My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 11 18
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2013 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 11 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:17 PM
Creation date
11/20/2013 8:56:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2013 11 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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 />October 21, 2013 <br />Page 5 of 9 <br /> <br />Haley stated she felt this could also be considered an education outreach instead of an <br />program. <br />potential landmark recipients are concerned about being locked into something that <br />might restrict them. He added staff has also heard property owners are concerned <br />about how much preservation work might cost them. <br />La Grave stated this up front assessment would also give the property owner some <br />insight and could be used to save the historic structure. <br />Stewart stated we could also look at the State Historic Fund as a model where they <br />provide historic structure assessments with no strings attached. <br />Koertje <br />restrictions as our Ballot language. <br />La Grave stated he believed including the social history at the building assessment level <br />is a great idea. Having both the building assessment and the social history is very <br />valuable to the property owner. He added he has been persuaded to include residential <br />in this program. <br />Stewart asked what the timing for this resolution is. <br />McCartney stated there is no timing. He recommended taking the comments received, <br />redlining the documents, and bringing it back to the November meeting. <br />Stewart agreed. He then asked staff to present the in-kind reimbursement discussion. <br />McCartney stated there has been a request by a commercial owner to request receipts <br />of previous preservation work to be considered as an in-kind match for grant funding. <br />He added the primary discussion is to determine how far back to allow these <br />improvements to be permitted. <br />La Grave stated there should be a timeline created for anyone requesting credit for <br />previous improvements. There should be a date established. <br />Watson stated we could use the start date of the HPF. However he stated they should <br />not get 100% credit for the work they completed. <br />Koertje stated he was unsure of the time period but stated it should be the same owner, <br />or affiliated entity. He stated there are Council members who are opposed to giving <br />credit. <br />Stewart stated implementation is difficult. He said a more clear cut program would be <br />when an owner is considering landmarking and did some work this year because it <br />needed to be done, similar to Casa Alegre. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.