Laserfiche WebLink
Administrator Feasel stated that were the Committee to want to meet remotely that Staff <br />could set up a Microsoft Teams meeting for the Committee. <br />VII. NEW BUSINESS <br />A. Meeting Protocols <br />Legal Counsel Kennedy expressed that she is working on a resolution detailing <br />appropriate behavior and handling of Commission Certificate of Appropriateness <br />projects. Legal Counsel Kennedy expects to present this at the November meeting. <br />VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS <br />A. Fee Structures <br />Commission Stalheim asked about the status of fee structure updates. <br />Administrator Feasel stated that a review of the bylaws would include an update to the <br />fee structure, and that this has been delayed by COVID. Determining when a <br />project is an administrative approval is hard to do before the project has been <br />applied for. Additional fees may deter applicants from applying for retroactive <br />projects. <br />Commissioner Gelfinan asked how this works with the Building Department's "Red <br />Tag" system. <br />Administrator Feasel clarified that the Building Departments system is separate, and <br />"Red Tags" incur additional fees and fines. <br />Commissioner Gelfman stated appreciation for staff s work on Administrative <br />Approvals and believes that those projects should require a fee to account for the <br />time and attention that staff devote to reviewing those projects. <br />Administrator Feasel stated that Administrative Approval (and avoiding the Commission <br />meeting) is an incentive for property owners to execute their work in accordance <br />with historic preservation principles. <br />Commissioner Gelfman delineated three levels: administrative approvals, Commission <br />review, and retroactive approvals. <br />Administrator Feasel stated that this may be an appropriate project for the Legal <br />Committee. She also clarified that staff issues retroactive administrative approvals. <br />Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that the City can fine people for not acquiring a <br />building permit and asked if this was done. <br />Legal Counsel Kennedy stated that it is, and that the fine can be a triple fee of the cost of <br />the needed permit. <br />Inspector Van Overberghe explained his understanding of the fine structure, and the <br />frequency of the re -issuing of fine letters every 30 days. <br />Specialist Toering clarified that a project that was reviewed in September was before the <br />Commission because of fines issued by the Building Department. <br />Administrator Feasel reiterated that the Zoning Administration can issue additional <br />zoning violations, and Historic Preservation is an overlay district. <br />Commissioner Stalheim asked where fees and penalties end up in the City's budget. <br />Administrator Feasel explained that it is part of the general fund. <br />Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that HPC would need to be a separate department. <br />Administrator Feasel clarified that there is a special gifts fund, but it is derived from <br />incidental sales of items or donations. <br />Specialist Toering clarified that to use that fund HPC would need to solicit the Common <br />Council. <br />Commission Deegan stated that his experience working with the Building Department <br />and Historic Preservation office on a project on his own house, and he wished that <br />the system was more streamlined, and you didn't have to pay in multiple locations. <br />Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that there are still incidents that Building <br />Permits are issued without HPC approval. <br />