Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 04 15

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 12, 2024 Page 2 of 7 the proposal had not yet received a building permit. There was an extension to the historic structure constructed in 1998, but while the proposal would limit the public view of this extension, it would not impact the historic part of the structure. She noted that the proposed design for the new garage would differentiate it from the historic structure. Staff Recommendation. - Staff recommended approval of Resolution 1, Series 2024. Commissioner Questions of Staff. Dunlap asked to clarify whether the Commission should ignore zoning in their deliberations. Brackett Hogstad said that the processes for obtaining the alteration certificate and the building permit were separate, but that staff needed to make sure that the proposed design was viable and that it would not conflict with the historic structure. She clarified that zoning was not under the jurisdiction of the Commission, so it should not play a part in their decision making. Dunlap asked if the applicants were considering any variances. Brackett Hogstad said no, and said that though it had yet to be approved, the preliminary design met all of the zoning requirements. Dunlap recalled that the height limit in the RM zoning district was 20 feet, and that the proposal appeared to exceed that. Beauchamp said that the second primary structure was allowed to be up to 30 feet in height. Dunlap added that the second level of the garage appeared to also be a dwelling unit as it had a full kitchen and plumbing. Brackett Hogstad said this was not part of the Commission's jurisdiction, so they could not consider it. She then went over the zoning requirements and maximum heights that were allowable for the property. She noted that the area in the garage would qualify as a guest suite under the zoning code. Dunlap reiterated his concern that the layout of the kitchen made it look like an additional full dwelling unit. Beauchamp said that this layout was allowed under the code. Anderson clarified about what appliances would and would not classify the space as a kitchen. Dunlap and Brackett Hogstad discussed how the proposed design would comply with the zoning code. Applicant Presentation. - Peter Stewart, the architect, introduced their presentation. He covered the context of the historic structure and the poor state of the current garage. He noted that they found no significance for the existing garage. He said that they were not subdividing the lot and that they would retain the same owner. He then spoke about how they came to the proposed design. Questions of Applicant: None were heard. 3