Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 03 18

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 18, 2019 Page 5 of 13 Dickinson stated that he did not see the effect of the new construction grant if it were not for a higher amount, but he did not necessarily support increasing that amount. He did not know what the $15,000 did or if it would be a difference -maker. There was nothing specifically that applicants had to do to get the extra $15,000. Ulm noted that the new construction grant criteria were pretty extensive. He noted that $15,000 could be 10% of the total cost of a project for a family looking to expand their square footage. Haley stated that the new construction grant increased the overall grant to about $65,000 per landmarked home, so $15,000 was a bigger deal when added to everything. Zuccaro added that the Commission could incorporate the grant into the $50,000 cap, writing that up to 15% could be used for a new construction grant. Haley and Dickinson discussed how applicants could use the cap to get more money to fund their addition rather than put money into preservation. Klemme reminded the Commission that the new construction grants still required landmarking. Dickinson stated that the main goal was to have fewer homes be demolished based on the language of the tax extension. He thought $15,000 was a reasonable number. Haley stated that if an applicant chose to do the minimum requirements for preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation, the Commission could use its jurisdiction to say that applicants had to attend to critical issues based on the assessment. She added that she did not think anyone would make major additions to a house in poor shape, anyway. Thomas stated that the assessment would be critical to the process. Ulm agreed and added that it compounded the need to increase the assessment amount. Thomas recommended that the Commission keep the new program as simple as possible. He did not have an issue with 15% over $15,000 toward new construction. He recommended up to 15% for new construction and that the new construction grant did not have to be in the $50,000 cap. Dickinson asked if the $15,000 was matching. Zuccaro confirmed.