My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 07 20
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 07 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:18 PM
Creation date
7/22/2015 3:02:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2015 07 20
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
257
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 />June 15, 2015 <br />Page 8 of 14 <br />Discussion ensued regarding how the demolition review process was <br />created and why we are where we are. <br />Stewart stated there is another community that there is a full demolition <br />review for buildings prior to a certain date and minor review for buildings <br />younger than the certain date. <br />Mary Therese stated she appreciated that approach. She stated there <br />could be tiers, such as administrative review, subcommittee and public <br />hearing. <br />Fahey stated the Council most likely would not accept an option that would <br />add more steps. <br />Mary Therese stated this would be more like an appeals court. <br />Fahey stated we currently have that process. She thinks we just need a list <br />of what can be released at staff level. <br />Haley stated this would reduce the number that would have to be reviewed <br />by a subcommittee. She liked Stewart's idea of creating a full review for <br />buildings prior to a certain age, and administrative reviews for younger <br />buildings. <br />Watson stated he believes staff can decide a lot of the items being listed. <br />Echohawk agrees with most of what has been said but believes we need to <br />move forward. <br />Trice stated what she hears is the commission believes there is interest in <br />streamlining the process and including more staff review. <br />Watson stated that was an excellent summation. <br />Question #2 — What pros /cons should be included in presentation to council. <br />Stewart stated he appreciated all of the work staff put into this, but <br />recommended there by 3 columns put to the side of each pro and con to <br />give reasoning behind each pro and con so we can understand what staff's <br />opinion is, what the states opinion is, etc. <br />Echohawk would like more discussion on a fixed date. She recommended <br />discussing the options for a hybrid of fixed dates and 50 years. <br />Stewart stated he believes Option #4, keeping a rolling 50 years, makes <br />most sense, but streamline the demolition process and establish historic <br />neighborhoods. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.