My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2010 11 15 APPROVED
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 Minutes 2010 11 15 APPROVED
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:24 PM
Creation date
2/28/2011 9:11:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2010 11 15 APPROVED
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 /> <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 /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.