Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 08 20

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2018 Page5of9 Dickinson stated that in his experience the return on a residential building was not going to have the same return as a commercial structure. Residential money is money gone, whereas commercial money could create more money in the City. He added that the residential projects were not going to push financial limits, but commercial buildings were more likely to. He struggled to imagine abuse if the Commission focused on what the projects were funding rather than how much they were getting funded. At the least, the maximum should be raised quite a bit to include reasonable projects. Chuck Thomas commented that you needed a residential base to support the commercial benefits. Cyndi Thomas responded to Dickinson's question by observing that you need a maximum because without one you would open yourself up to litigation if all the amounts were subjective. Cyndi Thomas discussed Commissioner Ulm's points on grant amounts from his email. He suggested keeping the three application categories of flexible, focused, and HSA. His suggested amounts were: $2,500 for an HSA, up to $7,500 for flexible grants, and up to $20,000 for focused grants maintaining the 100% match. Cyndi Thomas commented on Ulm's points, stating that flexible/focused could be confusing. She thought his suggested amount for assessments reflected the amounts provided in the architects survey provided in the staff packet and that the Commission as a whole seemed to support the 100% matching requirement. Cyndi Thomas reiterated her desire for more data on how much it cost to stabilize homes, but she agreed it was more money than currently offered. As far as commercial costs, she conceded that there should be a higher value placed on those since they had more benefits to the City, even though she did not like thinking that way. Chuck Thomas responded that commercial buildings were generally larger, so it made sense that they were more expensive. He did not like the idea of using capacity for tax return to the City as a distinction between commercial and residential, however. Fahey stated that instead of focusing on the maximum amount, the Commission should focus on what kind of projects they wanted to cover. The Commission should be stricter on what they would cover under a matching program, using grants for preserving structures instead of improving it. In that case, the maximum amount would matter less. Cyndi Thomas and Fahey discussed the need for stricter enforcement of the current grant allocations versus changing the ordinance categories altogether. Thomas asked Fahey if she thought the current distinction between flexible grants — funds for code -required work to keep properties functional — and focused grants — funds for maintaining the historical integrity of a structure — needed to be better enforced or needed to be changed. Fahey replied that categories in the new ordinance did not need to be different, but that the Commission needed to be strict about enforcement. Trice added that some people could have spent more money on code updates in the beginning, but had not due to the amount offered from the City. Chuck Thomas stated that code upgrades for mechanical systems and foundations were important to support. Preserving a structure for a longer period of time was valuable.