Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 05 15

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 17, 2017 Page 8 of 14 has to be an actual addition to a building to be considered two premises. This is how I understand it. 945 Front is an example where there was an addition to the structure and there is one tap fee. It is really two units on one property. Chuck Thomas says the past practice that I am familiar with is that if there is a shared wall, it is considered an addition. A connection is just that. Whether that is the interpretation locally is another issue. Fahey says the other issue from the public discussion was if an applicant takes a retail business and adds a residence or residences onto the back, that changes whether it is one structure. It could be considered a retail, an office, and a residence. Would that be three different tap fees? Chuck Thomas says if it is a multi-use building of several stories, each story could be a separate use, but it could be one structure. The issue to me is the definition of what an addition is rather than the use within the addition. Zuccaro says a live -work type of development does require separate taps. There was a policy discussion with City Council a couple years ago. It was determined that there should be separate tap fees for live -work units within a commercial building. My understanding is that if it is one building, you can have one tap. If there is a residence, there is a separate tap fee. Fahey says the discussion at HPC was because the applicant was interested in putting a residence on the back of a Main Street retail, they didn't want to pay a second tap fee. UIm says that is the point. Do you believe that is clearly defined now? If it is considered an addition to a building, would two separate uses still be two taps? Zuccaro says I will have to research that and come back with a definitive answer. UIm says I can see where that would bea, .ncentive if you are trying to develop that kind of project. Fahey says that is the discussion HPC waited to have. Let's get this cleared up and figure out what CC does want to require on historic structures. On Main Street, people want to add a residence and make it a live -work facility. Zuccaro says that is a policy discussion thath recently taken place. If there is a need to bring it up again, we can come back with more information on exactly what would be applied. There is no distinction currently on our tap fee structure for Downtown versus any other part of the city or the age of the structure. All business are treated the same throughout the City. Fahey asks if there is anything in the Downtown Design Guidelines that would address this issue. Zuccaro says no, it is a separate issue from the design requirements. All the live -work units we have dealt with on policy level have been proposals for new units. Koertje asks how this applies. At 836 Main, behind it is the other house which is now Por. If Por were still a derelict house and they wished to do the project now and make it into a restaurant, would that require a separate tap fee. Zuccaro says I presume so if they are separate structures. If they are physically separated structures on one lot and two separate businesses, and there is an existing tap, it could perhaps be grandfathered. If it is one historic structure and they are building a brand new detached structure, it would require a separate tap. If they are two existing structures currently operating off one tap, perhaps those would be grandfathered in. Koertje says if 836 Main had chosen to expand, build an addition, and demolish the old house, would there be a new tap fee? Zuccaro says no. Any structure where it is an addition and not two separate structures, it is one tap fee. Public comment: Peter Stewart, 1132 Jefferson Avenue, Louisville, CO Stewart presents from Power Point.