Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 12 16

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Nlinutes November 19, 2013 Page 8 of 11 Discussion — Commercial Incentives Robinson presented the staff report on commercial incentives. He stated two properties want to use the commercial incentives as soon as they are approved. Stewart stated he has looked over the modifications and agreed with what he saw. He said the biggest discussion item was the process where building assessment funding could be administrative, released at subcommittee. He then added the word "preliminarily" should be "potentially" eligible. He recommended using the language as it is stated in section 15.36. He added the date for the in -kind match, 3 years, is acceptable to him. La Grave recommended including more than 2 HPC members at the subcommittee. Robinson stated it would then be considered a formal meeting which would require posting. He said it isn't impossible but it would take more coordination. Stewart stated he likes the idea of having more transparency at these subcommittee meetings. Koertje stated he would recommend just having a public hearing and have it at the monthly meeting. Fasick stated she liked the idea of having the item come to a formal meeting. Stewart then asked if the commission recommended the item going to City Council. Koertje stated Ballot 2A requires any funding to go to City Council. Watson stated maybe the residential can be released at subcommittee but commercial require a formal review approved by City Council. Erik Hartronft stated this is a great first step, but he doesn't think it goes far enough. He stated commercial property owners will be reluctant to accept all of the conditions without knowing what they are going to granted as an incentive once they landmark. He recommended a contingent grant and incentive program. He stated the grant process is what limits the amount of applications received. Stewart believes the change puts the building assessment ahead of landmarking and sets up expectations of where the grant money would go if the structure is landmarked. Watson inquired about paragraph D, In -Kind matching. He inquired if the in -kind qualifies or not. Robinson stated the language requires documentation of costs, but would be excluded for in -kind funding. Watson recommended amending that portion of the resolution.