My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 03 18
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 03 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:21 PM
Creation date
3/25/2019 9:58:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2019 03 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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 />February 18, 2019 <br />Page 9 of 13 <br />Thomas asked if they were keeping the extraordinary circumstance language in the new <br />proposal. <br />Zuccaro replied that they were and that they had added language to specify what that <br />means. <br />Thomas asked if the language specifically addressed that an applicant could come back <br />for additional funds. He asked the commissioners if they wanted to make it explicit that <br />people could come back under extraordinary circumstances. <br />Ulm replied that the extraordinary circumstances language should cover those <br />situations. <br />Dickinson replied that having a timeframe at first was a good idea and that the <br />Commission should allow for extraordinary circumstances at a later date. <br />Klemme asked if the grant amount was tied to the structure or to the owner. <br />Selvoski replied that it was tied to the structure. <br />Zuccaro suggested that the Commission could add language to clarify that the time limit <br />could be extended in extraordinary circumstances. <br />Thomas stated that adding that kind of language would be more transparent. <br />Ulm suggested "not anticipated" or "developed since" that time. <br />Haley thought that 3 years was a really short time and did not account for people who <br />just wanted to landmark their home. She was worried that those folks would avoid <br />landmarking until they were ready to start a project. She also thought the timeline <br />language was a bit confusing. If a homeowner chose to wait and the money was gone <br />then that was a natural consequence. She understood from a staff perspective it was <br />easier to manage projects that were finished, but the purpose of the Fund was to <br />increase incentives for everyone. <br />Dickinson thought it would be a low bar to meet extraordinary circumstances on the <br />timing if someone had landmarked the home a decade ago and the new owner wanted <br />money to preserve the home. <br />Haley asked why, if it would be a low bar, the language should have a time limit in the <br />first place. <br />Dickinson replied that it would incentivize people to move faster when possible. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.