Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jp Connell House topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic preservation incentives for the J.P. Connell House draw sharp objections; commission postpones decision
Summary
Planning staff proposed an incentive package tied to a historic land-use category to preserve the J.P. Connell House while allowing development of remaining acreage; commissioners raised concerns about density, precedent, and enforceability and voted to postpone action while directing staff to return with revised options.
Planning staff presented a proposed incentive package intended to preserve the J.P. Connell House by conditioning incentives on adoption of a historic land-use category for the property. The proposal outlined options the property owner had discussed with staff (ranging from a clustered residential approach to potential commercial or light-industrial use) and suggested an incentive package that would include fee waivers, rezoning assistance, traffic-generation fee waivers and an overlay/plan district to control site design in exchange for preservation commitments.
Staff described that the incentive package could allow the property to be split into a 4-acre portion to retain the house (with 1-acre lots) and a 10-acre portion with different zoning to accommodate additional development; in total the plan could accommodate as many as 24 dwellings across the full parcel under one modeled scenario. Staff said the package is intended to reduce the owner's economic burden so restoration and reuse of the historic house could occur.
Commissioners expressed strong reservations. One commissioner called the initial proposal "a plan without a plan" and described it as effectively a concession that could undermine the master plan and set an undesirable precedent. Another said the approach "uses the asset as a sword against the city" and argued the owner purchased the property knowing the house existed. Commissioners repeatedly objected to the potential scale (24 homes) and the visual and land-use consequences along Saint Albans Road.
Several alternatives were discussed: a smaller parcel purchase for the historic house (three-acre parcel around the house), development of senior/55+ villas that could be sited away from the road and hidden behind screening, strict overlay district controls to limit unit count and visibility, and nondevelopment interim measures (fencing, stabilization permits, or permitting pasture use while marketing). One commissioner proposed the city explore acquiring a small parcel to preserve the house directly.
After extended debate the commission voted to postpone a formal recommendation and directed staff to return with revised alternatives that reflect commissioner input and stronger protections (overlay parameters, maximum units, potential purchase options). Staff said the department intends to recommend denial to city council of a demolition-waiver request at the March 9 council meeting while continuing to seek alternatives and further negotiation with the owner.
Next steps: staff will revisit the incentive package with the commission's input, explore options (including potential purchase or a narrower overlay plan), and return with concrete alternatives. The department will recommend denial of the waiver at the March 9 city council hearing to preserve more time to find a mutually acceptable solution.
