Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 07 15

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 17, 2013 Page 2 of 9 Robinson presented the information provided in staff’s report stating the structure qualifies as a landmark based on social history, architectural integrity, and geographical location. Questions of Staff Griffin asked what the difference was between the landmark process for the commercial and residential grants. Robinson stated the processes are the same. Commission Comments Stewart asked for any conflicts of interest. La Grave stated he approached the owner about the program, as part of public outreach, prior to his application. Stewart stated he had the same conversations. He stated he did not believe either were a conflict of interest because financial gain was not involved. Stewart stated he agrees with staff’s recommendation. Public Comments - None Stewart stated part of his discussion with the applicant is they need to paint the building as soon as possible. Robinson reminded the HPC the applicant will receive a $10,000 signing bonus which could be used for painting. Stewart asked the applicant if he has received any estimates on painting costs. Levy Villa, the applicant, stated they had received estimates in the amount of $6,000 for painting. He stated this did not include repairing the detailing on the roof. La Grave stated the sidewalks appear to be higher than the foundation, which might be causing some water damage. Villa stated his contractor stated the damage to the structure is due to the proximity of the building to the sidewalk. Stewart stated on his walk around of the building he noticed it has retained quite a bit of the historical fabric and detailing but it does need preservation work to stop any further deterioration. He added he believed this structure appears to qualify as a landmark. La Grave stated he was concerned the painting would not be able to proceed without approval of the grant.