Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 08 19

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 15, 2019 Page 4 of 6 Selvoski asked the Commission about the language that identified the "wall" and if the language should be more inclusive. Haley asked if porches would be included in this language. Selvoski responded that it was not explicit. Thomas suggested adding "wall and its attachments or apertures." Selvoski asked if the intent was to preserve those as well. Thomas replied that it was the intent since they faced the street and affected the overall architectural importance of the structure. Dickinson added that the intent was to preserve the visual exterior wall so that someone could walk by and not be able to tell that anything had changed. Ulm suggested "attached architectural elements." Dunlap suggested "exterior wall, including extensions and attachments." Thomas agree that the demolition process was clear in every other aspect. Dunlap asked if there was much difference between the demolition and addition processes. Selvoski responded that staff tried to keep those conversations with property owners as open as possible and always tried to have the conversation about the benefits of landmarking when property owners wanted to build additions. Dunlap asked if there were ever stays placed on additions. Selvoski replied that the only way the Commission could place a stay was in cases involving demolition. Dunlap observed that some of his neighbors had been concerned that their whole project would fall apart if the Commission decided to place a stay on their work. Selvoski replied that staff tried to highlight the positive in the program, but sometimes property owners knew exactly what they wanted to do and did not want to do preservation. She stated that the program was meant to be an incentive and the point of a stay and talking to staff and the Commission was to provide information. Haley noted that the Commission had received review requests for porches in the past.