Laserfiche WebLink
additions, exterior alterations, and related new construction alterations that have altered <br />potentially historic materials, features, and/or spatial relationships that characterize the <br />individual properties and neighborhoods as a whole. <br />The following recommendations would extend the purview and review authority of the HRC to <br />preserve neighborhoods, and to retain the existing historic character of individual properties. <br />For example, under the HRC's recommendation a property over 50 years of age undergoing <br />proposed exterior alterations, regardless of designation and/or eligibility, would be required to <br />be reviewed and approved by the HRC. <br />HRC Recommendation(s): Amend the powers and duties outlined in Section 2-374 of the <br />SAMC to allow the following: <br />a. Extend the HRC's purview to include eligible or potentially eligible historic <br />structures; <br />b. Extend the HRC's purview to include review and approval of proposed <br />demolitions, alterations and or/modifications to any structure over 50 years of <br />age, regardless of designation and/or eligibility; and <br />c. Grant the HRC the ability to impose conditions of approval on historic <br />applications, including Certificates of Appropriateness (i.e., Historic Exterior <br />Modification Application), Historical Property Registration Applications, and <br />Applications for Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Mills Act <br />Agreements). <br />Required Tasks, Approvals, and Resources: Amending the powers and duties outlined in <br />Section 2-374 of the SAMC would require City Council review and approval of a municipal <br />code amendment. In addition, an impact analysis would be required to analyze the benefits and <br />implications of the recommended policies and regulatory changes. <br />Issue 2: Currently, the HRC meets quarterly. The frequency of the meetings would not allow <br />the Commission to effectively discuss items that could be considered urgent or time sensitive. <br />Recent examples of this constraint includes the HRC's desire to place items on the agenda that <br />were scheduled for discretionary action by either the Planning Commission and/or City <br />Council. The recommendation outlined below would provide clarification on how matters can <br />be put on future agendas and provide a more streamlined approach. <br />HRC Recommendation(s): Amend the Historic Resources Commission Bylaws to allow a <br />more streamlined process of placing discussion items on the HRC agenda for review and <br />consideration and clearly outline that process. <br />Required Tasks, Approvals, and Resources: Amending the commission bylaws would require <br />a Historic Resources Commission meeting and majority vote from the commissioners. <br />Issue 3: The HRC consists of nine members, two of which are representatives from the <br />planning commission and the community redevelopment and housing commission. The <br />intention of this structure was to allow each representative to advise and make <br />recommendations to their corresponding commissions regarding potentially historical projects <br />and properties. However, the HRC has been concerned that in recent months the Planning <br />2 <br />L• W • <br />