DOCSLIB.ORG

Comments Received on the DC Historic Preservation Plan 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comments Received on the DC Historic Preservation Plan 2016 Comments Received on the DC Historic Preservation Plan 2016 Topic Organization or Comment Person (Note: Comments have been organized according topic area, following the layout of the Plan document. The text of comment letters has been divided so that all comments on the same topic appear together. Editorial comments are not included.) GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE PLAN ANC 2B Whereas, the Historic Preservation Office (HPO) has released a draft “2016 District of Columbia Historic Preservation Plan: Enriching Our Heritage” and seeks public comment; Whereas, ANC 2B recognizes the effort that went into the draft plan and commends the HPO on its work; Whereas, ANC 2B includes parts of 5 historic districts and numerous designated historic landmarks, and thus deals regularly with the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) and the HPO; Whereas, ANC 2B agrees with the draft report that “some of the [HPRB/HPO] systems are rusty,” that the HPRB/HPO “communications are not up to par,” and that the HPRB/HPO “need[s] to strengthen and reinvigorate . partnerships,” especially with respect to ANCs; Therefore be it resolved that ANC 2B requests that the draft plan be revised to address explicitly the following points: [see comments below] ANC 6B ANC 6B comprises the southeast portion of Capitol Hill and includes a large portion of the Capitol Hill Historic District. Our monthly meetings typically consist of a number of historic preservation cases and we frequently work with HPO staff. The commission appreciates the significant time and effort that HPO put into drafting the plan. The document is extremely thorough, and includes a helpful timeline of the city’s preservation history along with recommendations on how HPO and the Historic Preservation Review Board can better achieve the goal of preserving our city’s historic structures. ANC 6B also appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on the office’s four year draft preservation plan. The following sections highlight key recommendations that we agree with along with suggested additions to the plan. We also want to acknowledge our excellent working relationship with HPO staff, a group we find to be extremely responsive, knowledgeable and supportive on cases related to the Capitol Hill Historic District. We look forward to working with HPO and the HPRB in the years ahead to help the city achieve its preservation goals. Capitol Hill We appreciate the opportunity to review and offer comments on this draft plan, which will guide the city’s preservation efforts Restoration Society for the next four years. We also appreciate that this step is seen as the beginning of input from the public regarding the four- year plan, and that HPO and HPRB will be welcoming feedback throughout the life of the plan. Putting up front the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for stewardship of DC’s heritage gives the 2016 Plan a solid footing for all that follows and grounds the specific goals and objectives in one overarching goal: to preserve and enhance the city’s unique cultural heritage, beauty, and identity by respecting its historic physical form and recognizing “the enduring value of its historic structures and places.” Capitol Hill We commend the tremendous dedication and hard work that went into preparing this four-year plan and look forward to Restoration Society working with HPO during its implementation. Citizens Planning There is no question that the 2016 Preservation Plan (draft) is a quantum step forward. The organization of the plan, including Coalition the history and heritage section with a timeline and historical overview, a section on preservation achievements (especially the style, quality, and innovativeness of the graphic presentation), and the section on preservation challenges are great additions to the plan’s organization. Recognition of the need for “Ward Heritage Plans” in the face of the lack of a process for creating neighborhood or sector plans, where a systematic preservation element could be included, is another positive step. At the same time, while a definite “great leap forward” as a master plan document and approach, the Preservation Plan is not yet “masterful.” While the section on preservation challenges is an improvement, the section (and therefore the plan) does not rise to the level of a systematic evaluation of the challenges, opportunities, processes, and approaches. It does not appear that such an evaluation of the city’s preservation “system” was conducted as a part of the process of developing the plan. As a result, a goodly portion of the planning document feels idiosyncratic and some of the “really big issues and questions” aren’t being asked and answered. For example: What is the purpose of historic preservation in the city, is it time for an assessment of preservation practice based on the 35 years of experience since the local law was passed?; What gaps may exist in the processes, regulations, and practices?; Would a “windshield level” evaluation of the involved advocacy organizations be a helpful addition to the plan, including an assessment of capacity development needs and asking the question of how to create a robust city-wide and neighborhood network of preservation organizations; Would some comparisons to preservation practice in other jurisdictions have been helpful?; The addition of case studies of particular preservation problems and issues (popups, Marc Fisher’s writings, particularly about Mount Pleasant, failures to create historic districts, inability to restore art deco treatment to Brookland Shopping Center once the panels were uncovered during a renovation project, community opposition to landmark applications, specific demolition by neglect cases, RLUIPA cases, the incongruence between zoning height and mass maximums and architectural practices when pre-1950 DC neighborhoods were constructed, the Georgetown Apple Store debacle, etc.). In short, a much deeper presentation of “current conditions,” including an evaluation of all of HPO’s publications and website, and a response, would contribute to a stronger plan. State of the historic preservation movement Pro. Preservation is the city is at a crossroads. It is fair to argue that historic preservation has been incredibly successful, given the number of designated properties and historic districts, the popularity of historic building stock, the fact that the city is gaining population—in large part attracted to historic residential building stock and neighborhood commercial districts. But this success was based on the diligent efforts of residents willing to live in the city when trends did not favor urban living. In the face of the outmigration of residents and businesses, neighborhood preservations focused on stabilizing and staunching leakage, preserving neighborhoods in the face of municipal decline, and maintaining and enhancing these places in ways that kept them attractive and positioned for later success. Con. On the other hand, despite the reality that preservationists “saved the city” during the many decades that trends did not favor urban living, in many quarters this fact is not recognized, and in fact preservation is denigrated and seen as a hindrance or millstone frequently in the way of “progress.” The number of historic districts that have been created over the past 10 years has been minimal compared to the first 15 years since the National Historic Preservation Act passed. [continues at Negative Attitudes about Preservation below] Citizens Planning Some recommendations/observations: Coalition a content analysis of media coverage would be useful; there should be specific cultural interpretation and communications elements within the plan; cemetery preservation issues could be better addressed; transportation history issues could be better addressed; Plan should include a workflow diagram of the various processes. Dupont Circle The Dupont Circle Conservancy (DCC or the Conservancy) believes that the Historic Preservation Office (HPO) has done an Conservancy excellent job drafting its 4-yearwork plan for the period 2013-2016. We single out chief David Maloney for his leadership in this work and for what we understand was his special role is writing Chapter 2, “A Legacy of Visionary Plans,” and Kim Elliott for plan‘s the layout. The use of many historic and present-day images and photos, along with engaging graphics and tables, adds to the value of this statement. We see Chapter 2, along with Chapter 4, “What we Heard from our Constituents,” as creating an essential plan baseline if historic preservation is to continue its important and integrated role as a major driver in the growth and development of the District of Columbia. Southwest The Southwest Neighborhood Assembly, Inc. believes Enriching our Heritage, 2016 Draft DC Historic Preservation Plan (Plan) is Neighborhood a well-reasoned document. Association Due to prevailing development pressures, Near Southwest is one of the fastest changing communities. The Southwest Neighborhood Assembly has been working to document, promote and provide forums for the necessary conversations. We’ve prepared or supported historic nominations, some of which the Historic Preservation Review Board has already approved, including Tiber Island and Harbour Square. We’re currently holding a lecture series that brings architects, professors and city planners into dialogue with the community. But we cannot do it alone. The Plan’s four overarching goals are precisely what the city needs. Indeed, our experience in Southwest has demonstrated that
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 11. Historic Preservation A
    Cottonwood General Plan 2025 11. HISTORIC PRESERVATION A. INTRODUCTION Historic preservation is an optimistic and inspiring field of interest intent on improving present and future quality of life awareness through the appreciation of our built and cultural heritage. Historic preservation is architectural history, community planning, historical research and surveys, oral history, archaeology, economic revitalization, and more. It relates directly to quality of life, sense of place and cultural identity. Historic preservation is about preserving, documenting, and incorporating the significant elements of the past into the present and future life of the community. The General Plan’s Historic Preservation Element examines historic preservation issues in the city and establishes goals and objectives intended to help accomplish these goals. Related goals and objectives act as guidelines for property owners, developers, and businesses, as well as City Staff, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council when considering historic preservation issues within the city. Preservation of buildings and structures in their original condition with the original intended use can be seen as the ideal expression of historic preservation. However, uses change over time so how a building is used may need to adapt to these changing circumstances to be viable. When there is pressure for change, an analysis of alternative treatments should be considered to determine the appropriate approach to allow alterations without losing the essential historic character of the structure. Repair, reuse or relocation of structures should be considered instead of demolition. Rehabilitation, which includes alterations to a structure, may also be considered where necessary to allow a building use to meet contemporary needs and interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Preservation Commission
    HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REPORT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION PREPARED BY: Taylor Long, Associate Planner REVIEWED BY: Mercy Davison, Town Planner DATE: February 9, 2018 SUBJECT: CA-18-01-01: Window Replacement, 603 Normal Ave A. Summary: Replacement of 5 first floor windows at 603 Normal Ave B. Recommended Action: Approval as proposed by applicant C. Background: 1. Property Information: Applicant(s): Tom and Claire Lamonica Owner(s): Tom and Claire Lamonica Location: 603 Normal Ave 2. Property Description: 603 Normal Ave was designated a contributing property to the Old North Normal Historic District by the Town Council in September of 2003 (Ordinance No. 4887). This two-story, side gable Craftsman home was built in 1925 and features a modern rear addition (approved by the HPC in May of 2007) and a detached garage. 1 3. Description of Proposed Alteration: The applicant proposes to install 5 wood, double-hung insert windows externally clad in aluminum in place of 5 original windows on the home. The windows being eyed for replacement are on the north, east, and west facades and are shown circled on the photos above. These original windows are currently covered with aluminum storms, which would be removed as part of this project. The insert windows being proposed have been previously approved by the commission for placement on the home’s modern addition (CA-07-05-09), as replacements for 6 basement windows (CA-12-11-21), and as a suitable replacement for one first-floor window on the south side of the home (CA-17-03-06). The windows proposed by the homeowners and their contractor feature raised, exterior mullions and simulated divided lites.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Peotone Township Will County, Illinois
    Rural Historic Structural Survey of Peotone Township Will County, Illinois Rural Historic Structural Survey of Peotone Township Will County, Illinois October 2014 for Will County Land Use Department and Will County Historic Preservation Commission Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 330 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, Illinois 60062 (847) 272-7400 www.wje.com Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Rural Historic Structural Survey Peotone Township Will County, Illinois TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary vii Federal Assistance Acknowledgement viii Chapter 1 – Background and Methodology Background 1 Survey Methodology 1 Survey Gaps and Future Research 2 Chapter 2 – Context History of the Rural Survey Area Geologic and Topographic Background to the Illinois Region 5 First Nations in the Illinois Region 6 The Arrival of European Settlers 8 Settlement and Development of Northeast Illinois 13 Peotone Township Developmental History 21 Andres 30 Schools 32 Churches 36 Cemeteries 40 Will County Fairgrounds 41 Chapter 3 – American Rural Architecture Farmstead Planning 51 Development of Balloon Framing 51 Masonry Construction 55 Classification of Farmhouses 60 Development of the Barn 73 Barn Types 77 Chapter 4 – Survey Summary and Recommendations Period of Significance 95 Significance 96 Potential Historic Districts, Thematic Designations, and Landmarks 100 Survey Summary 102 Table 1. Surveyed Farmsteads and Related Sites in Peotone Township Table 2. Farmhouses in Peotone Township Table 3. Barns in Peotone Township
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resource Surveys
    Guidelines For Conducting Cultural Resource Surveys Table of Contents When the NRCS is conducting cultural resource surveys or archaeological field inventories this guidebook will give you a general step by step process to help in completing your field inventory. Prior to field work: Define the project area. 1 Request an ARMS records check. 2 Survey Design: Where are we surveying. 3 What are we looking for? 4 How are we going to survey the project area. 5 In the field survey: What are we going to need to take into the field. 9 Getting started. 10 Findings. 14 Site Boundaries 17 Sketch Maps 18 Writing a site description 21 Appendix A: New Mexico Standards for Survey and Inventory. 22 Appendix B: Example Laboratory of Anthropology Site Record. 39 Archaeological field survey is the methodological process by which archaeologists collect information about the location, distribution and organization of past human cultures across a large area. Why we care. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department of independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.
    [Show full text]
  • An Architectural and Historical Analysis of the Caretaker's House at the Winneshiek County Poor Farm, Decorah Township, Winneshiek County, Iowa
    AN ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CARETAKER’S HOUSE AT THE WINNESHIEK COUNTY POOR FARM, DECORAH TOWNSHIP, WINNESHIEK COUNTY, IOWA Section 14, T98N, R8W Special Report 1 Prepared for Winneshiek County Historic Preservation Commission Courthouse Annex 204 West Broadway Decorah, Iowa 52101 Prepared by Branden K. Scott With contributions by Lloyd Bolz, Derek V. Lee, and David G. Stanley Bear Creek Archeology, Inc. P.O. Box 347 Cresco, Iowa 52136 David G. Stanley, Director February 2012 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report presents the findings of an investigation concerning the Winneshiek County Poor Farm (96-00658), and more specifically the Caretaker’s House (96-00644) within the county farm district. This investigation was prepared for the Winneshiek County Historic Preservation Commission because the Caretaker’s House, a structure potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A is to be dismantled. This investigation seeks to document the architectural aspects of the property with emphasis on the Caretaker’s House, create a historical and cultural context of the farm, determine the potential significance of the property and each of its contributing/non- contributing features, and provide data necessary for future considerations of the property. This document was prepared by Bear Creek Archeology, Inc. of Cresco, Iowa, and any opinions expressed herein represent the views of the primary author. This report documents the Winneshiek County Poor Farm (96-00658) as a historic district containing three distinct buildings and three associated structures. The district consists of the newly constructed (relatively speaking) Wellington Place care facility (96-00660), the Winneshiek County Poor House (96-00659), the Caretaker’s House (96-00644), two sheds, and a picnic shelter, all of which are settled upon 2.7 ha (6.6 ac) on the west side of Freeport, Iowa.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Avenue Cultural Landscape Inventory
    National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory Pennsylvania Avenue, NW-White House to the Capitol National Mall and Memorial Parks-L’Enfant Plan Reservations May 10, 2016 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW-White House to the Capitol National Mall and Memorial Parks-L’Enfant Plan Reservations Table of Contents Inventory Unit Summary & Site Plan ............................................................................................ Page 3 Concurrence Status ...................................................................................................................... Page 10 Geographic Information & Location Map ................................................................................... Page 11 Management Information ............................................................................................................. Page 12 National Register Information ..................................................................................................... Page 13 Chronology & Physical History ................................................................................................... Page 24 Analysis & Evaluation of Integrity .............................................................................................. Page 67 Condition Assessment .................................................................................................................. Page 92 Treatment ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • View National Trust for Historic Preservation Best Practices
    Cover Memo DATE: MAY 17, 2018 TO: PHILADELPHIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION TASK FORCE FROM: NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION & BUILDING REUSE: BEST PRACTICES RESEARCH Dear Task Force Members: As Technical Advisor to the Mayor Kenney’s Historic Preservation Task Force, the National Trust for Historic Preservation is providing the attached revised summaries of a select group of Best Practices as requested by the Task Force Sub-Committees. This in-depth research builds upon 2-3 months of preliminary research performed in the fall of 2017, presented to the Task Force in mid-January, and available on the Task Force website https://www.phlpreservation.org/. The National Trust undertook an additional 8-week research project to better understand and evaluate a refined list of Best Practices in four core areas – Survey, Outreach + Education, Incentives, and Regulation. Focused primarily, but not exclusively, on the Peer Cities identified earlier in the Task Force proceedings (Chicago, St. Louis, New York, Baltimore, Buffalo, and New Orleans), the National Trust’s Team conducted interviews with public agencies and local non-profits in each Peer City. Based on these interviews, extensive on-line research, and targeted outreach to preservation, public policy, and development professionals, as well as feedback from the Task Force subcommittees on initial drafts, the National Trust prepared the attached summaries of selected Best Practices. Included is an analysis identifying and articulating the benefits, challenges, applicability, funding, staffing requirements, and regulatory framework required for each of these Best Practices to succeed. Based on two rounds and nearly five months of intensive research by a team of eight multi-disciplinary professionals, the National Trust found that there is no “silver bullet” for historic preservation.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Progress Report
    Executive Order 13287 Preserve America Report to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation December 2011 Submitted by U.S. Postal Service, Facilities Headquarters 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20260-1862 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13287: PRESERVE AMERICA REPORT TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION December 2011 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE FACILITIES HEADQUARTERS 475 L’E NFANT PLAZA , SW WASHINGTON , DC 20260-1862 EO 13287 Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Background Research ................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Internal Postal Service Research ................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Additional Research .................................................................................... 2-1 3 The Postal Service Preservation Program ..................................................... 3-1 3.1 Mission Statement and Background ............................................................ 3-1 3.2 Postal Service Preservation Policy .............................................................. 3-2 3.3 Postal Service Fiscal Constraints: Testimony, Newspaper Articles and the GAO Report .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Slidell Olde Town Design Guidelines
    CITY OF SLIDELL, LOUISIANA SLIDELL OLDE TOWNE PRESERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES May, 2012 CITY OF SLIDELL, LOUISIANA SLIDELL OLDE TOWNE PRESERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Maps 3.0 Architectural Style Guide 4.1 Guidelines for Residential Rehabilitation 4.2 Commercial Guidelines for Rehabilitation 5.1 Guidelines Residential for Additions and New Construction 5.2 Guidelines Commercial for Additions and New Construction 6.0 Guidelines for Non-Contributing Properties 7.0 Definitions 8.0 Appendix 0 - 1 Slidell Olde Towne Preservation District Design Guidelines 05/21/12 City of Slidell, Louisiana Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Maps 3.0 Architectural Style Guide 3.0 Brief History of the District 3.1 Colonial Styles A. French Colonial B. Spanish Colonial 3.2 Romantic Styles A. Greek Revival B. Italianate 3.3 Revival Styles A. Colonial Revival 3.4 Victorian Styles A. Folk Victorian B. Queen Anne 3.5 Vernacular Architecture A. Residential Vernacular B. Commercial Vernacular 3.6 Modern Styles A. Craftsman 4.1 Residential Guidelines for Rehabilitation 4.1.0 Applicability 4.1.1 Site A. Walkways B. Landscape D. Fencing, Walls, and Other Site Characteristics 4.1.2. Features A. Form and Style B. Raised Foundations C. Porches, Stoops, Balconies, and Porte- Cochere D. Doors 0 - 2 Slidell Olde Towne Preservation District Design Guidelines 05/21/12 City of Slidell, Louisiana E. Windows F. Roofing G. Exterior Lighting G. Mechanical Systems I. Accessibility J. Environmental K. Accessory Structures 4.1.3. Materials A. Wood B. Masonry C. Stucco D. Metals E.
    [Show full text]
  • ~ 1 ~ the EMBASSY PRESENCE in WASHINGTON, D.C. Priscilla R. Linn
    Living in Washington, D.C. Embassies photo THE EMBASSY PRESENCE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. Priscilla R. Linn May 29, 2014 Finding embassies on a map of Washington, D.C. is a relatively straightforward task. They lie in northwest quadrant of one of the smallest capitals in the world, often lining up along (or close to) the avenues that city planner Pierre L’Enfant drew up over 200 years ago. Other locations in Washington, D.C. could, in principle, welcome many foreign missions. Reasons for the concentration of embassies in Washington hinge on the need to be close to the White House, U.S. Department of State, Congress, and international organizations. Embassies also desire a location in a prestigious neighborhood that can enhance both national identity and standing among nations in the international community. Essential diplomatic terms Since diplomacy often requires a specific vocabulary, this essay will clarify the meaning of several words used here. The Diplomat’s Dictionary defines the word “embassy” as: “The residence of an ambassador.” The Dictionary states that in loose, contemporary usage, the word “embassy” also refers to the office building of the ambassador and his senior staff. For clarity, this essay follows the “loose contemporary usage” for “embassy,” and does not ~ 1 ~ Map from National Area Planning Commission report, Foreign Missions and International Organizations in Washington, D.C. http://www.ncpc.gov/DocumentDepot/Publications/ForeignMissions/Foreign_Missions_Overview.pdf (accessed May 15, 2014) ~ 2 ~ include ambassadors’ residences in the discussion. An embassy also encompasses the diplomatic corps that conducts foreign affairs from the embassy building. People refer to the embassy office building as a “chancery,” where an ambassador and his principal staff conduct diplomatic business.
    [Show full text]
  • Architectural Resource Surveys Frequently Asked Questions
    Architectural Resource Surveys Frequently Asked Questions Architectural Resource Surveys primarily act as a planning tool to provide adequate data to make informed decisions, but most importantly, it documents the City's history and contributes important data into a repository of historical information. Additionally, as a Certified Local Government, there is a commitment by the City to protect its historic resources and provide continuous improvement to historic preservation efforts, including the identification of historic properties within the jurisdiction. The following “Frequently Asked Questions” were composed to provide more information regarding the purpose of architectural resource surveys. What is an Architectural Resource Survey? An Architectural Resource Survey is the identification, research, and documentation of buildings, sites, and structures located in the City of Fort Lauderdale. It includes an evaluation of the architectural style, structural integrity, and character for each building within a specified boundary. How is an Architectural Resource Survey conducted? While the methodology and quantity of information provided for each survey may vary, it typically includes background research, a field survey to photograph each building, and an evaluation of each building. Are there different types of Architectural Resource Surveys? Yes, there are two main types of Architectural Resource Surveys, a “reconnaissance” survey and an “intensive” survey. A reconnaissance survey is utilized as an initial step in an architectural
    [Show full text]
  • Living in a National Register Historic District: What Does It Mean for Portland?*
    Living in a National Register Historic District: What Does it Mean for Portland?* Frequently Asked Questions 1. Will properties in a historic district be subject to demolition review and possible denial? If a property is designated as contributing to a National Register Historic District, demolition is technically possible, but the process is difficult, lengthy, and expensive. The process requires multiple meetings with city staff and public hearings before the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission and City Council and has an total application fee of no less than $14,405. (These combined fees include a Type IV review ($8,902), a mandatory pre-application conference ($5,253), and a land use review fee for the replacement structure (min. $250)). Applications to demolish National Register listed properties are rare. If a property is listed as non-contributing within a historic district, the owner can demolish it without demolition review, but a regular demolition permit would still be required. 2. How does the city regulate modifications to properties in a historic district? Alterations which are not tantamount to demolition are not subject to any additional design review upon a property’s listing in the National Register. That said, the City of Portland has policies which encourage the application of design review to National Register Historic Districts. It is expected that design review for alterations, additions, and new construction will be proposed in the future if the district is listed. The adoption of design review would only happen following an extensive City of Portland process which would include notice, community involvement, public hearings, and a decision to apply design review to the district.
    [Show full text]