Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 02 12

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 16, 2023 Page 8 of 13 Brackett Hogstad said that the original request was for $15,000, which was the maximum amount. She added that the Commission could still issue a new construction grant, even though staff found that the applicant did not qualify. Anderson said that the budget spreadsheet was hard to digest, and that it was hard to tell what parts were from the new construction instead of the restoration. Johnson said that this budget was only for the historic part of the home, not the new construction. It also did not include the 1940s era parts of the home, only the original structure. Haley asked whether the floor structure was related to the foundation work. Johnson said that it was about stabilizing the interior of the house. Anderson asked what company they would use for the window restorations. Johnson said that they had previously used a company in Denver for a similar project but could not recall the name of the window company. Beauchamp said he appreciated the minimal change design for the original structure. However, he was unsure how to proceed with the extraordinary circumstances grant request, and how much of the project should qualify. Public Comment None were heard. Discussion by Commissioners Beauchamp wanted to discuss the extraordinary circumstance, noting that he was inexperienced with this on the Commission. He was concerned that many homes like this would have similar foundation issues. Haley said that one of the key factors was that it was landmarked before most of the preservation grants were established, so their only avenue to obtaining funds were to claim extraordinary circumstances. She said that this was an example of a house that did the right thing by landmarking early, but were asking for equivalent funds for grants that did not exist at that time. She wondered whether this qualified as an extraordinary circumstance. Beauchamp said that as Dunlap said, it may not meet the definition of extraordinary, but the Commission had the latitude to act regardless. Brackett Hogstad showed the Commission the language from the LMC regarding extraordinary circumstances. Burg said that the project involved a good deal of rehabilitation on the property, and noted that they would be refurbishing the original windows rather than installing newer replicas. She suggested that the extra cost and labor required to do this could be considered extraordinary in and of itself. Anderson said that the windows would come under some other item, and that his preference would be to have them restored. He again questioned the punitive nature of not allowing newly introduced grants to be applied to properties that had already been landmarked. Burg agreed that the new additions to the property were thoughtful, and were a positive addition to the original structure.