Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 02 13

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes December 19, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Lewis stated therehas already been a precedent established by the HPC giving money away, but she did believe a limit and match program is necessary. Stewart then explained the distribution exercise sheet. Lewis stated she believed what was being proposed was reasonable butmay need to be updated from time to time. The HPC agreed. Stewart stated a 50/50 match spreads the funding out for more preservation projects, but he does not want it to limit those who apply. Speier stated he believed a 50/50 match would still be an enticement to apply. Stewart stated the cash match is more of a guideline that City Council had asked for at the last Council meeting. He added a guideline, versus policy, allows for more flexibility. Lewis included the cash match may be adjusted based on outside circumstances. Speier asked what happens if an applicant wants to exceed the cap allowance. Stewart stated it would be handled on a case by case basis.He stated a cash match could have exceptions based on special circumstances. Koertje stated general preservation grants are subject to exceptions. McCartney stated he would notify the existing landmark recipients of these potential changes. Lewis recommended the HPC move forward as presented. Koertje asked whether commercial should be defined because there are residential properties in the commercial zone district. McCartney suggested it should stick to zoning classification. Stewart recommended it should remain use specific. Speier recommended residential versus commercial will be left up to the HPCdiscretion therefore no definition is needed. Lewis stated she believed the public expects the HPC to use discretion and believed this guideline was a better use of money. Koertje stated the resolution currently establishes the funding source for the building assessment comes out of the incentives.