Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 11 18

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 21 st, 2019 Page 8 of 12 Haley asked for public comment. Seeing none, she opened commissioner comment. Haley thought the landmarking was straightforward and the City had wanted the building landmarked for a long time. She thought it met all the criteria, as well, and asked for any differing thoughts. Thompson noted that the owners had put in another $147,000 of out-of-pocket costs and their total investment was close to $300,000 so far. Salerno further explained that demolition made up the bulk of the expenses in the "other" category since the demolition had to be very specific to accommodate some of the other code -related work. Dickinson stated that it was a historic building whether the Commission landmarked it or not. Dickinson made a motion to approve Resolution 6, Series 2019. Dunlap seconded. Roll call vote. Motion passed unanimously. Ulm agreed that demolition and cleanup work was associated with the preservation work, but he thought that supervision and permitting was not. Dickinson noted that the Fund was meant to be an incentive program and it was a little odd to be paying for something retroactively, even though it was in the code to be approved within the last 5 years. He described the Fund as a partnership among citizens, property owners, and the City, so the fact that the applicants had done the work was kind of great, since they did the thing they wanted them to do without the incentive, though he struggled with it since it was meant to be an incentive program Thompson replied that they had been speaking with Planner Selvoski long before construction started and they knew it was a property of high interest to the Commission. The owners had just wanted to get things going. Dunlap stated that the focus of these monies was for preservation, and he did not think replacing the kitchen floor or the wall coverings in the kitchen would not typically show up as preservation. He thought that was being offered was a generous amount. Selvoski noted that there were requirements in the code regarding commercial kitchens and planning staff had run those lines by building staff. Dickinson asked staff to speak to the demolition being a necessary part of the preservation process. Selvoski replied that when it comes to supervision, demolition, and cleanup, when they are associated with those other areas of work, they could reasonably be included. 9