My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 05 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2020 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 05 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/18/2020 8:58:54 AM
Creation date
5/15/2020 10:58:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
5/11/2020
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
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 />February 24th, 2020 <br />Page 13 of 14 <br /> <br />Dunlap agreed with Chair Haley that seeing the road map of the property was helpful. <br /> <br />HPC Subcommittees <br />Haley requested that the conversation about subcommittees be moved to the next <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Selvoski replied that she could also share a google document or something similar for <br />the commissioners to share their subcommittee ideas and desires. <br /> <br />Dunlap requested that the commissioners have a meeting about the subcommittees <br />ahead of the Council meeting on March 10th. <br /> <br />Selvoski replied that the Commission was supposed to chat for about 10 minutes with <br />an update for Council, then move into a conversation. <br /> <br />Dunlap noted that Council had asked for priorities, what the Commission had <br />accomplished. <br /> <br />Haley stated that the subcommittee lists had lists of goals for the year. <br /> <br />Dunlap replied that he thought there were more. He gave the example of a list of the <br />properties that have been landmarked. <br /> <br />Haley and Selvoski stated that there were lists and a digital map of the landmarked <br />properties. <br /> <br />Dunlap added that the City website was wrong. <br /> <br />Klemme asked if it was legal to respond via a large email. <br /> <br />Selvoski replied that subcommittees were small enough that they did not require public <br />notice. She noted that the Commission could table the list for another meeting. <br /> <br />Dunlap stated that he would feel better if the Commission had a discussion of what the <br />subcommittees meant and who should be on them. <br /> <br />Klemme agreed and added that she did not feel like the Commission got a lot of traction <br />with its goals last year. She thought the Commission got a lot accomplished in the <br />meetings but not beyond that. She recommended focusing on fewer items per <br />subcommittee. <br /> <br />Ulm agreed and added that the subcommittees did not have the opportunity to meet <br />separately and they should be separate from the monthly meetings. He did not think the <br />meeting with Council was a big opportunity to discuss and share. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.