Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 04 29

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 18, 2019 Page 8 of 13 Ulm noted that "showing of good cause" was a much more positive phrasing than "extraordinary circumstances." Haley asked for comments on limiting the new construction language to additions to landmarked properties. She stated that if the intent had been to support new construction then it was good to keep the language the same. Parris stated that there might not be harm in taking the landmarking language out of the new construction language since the grants had generally been used for landmarked properties anyway. Dickinson added that at first he had not understood giving money for non-landmarked structures, but now he understood that it was money to encourage contextualization of new structures that were near landmarked structures. Zuccaro asked if the Commission wanted this change for residential and commercial new construction grants. General agreement that it would be for both. Dunlap asked if structures in the Downtown Area already had similar limitations. Zuccaro replied that in the Old Town Overlay attended to contextualization through design criteria. Ulm asked if it was clear in the ballot language that that the Fund could be used for new construction. Zuccaro replied that staff's interpretation was that the new construction clause had excluded mentioning landmarking, wherease the rest of the language talked about landmarking explicitly, so there was no requirement that new construction be related to landmarking. He added that Mr. Hartronft had the perspective to know the original language and intent. Klemme asked if this new language would be redundant with the Old Town Overlay and possibly incentivize new construction over landmarking in that case. Thomas replied that some of the new construction going on recently was not sensitive enough and continuing this language would be a way to incentivize more sensitive construction. Zuccaro noted that commercial properties would require PUDs and review, whereas houses did not necessarily have that review process and a house that had received money from the Fund for new construction could later be scraped. Haley added that if the house was not 50 years or older the Commission would not have review.