My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2021 04 19
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2021 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2021 04 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2021 2:45:16 PM
Creation date
10/19/2021 8:01:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
4/19/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Quality Check
10/19/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 />19 April 2021 <br />Page 8 of 11 <br />Klemme stated that she did not think it was asking too much to have a number for proposed <br />work in the assessment. <br />Dunlap stated that this could happen during the SOW. <br />Haley summarized ideas for the revised application process: <br />1. Proposal from your architect for a SOW regarding what the architect and/or structural <br />engineer will look at in the assessment <br />2. Staff reviewing draft of assessment <br />Klemme clarified that the revised application process was for the roles of the architect and the <br />structural engineer in the assessment process. <br />Zuccaro noted that the assessment instructions already contained a required SOW for the <br />assessment itself. He suggested that the new SOW could include a request to describe who the <br />assessor was hiring as sub -consultants. <br />Bauer confirmed that the assessment requirements did include a scope for the report. <br />Haley clarified that the new SOW would cover the money that the contractors were planning to <br />charge the client for the assessment and that the draft of the assessment would be the time at <br />which staff would check the scope of work for the assessment itself. <br />Dunlap added that it may be helpful simply to let people know that a structural engineer was one <br />of their options for the assessment, and that you may or may not need the full amount based on <br />what your assessment involves. <br />Klemme noted that these additions would help navigate extraordinary circumstances regarding <br />structural issues down the line. <br />Bauer summarized that she would add clearer language in the information packet about having <br />a structural engineer work on the assessment; make sure that the draft review process is stated <br />as a requirement; and add the requirement for an SOW for the assessment funds. She <br />suggested that this last item could take the form of a box on the application where the applicant <br />could share any knowledge of structural issues that they may encounter in the assessment, and <br />that if the applicant was simply landmarking they would not have to fill out that section. She <br />added that she would bring a draft SOW for the Commission to review. <br />Discussion/Direction: Coloring Book <br />Bauer summarized the status of the coloring book. <br />Haley noted that there may be a partnership opportunity with the Museum and that the museum <br />foundation could sell the book as a fundraising effort. <br />Bauer replied that she had discussed the project with the Museum Coordinator. <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.