My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 02 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2015 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 02 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:18 PM
Creation date
2/13/2015 3:20:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2015 02 09
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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 />January 12, 2015 <br />Page 10 of 11 <br /> <br />Koertje stated the HPC needs to have a chair and vice chair, not co-chairs. <br />Fasick nominated Watson as chairperson. <br />Stewart nominated Haley as vice-chairperson. <br />Nominations approved by voice vote. <br />Updates from Staff – Reroof Ordinance, Agency Issues for Demolition, Historic <br />Structure Assessment Funding, Demolition and Development Timeline <br />Stewart stated the issue with the reroof is it would be best if we had a policy so that we <br />don’t delete roof review from the ordinance so we can release certain types of roof <br />reviews without having to go through a formal subcommittee. <br />Watson stated he could see the main issue being if the structure was landmarked. <br />Otherwise staff should be able to review and release administratively. <br />Trice stated the ordinance is grey enough to cover all aspects of the roof. Staff <br />recommends placing this in the Preservation Master Plan. <br />The commission agreed with the process. <br />Fahey asked about the demolition and development permit timeline. <br />Trice believes the agency issue of the demolition has been addressed by the timeline <br />deals with PUD’s and process which should be discussed during the Preservation <br />Master Plan. <br />Watson stated some of the agencies issue was listed in the building code. <br />Trice stated the historic structure assessment funding is more of a programming issue <br />that must be addressed. <br />Watson stated he would like to extend the demolition expiration, especially in the <br />commercial area, to keep a structure alive during the process. <br />Stewart stated the reason for the expiration is we wanted to stop speculative permits. <br />He added during the PUD process there isn’t a need for a subcommittee since the <br />application comes to the commission. <br />Watson stated the extension of the demolition time period can be done on a case by <br />case basis. He believes keeping the building alive, during the PUD process, is the <br />underlying theme. <br />Stewart stated it is worth reviewing. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.