Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 19, 2008 <br />Page 5 of 10 <br /> <br />John Leary, 1116 LaFarge Avenue, said the HPC should do what it can to encourage <br />the City Council to move forward with the ballot question. He recommended that the <br />HPC keep the item on the agenda for discussion. He stated in his discussions with <br />people he has found support for such a tax. He noted the thought that it could possibly <br />be a tax that would jointly fund preservation and the arts, but cautioned that it might be a <br />harder sell to the public. He added that if such a tax passed he hopes it would be used <br />as a grant program for downtown business owners. He urged the HPC to do what it can <br />to help get this on the ballot. <br /> <br />Muth noted that the HPC can write a resolution or letter of support for the ballot question <br />for the City Council. Muckle asked if that could be done for the April meeting. <br /> <br />Michael Menaker, 1827 Choke Cherry Drive, stated that he thought there is enough <br />support in the community to get such a measure passed particularly with the current <br />debate about the middle school. He stated that he thought combining the measure with <br />an arts tax is a poor idea. He added that he feels that any ballot question needs to be <br />very specific about how the money will be spent. <br /> <br />Koertje asked what types or programs and projects the money could be spent on. <br /> <br />Muth stated she would bring a list of possible options to be discussed. <br /> <br />Whiteman asked what other fund raising options are available that could be used in <br />conjunction with the sales tax. <br /> <br />Muckle noted that perhaps a public/private foundation, such as Boulder County’s Open <br />Space Foundation, could be formed to partner in fund raising. <br /> <br />John Leary added that he approximates that a 1/8% sales tax were passed it would raise <br />approximately $350,000 annually. <br /> <br />Update - Preservation Ordinance Amendments <br />Muth reported that staff has found some areas in the preservation ordinance that work <br />very poorly with the planning processes. Muth stated that in December, the City Attorney <br />gave staff an opinion that a demolition permit must be completed to trigger a demolition <br />review by the HPC. A review cannot be done simply at the request of the owner or at the <br />request of the planning department as part of the referral process even if the plan before <br />the planning commission will include the demolition of a building that is over 50 years <br />old. <br /> <br />As an example, the owners of 820 – 844 Main Street wanted to have initial informal <br />conversations about their site, but could not as it might compromise the subcommittee <br />review process. The owner was told he must submit a demolition permit and go through <br />the subcommittee process before he could have any conversations with the full HPC. As <br />such the owner submitted a demolition permit even though he has no immediate plans <br />for demolition and merely wanted to have a discussion with the HPC about the <br />architectural integrity of the site as well as the social history of the buildings. <br /> <br />Additionally, there is currently a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for 916 Main Street <br />going through the planning process. The owner has not requested a demolition permit <br /> <br /> <br />