My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 08 20
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2018 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 08 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:20 PM
Creation date
8/27/2018 10:13:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2018 08 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 18, 2018 <br />Page7of9 <br />Trice replied that it was not complicated in implementation, but it was complicated in outreach <br />for people who were looking to buy a landmarked property or getting involved in the program. <br />Dickinson agreed that the marketing and simplifying of the message was crucial, but the rules <br />were in place for a reason. <br />Trice asked if it would be helpful to have alternative options for the second question — coming <br />back with ways to simplify the process. The Commission agreed that this would be helpful. <br />Cyndi Thomas stated that eliminating the focused and flexible grants might be helpful. <br />Dickinson stated the $1000 incentive was inconsequential and strange to receive as someone <br />on the other side of the grant process. He suggested it would be easier to explain to the public a <br />process where commissioners and staff could say, "If you landmark, you can get $50,000. <br />Here's how." That would be easier to explain instead of having so many different amounts as <br />you reach and apply for different benchmarks. <br />Cyndi Thomas asked about the intent of question three. <br />Trice stated that the question addressed the new construction grant amounts for commercial <br />grants. The alteration certificate and the new construction grant conflict with each other based <br />on what materials the structures are supposed to be used. <br />Cyndi Thomas replied that the issue should be easy to resolve and the Commission should stick <br />to the Secretary of the Interior requirements. Chuck Thomas concurred. <br />Trice summarized next steps for staff: <br />(1) Come back with an option for a simpler process for participating in the fund. <br />(2) Survey recent grant recipients to evaluate the total costs of their projects and the percent <br />covered by the City. <br />(3) Look into changing the language on new construction grants. <br />She asked what the Commission thought about the HSA amounts. <br />Cyndi Thomas replied that the process seemed fine, but the amounts should be increased. <br />Haley concurred. <br />Trice asked about commercial grant amounts. <br />The Commission agreed that the amounts were generous. Chuck Thomas added that the <br />process could be simplified. <br />Chuck Thomas moved to adjourn for a break due to the hailstorm. Dickinson seconded. <br />Adjourned at 7:35 PM. <br />Call back to order at 7:48 PM. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.