Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 12 19

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2011 Page 3 of 7 The grant fund exercise should put more weight on the commercial distribution than on the residential distribution. A breakdown which included 60 percent for commercial and 40 percent for residential. $75,000 was a good number for the commercial projects to work off of but thought it should be a grant cap. He did not believe the “Guide to Programs” should separate the grants. New Construction should mean an addition and not a scrape off to build a new structure. Establishing a Priority List might be helpful. McCartney gave formulaic breakdowns of the grant should it be a 60 percent / 40 percent breakdown. Discussion ensued regarding the commercial signing bonus. The HPC believed $25,000 was too much for funds which do not have to be used for preservation. Koertje stated he wouldn’t mind reducing the signing bonus to $10,000. Fasick stated she liked the idea of reducing to $10,000. The rest of the HPC agreed. Speier questioned the 50 / 50 match proposal. Fasick stated it should be a 100 percent match. Leary asked if there was merit for separating the commercial incentives. Koertje stated the reason for separation was to incentivize the designations. Public Comment Tamela Jones stated she believes the new construction grant should only be permitted if the building owner retains a certain percentage of the structure. The HPC agreed. Koertje stated structures of merit should receive a $10,000 signing bonus and $50,000 maintenance incentive. HPC agreed. Stewart stated he was not sure if he liked the term “Routine Maintenance”. McCartney stated this is a good term to use to acknowledge this grant could be used for painting and interior improvements. Speier stated he liked the idea of the historic structure assessment (HAS) being triggered at time of signing bonus.