Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 04 29

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 18, 2019 Page 2 of 13 (2) A 36-month timeline from landmarking or conservation easement for the application of grant funds and 60 months or 5 years to submit for reimbursement after receiving the grant. These timelines may be exceeded based on the recommendation of the Commission. (3) Language that allows grandfathering in of previous landmarked properties. (4) Loan rate will be 1 % below The WSJ Prime Rate. Selvoski presented the original questions for the reauthorization from 2018: (1) What should the maximum amounts be for HSAs, residential grants, and commercial grants? (2) Are there ways to simplify the grant process, eliminate barriers to landmarking, and make the program more user-friendly? (3) Should the new construction grant criteria to match alteration certificate language? (4) How should changes apply to previously landmarked properties? Haley asked for comments from the commissioners who had been absent at the last meeting on the $15,000 amount. Parris responded that she thought it was a good incentive that with which the City could still budget. General agreement among the commissioners. Dickinson stated that the timeline was reasonable and that he appreciated the language about extraordinary circumstances. Thomas agreed. Ulm appreciated the last line of the proposed timeline language: "Applicants should notify staff of these extraordinary circumstances prior to the expiration of the existing time limits." Dickinson replied that the ideal situation was that an applicant would request an extension before the expiration date, but he did not want the language to prevent people from coming forward if the expiration had already passed. Haley added that she had been the one who felt most uncomfortable about the timeline, but that the current draft responded to her concerns. Dunlap asked if the language attended to applicants who wanted to put in multiple requests. Selvoski replied that there was language in the draft that said the applicant could request all the grant money at once or come in with multiple iterations. She noted that there was language about preservation work done in the previous five years during the landmarking process, as well. Dunlap asked for the definition of a conservation easement versus a landmark.