My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 02 22
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2021 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 02 22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2021 9:40:45 AM
Creation date
3/9/2021 2:12:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/22/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
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.
/
292
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 />25 January 2021 <br />Page 4 of 9 <br />Ritchie added that this structure was not mentioned in those surveys. <br />Haley noted that it was one of the younger homes in the central area. She asked her fellow <br />commissioners if they agreed that the structure met the landmarking criteria for probable cause <br />General agreement. <br />Klemme noted that the preservation program was still voluntary and even if the Commission <br />placed a stay and supplied the funding for the assessment, the homeowner did not have the <br />obligation to participate. <br />Haley stated that the hope was that the homeowners would find something that would <br />encourage them to landmark, but if they did not, they would be doing the City a favor by doing <br />the assessment to create a record of the structure. <br />Dunlap observed that it seemed as though there was consensus on doing the HSA. He noted <br />that the moisture in the basement and the low ceiling in the kids' bedrooms was pretty <br />compelling and he would support the assessment but would support a shorter stay. <br />Ritchie noted that if the Commission released the stay tonight the assessment could still take <br />place, but staff had recommended mandating a bit more time to complete the assessment. <br />Dunlap observed that 30-day stay was pretty similar to no stay. <br />Ritchie replied that the applicant was already at 25 days so a desired 30-day stay from now <br />would need to be a 60-day stay. <br />Beauchamp suggested that the homeowners might commit to the HSA if the demolition process <br />could move forward. <br />Ritchie asked if it would be possible to offer the applicants the option of a 180-day stay or a <br />complete assessment to release the permit. <br />Zuccaro replied that staff would probably want to look into that option deeper. <br />Haley asked how long it took to schedule and complete an HSA. <br />Ritchie replied that it could vary based on contractor availability <br />Beauchamp replied that it would probably take 30-45 days. <br />Klemme stated that the time it takes to write up the assessment could overlap with the <br />demolition of the house once everything had been documented. She stated that the assessment <br />felt more like a fact-finding mission for city records rather than an opportunity to landmark a <br />house, due to the property line and drainage issues. She felt that the applicants had done their <br />due diligence. <br />Haley replied that she was trying to determine whether the Commission only wanted the HSA <br />and were fine with the plan to demolish the house or if the Commission also wanted the <br />homeowner to consider the landmarking process during the stay. <br />C! <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.