Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 09 18

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 17, 2017 Page 10 of 11 Koertje thanks Dickinson and Chuck Thomas for working on this letter. I think it is important that we stay with this. I do have a few recommendations and questions. It seems like when this was brought to us, it was a commercial issue. This proposed recommendation only addresses residential. Is that correct? Dickinson says it does address commercial at the end. I think we wanted simplicity, and we were convinced by the Utility Department about the need for a tap fee for commercial buildings. We came up with a simple solution which is to allow for an additional $25,000 grant money from the HPC in addition to previous maximum amounts. It would be for tap fees. We agree that the tap fee is necessary for the City, but the HPC wants to encourage, not discourage, the separation of two buildings. We would be willing to use HPC funds from the HPF. They can use their grant money for this purpose, but the complaint was the money could be used for a lot of things. If they can get this in addition, it incentivizes them to separate the buildings because it is not an additional cost. I do not think the City will have an issue with the HPC recommending that we'd like to use our own funds to increase the grant money for this specific reason. We are not asking them to change what they do or how they apply the fees to commercial buildings. Most time was spent on the residential because it was a bigger ask. Koertje says the $25,000 grant would be for only new construction so it fits that part of the tax. So it would be in addition to the $75,000 that is currently available? Dickinson says yes. It is only for landmarked buildings, only when doing new construction, and only when the tap fee is charged based on their design to separate the building. It is a very specific instance in which we would like to offer them the additional $25,000. I agree that it feels like the whole letter is about residential when the commercial was how the conversation started. Koertje says I see at the end of the letter, there are two recommendations, one for residential and one for commercial. The addition of the HPC recommendation is helpful. Koertje gives grammatical comments. Cyndi Thomas says practically, we make this recommendation and CC agrees. Where does it go from there? Is there an amendment that needs to happen? Can we do this in advance of preservation tax extension? Trice says CC would have to mak ry . change esolution. It can be done in advance if that is the direction that CC ch ses. L• - it over , there have been changes to how the grant money can be us Fahey makes a mho ac ': the HPC letter to CC, seconded by Cyndi Thomas. Roll call vote. Name Vote Lynda Haley n/a Mike Koertje Yes Debbie Fahey Yes Cyndi Thomas Yes Chuck Thomas n/a Caleb Dickinson Yes Michael Ulm Yes Motion passed/failed: Pass Motion passes 5-0. Items from Staff Demolition Updates 724 Johnson Street On June 23, 2017, Planning Staff and two HPC members reviewed a request demolish the structure at 724 Johnson Street. After deliberation, the HPC subcommittee decided to release the permit because of the minimal social significance.