My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2023 04 24
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2023 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2023 04 24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2023 2:53:57 PM
Creation date
5/5/2023 2:22:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
4/24/2023
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 20, 2023 <br />Page 6 of 9 <br />When discussing the mass and scale in this zone district, there are three main <br />categories: Roof design, lot coverage and floor area ratio, and setbacks. The roof <br />pitch must be at least 6:12 or above. Lot coverage is the footprint of the building <br />on the lot, including garages, sheds, and covered porches. The floor area ratio <br />(FAR) is the square footage of the structure. It would include the first, second, <br />and third floor. The lot coverage and FAR are based on the size of the lot and <br />has the same thresholds as the lot coverage. <br />Another piece to this are density bonuses. A density bonus is if you meet certain <br />criteria, your property is eligible for increased lot coverage and FAR. There are <br />two different options to quality: Preserving the front portion of the house, which is <br />defined by the municipal code and landmarking, which must meet the alteration <br />certificate criteria. <br />HPC does not currently directly review density bonuses. So far, through staff's <br />research, it is a relatively low rate of adoption and is uncommon in other <br />jurisdictions. <br />She highlights major points from the diagnostic report and summarizes below the <br />meeting minutes from this initial review phase. <br />• Code prevents creation of new smaller lot sizes & frontages (oppositional <br />to historic development) <br />• Trend of larger buildings in region, out -of -character "large" structures <br />could increase <br />• Dissatisfaction with demolition stays (technically a separate Code) <br />• Mixed opinions on character of new construction on "preserved" buildings <br />• Oversupply of large houses, undersupply of smaller/affordable houses <br />regionally <br />• Size, articulation, massing all part of the coming draft ordinance phase <br />Based on the meeting minutes, the commissioners had these concerns: <br />• Incentivizing scrapes if smaller lots allowed. Are smaller lots realistic <br />adaptation wise? <br />• Not allowing small structures incentives larger builds. This could result in <br />an uphill battle for preservation. <br />• Predict rise in interest in smaller homes <br />• Subdivision would require comfort with density <br />• Design and aesthetics are important <br />• Bring existing homes into compliance <br />There was one speaker from the public who mentioned that the landmarking and <br />preservation should be separate with different standards. The "I" statements on <br />the design should not be part of the code, and the perception problem is greater <br />than the size problem. <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.