My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2008 03 19
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2008 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2008 03 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:22 PM
Creation date
2/20/2009 11:24:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2008 03 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />March 19, 2008 <br />Page 7 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />Muckle asked for questions from the HPC for staff. <br /> <br />McMenamin asked how demolition permits for non-historic buildings are handled for <br />expiration. Muth stated that the expiration is 180-days for a demolition permit issued in <br />the Building Division and that there is a three-year expiration on PUDs. <br /> <br />McMemamin, Koertje, and Tofte all supported the 180-day expiration. <br /> <br />Tofte stated that she felt the 180 days is sufficient. <br /> <br />Whiteman noted that the new language would help in that it would allow for a <br />preservation conversation with owners before they have committed or even thought <br />about demolition. So it may advance the mission of the HPC to have those <br />conversations earlier in the process without linking it directly to the demolition permit <br />review process. <br /> <br />Muckle asked for public comment. Seeing none, she returned to the HPC comments. <br /> <br />Muckle noted that if the real goal is public participation it would make sense to have a <br />public conversation about a building with the full HPC prior to having any discussions <br />about a demolition permit. <br /> <br />Members were in agreement that the amendments need to address three items: <br /> <br />? <br /> Demolition review as currently done by pulling a demolition permit with all the <br />same review regulations currently in place; <br />? <br /> Demolition review triggered by a referral from the Planning Department when a <br />demolition is a part of a larger PUD; <br />? <br /> A way for a building owner to come to the HPC to have a “historic review” of a <br />property without it being tied to or part of the demolition review. This would still <br />require a demolition review when the property owner is prepared to proceed and <br />pull a demolition permit. <br /> <br />McMenamin made a motion to continue the item to the April agenda. Koertje seconded <br />the motion. All in favor. <br /> <br />Muth will get with the City Attorney and have new language drafted for the HPC to <br />review at the April meeting. <br /> <br />Update – 836 & 844 Main Street <br />Muth reported that she has asked the applicant for an update but has not yet received a <br />reply. <br /> <br />Jean Morgan, 1131 Spruce Street, asked if the demolition stay expires on April 22. <br /> <br />Muth reported that it does and noted that the applicant is not required to get back to the <br />HPC at this point, but she will continue to request an update from them. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.