Chairman Forbes called the roll and then asked Ms. Pierce to explain the purpose of the meeting. Ms. Pierce noted that the commission members had received a summary of the third round of FY 2015 federal survey and planning grant applications. Ms. Brooks reviewed the panel's recommendations for grant awards, which were mailed to commission members (copy attached to official minutes), and informed commission members that there was enough funding to fully fund all the grant applications, a total of $41,250. The National Park Service had given the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) until December 31, 2015, to award these funds. Ms. Pierce asked that the commission approve the recommendations.
Mr. Armstrong asked if these were new or returned monies and Ms. Brooks responded that these funds came from the federal grant for FY2015 and that only 25% of the total could be carried over to the next year. She also stated that these were available funds that had to be expended prior to October 2016. Mr. Forbes noted that the panel scores for each of the projects were high enough to justify full funding. Ms. Pierce informed members that the panel that reviewed the grant applications was provided $30,000 as the available dollar amount but that during Ms. Brooks's preparation of the required end-of-year reporting for the FY 2015 federal grant she had determined that there was enough money remaining to fully fund all of the projects.
Dr. Ledbetter made a motion to fully fund all of the projects for the third round of survey and planning grants. Mr. Randolph provided the second.
Mr. Armstrong asked if the East End application is for the original district or the addition and was informed by Ms. Pierce that it was the locally designated overlay district, which included portions of Quarrier and Virginia streets as well as Kanawha Boulevard. Mr. Armstrong also asked if the grant would provide opportunities to educate property owners and was informed by Ms. Pierce that the consultant hired by the historic landmark commission would meet with the public during the creation of the guidelines. Mr. Forbes asked for clarification regarding the purpose of the grant, and Ms. Pierce explained that the guidelines were meant to provide information to property owners about the standards used by the historic landmark commission to evaluate the appropriateness of projects submitted for review and approval through a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Pierce also responded that the City of Charleston wishes to develop guidelines that demonstrate consistency in their decision making. After this discussion, Mr. Forbes asked that the project description be expanded to include information to fully explain this type of project as it was different from what the commission usually sees. Mr. Armstrong stated that he would like more information than what was being provided by the panel. Mr. Forbes suggested that additional information be added, but no more than one page. Dr. Hohn suggested that an email be sent to commission members with information about panel meetings in case commission members or others wished to attend.
Dr. Ledbetter called for the question, and the motion passed.
Mr. Randolph made a motion to adjourn and Chairman Forbes declared the meeting adjourned at 2:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph N. Geiger, Jr.
Secretary