October 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

added the vote was not per property. Commissioner Hostetler clarified that this was a "dual" situation in which an owner of multiple properties gets one vote and multiple owners of a single property get one vote. President Oxian noted there was also a policy accepted on land contract owners. Mrs. DeRose suggested that this was an extremely complicated area and she requested that a clarification be made by the Commission in order to formalize the policy. ( A,V.4t C*4a4j President Oxian commented that the issue of voting has been problematic in the past and that the issue of voting is almost always questioned in front of the Council. Commissioner Choitz questioned the wording in the chronology regarding the counting of ballots (Ballots shall be counted and forwarded to the HPC for consideration of the Designation). She noted the ballots are sent in to the HPC, and then a representative from the steering committee and some one from the districts committee and the staff of the HPC get together to count the votes and then the ballots are stored at the Commission office. President Oxian observed that in the past the envelopes were sent to the commission with either "yes", no". or "abstain". Inside the envelope was the voters name. the envelope was opened only if the vote was questioned. This was changed because inevitably the ballots were opened anyway. Commissioner Choitz commended the chronology as a wonderful start. Commissioner Sporleder noted Mr. Duvall's accuracy in pointing out the redundancy that exists in regard to notification of a public hearing. Commission Sporleder asked for clarification on the matter of a public hearing for Area Plan, for which notification must be sent out. President Oxian replied that Area Plan sends out that notification. Commissioner Sporleder observed a second public hearing was required for the HPC. President Oxian concurred that Area Plan has a hearing, the HPG has a hearing, as well as a bearing by the City Council. Mr. Duvall noted the redundancy is in that the rules of the Commission require the Commission to have a public hearing and then forward the recommendation, while the regulation set forth in the new ordinance indicates that the designating ordinance needs to be introduced and then send to the Commission for public hearing. President Oxian disagreed and stated that was applicable only to the 90 day ordinance. He elaborated that there are two different types of ordinances, the original ordinance was that the Commission have a public hearing and then forward the recommendation to the Council, the second ordinance applies only if someone other than the Commission introduces an ordinance to set up a historic district. He expanded that if the Commission does the leg work to set up a historic district, then the regular procedure that has been established. President Oxian added it is only when a Councilmember or someone beside the Commission introduces an ordinance for a historic district does the second ordinance apply. Mr. Duvall responded the way he read the ordinance it stated after an ordinance had been introduced to the Council, it needed to be sent back to the Commission. President Oxian disagreed. Commissioner Sporleder pointed out that if Mr. Duvall was interpreting the ordinance in this matter, it may be that other people will have the same interpretation as well. President Oxian informed the Commission the reason the change was made was because a Councilmember tried to create a district by bypassing the Commission, because originally it allowed Councilmembers to introduce ordinances without having to go through the Commission. President Oxian added this ordinance could be used to set up a district or to abolish one. He expanded that this was changed by the introduction the new ordinance which originally set it up for 30 days, but this was changed to 90 days. President Oxian noted that this may be a 10 redundancy now, because he believes Councilmembers can no longer introduce