Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 4th, 2020 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />Keller asked if there was an average cost that they could come up with based on the <br />houses that could be landmarked. <br />Dunlap noted that there were references to examples from 2012 and 2016. <br />Johnson stated that he didn't think they would ever find a rule of thumb for general <br />costs, in part because the total costs were often drawn out over multiple phases. He <br />proposed a follow-up survey to learn the costs of total projects covered by the grant <br />versus the homeowner. He stated that financial incentives were a really big deal to <br />preservation and estimated that 75% of structures would not get preserved without that <br />incentive. He noted that preservation flew in the face of what you would do typically to <br />maintain an efficient project sequence. Preservation involved waiting, redoing, starting, <br />and stopping, because you were doing things out of sequence to short up and uncover <br />the historic building and evaluate it. This added two -three months to a project like an <br />addition. <br />Haley summarized didn't think they would have an answer right now and it was good to <br />hear professional perspectives and talk about it. She suggested creating a survey that <br />went out after everything was finalized. <br />Dunlap wondered if Council had thoughts on how much was too much. <br />Haley thought they would say that it depended on the project. <br />Parris stated that the requested amounts were only a portion of what the homeowner <br />spent and more information was better for making decisions. She suggested requesting <br />total estimated costs of preservation and for projects as a whole. <br />Zuccaro stated that they could ask applicants for that information in the criteria or they <br />could make it voluntary. He suggested asking for the overall cost of construction grant, <br />as well. He stated that financial incentives needed to be meaningful to find that sweet <br />spot where there was enough to make the project viable and attractive. <br />Parris stated that it was useful to have that information for the next time they revisit <br />grant amounts. <br />Haley added that an applicant spending more didn't necessarily mean the Commission <br />would give them more. <br />Johnson suggested that for extraordinary circumstances they have a contractor bid to <br />reinforce the requested amounts. He added that a form of homeowner financial buy -in <br />based on a percentage of the total amount and/or some type of verification to prove the <br />requested amounts would be useful. <br />Haley noted that they could bring up these issues in discussion during a hearing. <br />