Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 05 19

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2014 Page 5 of 11 Cohen believes there is precedence established because we applied to have the sign changed in 2008. La Grave stated he would rather not speculate. Robinson stated he would rather the HPC place the stay on this application because the code releases an application if no action has happened within 60 days. Watson stated we should move forward with this so we can find out the information needed and move forward to finding a solution. La Grave does not want to hinder the research but wants to make sure this application is valid. Watson stated he agrees with staff that we risk having this application revoked if there is no action taken within 60 days. Stewart agrees there is a bind about the 60 day review period. He also agrees action should be taken so we can move forward with discussions and further research. He wants to make sure staff comes back with the research by next month. La Grave stated staff should try again to contact the property owner, get further review by the City Attorney, and create options for the future use of the sign. He just wants to make sure we are processing this application appropriately. Haley stated she agrees with La Grave primarily for future applications. Fahey stated she wants to make sure the HPC has upheld the property owners’ rights. La Grave stated the biggest question mark is whether the property owner is even abreast of this application. Cohen stated there is a signed certificate acknowledging reception of a public hearing notice and the meeting she had with Malcolm. La Grave stated there is no evidence of the meeting with Malcolm. Watson stated the biggest question for the City Attorney is whether the applicant has the authority to act as the property owners’ agent. He recommended a condition could be placed on the motion. Stewart made a motion to place a 180 day stay on the demolition application based on its eligibility for landmarking, according to the demolition criteria, and requests staff research whether the application is found valid. Haley seconded the motion. Fahey asked if the motion included any contact with the owner.