HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOUTON HOUSE SUBDIVISION - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - MOD140002 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (5)Clark Mapes
From: Clark Mapes
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 11:46 AM
To: Randy Everett (bizzy@everettl.us)
Subject: Hearing Prep
Hi Randy,
I want to summarize some key points for the hearing.
The overriding factor in staff support for this unusual subdivision is the premise that there will be no physical changes to
the property associated with or resulting from the subdivision. This aspect will be memorialized with notes on the site
plan, so that when there are two new owners of these properties, the properties continue to be viewed as parts of a
rare historic resource. It would not be unusual for new buyers of the two lots, with a privacy fence between them, to
have little concern for the landmark property as such, and instead to consider each piece as a real estate commodity
with room for further maximization.
1. Thinking specifically about this, staff finds that the plan should state that no additional buildings or additions
shall be permitted on lots 1 and 2, with the possible exception of accessory buildings not to exceed 250 square
feet (that's a detached one -car garage concept which is reflected elsewhere in the zoning as a compatible type
of building in this neighborhood.) Any such new accessory buildings shall be approved by the LPC acting on
behalf of the national and state registers of historic landmarks.
2. Any exterior alterations shall be approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission acting on behalf of the
national and state registers of historic places.
Finally, I see a question that relates to this conversation. I understand there was early discussion of designating the
property as a Local Landmark. In the interest of long term protection, that would seem to be a highly appropriate
move. Is there any chance that you would be interested in adding that back into the project?
I acknowledge that while we all have been saying that there will be no physical changes involved in the subdivision, the
one exception is the greatly increased likelihood of a fence dividing the property between two future owners of the two
lots. While that's an unfortunate change to the landmark property in staff's opinion, it has not been found significant
enough to preclude staff support, if that's the only likely change.
Are you in agreement with all of this? The staff report and discussion at the hearing will include these key points
Thank You
Clark Mapes, AICP
City Planner
cmapes(a)fcgov.com R�� ;r • t., r .,1 v it c
970-221-6225