Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2022 03 21

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 21, 2022 Page 4 of 9 Haley mentions that its architectural integrity is present and that there is social history. The criteria that needs to be met is met though. She thinks they need to decide if there should be a stay or not. Burg states that the option of the 75-day stay would end at the end of this week and they could extend it beyond that. Is that what we are considering? Dunlap says yes, we can do stays on properties and once that stay expires, that property owner can do whatever they want. If we wanted, we could extend that stay. Burg says that it sounds like the homeowners understand the program and that their concerns in regards to energy efficiency are valid concerns. Keller says that he agrees with the other commissioners Dunlap says he has no problem with being more energy efficient. He is concerned about them popping the top and making it too high. If it has been poorly built then we should keep the existing stay. Keller says they could have a minimal increase in the stay such as 80 or 90 days if that is feasible. Haley says they could do an addition to the back of the house but she knows would be probably be more expensive than just adding a second level. She mentions it is a difficult decision because she thinks this house offers a lot of architectural character to the neighborhood. Although the footprint will remain the same, the historic features will all be gone and it will not look like anything that it has looked like before. Burg says she agrees that it is difficult to let go of a property that holds this type of architectural integrity. She would like to keep the stay as it is now. Dunlap says the social significance is a factor but if the construction is not up to the necessary standards, maybe we need to leave it where it is. He does not see an advantage of having a longer stay. Keller says he agrees with Commissioner Dunlap. He does not have a problem with minimizing the stay. Burg moves and Keller seconds a motion to approve 620 Garfield Avenue's request to release the demolition permit for the existing principal structure and accessory structures at 612 Jefferson Avenue. Motion passes unanimously by a roll call vote. NEW BUSINESS — PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 8A. Probable Cause — 740 Grant Avenue: A request to find probable cause for a landmark designation to allow for funding of a historic structure assessment. • Applicant: Gerald & Constance Pontasch • Case Planner: Kim Bauer, Historic Preservation Planner All notice was met as required and there is no commissioner conflict of interest. Staff Presentation: Bauer begins her presentation by showing an aerial image of the property, reviewing the historic conditions, and displaying what the current condition of the property is. She mentions the landmark criteria and reviews each one. Criteria 1: Landmarks must be at least 50 years old. • 740 Grant Ave was constructed in 1936, making it approximately 86 years old.