Laserfiche WebLink
O ldLouisvilleInn –Preservation/Re h abilita tion/Addition 04/10/12 Page 2 of 3 pages <br />ofavailablefunding.Inthiscase,itwillbenecessarytodesigntotheavailable funds,given the econo micrealit yforthisproperty . <br />T othatend,wearerequestingapreliminaryreview bytheHistoricPreservation <br />Commission(HPC)oftheprojectscopeandbudgetto determinethe likelihood that <br />grant fundingwi llbeavailableintheamountsrequiredtocompletethisproject.We wouldalsolike togetabettersenseof the desiresofCityCouncilinthisre gardas <br />well,astheywouldbetheultimatedecision -makersregardingapprovaloffunding. <br />RegardingtheHPF,andtherecentlyapproved R esolution No.2,Series2012 ,w e <br />areseeking clarificationregardingthef ollowingprovisions. <br />Section7,Maximumgrantamountsandprocedures. <br />a.Themaximumcombinedamountofincentiveandgrantfundingfrom the <br />HistoricPreservationFundthatanypropertymayreceiveislimited tothe following: <br />i.$21,900perpropertyforal andmarkresidentialstructure <br />ii.$181,000perpropertyforalandmarkcommercialstructure iii.$141,000perpropertyforadesignatedcommercialstructureof merit <br />iv.$75,000foranynewcommercialconstructionprojectthatlimits themass,scale,andnumberofstories;preservessetbacks,preserves pedestrianwalkwaysbetweenbuildings;andutilizes materialstypicalof <br />historicbuildings,abovemandatory requirements. <br />We understand thatregarding S ection 7 (a.ii ),aqualifiedlandmarkedcommercial <br />structure thatmeetsalloftheHPC ’srequirements wouldbe eligible for amaximum of $10,000signing incentive +$6,000 forhistoricassessment+$6 5,000 fle xible <br />grant+$100,000preservation/restorationgrant(requiringmatchingfunds),fora <br />totalof$181,000inpotentialgrant fundingfromthe HPF. <br />Question #1 :Basedonthe information submittedherein,doestheHPC &Council <br />believethatthe proposed renovationoftheOldLouisvilleInnbuildingwouldqualify forthemaximumamountof$181,000? <br />NoteregardingSection7:theparagraphstructurein theapprovedordinancedoes notutilizethequalifier “or ”inthelistofmaximumcombinedincentives.Basedon <br />thewording,itwouldappearthata Property could qualifyformultipleincentives ,i f forexample theproperty containedalandmarkedresidentialstructure,and a landmarkedcommercialstructure,andnewcommercialconstructionthatmetthe <br />mass,scale ,setback requirements ,etc.A lso,it wouldappearthat “anynew constructionproject ”couldbe referring equallytoanewstand -alonestructureora <br />n ew additiontoanexistingbuilding. <br />Question#2 :A.)Basedupon t hewordingoftheordinance ,does the HPC& <br />Councilbelievethat m ultipleincentivesmaybegiventoasingleproperty,similarto <br />theexampleabove ,perhapsevenallfourincentives ?B .)Istheassumption above correctregardingthedefini tionof “anynewconstructionproject ”? <br />Question#3 :Section7,(a.i v )referstoa$75,000incentivefor “anynewcommercial construction p roject ”.Assumingtheanswertoquestion#2isaffirmative,andb ased <br />on the informationsubmittedherein,does the HPC&Councilbelievethat the <br />additionoffunctionalsquarefootagetotheexistingbuilding,(subjecttothe