| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Dale called the meeting to order at 4:23 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
ABBEY BUCKHAM
CAITLIN KELLY
BERNADETTE BURCHAM
ABSENT-EXCUSED
AMY HORN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Burcham read the 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 January 18, 2023, Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting. |
| |
Moved by Duffie Westheimer, seconded by Bernadette Burcham to approve the minutes of the January 18, 2023, Heritage Preservation Commission meeting.
|
| |
Vote: 6 - 0 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
|
|
|
GENERAL BUSINESS |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. |
|
|
Overview of US Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
Review and ask questions
|
| |
Mark Reavis, Heritage Preservation Officer, gave a presentation on the Secretary of Interior Standards & Guidelines.
Emily Dale: Asked for clarification on what accurate documentation refers to - old construction or new.
Mark Reavis: Clarified that the documentation is in relation to old construction information.
Duffie Westheimer: Noted that the Secretary of Interior standards relate more to the exterior of buildings rather than the interior.
Duffie Westheimer: Asked for clarification on the properties that are eligible for the federal tax credit.
Mark Reavis: Clarified that the standards specify that the federal tax credit is for income-producing property.
Emily Dale: Asked whether Mark primarily sees rehabilitation projects.
Mark Reavis: Confirmed that he largely sees rehabilitation projects.
Emily Dale: Asked how often Mark sees projects that fall under more than one standard.
Mark Reavis: Noted that it is uncommon, but that yes, some projects would fall under multiple standards.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. |
|
|
Historic Signs & Facades Grant - track changes
Approve or modify proposed new grant guidelines with an effective date of July 1, 2023. Final version will be provided in March.
|
| |
Mark Reavis and Sara Dechter lead the commission through a review of the updated draft of the Historic Signs & Facades Grant application guidelines.
Sara Dechter: Offered clarification on the process for updating the grant application. Noted that Economic Vitality agreed to move the $10,000 requested increase in budget allocation forward to budget approval.
Throughout the discussion, Sara Dechter tracked notes and changes in the draft grant document.
Page 1 Review
Duffie Westheimer: Asked for clarification on what "objects" refers to.
Mark Reavis: Clarified that the grant can be used for non-building projects.
Duffie Westheimer: Noted that Heritage Preservation is about more than economic vitality and suggested that the language include a note about the community impacts.
Emily Dale: Noted that language about the community is already in the grant application but offered some edits that followed Duffie's suggestion to increase clarity on the community impacts.
Duffie Westheimer: Asked about the 50 year or older standard and noted that she remembered a former Council member specifying that it couldn't include post-WW2 housing.
Mark Reavis: Clarified that the restriction is on Post-WW2 production housing.
Sara Dechter: Explained that there is a difference between what is outlined in City Code for cultural resources study requirements and the Commission's discretion to approve projects under the grant program. The City code does not impact the Commission's grant decision. Also noted that the demolition of Post-WW2 production housing would not require a cultural resource study.
Duffie Westheimer: Expressed a desire to have that language changed because there are some significant neighborhoods with post-WW2 production housing that are integral to the history of the town.
Sara Dechter: Noted that that change would be a zoning code edit that falls outside of the Commission's power to approve.
Page 2 Review
Duffie Westheimer: Asked for clarification on what "cooperative efforts, including projects with neighborhood support, community leadership, and partnering" means.
Emily Dale: Understood it to mean that it doesn't have to be one individual applying for the grant.
Duffie Westheimer: Noted that the tax credit section should include a clarification that it is only available for income-producing properties.
Emily Dale: Asked whether Mark's intention was for the tax credit to be an example of acceptable documentation?
Mark Reavis: Confirmed that was his intention.
Commission discussed language to clarify the tax credit section.
Emily Dale: Asked if the tax credit was still intended to be part of level 2 funding.
Mark Reavis: Stated that he was leaning toward level two projects needing to meet the Secretary of Interior standards.
Sara Dechter: Offered an edit to the section to help clarify who is eligible for the tax credit and how it is related to the grant.
Mark Reavis: Asked whether the commission members had a preference for "tiers" or "levels" for the grant language.
No Commission members had a strong preference.
Page 3 Review
Emily Dale: Asked whether we have ever given out grants to sign projects where the sign no longer exists - offering Whispering Wind as an example.
Sara Dechter: Clarified that some of the sign still has to exist and in the case of Whispering Winds, part of the sign still did exist.
Emily Dale: Asked whether there is a reason that signs and buildings are distinguished.
Sara Dechter: Noted that it isn't really different. There still has to be part of a structure remaining for the commission to consider a grant application.
Emily Dale: Asked if a link to the National Park Service could be included in the grant guidelines for reference.
Duffie Westheimer: Asked for clarification on what the "remaining" means.
Mark Reavis: Clarified that it refers to the Secretary of Interior Standards.
Level 1 and 2 Funding Discussion
Sara Dechter: Asked commission to consider whether the grant language clearly outlines what would qualify for a level one vs level two project.
Commission members discussed how to frame the language so that level one and two projects are more clearly identified. Agreed that the guidelines need to include examples for both levels and not just frame level one as not level two. Commission members felt that putting examples into bullet points for both levels would be useful.
Page 4 Review
Duffie Westheimer: Stated that it is not clear when government agencies or organizations supporting government agencies can and can not apply for funding and that the language in the "Who may apply" and "The Commission will Not consider" sections should be consistent.
Sara Dechter: Suggested splitting the "Who May Apply" section into two lists, a general list and a "special circumstances" list.
Commission members agreed that the section should be clarified.
Shelli Dea: Noted that all projects are documented and justified, so how can the guidelines specify the difference for government agencies.
Emily Dale: Suggested adding "as determined by or in consultation with the commission."
Sara Dechter: Suggested "at the discretion of the Heritage Preservation Commission."
Duffie Westheimer: Asked for additional clarification on what supporting agencies could apply for funding. Could it include an organization like the Historical Society that supports the Pioneer Museum.
Sara Dechter: Stated that, yes, they could apply.
Duffie Westheimer: Asked if there is an opportunity for a grant extension if the project isn't completed in time.
Sara Dechter: Explained that there is a timeframe in which the applicant would need to request an extension in order for the money to be carried over from one fiscal year to the next.
Sara Dechter: Suggested adding language that extensions may be granted on a case by case basis as determined by the Heritage Preservation Commission.
Commissioner Caitlin Kelly left the meeting at 5:30 PM
Page 5 Review
Duffie Westheimer: Noted that "Flagstaff Form" is an unclear statement.
Mark Reavis: Stated that this section is a work in progress and will include additional information for applicants. Still needs to work on it.
Sara Dechter: Asked whether the commission would like to see an updated draft before or after staff and legal review.
Commission members agreed to wait until after staff and legal has reviewed the document before seeing an updated version.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.
|
|
|
|
REPORTS |
| |
No discussion on report items. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. |
|
|
APPROVALS
None |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. |
|
|
CONSULTATIONS |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
|
Sign at 115 E Aspen Ave
Permit Number(s): CC-23-00141
Address: 115 E Aspen Ave
Type of Approval: Staff review for sign permit
Date: 1/30/2023
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.
|
|
|
|
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO/FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS |
| |
Emily Dale: Asked commission members whether there are any issues for them with the next Heritage Preservation Commission meeting occurring during spring break.
Shelli Dea: Noted that she will be traveling back to town but should be able to attend virtually as long as there aren't travel delays.
Other commission members that were present stated they would be available.
Sara Dechter: Noted that the commission members should plan for the next meeting to be held virtually until staff and commission members can get trained to use the Council Chambers. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.
|
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
| |
Chair Dale adjourned the meeting at 5:43 PM. |