Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2008 06 16

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 16, 2008 Page 2 of 5 subcommittee review process. Basically, this would be a "historic review" of a property to give guidance but not link it to demolition review. This item was continued again at the May 19 meeting so that members could have additional time to review the revisions. The draft currently includes each of the above items as well as addresses comments made by Mike Koertje last week. Muth noted the following: • The pre-filing conference is worded so that it should be clear that nothing said at that conference would be binding to either the HPC or the building owner and that a demolition review is still required. • The expiration of the demolition permit remains the same for a standard review triggered by a demolition permit (180-days). • At staff's request, the demolition permit, when triggered by a PUD/SRU referral, is tied to the expiration of the PUD/SRU (3 years or extended if approved by City Council). • The initial demolition review time has been increased from fourteen days to twenty-one days to allow staff more time to research the property. However, the response time to the applicant remains thirty days. There remains anine-day period after the review if the subcommittee requires additional time to consider the options. • This amendment includes an option for a building owner to request that the subcommittee review process be bypassed and that the request go directly to a public hearing with the HPC. Staff is recommending the HPC give a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the attached ordinance. Once a recommendation is made from the HPC, this ordinance will be scheduled for City Council consideration. Muckle stated her concern about the three-year expiration of a permit if it is tied to a PUD. She stated her wish to make it 180 days. McMenamin asked why, once a determination is made, unless the rules and procedures have changed or new information has become available about the history of the building in the three-year period, why would an additional review be necessary. Menza asked how the historic value could change over three years. Muckle stated that the circumstances could change in three years, for example if a building is of a certain architectural type and others of that type are demolished in the three years, than the remaining building could be more valuable historically at the end of three years compared to when the initial review was completed. Whiteman stated that the HPC shouldn't add another process when it is already a part of a larger City PUD process. For clarity the HPC process should be consistent with the Planning process so that there is a consistent expectation for the applicant. Lewis stated that the HPC should leave it at 3 years, but that these concerns should be noted to City Council as well.