My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 03 18
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 03 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:21 PM
Creation date
3/25/2019 9:58:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2019 03 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 18, 2019 <br />Page 6 of 13 <br />Haley noted that the average grant was about $20,000. If that stays the case, even <br />adding the $15,000 was not going to meet the cap anyway. <br />Thomas and Dickinson noted that in recent years the average has been increasing <br />closer to $40,000. <br />Haley confirmed that the Commission wanted to have $50,000 plus $15,000. <br />Dickinson stated that it was fine with him. Ulm agreed as long as the $15,000 was <br />matching. <br />Selvoski noted that as it was currently written, the commercial new construction grant <br />was not matching. She asked if the Commission wanted them both to be matching. <br />Haley replied that she thought the matching for both of them was obvious. <br />Dickinson liked the partnership aspect of matching. <br />Haley asked if that meant they should change the commercial new construction grant to <br />be matching. <br />Zuccaro added that the ballot language addressed contemplated supporting new <br />construction, but it was not very specific and so staff was trying to figure out what new <br />construction regarding matching, unmatching, commercial, and residential. <br />Klemme asked if it was possible to get less money for preservation than new <br />construction if an applicant had a preservation project that was less than $15,000. <br />Dickinson replied that the new construction grant was also money as an incentive to <br />landmark. <br />Ulm added that new construction was limited to meeting specific criteria. <br />Thomas stated that applicants were closer to $40,000 per project and costs had not <br />gone down over the past 10 years. He asked about the cost of previous structures that <br />had received commercial new construction grants. <br />Zuccaro replied that they had to be over the $75,000 just knowing the scope of the two <br />projects that had received a grant for commercial new construction. <br />Thomas stated that the scale of a commercial project meant that making a match would <br />not be a disincentive, so there should be matching language in the commercial new <br />construction grant. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.