My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2011 09 06
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2011 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2011 09 06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:44:31 PM
Creation date
12/5/2011 10:19:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
9/6/2011
Original Hardcopy Storage
7D4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2011 09 06
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
City Council <br /> Meeting Minutes <br /> September 6, 2011 <br /> • Page 5 of 12 <br /> The proposed grant caps would help ensure funding from the HPF is allocated in an <br /> equitable manner and sufficient funds are reserved for anticipated priority projects like <br /> the Grain Elevator. A preservation master plan would potentially create a list of which <br /> preservation project grants should be allocated. <br /> Staff recommended a guideline of 60% of HPF grant funding be reserved for residential <br /> structures and 40% be reserved for commercial structures. Staff requested City Council <br /> direction on the proposed grant to inform the Historic Preservation Commission's <br /> discussion of these issues during the September 12th public workshop on this matter. <br /> COUNCIL COMMENTS <br /> Councilor Dalton noted the City does not require a deed restriction with landmarking <br /> and asked if other municipalities do. Principal Planner McCartney stated Black Hawk <br /> has deed restrictions requiring the owner to live in the home for five years, if the City <br /> pays for the restoration. <br /> Councilor Dalton stressed the importance of the owners of Landmarked properties <br /> understanding that if the HPC does not approve what they propose, they will not be <br /> permitted to go forward. He recommended revisions to the program. 1) To restructure <br /> the incentives and sequences by getting the structural assessments before the property <br /> • is landmarked. 2) The Historic Preservation Funds should be restricted to those <br /> elements to restore and preserve the structure and its features, but not to include <br /> routine maintenance such as painting, which is the responsibility of the homeowner. 3) <br /> Request the HPC to propose a value system to the City Council, which would inform <br /> what the caps might be on repairs and restoration of the structures. 4) Modify the <br /> approach where all the historic preservation tax revenues will be used. He felt any funds <br /> available after the historic preservation tax sunsets could be refunded to the residents. <br /> Councilor Muckle voiced his desire to hear the HPC recommendation. He favored <br /> maintaining reserves, flexibility and guidelines. He supported caps with some flexibility <br /> and minimal surveys. He was comfortable with the HPC's determination of restoration <br /> and maintenance. <br /> Mayor Pro Tem Marsella supported commercial structure grants, guidelines and <br /> flexibility. She stated there is an element of fairness in a cap, but that too should have <br /> flexibility. She favored more preservation and restoration and less general maintenance. <br /> Councilor Sackett addressed redevelopment or partial redevelopment of properties. He <br /> felt it is important to review all options before committing funds. <br /> Councilor Dalton did not want to tie down funding allocations or caps. He supported a <br /> minimal survey and suggested giving the HPC some perspective on the City Councils' <br /> • point of view. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.