Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 01 13

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes December 16t", 2019 Page 6 of 13 to the people at the meeting tonight and what it meant to the people who built it originally. He thought the social history had to be taken into consideration. Haley closed public comment and asked for commissioner comment. Dunlap hoped that the changes to the structure did not mean it could not be landmarked. He agreed with the neighbors' comments that this was an important piece of the neighborhood. Parris noted that the structure would have to go through the usual steps, including probable cause and structure assessment. She stated that no one was questioning the social and cultural significance of this property. Looking at the national standards for architectural integrity, one of the parts was the potential to restore it to a period of significance, but the bungalow period could not count toward that criterion because it was built in the last 50 years. As it is, the Commission had to look at the original structure in this case, regardless of how it fits in with the neighborhood today. Ulm did not doubt the social significance of the house and the community around it. He lived in Old Town and he understood the public comments. Sadly, the only part that this Commission can play tonight is to stall the demolition of the home. He was appalled by not being presented by any material to demonstrate what is planned for this property. He was also appalled that the property was using the city's rules against what's supposed to be happening in this town. Selvoski clarified that a demolition application did not involve presentation of plans. Ulm stated that that's why he encouraged the applicant to work with the residents, because there were no more triggers in the City with this application. The rules of the game were working against the neighbors. He encouraged the residents to talk to their municipal representatives to make change, because that's the only way it would happen. Klemme stated that it was critical for people to start landmarking their homes. She understood the social impact of the situation and the social significance of the property. Haley asked if anything could be removed to bring it back to the original structure. Selvoski replied that it looked like the windows were in the same location but the gable was hard to tell. Haley noted that the Commission did not have to decide using all four of the criteria. She thought that the Commission agreed that it had social significance. She asked the Commission if there were strong enough criteria to put a stay. She stated that from a national perspective the home would not landmark the home, based on the loss of integrity in the porch. 7