February 1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

There was some discussion over parts of the building that have already been scratched, gauged and damaged. Mr. Talley further noted his frustration concerning the lack of cooperation he has received. Mr. Powell again stated that a meeting needs to be called to solve these problems. Mr. Oxian stated that a meeting was a very good idea because every body involved has a different story about what is going on and that there are too many bosses involved in the project. Mr. Powell stated that he was very up front with the architect that the building is not to be damaged no matter what. Mr. Talley reiterated that the Department of Water Works did not submit the entire project to the Historic Preservation Commission, that in fact the Commission only approved a small portion of the project. He also noted that the Certificate of Appropriateness stated that the Commission Director was to meet with all of the contractors who won the bids to discuss the properties historical designation. Mrs. Sporleder asked if such a meeting was ever held. Mr. Talley stated that it was not, however, he eventually did attend a meeting with the heads of the parties involved where he stated that the Commission did not review 95% of the project and that everyone could work together to solve a few problem areas, which he then stated. There was more discussion over the need for better cooperation among involved parties and the need to stress the buildings historical importance. 3. Legal Mr. Oxian stated that the ordinance for annexation has been approved by Area Plan and is before the Common Council. Mr. DeRose reported that the ordinance regarding interim protection is now before Area Plan, who has requested that the proposed notification go to the Common Council and owner, not the occupant. Mrs. DeRose stated that by sending it to the Common Council opens the door to denials if all points are not covered. She further noted that if the owner can not be reached by certified mail it would make the interim protection invalid. In the existing document the individual can be notified in person or by regular mail, where as, the Area Plan Commission wants it changed to certified mail or personal delivery only, which leaves the ordinance vulnerable to unresponsive owners. Mrs. DeRose stated that the ordinance should require certified mail with copy to regular mail or personal delivery. This way if the certified mail is refused then regular mail would be sufficient. She further noted that Area Plan has requested a time frame for the interim protection to prevent the tabling of a potential landmark and that the protection is only beneficial to the Commission and is not to be used to benefit the owner. Mr. Oxian stated that the longest time period he would recommend would be six months, because if it has not happened by then it would not happen. Mrs. DeRose suggested that if all reasonable efforts to notify the owner fail than notice shall be adequate if served upon an occupant. Mr. Talley asked what would happen if the owner is unreachable and the house is vacant. Mrs. DeRose stated that if the ordinance is altered to Area Plans specifications then interim protection will be invalid in such a situation. Mrs. Sporleder asked if to cover such a case as expressed by Mr. Talley could the Commission notify a government agency, such as Code Enforcement, to have a notice posted on the house notifying whom ever it may concern of the interim protection and the intent to landmark. Mrs. DeRose and Mr. Talley concurred that posted notification through Code Enforcement and the Building Department was a good idea. Mr. Talley noted that after interim protection is passed by the City it would be taken to the County. 5