April 1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REVIEW PROCESS Adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission: April 20, 1992. Open the meeting with the following statement: The technical qualifications of the staff of this Commission and of the Commission members is on file with the City of Elkhart, is available on request to any applicant, and is hereby made a part of the legal record of each and every application heard today. Each person wishing to speak must be recognized by the Chairperson - and - then - will - come - to - the - rostrum -and- -state — your name and address. Procedure for hearing a Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. Listing of case by the Chairperson 2. Presentation by the applicant (and witnesses) 3. Presentation by the staff (staff report) 4. Speakers in favor of the application (public comment) 5. Speakers in opposition to the application (public comment) 6. Finding of fact (Commission discussion)* 7. Vote on Motion * The chair may allow discussion of the proposed project to take place before a formal motion is placed on the table. However, this is not in strict accordance to Robert's Rules of Order ". Robert's Rules states that debate can only take place after a motion has been seconded and recognized by the chair. By allowing discussion before a motion, certain aspects of an application may be able to be worked out and the "feeling" of discussion is more open than under a motion. There are two motions necessary to approve or deny a C.O.A.. As a part of the first motion the following phrase should be Mr. Chairman, I have inspected the property in question and have observed the ways in which this property relates to its physical setting and to the general area and (state motion for findina of fact) The first motion required states and adopts findings of fact regarding the. appropriateness of inappropriateness of the project itself: I move that the Historic Commission find as a fact that the proposed project (state application file no or location) if constructed according to the plans submitted on (state date) is /is not incongruous with the character of the district, for the reason(s) that the (state specifics ie. heiaht, setback, and placement, materials, architectural detailina, roof, I fenestration, aeneral form and proportion, appurtenant features) are /are not generally in harmony with'the character of the adjoining properties and the historic district"