Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 10 21

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes September 16, 2019 Page 5 of 9 historic feel when it is enlarged. He stated that being able to make additions and satisfy the needs of people buying here was better than demolishing and starting over with something new. He thought that both approaches to preservation were right, since it was sad to lose the smallness of the homes, but it was also important to keep parts of the historic homes. Johnson replied that he had been presenting to the Commission for 18 years and philosophically there were no "I" statements for a commission, but it was important to state opinions about what should happen to the time. He noted that historic preservation was somewhat about how to change, while following objective standards. He observed that small towns personalize these kinds of decisions, but preservation was not about the difference between a small and a big home. Dunlap stated that the visual elements of Mr. Johnson's presentation got across the elements of the historic house. Haley appreciated seeing the superimposed footprints to see how the footprint would change. She added that the house was very linear, but it had important historic points that could be appreciated from the sidewalk and was a sensitive addition. Dickinson stated that he would prefer to have the addition fit in better, but he had learned that best practice for preservation was to differentiate the new from the old. Johnson noted that the Commission was not actively reviewing the plans at this meeting, but he appreciated the feedback. He explained that the addition was inspired by the softer historic gables, and the plans for the windows were meant to help open up the house while not having large windows open into a neighbor's home. Klemme asked if a certain percentage of the front had to be preserved to be landmarked and asked if this proposal matched that requirement. She was concerned that these plans seemed like several different alterations to different sides of the house all happening at once. Johnson responded that they were preserving the first 10 feet and a landmark designation would not preclude having an addition off to the side, via an alteration certificate. The commissioners and Mr. Johnson discussed the different options for alteration certificates and the overall review process. Zuccaro stated that the zoning code contained preservation bonuses for landmarked and un-landmarked structures, though the bonuses for landmarked structures were bigger. Applicants had to preserve at least 10 feet of the front of the house or 25% of the depth of the house, whichever is less, to qualify for those bonuses. He noted that at a pre -filing conference, the Commission was meant to share information about the program, and that there would be a landmark and alteration certificate process in the