| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
|
|
|
|
Call to Order
NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Heritage Preservation Commission and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the Heritage Preservation Commission may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).
|
| |
Chair Emily Dale called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
|
|
|
Roll Call
| NOTE: One or more Commission Members may be in attendance telephonically or by other technological means. |
EMILY DALE,Chair
SHELLI DEA, Vice Chair
DUFFIE WESTHEIMER
AMY HORN |
ABBEY BUCKHAM
CAITLIN KELLY
BERNADETTE BURCHAM |
|
| |
PRESENT:
EMILY DALE, Chair
SHELLI DEA, Vice-Chair
DUFFIE WESTHEIMER
AMY HORN
ABBEY BUCKHAM
ABSENT-EXCUSED
CAITLIN KELLY
BERNADETTE BURCHAM |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
|
|
|
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Heritage Preservation Commission humbly acknowledges the ancestral homelands of this area’s Indigenous nations and original stewards. These lands, still inhabited by Native descendants, border mountains sacred to Indigenous peoples. We honor them, their legacies, their traditions, and their continued contributions. We celebrate their past, present, and future generations who will forever know this place as home. |
| |
Commissioner Westheimer read the City of Flagstaff Land Acknowledgement |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
|
|
|
|
Public Comment
At this time, any member of the public may address the Commission on any subject within their jurisdiction that is not scheduled before the Commission on that day. Due to Open Meeting Laws, the Commission cannot discuss or act on items presented during this portion of the agenda. To address the Commission on an item that is on the agenda, please wait for the Chair to call for Public Comment at the time the item is heard. |
| |
No public comment |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
|
|
|
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve the Minutes of the December 21, 2022, Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting. |
| |
Moved by Duffie Westheimer, seconded by Shelli Dea to approve the Minutes of the December 21, 2022, Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting
|
| |
Vote: 5 - 0 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. |
|
|
Attachments to the Minutes
NA
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC HEARING
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. |
|
|
3 E Aspen Facade Rehabilitation - Yogaert Shop
Address: 3 E Aspen (Building Addresses: 1.3.5,9, 11 & Suites 7 Upstairs 1-12
Assessor's Parcel Number: 10020013
Property Owner: Mary Velasco
Applicant: Samantha DeWarf
City Staff: MR HPO
Approve a Facade Grant for a maximum participation of up to $10,000 in our 50/50 Grant Program for Facade rehabilitation at 3 E Aspen only, a historic building with multiple addressed storefronts.
Approve the allocation of up to a $10,000 Facade Grant 50/50 match for Facade restoration work at 3 E Aspen that fully meets the US Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and accompanying guidelines, confirming all work prior to commencing with Flagstaff's HPO in reviewing the work as a Certificate of No Effect. The 3 E Aspen facade retains an rare example of Luxfer prizm glass 4"x4" leaded/zinc came storefront transom in significant need of repair and preservation. Only a few examples remain in place in Flagstaff.
Request a more complete and detailed architectural submission for review by the Commission or the Heritage Preservation Officer.
With the exception of some sign permits no HPC reviews.
|
| |
Mark Reavis: gave a brief overview of the project and the unique qualities of the glass that the project would preserve. Mark also explained that he and the applicant had worked quickly to put together an application but that the application ended up being incomplete and a vote on the grant would have to be postponed.
Sara Dechter: asked Mark to clarify whether the project is being continued or not.
Mark Reavis: clarified that the grant application will come back to the commission at a later date.
Duffie Westheimer: asked Mark to explain how the project came about and ended up coming before the Heritage Preservation Commission - did they request a grant or did Mark do outreach to the owners?
Mark Reavis: explained that the owners applied for a sign permit and, through that process, let the owners know about the grant.
Emily Dale: asked for clarification on whether the commission needs to vote on postponing the item.
Sara Dechter: clarified that the commission could either vote to postpone the item to a date certain or postpone the item to an uncertain future date with a condition.
|
| |
Moved by Amy Horn, seconded by Abbey Buckham to postpone agenda item 6A, 3 E Aspen Façade Rehab Grant, until the Heritage Preservation Officer is ready to re-agendize the item.
|
| |
Vote: 5 - 0 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.
|
|
|
|
GENERAL BUSINESS |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. |
|
|
Resumption of Hybrid Commission Meetings
Discussion of when and how to resume in-person elements of the Commission Meetings, including location, public protocols, and any logistics.
|
| |
Sara Dechter: explained that the commission is now able to revert to hybrid meetings with in-person and online attendance. There are two options for meeting locations, including the conference room and council chambers. A few questions that the commission should answer:
- How do you want to resume?
- How many commissioners want to attend in person?
- Which room would commission members like to use?
Commissioners indicating that they would like to attend in person when possible:
Emily Dale
Amy Horn
Duffie Westheimer
Abbey Buckham
Caitlin Kelly - Although absent, notified Sara Dechter, that she is in favor of being able to attend meetings in person.
Shelli Dea noted that she is unable to attend in person.
Commissioners indicated that they would like to move forward with using the conference room for meetings with a desire to reassess should public attendance increase and make space an issue.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. |
|
|
Facade and Sign Grant - Proposed Revisions
The Heritage Preservation Officer recommends a 2-tier approach in revising the Historic Facade and Sign Grant Program. Tier 1 would be to retain the $10,000 participation cap as the incentive for small preservation projects intended for use in reversing non-historic modification and general preservation and improvement work. Tier 2 would be to provide an additional $10,000 match for exceptional preservation projects that are in full compliance with the US Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and accompanying Guidelines.
|
| |
Mark Reavis: Gave a presentation that outlined the various components of the grant program and possible changes that could be made. During the presentation, Mark referenced the inflation memo (attached to the agenda item) that used three indices to show the diminishing value of $10,000 over time as a rationale for considering a change to the grant amount.
Mark Reavis: Outlined options for changing and potentially increasing the grant amount using a tiered grant approach.
Sara Dechter: Gave some examples of where a tiered approach could help with more significant projects.
Duffie Westheimer: Asked whether the money that isn’t spent on projects is carried forward to the following year.
Sara Dechter: Explained that unspent money goes back to the general fund.
Duffie Westheimer: Expressed that she would prefer that changes to the grant program not be too onerous for general residents. The commission shouldn't turn people off of the grant.
Emily Dale: Asked for clarification on whether properties or residents that have already received a grant can get another one.
Mark Reavis and Sara Dechter: Explained that the grant application states that the commission will not consider properties that have already received a grant.
Emily Dale: Expressed that it felt a little strange to allow a single resident/entity to get grants for multiple properties but that a new property owner couldn't get a grant for their property if it had received one under a different owner.
Sara Dechter: Explained that the important thing to do during the meeting is to determine the direction for the grant amount so that she can take an updated BBB funding request to Economic Vitality during the current budget cycle.
Commissioners agreed that regardless of the change that they would like to ensure the capacity to still fund a minimum of 10 projects each year.
Sara Dechter: Explained the three options that the commission could move forward with:
1) Mark's tiered grant approach, 2) Lowering the applicant match percentage, 3) Raise the amount for all projects
Emily Dale: Asked how the tiers would be determined and who would ensure a project met a certain tier.
Mark Reavis: Suggested that higher tier projects would have to have strict adherence to the Secretary of Interior standards.
Sara Dechter: Clarified that the commission just needs to give staff a general direction and that the detail of the program changes can be determined at a later date.
Commissioners generally agreed that it would be advantageous to increase the potential grant funds that an applicant could apply for.
Commissioners gave staff the direction to proceed with a tiered approach and to request additional funds for the program.
Sara Dechter: Stated that she would request $160,000 for the program.
|
| |
Mark Reavis: Continued his presentation, focusing on the grant application and possible changes that the commission could make.
Application/Program Title
Commissioners agreed to change the name of the application from Historic Facades and Signs to Historic Signs and Facades.
Images on the application
Commissioners agreed that it would be better to include images that reflect actual projects that the grant program has funded.
Eligibility Criteria Language
- Who may apply: Mark Reavis asked if the commission would like to see a clarification to "Other." Commissioners generally felt that it was okay and beneficial to have something that captured uncertainty in potential applicants.
- Commission Will Consider: Mark Reavis asked if the commission would like to have more formal process for evaluating whether applicants have met the considerations.
- Commission Will Not Consider: Mark Reavis asked whether the commission would like to clarify any of the language.
- Emily Dale: Expressed that it feels strange that a property can’t have more than one grant but a person could get grants for more than one property. Asked whether the statement "as determined by the commission" could be added to "extraordinary circumstances."
- Sara Dechter: Explained that once a property gets a grant it is not eligible for 10 years, but a person or org could get one for another property.
- Commissioners discussed whether it would be beneficial to reduce the eligibility time frame for properties that have previously received a grant, generally settling on 5 years.
- Shelli Dea: Asked for clarification on the circumstances that would lead to multiple grants.
- Emily Dale: Suggested that multiple facade elements, such as windows then a porch, could fall under this category.
- BBB Funding language
- Mark Reavis asked if the commission would like to see some additional explanation about the funding mechanism and the purpose of BBB tax.
- Abbey Buckham: Asked whether it is a tourism tax.
- Sara Dechter: Explained that it is, in part, a tourism tax, but that residents also pay it when they go out to eat etc.
- Amy Horn: Asked if staff could look at the Beautification and Public Art Commission grant language and see how they have explained the purpose of BBB funds.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.
|
|
|
|
REPORTS |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. |
|
|
APPROVALS |
| |
Mark Reavis: Briefly covered the four signs that were brought to the commission and asked whether the commission would like to see all signs that come to him that are in the Central Sign District or just those that are in the Central Sign District and the Downtown Historic District.
Duffie Westheimer: Asked that the commission still get to see sign approvals in the Historic District but also asked that Mark include pictures in the agenda items. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
|
Wee Scotty Sign
Permit Number(s): CC-23-00051
Address: 13 N San Francisco St STE 204
Type of Approval: Permanent Sign - Central Sign District Design Review
Approval Date: 1/10/2023
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
|
Beaver Street Liquor Sign
Permit Number(s): CC-22-03530
Address: 824 N Beaver Street
Type of Approval: Permanent Sign - Central Sign District Sign Review
Approval Date: 1/10/2023
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
|
Foram (bar) Sign
Permit Number(s): CC-23-00026
Address: 30 S San Francisco
Type of Approval: Permanent Sign - Central Sign District Design Review
Approval Date: 1/10/2023
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. |
|
Arizona Community Foundation Sign
Permit Number(s): CC-23-00022
Address: 225 N Leroux Street
Type of Approval: Permanent Sign - Central Sign District Design Review
Approval Date: 1/10/2023
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. |
|
|
CONSULTATIONS |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.
|
|
|
|
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO/FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS |
| |
Duffie Westheimer: Asked whether the commission is able to do a review of minutes prior to the commission meeting, noting some grammatical errors in the prior meeting's minutes.
Sara Dechter: Stated that the meeting video and minutes are usually posted within 24 hours of the meeting and are available on the city's agenda publishing website. Commissioners can review and send edits to staff up until the following meeting's agenda has been published.
Link to agenda platform: https://agenda.flagstaffaz.gov/agenda_publish.cfm |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.
|
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
| |
Chair Emily Dale adjourned the meeting at 5:55 PM. |