Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 08 20

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2018 Page6of9 Dickinson stated that the Grain Elevator sprinklers were necessary for code since they were fire sprinklers. Chuck Thomas clarified that fire code sprinklers might be fundable as something more important than a cosmetic upgrade. Trice reminded the Commission that they could not address specific projects that were not on the agenda. She also explained that "preservation" was to keep structures in their `ruined' states. The City Historic Preservation program was generally about "rehabilitation," which did include things like code upkeep. `Restoration' brought structures back to a specific period of time. Dickinson agreed that it was important to clarify what the Commission wanted for structures in the City. Chuck Thomas added that the predominant purpose of the program was rehabilitation, i.e. the reuse and adaption of a structure to move forward in time and be usable, which is what the program wanted to incentivize. Trice redirected the Commission to address what information they needed from staff to answer the four central questions. She recapped that Cyndi Thomas requested some more information. Fahey requested a timeline of the process, including Council meetings and other deadlines. Trice stated that the original timeline included tonight's meeting as the initial discussion, a second meeting with HPC to figure out what they wanted to recommend in an updated ordinance and resolution, a meeting to review a draft of the ordinance and resolution, a third meeting with HPC for a final review of the ordinance and resolution, and two readings at Council on the ordinance. Trice clarified that the ordinance needed to be done by the end of the year, but the resolution did not have to follow the ordinance directly. Cyndi Thomas asked if the flexible versus focused grants were an issue for people. Trice stated that the distinction was confusing for applicants, particularly the code -required amounts since structures in Old Town tend to max out that grant amount quickly with multiple code compliance issues. She added that playing around with the match and where it was required might be an option. Chuck Thomas asked if there was a structural component that could be funded in total and some of the match toward that could be for something else in the structure. Trice replied that it was limited to projects eligible under the current resolution. There could be a project that maxed out the $5,000 with structural projects such as sewer and electrical upgrades and then did not apply for anything else. She added that some commercial grants did not touch the matching component while they took the money for new construction. Dickinson asked what staff found to be complicated about the grant process.