Laserfiche WebLink
Greene: [Reply unintelligible due to distance from the microphone] <br />Chase: When they put the parking lot in without approval, on Leeper Park, which was supposed to be <br />used only while they were doing the renovation at Madison, and it was going to be returned to grass <br />when the construction was all done. And it has not been, in fact, I think that they've embellished it. <br />Greene: Did you have a written agreement? To revert it...? <br />Chase: We'd have to check back to the minutes from that time and see what we have. <br />Greene: Generally, what I would do as legal counsel, I would check to see if there was an existing <br />agreement in place, and then enforce that agreement. If there is not a written agreement, then I <br />would look into the public record and check that these actions were taken publicly with full <br />awareness and agreement. <br />Riley: I have a question about that. Before the construction started, I thought it was exactly as it is <br />now. <br />Chase: No, there was no parking lot there. <br />Choitz: That was the understanding right along. It's in many of our minutes. <br />Klusczinski: I want to make sure that we don't get too far off topic. Cheryl is there away that you <br />could help us research that? <br />Greene: Sure, we could look into it with Catherine's help for the history of this. We can bring a <br />report back to the Commission at its next meeting, as to the status, and again, if there was an <br />agreement in place or promises and representations agreed to on the record, then it would be a <br />matter of sending a letter enforcing both. <br />Sporleder: Can we go back to Marquette and the interim protection? After six months can we have <br />another interim protection? Or can we only do this once? <br />Greene: My understanding is that there have been questions raised in the past but I haven't looked at <br />this in quite sometime, Joann. My recollection is that you have that six months interim protection <br />until such time that either that six month window shuts down or the Common Council takes action on <br />the land marking. So, it is my understanding, and the ordinance is a little unclear on whether or not <br />that can be extended, but it does not appear to me that you could tack on another six months. I do <br />want to make note that during interim protection, that it does not prohibit the property owner from <br />making remedial repairs that are necessary to continue the property, it does not prohibit this <br />Commission from issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations that are consistent with the <br />guidelines, it simply prohibits the building from being demolished during that period of time or from <br />conspicuously changing the exterior of the building. Again, my understanding is the six month <br />window, you are required to send a letter to the owner. <br />Sporleder: Can you prepare a statement of how we should word that? Is there any specific legal <br />wording? <br />Greene: In the past, I believe that you've provided the property owner with a copy of the ordinance, <br />and they can draw their own interpretations, but it would not be my responsibility to give them <br />interpretations. Basically, there is a form letter that lays out this information. <br />Sporleder: So all that we need to do here is to make a motion to initiate the interim protection? <br />Well, I so move. <br />Choitz: I second. <br />Klusczinski: As long as there hadn't been a motion already seconded.... we'll close discussion. All in <br />favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (Silence) Motion carries unanimously. <br />Moved: Sporleder Second: Choitz <br />Approved: Unanimously <br />VII. HEARING OF VISITORS <br />Don Sporleder was recognized and discussed various AIA initiatives and his recent return from an <br />AIA conference in San Antonio. He also mentioned an upcoming visioning charette regarding Youth <br />Service Bureaus Safe Stations. More details will follow. <br />16 <br />