My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2009 02 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2009 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2009 02 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:23 PM
Creation date
5/11/2009 10:47:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2009 02 09
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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 9, 2009 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />Koertje noted that perhaps conservation easements could be used for <br />architectural elements if landmarking was not an option. <br />Members discussed how the total HPF should be divided and settled on four <br />broad categories: administrative, incentives, acquisition, and Contingency. Each <br />year the HPC would recommend to the City Council how the money in each <br />category would be divided. <br />Administration fund would cover staff costs for the Preservation Planner and <br />additional hours and a percentage of benefits for the museum coordinator. <br />Incentives would be divided into three categories: <br />1. Incentives for residential properties that are landmarked <br />2. Incentives for commercial properties that are landmarked <br />3. Incentives for new construction to meet stricter design guidelines to fit <br />more with the historic character of downtown. <br />Koertje stated that grants to new construction would require an easement on the <br />new construction and would require limited mass and scale of new construction. <br />Members discussed how to divide the incentives money but were unable to reach <br />a final agreement. <br />Muckle gave her support for dividing the funds equally between the three <br />categories so that it would be even-handed noting that the voters supported all <br />three areas in the ballot question. <br />Tofte felt it should be divided 50% to residential and then 25% to both types of <br />commercial incentives. All members were in agreement that a certain amount <br />would need to set aside for residential so that one large commercial project <br />doesn't use up the entire annual allocation. This discussion will continue at the <br />next HPC meeting after getting some input from the City Council at the February <br />24 Study Session. <br />Koertje will create a new draft of the language and also create a work plan for the <br />HPC that will basically be generating the specifics of the HPF programming for <br />City Council approval and initiating the program. <br />Muckle left the meeting at 9:05 PM. <br />Muth gave an update on the plan to submit a State Historic Fund grant <br />application for historic surveying. She noted that after attending a grant <br />workshop, speaking with the survey coordinator from the Office of Archaeology <br />and Historic Preservation (OAHP), and discussing the time limitations for the <br />project with Bridget Bacon it was determined that a survey of 100 buildings is <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.