Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 11 18

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 21 st, 2019 Page 3 of 12 Staff recommends approval of Resolution 5, Series 2019, for the amount of $40,000 in a matching grant. Dunlap asked if the elevation views showed the dormers. Selvoski responded that everything behind the line in the elevation was new construction. Dunlap asked if the 10-foot line was the requirement for gaining a grant. Selvoski replied that 10 feet was the minimum requirement and there was no language stating that 10 feet was all that was required. She thought that the bar for landmarking bar could be a bit higher. Dunlap asked if preservation required retroactive code compliance. Selvoski replied that code compliance was not required, but could be funded by the Historic Preservation Fund grant. Dunlap asked about the extraordinary circumstances. He also asked about the reference to a crawlspace dugout in the staff packet. Selvoski replied that staff did not find that the application met extraordinary circumstances. Haley invited the applicant to speak. Andy Johnson, DAJ Design 922A Main Street, responded to Commissioner Dunlap's question about the crawlspace dugout, which was meant to install a vapor barrier to help keep existing structural items from deteriorating. Johnson stated that the owner, a general contractor, was not able to make it tonight, unfortunately, but that the owners were emotionally invested in landmarking. He responded to the questions about extraordinary circumstances, explaining that the grant amount was extraordinary only because the cost of construction was extraordinary. Johnson described the structure and stated that application aimed to take the house back to its original character, even though it would be easy for the owner to take the structure down. The proposal requested a landmark for the first 10 feet only. He asked the Commission to keep in mind that the front porch had to be preserved bringing the total preserved length to the first 15 feet. He thought the Municipal Code was a bit fuzzy as far as landmarking was concerned, but from what he understood, the application complied with the Code since it met the 10-feet requirement and those were the most important feet since they were in the front and maintained the character of the neighborhood. The second -story portion of the addition was pushed back to the footprint 4