Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 05 15

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 17, 2017 Page 10 of 14 other factors" You have two buildings here that pay totally different amounts which means they are not related to the use of water. Our current policy is not consistent with what the ordinance says. We are not basing it on the use of water, but basing it arbitrarily on two different buildings of two different sizes which use different amounts of water that will pay different water tap fees. The one that uses less water will pay the higher fee. It needs to be looked at. Zuccaro says on a commercial tap fee, the City does it on a demand base. This is an attempt to be equitable to all users. We have a structure now where it is based on meter size and on annual demand. Changing the tap fee structure was an attempt to create more equity. You can have the same size line going into a commercial property and use vastly different amounts of water. With these types of regulations and policies, there are so many variables in the City. It is trying to strike a balance between something that can be administered efficiently and also try to find the balance of equity. Fahey asks if there is a way to alter the requirements or guidelines based on the Historic Overlay, which could have different tap requirements than a business on McCaslin or South Boulder Road, as an incentive from the HPC or Planning Department in order to encourage more thoughtful additions or landmarking of historic structures. Zuccaro says yes, it is ultimately up to CC to amend the ordinance. Theoretically, you could create an Overlay District where there would be a different tap fee structure. Trying to balance that with how everyone is treated across the City and making sure the maintenance of water and sewer system is paid for equitably, all water usage is paid for. If the HPC wants to make a recommendation to CC to explore some different policy, I anticipate there will be a discussion about if the policy is changed. Are they paying their fair share within the District boundaries? Fahey says there are inefficiencies and inequities in housing. It is based on square footage, not per person using water within the house. A 1000 SF ranch with seven people using a lot of water is different than a 5,000 SF with two people living in it. Trying to achieve a perfect balance across the City in businesses will be just as difficult. Within the Historic Overlay, we could do some incentives that would encourage preservation of the structures. Cyndi Thomas says I would recommend that CC take a closer look at this. Whenever we put regulations in place, there are unintended consequences. As we go forward, nobody thought we would dis-incentivizing people to do sensitive new development on the back of a property. Our community has established that our historic buildings are important to us. If we are dis- incentivizing people and we have concrete examples where this is going on, we need to take a closer look at it. It is complicated but we are a small city, and I don't think there are so many examples that it could overburden us. We can tackle it. Chuck Thomas says the demand base system is the equity issue. You use more water, you have more affluence, and you pay more. The additional tap fee structure does, in fact, provide a disincentive for preserving the original structure as pristinely as you might do. However, recognizing that the increased square footage on that property will increase demand and, therefore, the equity would be covered by the increased cost of that water and sewer seems to be the approach to take, rather than adding an additional tap fee. I am not sure what the additional tap fee accomplishes if you have a demand base structure in place, which you imply we have. Zuccaro says when you are purchasing a new tap for a commercial property, it is based on demand, not based solely on the size of the tap. Chuck Thomas says if you have a structure being proposed on an existing property and you have sensitive redevelopment of that property to preserve the original structure, wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate the usage of that entire property, the historic structure in combination with the new structure? The demand of the use of the water and sewer would then