Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 7, 2011 <br />Page 5 of 7 <br /> <br />Koertje liked the idea of the application staying with the owner only. The HPC agreed <br />with Koertje’s statement. <br />Lewis inquired if there should be an extension permitted after one year. <br />Stewart added if an extension is allowed the demolition fee should be paid again. <br />Koertje agreed with both comments. <br />Speier inquired whether the HPC should limit an extension to 6 months. <br />Stewart stated a one year extension works. One year would allow the applicant to get <br />their drawings together. <br />Stewart concluded by reiterating the points of discussion: <br /> <br /> The demolition application is good for one year after approval date by the HPC <br /> <br /> The demolition application should stay with the owner <br /> <br /> The applicant may be permitted to re-apply for a time extension. <br />Koertje reminded staff to include the subcommittee review as part of this process. He <br />then inquired if the HPC would like to change the approval time limit for structures <br />located in PUD’s as one year only. <br />Lewis stated she believed the code should remain the same as currently written which <br />states a structure located in a PUD should be permitted to have the same time frame as <br />the PUD – 3 years. <br />Fasick asked what the HPC should do if the site plan changes. <br />Stewart stated staff could use their discretion. <br />Koertje made a motion to approve. Lewis seconded the motion. The item was <br />approved unanimously. <br />Update/Discussion/Action – Dormant Permits <br />McCartney presented the attached memo. He inquired why the HPC thought dormant <br />permits should be re-reviewed, especially if they were found not to meet eligibility <br />requirements. <br />Koertje stated some of the permits were approved 5 years ago under a different board <br />and no grant program. He added he believed permits older than 2 years old, had a <br />change in ownership, or any change in the PUD should be voided. <br />Lewis stated Koertje’s statement sounded reasonable. She added there is a potential <br />for new information as well. <br />Koertje recommended this topic should be brought back to next meeting for further <br />discussion. <br />Update/Discussion/Action – Commercial Incentives <br /> <br />