My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2022 10 17
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2022 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2022 10 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/27/2022 4:59:37 PM
Creation date
10/27/2022 1:24:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
10/17/2022
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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 />September 19, 2022 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />Haley says demolition for the new project will be a huge loss to Main Street. We would <br />landmark if we could. <br />Dunlap mentions the old town overlay project and how it affects the community. He was <br />hoping there could be more options for the applicant then there is now. <br />Haley says the rezoning is not an option at all. The stay is the chance for any discussion <br />and having second thoughts or new ideas. <br />Burg says we have these meetings so that the community can be heard. <br />Haley says staff recommends the 90-day stay. Are you in favor of that? <br />Burg says she is in favor of the 90-day stay since the applicant is already aware of the <br />landmarking process. <br />Dunlap says he would rather see the full stay in place. This seems rushed since there <br />was no advanced history. <br />Haley says she is in favor of the 180-day stay as well. <br />Dunlap moves and Haley seconds a motion to amend the 90-day stay to be a 180-day <br />stay for the request to demolish the existing structures at 1209 Main Street. Motion <br />passes 2-1 by a roll call vote. <br />Name <br />Vote <br />Lynda Hale <br />Yes <br />Christine Burg <br />No <br />Gary Dunlap <br />Yes <br />Motion passed/failed: <br />Passes <br />DISCUSSION / DIRECTION ITEM <br />Historic Structure Assessment Policy <br />Brackett Hogstad says that the commission requested clarification on whether HSAs <br />are required prior to landmarking, and information and discussion on the role of HSAs in <br />general. <br />HSAs are required prior to designation but a finding of probable cause is not. Probable <br />cause is the only way to get money from the City for assessments. HSAs have been <br />financially supported by the City since 2010. Between 2012 and 2019, it was required <br />before or after designation. Since 2019, it has been required before designation. The <br />"for good cause" exception has been available since 2012. <br />HSAs can inform grant requests and can identify necessary and impending <br />maintenance needs. They can also provide historical information on a structure. Below <br />are the key issues: <br />• Sufficient information to evaluate landmark requests <br />o Staff finds that this could be a key benefit to requiring HSAs prior to <br />designation in Landmark and Alteration Certificate cases. <br />• Other non -grant benefits of assessments <br />• Assessments as barriers <br />o Staff does not currently have enough information to evaluate this issue. <br />• Structural integrity <br />o Staff finds that this situation may be rare, but constitutes another benefit to <br />requiring assessments prior to designation <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.