Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Packet 2.11.16.pdf MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 2016 CITY HALL SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Kate Corcoran, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell, Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Agran, Gosia Clore STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Alicia Trimble RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 920 Dearborn Street. Bristow said this property is in the Dearborn Street Conservation District near the railroad tracks. She said this is technically a non-contributing property. Bristow said that it has a small shed roof addition on the back. She said the owner is mostly remodeling the inside, although he wants to get rid of what is probably an original rear door on the side and one of the three windows in the addition. Bristow said the owner also would like to get rid of a window that is on the south side of the addition. Bristow said the owner will take out the window on the north side of the addition and put a new door in that location. She showed the door with which the owner would like to replace it. Bristow said the house has vinyl windows and siding. She said that basically, a lot of these things are not what one would want to see, but since this is non-contributing, blending in with what is there would be much better than using something that does not blend in. Bristow said staff recommends that the owner be allowed to match the siding where windows are taken out. She said the owner does not intend to put in any more windows or another size of window but only intends to remove the one window and leave the two in place. Bristow said staff recommends approval of this, based on that information. Bristow said the owner plans to remove the deck and put in a larger deck. Bristow said the packet includes a plan she sketched in at about the proposed size. She said the owner is definitely setting the deck back more than the 18 inches required in the guidelines. Bristow said the owner will be working with her to insure that the railing meets the railing guidelines. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 14, 2016 Page 2 of 8 Bristow said she does not feel that this will make any impact to the exterior, street view of this property at all. Sandell asked about the material for the new deck. Bristow confirmed that it will be wood. She said that it will no longer have a metal railing. Other male (Litton?) asked if the deck on the back would not have access. Bristow said the deck will be much like it currently is but just bigger. She said there would be a door where the one window currently is. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 920 Dearborn Street, as presented in the staff report. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Agran and Clore absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review. 721 East College Street. Bristow said that someone hit the shed-like garage in the back of this property, breaking some of the cement board siding. She said it is the textured type, and in order to match everything else, staff is letting the owner put it back. Bristow said the owner has meticulously taken care of what is here, even though it is not contributing. She said the owner is basically re-siding the unattached garage in the back. 314 South Summit Street. Bristow stated that this house has a porch that needs reroofing. She said the owner is reroofing with membrane roofing. Bristow said the owner took down the original bead board, which was very deteriorated, and bought actual bead board instead of the bead board plywood and put it up and painted it. Bristow said it has soffits on the entire house that do not fit the guidelines at all. She said staff talked to the owners about the fact that if they actually took down and put new soffit up, they should actually put up bead board soffit. Bristow said the owners claim they can put back what was taken down, and there is an insurance claim involved. Bristow said staff approved putting the aluminum soffit back up, as long as the owners purchase no more aluminum soffit. Bristow said the owners have since found that it might actually be too deteriorated to put back up. She said the owners might have to purchase, and if they do, they are working to get the insurance company to approve actually meeting the guidelines and putting on the correct soffit. She said that it would only be on the porch though, not on the entire house. 607 Grant Street. Bristow said that this is basically an asphalt shingle replacement. 636 South Governor Street. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 14, 2016 Page 3 of 8 Bristow said this non-contributing property came before the Commission a while ago for the replacement of windows on the front. She said the owners are rebuilding the rear deck. Bristow said staff decided to let them have the rear deck in the same footprint that it originally had, even though it sticks out beyond the footprint of the house, because they are just rebuilding it in the same footprint. Bristow said the owners will make all of the railing to match the guidelines. She said they will paint or stain it to blend with the house. Bristow said the posts on the deck are wrought iron, and they will use posts that match the current guidelines. She said the only way it will not be meeting the guidelines is that it protrudes from the side of the house a little bit, but again the house is non-contributing and they are not changing the size of the deck at all. Minor Review – Preapproved Item – Staff Review. 728 Rundell Street. Bristow said this project is a front door replacement. She said the owner is putting in a fiberglass, craftsman style door with three lights. REVIEW OF BY-LAWS AND PROCEDURES: Swaim said that although the Commission has procedures for public hearings, it does not have written procedures for conducting public discussion. She referred to the information about the procedures that the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) follows. Swaim said she had asked Miklo and Bristow to make comparisons between the Planning and Zoning Commission's by-laws and the Historic Preservation Commission's by-laws to see where the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) might make some additions. In terms of the procedures, Miklo said that it might be very useful to have time limits when there are a lot of neighbors discussing controversial issues. He said that the time limits seem to help speakers focus on what their arguments are and help avoid a lot of repetition. Miklo said the Planning and Zoning Commission has been using this for at least 15 years, and it has helped make its meetings more efficient and productive. He said that it is not part of the Planning and Zoning Commission's by-laws but rather is part of the procedures. Miklo said the information is placed at the entrance to the meeting room with the agenda so that any potential speaker would have a chance to read it and become familiar with it. Miklo said the other thing that has not been consistent is that sometimes there is discussion and then the motion occurs and then there is a vote. He said probably the appropriate way to do it would be to have a motion and then discuss the motion and then have a vote. Swaim asked what things the procedures should apply to. Miklo suggested they apply to anything for which there is a motion. He said he thinks it is more appropriate when there is an application, a landmark nomination, or an historic district. Miklo said that when the Commission is discussing the awards program or something like that, it would not be necessary. Miklo stated that, for the Planning and Zoning Commission, after the staff report but before the applicant speaks, the Planning and Zoning Commission asks questions of the staff. He said the chair sometimes has to remind the Commission members when they go beyond asking HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 14, 2016 Page 4 of 8 questions and start debating the matter that this is the time for clarifying the issues and asking questions. Miklo said that it does take some discipline to have questions rather than discussion at that point. Ackerson said the discussion on numerous occasions has affected what was moved and voted on. Miklo said the Planning and Zoning Commission handles that by having a motion, discussing the motion, and then they make amendments to the motion, or a motion is withdrawn. Corcoran commented that it is the same procedure used for the Board of Adjustment. She said it is the idea that a motion is made, and then it is actually on the floor for discussion by the applicant and the public. Corcoran said then there is discussion by the Board and then the vote. Miklo said there are pros and cons to each way. He said that by putting out a staff- recommended motion, everyone then knows what the motion is and can comment on whether he or she agrees with it. Swaim asked if someone then wants to amend the motion, does the initial motion have to be voted down. Miklo replied that if it is an amendment and not a total counter-motion, then it can be amended by adding or subtracting items. Miklo stated that if it is a motion to approve a project and someone is against approval, after discussion that will be the vote. He said that the discussion would give the opportunity to say why someone should or should not vote for it. Miklo said it is also the Planning and Zoning Commission's practice, once there is a motion on the floor and the Commission is discussing the item, to not take more discussion from the public or, generally, the staff. He said the Planning and Zoning Commission may ask questions of the applicant or staff, but it is the Planning and Zoning Commission's time to discuss the agenda item. Corcoran asked if the order would then be the staff report with questions for staff, the public hearing for the applicant and any other speakers is opened and then closed, and then there is a motion. She said then the Commission would discuss the motion and make any amendments or whatever and then vote. Miklo said that after everyone has spoken, the Commission could have another round of questions. He said the trick is to not get into debate but to have questions to get any clarification. Miklo said that once those questions are answered, the public discussion is closed and it is up to the Commission to discuss and vote. Swaim said the P&Z by-laws refer to meeting in a place with accessibility, and she did not believe that is in the HPC by-laws. Miklo said that is standard procedure and is part of the open meetings act. He said there is no reason not to have it in, although it would be redundant. Regarding who can make a motion, Miklo said it is the Commission's practice and is in Roberts Rules of Order that anyone but the Chair can make a motion. He stated that it would be good to clarify that. Swaim referred to the Conflict of Interest Section of the P&Z By-laws. Miklo said that if the HPC wanted to adopt something like this, because each historic district has to have a member who lives in it and owns property, there will be cases where a member of the Commission has a HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 14, 2016 Page 5 of 8 conflict. He said that ideally there will be another party to represent him or her. Miklo stated that if there is not the possibility of another representative, the City Attorney's Office has said that the HPC member could represent his or her own case. He said that should be spelled out. Michaud said that if one is representing his or her own neighborhood, he or she will be really vested in it. Corcoran asked in what kind of situations this would occur. Miklo said that for P&Z, the person/applicant does not participate in the discussion. He said that P&Z is somewhat different in that the conflicts of interest have included situations where the P&Z Commission member was a University employee and his department of The University was involved or the member was a realtor and his or her firm was involved. Miklo said this is a little bit more difficult in terms of the HPC. Swaim said if someone in her neighborhood has an application, it is in her interest to have the application be the best it can be, but she is also representing her district. Miklo stated that the State law was specifically written to include members who live in the district. He said that if someone in a member's district has an application, the Commission member does not automatically have a conflict of interest. However, Miklo said that if the member has a close, personal relationship with the neighbor and feels there is a bias, the member could recuse themselves. He said that from the other perspective to avoid offending a neighbor, a Commissioner may want to recuse themselves. He said it is up to each Commissioner determine when they have a conflict and choose to not participate. Ackerson said it would not make sense for the historic district representative to always have to recuse himself. Miklo said that fortunately, most of the districts are large enough that this does not often come into play. Miklo asked Ackerson and Litton how they felt the process went from the perspective of an applicant. Litton said he would include something that says that a property owner has to recuse himself at some point. Miklo said that it is clear that a property owner cannot vote. He said the question is whether the owner should participate in the discussion in any capacity. Litton said he really liked having the opportunity to speak. Swaim said that he Litton was speaking as the applicant and recused himself at that point. Litton agreed. Miklo said that the way P&Z does it is that the owner gets someone else to represent them. He said that would be a possibility. Miklo said the other end of the spectrum would be for the owner/applicant to recuse himself and go out into the public and participate from there. Baker said that recusing oneself might result in not having a quorum. Miklo said in that case the application would need to be deferred. Corcoran said that it does not say that an applicant has an obvious conflict of interest. She said the language leaves it to the member to make that determination. Corcoran said the HPC might want to say that if the member is an applicant for a decision by the Commission, that person has a conflict of interest, per se, and will be required to recuse himself. She said that would be the rule, and then there would be no question. Corcoran said the Commission could also include the P&Z language for other situations where there is more of a gray area. Corcoran said the law is to avoidance even the appearance of impropriety. Miklo said that it is up to individual commissioners when there is a conflict or when they are the applicants to move into the audience. He said it is really not the applicant that is the issue but the rest of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 14, 2016 Page 6 of 8 Commission, in terms of whether the members are treating the applicant the way they would one across the street or down the block. Ackerson said that since he has been on the Commission, people have been good about recusing themselves without exception. He said he wondered if really spelling this out might cause a problem where one doesn't exist. Miklo said that currently there is nothing in the HPC by-laws about this. He asked about using the P&Z language and including having a member who is an applicant recuse himself, allowing him to participate as an applicant but not as a member. Michaud suggested including the applicant or someone who would receive direct financial gain from the project. Miklo said that staff could work on the language before the next meeting and present some alternatives. Swaim asked about section 11. Miklo said that because the size of the Commission may change over time, he would be hesitant to get into numbers. He suggested using the language "the majority of the quorum present." Corcoran said the phrase "but not less than three" could be removed for HPC purposes Swaim said the next sentence would not apply to the Historic Preservation Commission. Swaim asked if the HPC would want to add the sentence about following Roberts Rules of Order. Miklo responded that he would be hesitant to include that, because Roberts Rules are so specific, and the Commission would want to have some flexibility. He said that if the Commission includes the wording and doesn't follow Roberts Rules of Order, that could open up a decision to challenge. Bristow said the procedural process from the National Trust for preservation commissions was included in the packet for reference. She said that the Commission could review it before any revisions are made. Swaim commented that she read through it and can see why procedures are so critical. Miklo said staff could draft some options for the next meeting. Miklo said, regarding the whole issue of the City Council resolution to not reappoint commission members, that it could be problematic for the Historic Preservation Commission, especially for small districts, unlike other boards and commissions, which have a city-wide pool of applicants. He said that Commission members might want to let City Council members about that. Miklo said that City-wide, there is a low minority representation on boards and commissions, although there is a pretty good gender balance, per State law. He stated that the City Council is trying to make more opportunities for more people to apply to boards and commissions in order to get more diversity. Miklo said he did not know that the Historic Preservation Commission needs to offer specific changes but might want to ask that the City Council be open to looking at this. Miklo said one possibility might be that if a position is advertised for a certain period of time and no one applies, that a previous member might be appointed. Corcoran said that since there are four at-large members on the Commission, that might be one place the City Council could enforce the rule, because of the larger pool. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 14, 2016 Page 7 of 8 The Commission discussed the length of terms for various City board and commissions. Miklo stated that staff advocated longer terms for some boards and commissions because of the learning curve and the amount of time it takes for new members to get up to speed. Regarding ex parte communication, Swaim said that seems like this could happen with small districts and neighborhoods. She said it is important to remember that people should refer the public to staff for information when requested. REPORT ON 2015 HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS: Swaim said this is a chance for all to take pride in historic preservation and for the City to see what the Historic Preservation Commission does. She said she also thinks that the historic preservation awards program wins new support for preservation. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 10, 2015: MOTION: Sandell moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's December 10, 2015 meeting, as written. Corcoran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Agran and Clore absent). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:19 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2015-2016 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member NAME TERM EXP. 1/8 2/12 3/12 4/9 5/14 6/11 7/9 8/13 9/10 10/8 11/12 12/10 1/14 ACKERSON, KENT 3/29/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X AGRAN, THOMAS 3/29/17 X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X O/E BAKER, ESTHER 3/29/18 X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E X X CLORE, GOSIA 3/29/17 X X X X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X X X O/E CORCORAN, KATE 3/29/16 X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X DURHAM, FRANK 3/29/16 X O/E X O/E O/E X X X O/E X X X --- LITTON, ANDREW 3/29/17 O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X X X MICHAUD, PAM 3/29/18 X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X SANDELL, BEN 3/29/17 X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X SWAIM, GINALIE 3/29/18 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X WAGNER, FRANK 3/29/18 O/E O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X X