My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2011 02 07
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2011 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2011 02 07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:24 PM
Creation date
5/31/2011 1:12:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2011 02 07
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 7, 2011 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br />Tofte asked how Boulder County or the City of Boulder handles their landmarked <br />cemeteries. <br />Koertje stated they have a maintenance agreement we can use but their regulations are <br />too different from ours to use them as a case study. <br />Speier asked if the grant incentives could be used in the cemetery. <br />Lewis stated they are outside the area of influence. She then asked staff what type of <br />grants would be available to the cemetery. <br />McCartney answered they would be eligible for State funds once the cemetery is <br />created as a district. <br />Update/Discussion/Action – Demolition Process <br />Tofte asked if there was a cost for a demolition application <br />McCartney answered in the affirmative. It is a $415 cost for a major demolition and $50 <br />for a minor demolition. <br />Stewart asked if an applicant would be permitted to request an extension during the <br />process. <br />McCartney answered in the affirmative. <br />Speier asked if the main concern with modifying the process is to try and prohibit people <br />doing speculation on whether or not their structure could be demolished. <br />Stewart answered in the affirmative. He stated this would change the process and <br />require the applicant to specify why the demolition is being requested. <br />Tofte asked if this language could be stricter. She added the City of Louisville has used <br />the City of Golden’s regulations as a guide and theirs is stricter. <br />McCartney stated he was unsure of the legal implications of what can and cannot do <br />without affecting private property rights. <br />Stewart stated Landmarking without the owner’s consent is as strict as we can get, only <br />if there is community support. <br />Tofte stated she believed those who voted for Ballot measure 2A are in support. <br />Lewis stated consent without owners consent is more than we can handle right now. <br />The modifications as presented will help. She inquired how we should handle transfer <br />of ownership. <br />Stewart stated staff should explore this matter. He added if the HPC can require <br />justification as to why the structure is being requested to be demolished. <br />Koertje stated he believed justification is outside of the HPC purview. <br />Lewis requested to add demolition permits should stay with land. <br />Tofte inquired whether it would be best to have the application stay with owner only. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.