. <br />Stewart asked if Johnson had identified any potential conflicts with the proposed <br />landmark request and the Parks Departments future plans. <br />Johnson stated the biggest concern was the expedition of the services that need to <br />happen within 48 hours, such as digging new burial sites. This would not follow the <br />HPC hearing process. <br />Stewart asked who is responsible for maintenance of each site. <br />Johnson answered the city is responsible for maintenance of the site. <br />Koertje asked if there was an agreement with the plot owner. <br />Johnson said no but they have to follow certain rules and regulations. <br />Koertje asked if there was a standard deed the commission could review. <br />Johnson said yes, he could provide a copy for the commission to review. <br />Lewis stated she would like more information on other cemeteries, such as Lafayette <br />and Boulder. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.