Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 04 29

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 18, 2019 Page 6 of 13 Thomas replied that the previous bar of "extraordinary circumstances" was too high and that that bar had been made easier to determine and made more open so that applicants could apply for grants over a longer period of time. Dickinson stated that the only benefit of the timeline was to incentivize property owners to take care of the problems with their homes as soon as possible, rather than farther down the line when the problems have increased. For situations in which applicants had no immediate problems and then 10 years later they had problems with their foundations, he thought that was a clear case of extraordinary circumstances. At the same time, he acknowledged that commissioners in the future may interpret extraordinary circumstances differently. For him, that language meant that the applicant had to answer "Why now?" in showing extraordinary circumstances. Haley added that the Commission had discussed extraordinary circumstances as applying to situations in which someone had inherited a landmarked home. She added that one of the reasons for a timeline that the Commission had discussed was that the information in the assessment would be irrelevant after a certain amount of time. Dickinson noted that all homes deteriorate over a long enough period of time, landmarked or not. Zuccaro stated that the proposed language allowed staff to ask for a new HSA after five years if staff felt it was necessary. Staff had also talked about comparable situations like how building permits expired after a certain period of time, since City codes, conditions, and policies can change. He noted that the Commission could always change the resolution in the future, though that would make it more complicated to work with multiple resolutions. Klemme noted that there was nothing in the definition of extraordinary circumstances in the proposed language that addressed not having the money at the time, even though that was the example the Commission kept giving for extraordinary circumstances. Thomas agreed that that would be one extraordinary circumstance. Dickinson noted that the Commission could use "should" versus "shall" in the language to mark recommendations versus requirements. He suggested possibly taking out "extraordinary circumstances" out of the language and leaving the rest of the definition in the language. Haley responded that she thought the language of extraordinary circumstances could be tied more to the amount than the time limit. Zuccaro stated that the City had about $2 million in the Fund right now and a conservative number for the Fund over the next 10 years would be about $6 million. He noted that the City wanted to reserve some of that money for the ongoing revolving loan