Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2021 02 22

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 22 February 2021 Page 2 of 10 and then was converted to residential use. Zuccaro reviewed the landmark criteria, which staff found met the age requirement, represented architectural significance as a twentieth-century wood -framed vernacular building with significant features including the bell tower and decorative arches, had cultural significance as the First Baptist Church, and maintained physical integrity. Zuccaro shared the Alteration Certificate proposal, which included a two-story addition behind the original structure and a detached garage. He shared that the application proposed removing the wraparound deck, which was not historic to the property. Zuccaro noted other proposed changes, including restoring and repairing the siding, replacing the windows with replicas, bumping out the north elevation, and adding skylights on the historic roof peak. Zuccaro noted that the applicant had submitted a narrative explaining why they wanted to use the replica windows as a replacement. He stated that the proposal would bring down the massing of the current addition with the new addition. Staff found that the restoration work was consistent with preserving the overall form and features of the building and that the building addition was visually compatible with and adequately differentiated from the historic structure. Zuccaro noted that the deterioration on the windows made them too poor to repair, which was why staff found that the replica windows were acceptable. Zuccaro presented the grant request for $124,047.20, much of which would be spent on replica windows and structural issues. Zuccaro explained the "extraordinary circumstances" consideration, stating that the church building was larger than the average historic residence and that the floor required leveling and stabilizing, among other high -cost preservation elements. Dunlap asked if corner lots were usually evaluated from the two street views. Zuccaro replied that he thought Commissioner Dunlap was referring to the demolition reviews when mentioning the consideration of the street -facing facade. He explained that for landmark certificates, the entire historic structure needed to be considered. Dunlap stated that he thought the Commission often looked at the front 10 feet or the street - facing side. Zuccaro replied that those were the considerations for the preservation bonus, not the landmarking process. Any alterations on a potentially landmarked structure was significant. Haley added that the Commission paid extra attention to the street -facing facade but reviewed the whole structure. Dunlap stated that it was a pretty detailed packet and stated that he was surprised that the windows were so expensive, but he assumed that they were also insulating the windows. Zuccaro confirmed. Dunlap stated that the insulated windows were a bone of contention in general preservation efforts but he thought they were a good thing from an energy standpoint. 2