Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/12/2014SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission:  Heard and discussed public input about the demolition of the Button House.  Approved February 12, 2014 Minutes as presented.  Approved a request to provide a letter of support for a State Historic Fund Grant for the Carnegie Building at 200 Matthews Street.  Heard a Conceptual Review of 222 Laporte Avenue, Relocation of the Poudre Valley Creamery Butterfly Building on site.  Heard a Preliminary Design Review of 201 South College Avenue for addition of new building and plaza on site of Old Post Office building.  Approved demolition/alteration of 1214 West Mountain Avenue, Jordan and Annie Oberman.  Discussed revisions to City Code, Chapter 2 “Administration” and Chapter 14 “Landmark Preservation” and recommended adoption by City Council.  Approved the Landmark Preservation Commission 2014 Work Plan. Approved by Commission at their April 9, 2014 meeting. LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting 300 Laporte Avenue March 12, 2014 Minutes Council Liaison: Gino Campana (970-460-6329) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Chair Sladek. Members present were: Ron Sladek, Maren Bzdek, Meg Dunn, Kristin Gensmer, Dave Lingle, Pat Tvede, Alexandra Wallace, Belinda Zink and Doug Ernest. Staff present: Historic Preservation Planner Karen McWilliams, City Planner Joshua Weinberg, and Administrative Staff Cindy Cosmas and Gretchen Schiager. PUBLIC INPUT ON ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: Karyl Ting, 720 Peterson Street, expressed concerns about the unannounced demolition of the Button House on Remington Street, and what she characterized as the developer’s disregard for the neighborhood community, the Landmark Preservation Commission and City Council. She asked that the developer be held accountable. Mr. Sladek summarized Ms. Ting’s request that the Commission express its concern about the incident and potential future impact to City Council. Commission Discussion Commission members also expressed concerns about what had transpired with the Button House. Ms. McWilliams summarized what had occurred, and said that the latest plans included replacing the Button House with a close replicate of it. She said a neighborhood meeting had been scheduled for March 27 th to explain the sequence of what occurred and discuss with the neighbors follow up actions that could be taken. Ms. McWilliams said staff was looking at adding some new language to Landmark Preservation Commission March 12, 2014 - 2 - the codes to prevent this from occurring in the future. Mr. Sladek stated he might like to put this item on the next meeting agenda for further discussion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Landmark Preservation Commission minutes of February 12, 2014 were approved by acclamation. Time Reference: 5:44 p.m. LETTER OF SUPPORT – STATE HISTORIC FUND GRANT FOR THE CARNEGIE BUILDING, 200 MATHEWS STREET Jill Stilwell, Cultural Services Director Applicant Presentation Ms. Stilwell requested a letter of support from the Commission for a grant from the State Historic Fund to begin a restoration project on the Carnegie Building. Ms. Stilwell showed historic and current photos of the building and provided some background and history of the building. The building has been repurposed as a gathering space for local artists to exhibit their work. The restoration project will happen in three phases. The focus of the first grant is the west façade facing Matthews Street, and the south façade, and will include restoration of the windows, pointing of sandstone, eave work and addressing drainage issues. The estimated budget is $120,000, and they anticipate having a 50% match to put toward the grant from the state. Commission Questions Mr. Sladek explained that the request for a Letter of Support had come to him, and that he wanted input from the rest of the Commission members. Ms. Stilwell pointed out that this building, and the four log structures in the courtyard, had all been previously designated by the Commission, and the plans will be brought to the Commission for approval later. Commission members clarified that the grading improvements would be done in the courtyard. There was discussion about protecting the cabins on the site, their condition, and the fact that they are considered artifacts. Ms. Stilwell clarified that this grant is just for the first phase, focusing on the west and south façades, which are the sides requiring drainage work, and are the public access components. Phase Two would address the other two façades. Phase Three would focus on the area where the two buildings connect, restoring the sandstone windows, and replacing the HVAC system. There was discussion about the drainage issues and removal of sediment, and concern was expressed by members about archeological considerations in that process and whether the budget allowed for appropriate handling of any found artifacts. Ms. Stilwell said they would budget for that, or would reallocate funds, as needed. She also offered assurances that there are processes in place for dealing with archeological finds. Landmark Preservation Commission March 12, 2014 - 3 - Commission members inquired about the source of the matching funds. Ms. Stilwell said the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) had offered to match some of the money for the façade work. In addition, Operations Services would contribute some maintenance funds related to the drainage work, the Cultural Services Department would also contribute, and they hoped that Historic Preservation would provide a small sum to help meet the match. Public Input: None Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a Letter of Support for the State Historic Fund grant for the Cultural Services Department of the City of Ft. Collins for rehabilitation of the Carnegie Building. Ms. Zink seconded. Motion passed 9-0. Mr. Sladek will coordinate with staff to provide the letter prior to the April 1 deadline. Time Reference: 6:00 p.m. COMPLIMENTARY REVIEW – 222 LAPORTE AVENUE, RELOCATION OF THE POUDRE VALLEY CREAMERY BUTTERFLY BUILDING ON SITE Brian Hergott, Operations Services; Dominic Weilminster, Design Lead, RNL Design Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, including background and information about the design of the building. The City of Fort Collins Operations Services Department has asked the Commission to provide comments on the proposed relocation, and address any concerns about its effect on the building’s continued eligibility for landmark designation. Commission Questions Mr. Sladek asked whether anyone felt he might have a conflict of interest in his participation with this topic, since he was involved in documentation of the building a few years prior. Ms. McWilliams clarified with him that he did not have any financial interests in the proposed project or other perceived or potential conflict, other than documenting the building. No concerns were expressed by any commission members. Applicant Presentation Mr. Hergott provided background information about how the vision plan for the future Civic Center Plaza and Utility Services Building was developed. Mr. Weilminster explained the role of RNL Design in the project, which began with a three- day participatory charrette, attended by more than 70 people throughout the City, to develop a vision plan. Subsequently, a two-day charrette was held to focus on Phase One of the vision plan, which is the new Utilities Services Building to be located at the corner of Laporte and Howes. The design process balanced working with the future vision plan, and the existing context of the site and the Butterfly Building. Conversations with the Poudre Landmark Preservation Commission March 12, 2014 - 4 - Fire Authority, the City’s Engineering Department, and Historic Preservation have contributed to the design process. Mr. Weilminster gave an overview of the various options for dealing with the Butterfly Building. Option 1 is to leave the building in place; Option 2 is to relocate the building to the east, but still within the new public plaza; Option 3 is the recommended option, which would move the building temporarily to a different location, and later move it to a prominent location on the South side of the Civic Center. Commission Questions Mr. Sladek asked for clarification on the location option toward Haiston Oil. Mr. Weilminster said that was one possibility for a temporary location for the immediate term, because the Butterfly Building can’t be moved to Howes Street immediately, and the construction for the new building will start this year. Public Input: None Commission Discussion Mr. Sladek emphasized that this is a complimentary review. There would be no voting, but this was a great opportunity to ask questions and provide comments to the City on what could or should happen with the building. Mr. Sladek pointed out that it has already suffered from a loss of its setting with the RISCO building having been torn down behind it, as the Butterfly Building’s association with the creamery was the reason it was there in the first place. The building has still been found to be eligible. Mr. Sladek stated that he believed this building to be the only example of the Googie style of architecture in the city. Ms. McWilliams could not confirm this without more research, but said it is certainly rare. Mr. Ernest commented that the construction of the new Utility Services Building is going to be starting fairly soon, but the closure of Howes Street and the creation of the Civic Center Plaza is further out. He expressed concern that if Option 3 were selected to locate the building where Howes Street is now; and the Civic Center project took years; then the building could be in a temporary location at the north end of block 32 for a long time. Mr. Hergott stated that the only project with funding now is the Utilities Service Building. The second building might be the parking garage north of 215 N. Mason. The third building would probably be the new City Hall, and could be 8-10 years out, which would be when Howes Street would be closed. Mr. Sladek commented that it would be a long time to be in temporary “storage”. Ms. Bzdek asked about eligibility for landmark status. She questioned whether the building would still be eligible if both the location and setting are lost, considering that the only remaining aspects of eligibility would be materials, design and workmanship. Mr. Sladek stated that any of the options would still result in having a new Utility Services Building nearby, whether the building is moved slightly to the east or to the west toward Howes Street. Landmark Preservation Commission March 12, 2014 - 5 - Ms. Wallace commented that if Option 1, 2 or 3 were to come to the commission later, it would probably not be designated as eligible anyway. The integrity would be lost, even if it remained where it is, because the Utility Services Building would be behind it. Ms. Wallace clarified that any of the options would equally infringe upon the building’s eligibility. Mr. Lingle further stated that potential development of the Civic Center Plaza appears to be driving other decisions, including the potential loss of integrity of the Butterfly Building. He also stated a concern that the “temporary” location could reach far into the future. Ms. Wallace inquired about plans to protect the building if it were temporarily relocated. Mr. Hergott stated that siting it near the Haiston Oil building, which also had historical preservation purposes, would help to protect it. Mr. Sladek was concerned about what will happen to the Haiston Oil building down the road as well. Mr. Weilminster provided some context around the process used in siting the new building, which included interviewing all of the City’s departments on blocks 32 and 42, understanding current functions, and where there were spaces on the block that could feasibly be developed. Mr. Weilminster said he doesn’t think any portion of block 42 was in consideration at this point. He stated that they tried to respect the vision, while also selecting the building site that would be least impactful to the existing historic structures. Mr. Sladek asked if the new Utilities Service Building could be moved a little further north, away from the Butterfly Building. Mr. Weilminster stated that preserving green space, and creating a good urban environment on Laporte Street were important considerations for the site. Additionally, the east-west orientation of the building is important to creating geothermal conditions conducive to achieving the City’s energy goal of a net-zero energy city campus in the future. There are a number of factors from a systems perspective that are working together to site the building where it is. There may be some ability to explore moving the building slightly north; however, the Poudre Fire Authority considerations will still need to be addressed. Mr. Sladek stated that his impression is that the best option would be to leave the building where it has stood since 1964, and move the Utility Services Building further north. He expressed concern that this building would be put in storage and forgotten about after many years, or lost through vandalism or neglect. He stated that if it were to be moved, there would need to be a strong memorandum in place to ensure it would be moved back later. Mr. Lingle stated that while he recognized there are multi-departmental concerns, he believed that Historic Preservation should be equally important in the decision making process for the siting of the Utility Services Building. He stated that the Butterfly Building should be left where it is, creating an island, with parking east and west of it. He thought this placement would be a signal to the public that the City is respecting, and developing around, historic elements. Ms. Bzdek inquired about the skew orientation of the building and whether that was due to a functional purpose. Mr. Sladek stated that he researched it in depth and didn’t find anything Landmark Preservation Commission March 12, 2014 - 6 - to indicate why it was skewed. There was nothing encroaching upon it that would have pushed it to be set at a skewed angle. Ms. Bzdek mentioned that the large creamery building was demolished about five years ago, and asked whether there were other structures on the creamery site. Mr. Sladek said that was the only other building, and it occupied the square area to the north of the Butterfly Building. Mr. Hergott interjected that after they were already starting the review process, they learned that the current location of the Butterfly Building is in the 100 year flood plain. If it is touched in any way, it must be raised a minimum of 18 inches to bring it out of the flood plain. Mr. Ernest asked for additional explanation of whether the building would have a functional purpose, or serve as a gateway to the new Civic Center Plaza, rather than just an unoccupied historic building. Mr. Weilminster stated that there are potential options on table, including an opportunity for an interpretive center that is ancillary, but educational about the City of Fort Collins. It is currently a bike library and could continue to function as such. He stated that the goal was to make it a viable part of the future vision plan as much as any of the new buildings. Mr. Sladek acknowledged that there are competing interests and needs relating to that area. He stated that the Commission’s preference would be to leave the building standing where it is. If it were to be moved, they would need to have another discussion about where would be the best place. Mr. Sladek also pointed out for future planning purposes, that not only has Haiston Oil already been determined to be eligible, but the 1950’s City building was also found to be eligible for the National Register. Mr. Hergott said the plan does show that building remaining. Mr. Sladek said that as they plan for the future, the Commission would like some early discussions about what might be done with those buildings. Time Reference: 6:51 p.m. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW – 201 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE, ADDITION OF NEW BUILDING AND PLAZA ON SITE OF OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING Jeff Hansen, VFLA, Project Developer Staff Report Ms. McWilliams provided a description of the proposed Little Man Ice Cream project, including some background, and information about the review process. The presentation included site photos, concept renderings and a site plan. Commission Questions Josh Guernsey of Brinkman Partners, and owner of the building at 201 South College Avenue, provided an overview of the project, how they became involved with Paul Tamburello and Loren Martinez, the owners of Little Man Ice Cream, and how their vision for the space evolved. He described the deal structure with Little Man as a ten-year lease, with multiple five-year options. Landmark Preservation Commission March 12, 2014 - 7 - Mr. Tamburello provided some background about himself, his credentials, and the history of the Little Man Ice Cream store in Denver. He explained that they had won a Historic Denver Design Award for the renovation of the former Olinger Mortuary office building, and Little Man is adjacent to it. It is between two of the Olinger Mortuary buildings, on an odd-shaped piece of land. Mr. Guernsey added that, above the dock on the back part of the property, are 15 HVAC units for the building next door. That will stay in place, but they are looking at making modifications to enhance the dock, including screening it and using it for seating on the stair steps going up. Mr. Sladek commented that the presentation materials mentioned removing that dock. Mr. Guernsey clarified that it would be modified, not removed, partly to help the museum with ADA access, and also because there is no other place for the HVAC equipment. Mr. Sladek said this was an interesting concept and asked about the origin of the Little Man name. Mr. Tamburello said it was named after his father, who was a little Italian guy, and that was his nickname. Public Input: none Commission Discussion Mr. Lingle asked whether the dock is part of the National Register listing for the property. Ms. McWilliams said the dock is part of the Ft. Collins landmark designation for the property, but the National Register listing is rather vague. It was designated in 1978 when their standards weren’t as specific, and it is not clear whether the dock was specifically included in that nomination. The dock was built in 1960, and was only 18 years old at the time of the designation. Mr. Sladek commented that whether or not the dock was a character-defining feature was probably not discussed at the time. Mr. Lingle asked for clarification about how the five review criteria from Section 14-48 were to be evaluated, since this isn’t really an addition, but rather a relation to a historic building. Ms. McWilliams said that the code does not specifically state whether all, a preponderance, or only one of the criteria, need to be met in order for the Commission to approve or disapprove a project, but rather leaves that to the Commission’s discretion. However, Criteria #5 in the City Code addresses the ability to meet the Secretary of Interior Standards, which requires that all ten of the standards be met. Ms. Bzdek asked about the location of the two related out-buildings. Mr. Sladek said that they were located in the southwest corner of the property behind the milk-can. Mr. Tamburello said one of those was a walk-in freezer and the other was for dry storage, and he clarified that those structures were also temporary. Mr. Lingle asked how the two out- buildings relate to the dock, since the site plan didn’t show the existing dock. Mr. Hansen, representing Vaught Frye Larson Architects (VFLA), explained that the existing dock is an unusual T-shape, and they would be extending the surface to make usable space for Little Landmark Preservation Commission March 12, 2014 - 8 - Man customers. The temporary structures nest against the existing canopy and dock. Mr. Sladek asked about space to walk around the building, to which Mr. Hansen replied that due to traffic problems, the area had been blocked off with concrete barriers. He said they are still working on the exact configuration, but the dock must continue to function as a loading dock for the museum. Currently, trucks are backing in from College Avenue, but with the new plan, trucks would be using the dock from the Oak Street side. Mr. Hansen also clarified that the temporary buildings would be at grade level, adjacent to the dock, not on the dock platform. Mr. Lingle commented that building #2 on the drawing appeared to be far wider north-south than where the dock would end. Mr. Hansen, explained that it fits in the nesting space on the southwest corner of dock, where the existing parking spots are now. Mr. Sladek commented that the milk-can looks small in the aerial rendering, but looks much larger in some of the other renderings from different angles, and asked for clarification on the size and scale. Mr. Hansen explained that the front of Ace Hardware is taller, but then steps down to 15’ in the back portion. The milk-can would be about twice the height of the back portion of Ace Hardware, at 28’ tall, which is about four feet shorter than the Post Office roofline. Mr. Hansen explained that another component of the project would be to make the site wheelchair accessible, and it is currently too steep. At the point where the milk-can is sitting, the ground would be 18” lower than it is now. Ms. Tvede asked how the dock would be modified. Mr. Hansen pointed out on the site plan where the dock surface would be expanded. There would also be some enhancement to the screening of the HVAC equipment. The canopy would be left as is. Mr. Guernsey added that the because museum only uses the dock four times a year for switching art displays, the space is underutilized. They are looking at creating year-round seating, and adding ADA access, while still allowing the museum to utilize the dock to bring art in and out. Mr. Sladek asked whether they had spoken to anyone at the State Historical Society about any impact of this project on the National Register designation. Mr. Guernsey stated that they had started with getting input from the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and the Landmark Preservation Commission, and the State would probably be the next step. Mr. Sladek emphasized the importance of finding out as soon as possible whether the project would threaten the National Register listing of the property, given the landmark status of the entire site. He suggested Ms. McWilliams could provide some direction on who the applicant should contact to open that dialogue. Mr. Sladek then asked whether this building had received any grant funds from the state. Ms. McWilliams said the museum had received a couple of State Historic Fund grants, but she did not believe they resulted in any easements. Mr. Guernsey said he was not aware of any easements, or tax credits, related to grants. Mr. Ernest asked for confirmation that the canopy roof would be kept in place, as the staff report stated it was to be demolished. Mr. Hansen said it would be kept in place. Mr. Sladek suggested the Commission look whether the project would negatively impact Section 14-48 of the City Code and the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Mr. Sladek asked whether the Commission members had any concerns related to the five City of Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission March 12, 2014 - 9 - criteria. He added that since the proposal would not be touching the building, it is more a question of how the setting of the building and its site would be impacted. Ms. Bzdek asked the staff to summarize the contents of the preliminary comments the property owners received from City Staff, which were referenced in the DDA Letter of Support. Mr. Mapes, City Planner, explained that this project is subject to three different review processes, including the Landmark Preservation Commission, which may ultimately have the ability to approve or deny it. Staff has determined that the building, as proposed, does not comply with a number of Land Use Codes. Building compatibility standards require new buildings to use elements and materials that are similar to historic buildings and other commercial buildings in the vicinity. Some of these standards list elements such as eaves, cornices and windows. Fundamentally, this is a different kind of building that would require modification of the standards. Also, the sign code limits the size and height of a sign. In this case, the name of Little Man is on an object which commercially represents the business. Therefore, it is both a building and a sign; a situation that is not accounted for in the City’s Land Use Code standards. Mr. Mapes said that if the project moves forward, variances to those standards must be brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Dunn asked whether having a “milk jug” next to a regal historic building affects the character of the building, and she tied that to Criteria #1 of the City Codes, relating to the architectural character of the building. Mr. Sladek mentioned Criteria #2 also applies, with regard to the architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of the existing and proposed structures. Ms. Dunn pointed out that the materials are very different. Mr. Sladek asked whether the Commission had concerns about Criteria #3. Mr. Lingle said the only one of the five criteria he felt was not impacted was #4, because the structure is isolated and would not impact the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark. However, he believed it does impact the other four, including the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Ms. Dunn asked whether it made a difference if the structure is temporary. Mr. Lingle pointed out that it was a ten-year lease with five-year options in perpetuity. He also pointed out that the landscaping in the renderings looked very mature and was not a very realistic depiction of how it would look initially. He also said that, since the building would be temporary, it could be considered reversible under Standard 10, but could also be there for a very long time. Ms. Tvede suggested that, if it really is a temporary structure, is not attached to anything, and could be easily removed, that may negate some of the historical considerations. Mr. Sladek said the proposal includes lowering the ground and putting in a plaza with paving stones, where there has been a driveway for over 50 years. This would constitute a change to the site whether the building is still there or not. Ms. Tvede commented that the landscaping seems to be an asset that would remain even if the milk-can structure were removed. Ms. Zink said that the landscape around the entire building would be modified significantly. Mr. Sladek said his primary concern is that the building would remain freestanding, since it was designed with ornamentation on all sides that was clearly meant to be seen. Ms. Tvede said it was a funky structure to be placed in a historic district. She would like to see it there, Landmark Preservation Commission March 12, 2014 - 10 - but would not want it attached to anything, so that it could be easily removed. Ms. Bzdek said that whether the structure is temporary was less important to her than whether it fits with the character of the site. She thought it was a great concept that might fit better in the River District. She said the plaza improvements are potentially good for the building, as it would keep the area open, protect the building, and allow it to be seen, but questioned whether the milk-can structure was appropriate for that space. She said she would love to see the project in Fort Collins, just not at that site. Ms. Bzdek said she was most concerned about Criteria #1, but was also concerned about 2, 3 & 5, and would not even eliminate #4, as the increased activity on the plaza would impact the current use of the landmark. Mr. Sladek said he could see it on Linden, across Jefferson, in the River District. Ms. Tvede said it is a fun and funky idea, but would be better sited elsewhere. Ms. Wallace said she was a fan of the design, and was fond of roadside architecture, but was concerned about the location, because people could mistake it for being part of the original site. Mr. Sladek expressed concern about setting a precedent if they allow a project like this within the historic district, or adjacent to it. Ms. Dunn said if it were a food truck rather than a milk-can, it would be different. It would still have the fun atmosphere, but it would clearly be mobile and not a permanent part of the site. Mr. Ernest said the closest analog to this milk-can structure he could think of located in downtown is the big vat next to Coopersmith’s, and asked how that related to the Old Town Historic District and whether it was grandfathered in. Mr. Mapes said the grain silo at Coopersmith’s is viewed as being an accessory structure that is customarily associated with the brewing operation, and serves a function. There are grain silos in other locations. Originally, it didn’t have Coopersmith’s sign on it, but does now. It was allowed because it is an accessory associated with the brewery. Ms. Zink said another thing to consider is that this is a duplication of a structure in Denver, and not something designed specifically for this site. Down the road, if there are 40 of them around Colorado, or 400 around the country, it might feel a little different. Mr. Sladek concluded the discussion by reiterating the Commission’s concerns about a structure of this character being placed adjacent to one of the most prominent historic buildings in downtown Fort Collins. He also said it sounded like everyone would be thrilled to have it somewhere in town. Since this is a preliminary design review, they were simply providing feedback and there would not be a vote. He thanked the applicants for their presentation, and invited them to come back if their plans proceed. Time Reference: 7:47 p.m. DEMOLITION/ALTERATION FINAL HEARING – 1214 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE Jordan and Annie Obermann, Owners Mr. Sladek recused himself from this item due to his involvement in the project design. Landmark Preservation Commission March 12, 2014 - 11 - Staff Report Mr. Weinberg introduced project, providing background information, a description of the property, the proposed alteration, and a staff analysis of the project. Commission Questions Mr. Lingle asked whether the applicant had met with the Design Review Committee prior to the 2013 addition, and whether that came to a successful conclusion. Mr. Weinberg said that was correct. Mr. Lingle asked whether the applicant had declined to meet with the Design Review Committee again for this particular application, and whether there was something in the process that could have been improved upon. Mr. Weinberg said the applicant was present and could better address that. Mr. Obermann said they met with the Design Review Committee about the proposal, but there didn’t seem to be any compromise available. He further stated that the plans had been modified to meet their needs and reflect much of the original plans. Public Input: none Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve on final hearing the addition of a front elevation second story to the house at 1214 West Mountain Avenue, finding that the applicants have complied with all of the required provisions of Section 14- 72 of the Municipal Code, commonly called the “Demolition/Alteration Review Process”. Ms. Zink seconded the motion. The motion passed 9-0. Time Reference: 7:59 p.m. DISCUSSION – HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS STUDY: COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON CHANGES TO THE CITY CODE AND THE LAND USE CODE Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented background information and a description of the revisions to City Code Chapters 2 “Administration” and 14 “Landmark Preservation”. Commission Questions Mr. Sladek clarified that staff is seeking a recommendation on the code changes to take forward to Council, and that a vote would take place. Public Input: None Commission Deliberation The Commission members discussed whether three citizens should be enough to initiate a non-consensual designation. A suggestion was made to increase the minimum to five; Landmark Preservation Commission March 12, 2014 - 12 - however, members expressed concerns that raising the bar too high would discourage public input. Commission asked staff to clarify the process by which non-consensual designations are made. Staff clarified that according to existing codes, one citizen can bring forth any application, but there is still a multi-meeting process, and then a supermajority of the Commission would be required before an application is forwarded to Council for a decision. The proposed revision increases the number of citizens required to initiate an application from one to three. The rest of the process stays the same. The Commission members commented that having three citizens required, rather than one, would make it less likely to have spurious applications made by a single individual or household. Commission members agreed that there are enough fail-safes in the process that three citizens would be adequate. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to City Council for adoption the proposed revisions to City Code Chapter 2 “Administration” and Chapter 14 “Landmark Preservation”. Mr. Lingle seconded the motion. Motion passed 9- 0. Time Reference: 8:23 p.m. DISCUSSION – LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2014 WORK PLAN Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Staff Report Ms. McWilliams submitted the Work Plan, with the revisions previously requested by the Commission, to be consideration for adoption. Public Input: None Commission Deliberation Ms. Tvede moved to accept the 2014 Work Plan as written. Ms. Wallace seconded the motion. Motion passed 9-0. Chair Sladek thanked Ms. McWilliams for her hard work on the code revisions and work plan. OTHER BUSINESS: None Mr. Sladek adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager