pages: HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2005-02-03 | 5 | Staff has prepared two Alternatives for the Board to consider. Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that this would require a recommendation to City Council to change to the Historic Preservation Ordinance Allen Tai, Planner II, presented two different examples of projects for the Board to review and determine which they feel should be considered a demolition under the current definition. Chair McPherson wished to remind the community that this Board is not saying no to all demolitions, but would like applications to come before the Board so they can have the chance to look at it prior to demolition. Chair McPherson opened the floor to public comment. Birgitt Evans, AAPS, stated that she feels that as a result of 1025 Fair Oaks and 1104 Oak St; the 30% (of the value) rule is not fair to anyone involved. 30% of a home worth $800,000.00 is $240,000.00 which could be a huge demolition. She is in favor of Alternative #1. Rosemary McNally stated that she is leaning more towards more that 5% of the front of the building. She also stated that it should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Francie Farinet. AAPS, is in favor of Alternative #2. She is not sure what the solution should be. Chuck Miller stated that it is obvious that there needs to be clear guidelines. He feels that the front should be separate percentage from the rest of the house. In most houses the front façade is only around 20% of the house. He also feels that the roof is very important architecturally and should be taken seriously. Chair McPherson closed public comment and opened Board discussion. Board member Miller asked which alternative would be best for staff. Ms. Altschuler stated that the purpose of either alternative is to have a better discussion with the applicant regarding if a demolition permit is necessary. Chair McPherson stated she is leaning towards Alternative #1 but would like staff to add verbiage to include roof removal as part of the definition. M/S (Miller/Lynch) to continue this item to a future meeting for further discussion. 3-0-2. Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. Motion carries. Minutes of February 3, 2005 Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting 5 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf |