Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2021 08 16

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 16 August 2021 Page 3 of 8 Haley stated that moving the structure would not be a bad thing to explore. Klemme asked if 180 days was an appropriate timeframe for the applicant and staff to work together. Keller agreed that 180 days might be excessive but it would take at least 2 months. He thought there were options if the lot were big enough, but he was not convinced that the property owner wanted to keep the house. Burg stated that there could be a front patio or other options for the porch but changing the windows and doors would change the character of the home. This was a well -maintained example that had been singled out by consultants for the City so it would be good to do due diligence to work toward preserving this for the town. Haley agreed that there could be a creative solution that embraced the mid-century modern era and that due diligence was the duty of the Commission. The Commissioners discussed the length of the stay, given that they were already 30 days into the timeline. There was a consensus on 120 days reached through discussing the time passed and the needs of staff. Klemme made a motion to place a 120-day stay on the demolition request for 601 McKinley. Burg seconded. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. 614 Grant Avenue: A request to partially demolish the existing structure at 614 Grant Avenue, retaining the first 12 feet. Zuccaro asked for a 10-minute recess. The meeting restarted at 7:18 PM. Zuccaro stated that there had been some procedural issues with this item, explaining that in Code Section 15.36.200.E, an application must be recommended for a hearing to the Building Division within 30 days of the receipt of a complete application, or the permit must be issued if all other requirements are met and the recommendation is not made within 30 days. He added that the Code required that a demolition review go to a subcommittee within 21 days of receiving a complete application. Staff had sent the application for review on the 21st day, which was probably too late to make a determination, but the subcommittee had made the decision to send the item to the full commission and had done so within the 30-day recommendation requirement. Zuccaro added that there was a requirement for a hearing to occur within 60 days, as well, which this item also met through this evening's hearing. He noted that though staff had sent the application out for review on the 21st day, there was no language in the Code that said that a permit must be automatically issued if the 21-day standard was not met. Zuccaro further explained that, in this case, the applicant considered the timeline to have started on July 2nd, whereas staff considered July 20t" to be the relevant date. Staff received a demolition permit on July 2nd, which they had not considered a complete application for a subcommittee review because it lacked a narrative and a demolition application form. Staff contacted the owner on July 2nd to request the narrative, which they received on July 20t" 3