Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 11 29

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 15, 2018 Page 4 of 8 costs. What was in question here is whether this counts as extraordinary circumstances. Staff compared it to like properties to assess that criterion. On landmarking, Chuck Thomas concurred with staff that it was eligible for landmarking in social and architectural significance. Dickinson agreed regarding the visual elements of the structure and its proximity to the museum campus. He was not overwhelmed with the social significance. Fahey responded that it was originally built by the same person who built the museum buildings. Fahey, Haley, and Cyndi Thomas agreed that it was eligible for landmarking. On the alteration certificate, Chuck Thomas stated that he had no problems with the requested alterations. Dickinson added that he was happy with the 3D rendering, which showed the street angle. He did not think the addition towered over the historic part of the home. He also thought the plans created the separation between the old and new. He assumed that staff had looked at square footage allowances and that was not the Commission's purview anyway. Haley stated that it was a sensitive addition and she was fine with having the structures in the back taken out. Cyndi Thomas and Fahey echoed other commissioners' comments. On the grant, Chuck Thomas stated that he did not have an argument with the interior finish repair being included in the grant. Cyndi Thomas agreed that the permit, contingency, and interior finish should not be part of the analysis. Those items were not included in the past. However, she disagreed with staff that there were not extraordinary circumstances so she was inclined to increase the match up to $43,000. Dickinson stated that the percentage covered issue would change depending on who was paying what. Instinctively, he wanted to support homeowners who wanted to protect historic homes and people who voted for the tax extension wanted to preserve those homes as well. The $20,000 limit was something that needed to be discussed, but they had not changed it yet so the Commission had to work with that maximum and find extraordinary circumstances. The question for him was if expensive counted as extraordinary. He compared the situation with his house at 721 Grant, which received the extraordinary circumstances due to the foundation issues. Chuck Thomas added that if you excluded the items in question from staff, the actual cost was around $103,000 and 40% of that would be at or below $41,000. He would be hard-pressed to say that there were extraordinary circumstances beyond rehabilitation in this situation. However, he was inclined to vote on some grant increase based on the size and location of the structure. Cyndi Thomas replied that it was important to stick to the legal framework, which was about the cost of maintaining the existing materials versus the cost of demolishing and rebuilding. Restoring the original structure would cost more than replacing the original