Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 07 20

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 15, 2015 Page 6 of 14 Stewart stated the economy does not sway him, he just doesn't believe the structure has architectural integrity. Fahey stated she was very persuaded by the social significance, but states the structure is just not there. She believes it would be a stretch to landmark and refurbish. Echohawk states this is difficult because she doesn't have any evidence of structural issues. She would like more information to be persuaded. Koertje stated he is in favor of releasing the permit. He made a motion to release the permit. Stewart seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6 to 0. Watson stated providing field costs of refurbishing the structure would have been more helpful. Discussion — Preservation Master Plan — Period of Significance Trice presented the information included in staff's report, including the data requested by the HPC at the last meeting. Koertje asked Trice if the stay were removed, what would be the purpose of the public hearing. Trice stated it is up for discussion. Watson asked what a fixed date means. Trice stated it would mean creating a period of significance. She then presented the pros and cons of having a fixed date. She also provided recommendations for fixed dates — 1955, 1978, 1985. She then explained some options for using both fixed dates and 50 years. Stewart recommended going through each discussion question one by one. Question One: What projects could be handled by administrative review? Fahey stated the miscellaneous permits handout, from the Planning Department, is a pretty good list of what could be done administratively because they are mainly maintenance issues, especially if they are like -for- like projects. Trice stated most of these items don't fall under HPC review because they do not fall under the definition of demolition.