My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2012 04 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2012 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2012 04 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:25 PM
Creation date
7/16/2012 1:33:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2012 04 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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 />April 16, 2012 <br />Page 4 of 9 <br /> <br />John Leary - the extra-ordinary circumstances should be used rather than the new <br />construction argument. That is why the extraordinary circumstances was established. <br />To say previous work should be included without great effort could create a dangerous <br />precedent. <br />Koertje - regardless of the extra-ordinary circumstances we would still need to discuss <br />matching funds. I think it is up for discussion but there would need to be some very <br />detailed information. But that is up to Council <br />Lewis - Financial hardship is another extra-ordinary circumstance. We have to be <br />careful of this, primary for precedents setting, but it should be included. <br />Stewart - I can't imagine there wouldn't be a requirement for some type of contribution, <br />especially since there is additional square footage. <br />Fasick - you could also consider going to the state for additional grant funding and tax <br />credits. <br />Stewart - if you landmark locally you automatically qualify for tax credit. <br />Lewis - with the new addition I think it is assumed the property owner would pay for the <br />addition, or have some sort of investment. <br />Stewart - what would happen if you don't do the new structure <br />McCarthy - then we don't get new bathrooms - we don't have enough space. <br />Lewis - how much would the new addition cost <br />Hartronft - I will let you know that but first the new addition is actually needed to further <br />preserve the existing structure. The new addition IS preservation. We have thoroughly <br />studied this building and know there is no other way to add these bathrooms without a <br />new addition. <br />Lewis - as a guess I see you spending up to $500,000 on the project. <br />Hartronft - yes. <br />Koertje - if the applicant is ready to move on this I would suggest them moving forward <br />with the landmarking request. <br />Lewis - other than time and annoyance there isn't anything lost in bringing this <br />application forward. <br />Hartronft - Can we get a better understanding of which direction you all are favoring? <br />Lewis - I personally support this project but I know this will be a huge amount of money. <br />It is hard to garner whether council will approve. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.