Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 05 20

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 29, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Parris commented that she was a little hesitant over the lack of oversight involved in the landmark incentive amount. Klemme and Ulm commented that they were okay with the $10,000 amount to incentivize landmarks. Dickinson noted that one of the reasons people might not be applying for landmarking is because they were waiting for the reauthorization to pass. He added that the $10,000 incentive was the best money the City could spend since the City basically purchased the insurance that the structure would not be demolished. Dickinson noted that there seemed to be general agreement on this point and requested comments on the New Construction Grants. Zuccaro stated that the Commission could limit the stories and FARs to make "substantial" more specific or go with Commissioner Thomas's recommendation to link the size to the average of the sizes of the neighboring structures. For commercial structures, staff recommended dropping the FAR by about 20% or limiting the option to pursue approval of a third story. Dickinson asked for commissioner comment on limiting the New Construction Grant to structures with landmarks or easements. General agreement from the Commission. Zuccaro noted that the "substantial" language did offer flexibility in judging applications that the Commission might want in the future. Dickinson proposed taking out the word "and" and replacing it with "or" in the list of criteria. Using "and" made it seem that the applicants had to meet all the criteria rather than giving the applicant and the Commission more flexibility in the approval process. Thomas thought that the numbers were reasonable restrictions on New Construction Grants. Ulm noted that there were some residential and commercial structures that were very nice and were two stories, which could lead to some structures being penalized by the story limitation. Dickinson replied that the language should be changed to require maintaining the current number of stories of the historic structure rather than limiting it to one story. Klemme asked if this proposed language on the number of stories was a recommendation or a requirement in the language. Dickinson replied that it would be a goal that applicants would shoot for. Thomas preferred a definitive, quantifiable number to be included in the language.