Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 08 20

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2018 Page3of9 Chuck Thomas stated that the Rec Center might be another option once it was completed, since it would have a lot of foot traffic. Haley asked if there was any place inside City Hall where the sign could fit. Ritchie replied that there did not seem to be a spot in City Hall. The Rec Center architect had found a potential location in the new lobby that could accommodate the sign. No one voiced objections to the Rec Center location. Cyndi Thomas replied that she was fine with it, but preferred the library. The Commission discussed putting the sign inside versus outside. They agreed that outside locations could be confusing. Dickinson stated that if the sign were outside but internal to the museum complex, it might work. The Commission agreed that they would rank the possible temporary locations as: (1) Inside the library. (2) Outside the Museum, but internal to the site. (3) Inside the Rec Center. Everyone agreed that ultimately they wanted the sign at the Museum. Historic Preservation Fund Reauthorization Trice explained that the main goal for the discussion at this meeting was for the Commission to ask staff for additional information that they would need to make recommendations to rewrite the HPF grant resolution. Staff proposes three guiding questions for the discussion: (1) What should the maximum amounts be for historic structure assessments, residential grants, and commercial grants? (2) Are there ways to simplify the grant process, eliminate barriers to landmarking, and make the program more user-friendly? (3) Should the resolution update the new construction grant criteria to match alteration certificate language? (4) How should changes apply to previously landmarked properties? Is this an incentive to landmark or a way to facilitate maintenance? Dickinson stated that fund incentives did not need to apply to previously landmarked properties. He encouraged the City to use the money to support greater amounts for new grants rather than supporting previous projects. However, he added that he could imagine himself coming back with his historic property and asking the City to start a maintenance project for things like ongoing painting of the original wood. Fahey added that the cost of living would continue to go up, but that does not mean someone should be able to come back and get more money due to that rise in cost. Grants are for stabilization not for maintenance. Dickinson clarified that he had not made up his mind yet. Since the maintenance amount would feasibly respond to ongoing maintenance issues, it was not just a reflection of an increase of costs over time. For projects that the City has already spent money on it seemed like a good opportunity. He added that maintenance cases would have to be matching.