Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 08 19

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 15, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Selvoski replied that usually the only way the City would learn about something like that is if the Building Department visited the site. Klemme asked who had reported this situation. Selvoski replied that it had been a citizen who saw the demolition. She added that there had been a stop -work order placed while staff and the property owner figured it out. Building staff changed the project requirements from remodel to new construction in response to the full demolition. Dunlap asked for the property address. Selvoski replied that it was 515 Jefferson. Haley asked if anyone had questions about the process. Ulm replied that it sounded like the City would have caught the issue eventually and reiterated their comfort with the process. He was still concerned with property owners not following their application requests. Selvoski replied that it seemed like the property owner had gotten into the wall, realized the extent of the damage, and gone ahead and demolished it. Dunlap observed that it was a violation regardless of the preservation concern. Dickinson stated that he could see how a builder could encounter rotted material and want to get rid of it immediately rather than go through the long process of getting approval by the City. He thought it was important to do reviews quickly. He asked if the process for historic buildings with additions fell under the full review process if the property owner wanted to demolish the newer additions rather than the historic portion. Haley replied that the 50% amount was not a limitation, it was just what triggered a process as a demolition. Klemme stated that she understood how someone would need to take down a material while the construction crew and tools on -site. She asked if there was something the Building Department required property owners to sign acknowledging that they understood that they needed to come back in if they made any changes to their plans. Selvoski replied that the City approved specific plans, which the property owner then had to sign. Haley added that landmarked properties had a more thorough review process and this particular situation seemed like an anomaly.