Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 13, 2010 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />Update/Discussion/Action – Cemetery Landmark Application <br />McCartney presented the staff reportand discussed the following points: <br />Owners consent is required for landmarking of individual plots. <br />City is responsible for maintenance. <br />Koertje stated he had read City Attorney Sam Light’s interpretation and agreed the <br />cemetery should be treated as a local landmark district. <br />Lewis further stated the purpose of the landmark request is to preserve the cemetery <br />and protect the headstones. <br />Muckle inquired if the owners could just “opt” in. <br />McCartney answered in the affirmative and stated the most appropriate step would be <br />to write a letter and send it to the owners. <br />Poppitz recommended creating a system that makes it easy for owners to contact the <br />City if they would like to “opt in” to the district. <br />Muckle gave some suggestions. <br />McCartney stated he could provide a draft letter at the next meeting. <br />Lewis inquired if all modifications to a headstone would require an alteration certificate. <br />McCartney stated in the affirmative. <br />Koertje recommended thelanguage in the landmarking allow for certain types of <br />modification, such as landscaping. <br />Public Comment <br />John Leary asked if the HPC believed there was a chain of ownership for even the <br />oldest gravesites. <br />The Commission discussed ways to work with this situation. <br />Koertje asked staff to recalculate their ownership percentage to include any abandoned <br />plots. <br />Lewis stated her interest in the War Memorial. <br />Koertje stated he still believed relocation of the memorial would require an alteration <br />certificate. <br />Update/Discussion/Action – Demolition Application Process – Amendment to <br />LMC <br />Koertje recommendation had the following discussion topics: <br />Change social trigger to be by staff, not applicant. <br />3 years is too long for approval, maybe make it 18 months. <br />Include the Subcommittee review in the flow chart. <br />Lewis inquired if PUD’s need to be re-reviewed when they come in for time extension. <br />