City Council Minutes 2015 07 28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 18 of 28 expenditures have begun to test historic preservation and the intent of the voters. He also felt the City has been very liberal in their justification of social significance. He supported a distinct period of significance and suggested 1945 to 1955. He did not support a rolling landmark. Linda Haley, 324 Tyler, Louisville, CO addressed the comment of liberal spending and noted only the historic overlay of Old Town is able to receive HP funds. Future generations can decide a structure has social or architectural integrity, but they would not receive HP funds. The 50 -year rolling period protects the homeowner's rights to landmark their properties. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council member Stolzmann expressed her appreciation to the HPC members who spoke. She generally supported the HPC recommendations, but had some concerns about the landmarking review. She noted there is not a brochure, website or a 'White Paper" telling people how to landmark their homes. She felt the demolition process takes a lot of staff time and supported streamlining the process. She felt the demolition process raises the period of significance to a level it should not be raised. If the demolition process was streamlined there would be a level of confidence to address the issues. She felt once the Master Plan is completed the City will have an outline to address the issues. She supported the HPC work and maintaining the state standard. Mayor Muckle explained many cities and countries adapt to a rolling historic period of significance. He appreciated the concern over the period of significance, but noted there were advantages to following the national standards and it is a voluntary program. Mayor Pro Tem Dalton thanked those who spoke this evening and voiced his appreciation for their time and passion regarding the issues and interest in streamlining the demolition process. He supported establishing a period of significance for historic preservation. He addressed the rolling fifty year period and historically capturing homes. He stated the City would not be deprived the opportunity of capturing the history, because the City's HPC and the Museum Coordinator would preserve the City's history. He did not believe capturing the history of homes without any architectural interest is historic preservation. He did not find the list of Pros for a rolling historic period of significance compelling. He thanked the staff and the HPC for their work on the proposed dates and supported a fixed date from1945 -1955. Council member Lipton inquired about the 50 -year rolling period of significance. If a homeowner wanted to renovate their home built in 1965, would they be subject to a demolition review. Planner I Trice stated it depends on the exterior of the home and whether it was a street facing facade. If it was street facing, when they applied for a building permit, it would be referred to the Historic Commission subcommittee for review. Depending on the level of work, it could add 30 days to the building permit process. Typically, 80% would go through the HPC subcommittee.