July 2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hackett: Right, the good faith on the two red buildings and the site plan on the house. But just to clarify on that other brick building that can't be moved. That would not be included. Riley: Will that be rebuilt? Davey: We're going to have city utilities, municipal sewer and water. Zeiger: Would it be possible to just measure it and document it? Before it's demolished so that we have record of it? Hackett and Davey: Sure. Zeiger: So we'll have height, width, material,- how big is that frieze board, I'm not out for an architectural print, but something to capture what' the building looked like and was designed like and some color photos to put into the file. Hostetler. Or you could reuse the bricks too for landscaping. Zeiger: Yeah, that's a great reuse, I just wanted something to document what it was. Klusczinski: In that case, that would be the third contingency. Would you consider that third option too then? Davey: Sure. Klusczinski: For the record, Chair announces that applicant has amended 2008-0710 with the following contingencies: 1. the good faith effort to relocate the two wood framed out buildings, the other thing would be that the applicant would provide a final site plan for the new location of the building, I guess all of the buildings prior to final location and seeking the approval of the HPC for that location or orientation and the third would be that the brick building would be properly documented and photographed for the archives and the historic record. Davey: Assuming that we prevail and get the zoning and all things and we come back with the site plan is that like tonight or is that a meeting with Catherine? Klusczinski: It probably would exceed the capacity of the staff to make an administrative approval and would have to come before the Board. If there are time issues that you're trying to anticipate, given enough time we can possibly stage a special meeting, a special public meeting with proper notice and consider it at that time. Other than that though the default format would be at our regular monthly meeting. There are few options and we're certainly happy to do that so that we don't' cause an issue that way. Zeiger: I'd just suggest that we get some sort of sense on the site plan before you go to the zoning and variance, it's a chicken and egg thing we don't want to set you up for some back and forth thing. I don't know if we can help with that in the interim, at least start to chat that through so that you don't go get a variance and then set up a conflict. Klusczinski: You could informally submit it to the Commission and we're happy to collaborate. Zeiger: We can go over it, give you some ideas, some guidance and help you that way once we know the set backs that you're working with and all of those issues. Davey: Fair enough. Klusczinski: Ok, the applicant has amended the C of A. If there are no other questions for the applicant, we'll move to Commission discussion if anyone else has any thoughts that they'd like to bring up at this point? Riley: And the land is ok according to the letter that we have from 2001? Hostetler. We, there's a precedent for delisting it. Zeiger: Will we re -landmark it then at it's new location? Hostetler: That's up to you. Zeiger: I think that's a really good idea. I keep adding more conditions. I mean the house is designated now, I'm not real keen on not having that property protected. Not that this owner would do anything with it, but I think that it's highly likely given it's location that we'll be back at the table at some time about this house. I don't mind giving up landmarking now, but I think that it needs to be designated in its new location. Klusczinski: So I have a question for counsel. Currently the entire property is Ian dmarked, which includes the land, buildings and main structure. So, by de -listing the land parcel, we're also de - listing it for the house, even if it's allowed to be moved. Meteiver: The house maintains it's protection, to whatever site it goes to. Klusczinski: Ok. 12