My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 04 15
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2013 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 04 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:09:16 PM
Creation date
4/18/2013 12:00:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2013 04 15
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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 />March 18, 2013 <br />Page 6 of 9 <br /> <br />Ashley Stolzmann stated there are now opportunities existing for this site since the city <br />has ownership. She added the building needs to be landmarked, stabilized and the <br />hazmat removed. She stated she likes the idea of having a museum there. She added <br />she did not believe a parking lot is a good idea, because that would not be a wise use of <br />preservation funds. <br />Randy Caranci, owner of the warehouse to the south, stated there is an encroachment <br />of the elevator on his property that needs to be resolved. <br />Stewart asked why the costs go up after the property is platted. <br />Caranci said it was based on the public land dedication requirement. <br />La Grave stated the HPC is committed to the stabilization of the structure and the <br />landmarking. He recommended we take some time to consider our options after the <br />stabilization and landmarking. <br />Koertje agreed but stated that is not the direction council gave staff. He added we can’t <br />recommend something different. <br />Watson asked about the tax credit option Howards spoke about. He added, based on <br />the pro forma provided by the applicant, most of the HPF will be depleted through this <br />project. <br />Robinson addressed the question regarding the remaining HPF. <br />La Grave asked how the public was involved during this process. He stated it appears <br />there is a single use nature in the RFP which provides a bias as to the potential <br />outcome. <br />Stewart stated the structure was purchased through preservation funds and should be <br />treated as a preservation project first. If we go forward with the stabilization it might <br />generate more interest in the project. He recommends city council move forward with <br />stabilization now and work later on the re-purposing of the structure. <br />La Grave stated his agreement with Stewart. He also recommended doing another <br />RFP that allows alternative uses. <br />Watson recommended an RFP, to consulting contractors, for cost estimates to <br />rehabilitate the structure. <br />Stewart stated this information can come from an architect or engineer. He added it <br />might be best to find out what tax credits might be available for the structure. <br />DeJong stated if the city does the stabilization then there are no tax credits. The city is <br />eligible for competitive grants.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.