PL PACKET 04192005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 3 1 2 Commissioner Jenson asked who compiled the conclusions and recommendations. Ms. Roise 3 stated that she was basically responsible for the report. She explained that she and Mr. Grover 4 each prepared a report, with their own conclusions and she consolidated the information for the 5 final conclusions and recommendations. 6 7 Commissioner Jenson asked Ms. Roise to expand on the two main points identified in the report. 8 Ms. Roise noted that the conclusions are included on the last page of the report. She explained 9 that because they were looking at the property as a whole and restrained from the use of historic 10 district. 11 12 Ms. Roise explained that a cemetery is known as a site, but is also basically known as district, as 13 it is an accumulation of different components including the landscaping and building 14 components. She stated that the landscaping in the overall scope is historically significant but is 15 also a contributing factor for the district. She noted that many properties can be individually 16 eligible but can also be part of a district as a whole, which is the case with the Administration 17 Building. She explained that as a result it is possible that the Administration Building could be 18 replaced, if done appropriately and does not damage the national historic significance. She 19 further explained that sometimes the changes that are made could detract from the property and 20 in turn, make it ineligible for the National Historical Register. She indicated that her preference 21 would be to see the historic Administration Building remain noting that she does understand that 22 one cannot freeze time. 23 24 Ms. Roise stated that if Sunset Memorial can provide an appropriate design for a new 25 construction on the site the Commission could give it consideration. She urged the Commission 26 to carefully consider the proposed designs to ensure the historic significance of the site. She 27 referenced the landscaping and emphasized to the Commission that the landscaped features on 28 this site are very, very important. She urged the Commission noting that the landscaping is an 29 important part of the consideration and tends to be under recognized. 30 31 Commissioner Jenson referenced the definition and requirements to meet eligibility for the 32 National Registry and asked Ms. Roise to further clarify what is meant by the term `If and only 33 if . Ms. Roise explained that the National Parks Program and the Department of the Interior runs 34 the entire program. She further explained that the Secretary of Standards delineates what can and 35 cannot happen on a historical property. She provided the Commission with an overview of the 36 set of standards stating that there is a general consensus as to what meets standards or not. She 37 noted that they are subject to interpretation and debate. 38 39 Commissioner Jenson asked if there is anything included in the designation that would or could 10 prevent the new owners from tearing down the current building and rebuilding. Ms. Roise 11 confirmed that there are no restrictions unless they are using federal funds or if it requires a G2 historic permit. She indicated that local historical organizations could possibly have the ability to �3 help enforce meeting historic standards or requirements. G4