City Council Minutes

(back to Archive Overview)

• Question on the reason for the appeal going directly to the State as opposed to an appeal at the local level, to the City Council. It was explained that the Historic Districts Act is the enabling law, requiring that appeals go directly to the state level; the City cannot deviate from State statute.
• Question on the selection of Historic District Commission members. It was explained that the Selection Committee (comprised of two councilmembers) interviews potential HDC applicants and makes their recommendation to the Mayor. The Mayor may recommend the appointment to the City Council.
• Question on the denial/appeal process of other boards and commissions. It was responded that certain appeals to Planning Commission decisions are made to the City Council, while appeals to Board of Zoning Appeals decisions go directly to Circuit Court. As such, when interviewing potential board members, the Selection Committee puts emphasize on the fact that litigation is the next step of appeal for denials by the BZA.
• Comments that State law requires appeals go to the State Preservation Review Board and Circuit Court, which could increase litigation. Suggestion to ask the state legislature to sponsor an amendment to allow an appeal at the local level before moving to the State level and Circuit Court.
• Discussion on the benefits of having a historic district and the feasibility of extending the historic district boundaries into other areas (i.e. S. Main Street, Cabbagetown). It was noted that the HDC has discussed boundary expansion; however they have not taken formal action. Further comments noted the degree of difficulty to persuade neighborhoods to agree to be designated as a historic district and the fact that most property owners prefer to demolish and rebuild to a larger scale than what is allowed in a historic district.
• Comment noting that the number of denials by the Historic District Commission is minimal and the fact that the HDC makes every effort to work with and make recommendations to the applicant. Most applicants are willing to work with the HDC and appreciate the recommendations and suggestions offered by the Commission.
• Discussion on the Historic District Design Standards, including the +/- 5% height guideline. It was noted that five percent a guideline, not a limit or requirement.
• Discussion on the importance of taking into account the size of the buildings near the structure, as well as the streetscape.
• Discussion on the denial of the application submitted by D & D Bicycle and the perception that the denial was mainly based on the proposed building’s height. It was explained that the application was originally submitted as a demolition, as it was not structurally possible to add two additional stories to a one-story building. The building’s façade would remain only if it could be supported and the applicant made no attempt to justify demolition. The HDC attempted to work with the applicant, offering recommendations on application revisions; however, the applicant elected to choose renovation. The HDC determined that the application was in violation of Secretary of Interior Standards No. 9.
  
  Further discussion ensued on the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and it was noted that a building’s second story may be different; however, it also should be compatible with the first story and the first story must show the record of the building.
• Question on the standards used during the approval of the Knickerbocker Building. It was explained that, at that time, written standards did not exist, which ultimately helped support the argument on the needed to develop written design standards.
• Concerns expressed on the perception that the HDC decisions override the decisions of other boards and commissions. It was explained that the Historic District standards are an additional and different set of standards and considerations that apply to structures within the historic district.
• Concern expressed that the Planning Commission must approve buildings that meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements, yet the same building can be denied by the Historic District Commission. It was noted that the Building Official and the Historic District Commission encourage applicants to come to the HDC prior to appearing before the Planning Commission. However, many applicants tend to ignore this suggestion, and instead look at the various meeting schedules, searching for the shortest period of time for potential application approval.
• A comment was made that varying height and varying mass create diversity, and further concern was expressed that diversity on the east side of N. Center Street is not reflected on the west side of the street. Also, a sense that the Historic District Commission is not giving appropriate consideration to three-story proposals. It was countered that the HDC has approved other 3+ story projects, including the New Victorian, First Presbyterian Church, and Cambridge Place. Each project is judged on its own merits, including height comparison with other buildings, and the surrounding environment. A further comment noted that it is the responsibility of the Historic District Commission to enforce the Secretary of Interior Standards.
• Discussion on new construction, overlay districts, big foot, mass, lot coverage, the need to preserve history, and the evolutionary process of maintaining a historic district.
• Discussion on the inventory of contributing and non-contributing buildings, done 30 years ago as part of the survey to determine whether to have a historic district. It was noted that this inventory record would be on file at the State level.
• Suggestion to the HDC to revisit the 5% height guideline in the Historic District Design Standards as the current guideline may be misleading. The Mayor suggested appointing a sub-committee to review this issue.
• The importance of finding a way to communicate that the Zoning Ordinance and the Historic District Design Standards should be reviewed by each applicant prior to filing their application. Suggestions included revising applications and requiring that applications be distributed by City staff as opposed to being made available on the public rack. It was countered that City staff makes every effort to inform and educate applicants. However, it is also the responsibility of the architect to ask questions and read the material provided.
• Suggestion to have the Historic Design Standards available on the City’s website.
• Suggestion that applications not be submitted to any board/commission until complete.
• Suggestion to the Historic District Commission to consider meeting twice a month.
• Final comments noted that the Historic District Commission does not need to agree with each application, that court is often used as an intimidation tool, and that the HDC makes its decisions using the available tools and guidelines.

The Mayor requested that persons interested in serving on the sub-committee see him after the meeting.