Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elm Street Sidewalks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff: Section 106 review finds Elm Street sidewalks will not affect historic properties; commission urges brick reuse planning
Summary
Staff said an April 7 determination letter found the Elm Street sidewalks project would not affect historic properties; commissioners and public commenters urged reserving removed bricks for future repairs or community reuse and discussed a possible brick stockpile and youth training tied to CDBG funding.
At the commission’s study session on Section 106 review, staff reported that the state historic preservation office had issued a determination that the Elm Street sidewalks improvement project would not affect historic properties. Kate Hemmick told members that she forwarded commissioner comments and construction metadata to Rita Baker (state historic preservation office staff) and that Miss Baker confirmed receipt.
Staff said the determination letter (dated April 7) was attached to the meeting packet and that the commission’s comments had been considered even though the draft letter’s file date predated some submitted comments.
Commissioner Dennis Roberts and others urged the city to reserve bricks removed from Elm Street sidewalks for future replacement in other locations rather than selling them. Roberts proposed a bricks stockpile to provide material for repairs and suggested a youth bricklaying workforce‑training program as a community benefit; he noted some sections of Urbana already have city statute protections for brick sidewalks when a supermajority of adjacent property owners agree to preserve them. Commissioners discussed funding sources such as CDBG funds for potential workforce or preservation programs.
Staff told the commission it did not have immediate data on whether the city maintains a current stockpile of bricks and said it would check and report back. No formal change to the Elm Street project was made at this meeting; the Section 106 determination letter was circulated and the matter remains on the project record.
