2003-03-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 Referring to property tax exemption recently requested by organizations, Mr. Lynch requested information on funding and tax exemptions for all arts organizations, including direct and in - kind. Referring to comments made by Mr. Lynch r egarding the amount of green space funding versus economic development funding, Ms. Richards noted that the capital budget for parks and recreation is larger than the economic development capital budget. Mr. Schilling asked for a copy of the citizen surv ey which was conducted, including the technique used and margin of error, etc. Ms. Richards said that one of Council's budget policies is to not replace lost State revenues for agencies with City funds, but noted that the City Manager had added "except if mandated" to the policy. She said that a lot of programs are mandated by State government. PRESENTATION : PARKS DIVISION VOLUNTEER PROGRAM Mr. Pat Plocek, Parks and Grounds Manager, explained that a Volunteer Recognition Program is beginning to recogn ize volunteers who work at least 24 hours maintaining the City's landscaped areas and parks. T - shirts will be given to volunteers with the slogan "Be a Bear of a Volunteer." Mr. Plocek presented a T - shirt to parks volunteer Sto Keller. APPEAL : BAR DE CISION RE: 413 PARK STREET (ROOF SHINGLES) Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Neighborhood Planner in Neighborhood Development Services, said that on January 21, 2003 the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) denied a request to replace the standing seam metal roof on 41 3 Park Street with a shingle roof. It was denied because the proposed change is not consistent with the Design Control District Guidelines. At the BAR meeting, the applicant said the shingles were being considered as an economic issue, and also a time is sue so that additional deterioration could be prevented. Ms. Scala said the applicants have appealed the BAR decision to City Council. Ms. Scala noted that the applicants mentioned that several other structures in the area have shingle roofs. Ms. Lynn Heerderks, Vice Chair of the BAR, said that the building is a contributing structure in the design control district. She said it was a very straightforward decision by the BAR based on clear guidelines for roof replacement. She said the BAR was sympathet ic to the economic argument made by the applicants, and suggested that they explore a historic revolving loan. Mr. Benjamin Dick, an attorney representing the applicants, said he does not feel that a shingle roof would be a dramatic change and said the b uilding is architectural insignificant and he is not sure what style it is. Mr. Dick said that the applicants are conscientious citizens who have improved other buildings in the historic area. Mr. Dick said the question is if this decision is arbitrary s ince many other buildings have shingle roofs. He said there is also a question of whether having a shingle roof will have an impact on the architectural integrity of the district, and said he does not think so. Mr. Dick said another tough question is whe ther this decision is an abuse of discretion. Mr. Dick said that while cost is a factor, it is not the main issue. Mr. Lynch asked when the other shingle roofs in the district were approved, and Ms. Heetderks said they were either approved before the di strict was designated, or were the same style replacement. Mr. Caravati noted that the design guidelines allow replacement of slate with something other than slate which could be seen as discriminatory. Mr. Schilling said that if there is a rule allowi ng slate to be replaced with another material, but not metal, then he feels it is unfair. He said if there is no rule making those who installed shingles prior to the historic designation with the original material, then he