Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 19, 2008 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br /> <br />more cohesively with the planning process. The outcome of that meeting was to bring a <br />new proposed ordinance for discussion that would do the following: <br />? <br /> Demolition review could be triggered by formally pulling a demolition permit (as it <br />is currently written); <br />? <br /> Demolition review could be triggered by a referral from the Planning Department <br />when it is part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process; <br />? <br /> Creation of a way for a building owner to come speak to the Commission about <br />the historic significance of a site in preparation for a remodel or demolition <br />without having to pull a demolition permit and without compromising the <br />subcommittee review process. Basically, this would be a “historic review” of a <br />property to give guidance but not link it to demolition review. <br /> <br />She noted the following regarding the amendments: <br />? <br /> The pre-filing conference is worded so that it should be clear that nothing said at <br />that conference would be binding to either the HPC or the building owner and <br />that a demolition review is still required. <br />? <br /> The expiration of the demolition review remains the same for a standard review <br />triggered by a demolition permit (180-days). <br />? <br /> At staff’s request, the demolition review when triggered by a PUD referral is tied <br />to the expiration of the PUD (3 years or extended if approved by City Council). If <br />the HPC feels this is too long, both recommendations will go to the City Council <br />for their consideration. <br />? <br /> The initial demolition review time has been increased from fourteen days to <br />twenty-one days to allow staff more time to research the property. However, the <br />response time to the applicant remains thirty days. There remains a nine-day <br />period after the review if the subcommittee requires additional time to consider <br />the options. <br />? <br /> This amendment includes an option for a building owner to request that the <br />subcommittee review process be bypassed and that the request go directly to a <br />public hearing with the HPC. <br /> <br />Muth stated that the staff recommendation is for HPC to give a positive recommendation <br />to the City Council regarding the attached ordinance. Once a recommendation is made <br />from the HPC, this ordinance will be scheduled for City Council consideration. <br /> <br />Leary asked if there was a way for the Preservation Ordinance to address the idea of <br />how to maintain the character of downtown. <br /> <br />Members continued the discussion to the June 16 meeting so as to have more time to <br />review the proposed amendments. <br /> <br />2008 Preservation Awards <br /> <br />Lewis provided some photos of suggested sites to honor. Members continued the <br />discussion to the June 16 meeting. <br /> <br />Landmark Plaque Design <br /> <br />John Leary suggested that the plaques be large enough to contain the history of the <br />building and some historical context, but they should be uniform from site to site. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />