Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 05 15

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 17, 2017 Page 12 of 14 is being currently administered. I prefer to have a give and take with someone who can explain the reasons. Zuccaro says with the HPC, how much detail do you wish to explore in making a recommendation? Chuck Thomas says we can put together a position paper as to why we think there are inequities in the system. Haley asks how many structures would this actually affect. Some of the structures have limited space in general. Before we get into this change, should we evaluate how many structures this could potentially affect? Currently, we have two. We may not encounter this very often. Chuck Thomas says we can do a finite number of structures that are potentially historically Iandmarked that have enough space. There are probably 150 structures along Main Street that this might affect. Fahey says we can give CC the option of waiving a fee or reducing the fee costs; something that gives them the ability to charge less. Currently, I understand CC does have not that. Zuccaro says there is no process that I am aware of in Title 13 where you can waive a fee. There is no district overlay. We are trying to administer it equally for all businesses across the City, because there are no exceptions or waivers that can be requested. Fahey asks even in the Downtown Design Guidelines? Zuccaro says these guidelines are attached to the memo. There is nothing in there than speaks to tap fees. They are site plan and architecture-based requirements. They do not envision whether a tap fee is required. Certainly, fee structures can change how design is done. There are many fees such as parking and in-lieu fees that drive design. Chuck Thomas says waivers are not uncommon in zoning and/or development. They usually have to be supportable by evidence and by actual cost. That may be the direction we want to go in; to suggest on this particular issue, within the Historic Preservation District, that waivers be considered based upon several objectives. I will volunteer for the subcommittee. Haley says regarding the monetary incentive, does the grant money offset it adequately? Koertje says I understand the grant money cannot be directly used. I thought the purpose of the grants was for design and to minimize heights and setbacks. Zuccaro says for new construction, it is an eligible expense. Trice says new construction grants are reviewed for those things, but there are no requirements on how the new construction grants are reimbursed. Chuck Thomas says this is a considerable fee to be applied to the grant. We are suggesting that the fee would not be appropriate based on specific analysis. It can be a solution to an applicant that the tap fee be covered in the new construction grant. That limits the purpose of the grant from our stated purpose of historic preservation and trying to enhance the existing structure. Dickinson says if the City through the HPC gives an applicant $35,000 so you can pay a fee to the City for a tap fee and then it didn't physically happen, that is not the goal. I think a waiver is a more interesting way because it gives discretion to CC. Ulm says I agree because you don't want to put yourself in a position to be policing the construction contract. I think a waiver would directly address the issue as opposed to trying to determine where money is going. Fahey says another issue is that with a waiver, you are eliminating an expense. With a grant, you are giving them an amount of money and regulating how they are allowed to spend it, but you are also requiring them to pay income tax on that money. You don't pay tax on a waived fee. One lady was complaining that one of the reasons she is not landmarking her house is because by the time she pays the extra taxes and is put into a higher money charge, Medicare will charge her extra because of the extra income. If fees are waived, it wouldn't increase her taxes and she would do it.