The most notable topic of the meeting was the presentation of the second draft of the proposed revisions to Chapter 599 of the local preservation ordinance. Staff member Rob Skalecki presented the draft, emphasizing the need for updates to align with current preservation practices. Since its adoption in 1972, the ordinance has facilitated the designation of 20 historic districts and over 195 individual landmarks. A key change in the draft is the consolidation of administrative preservation applications into a single streamlined process, aimed at reducing processing times and increasing efficiency for applicants. Additionally, the historic variance tool will be renamed as a historic exception to prevent confusion with zoning variances.

The draft also reintroduces findings for consistency with the comprehensive plan and revises language to match current zoning terminology. The process for demolition applications has been clarified, especially regarding properties under interim protection. Commissioners were encouraged to provide feedback, particularly on the restructured administrative application process and proposed naming conventions.

In addition to the ordinance draft, the meeting featured in-depth discussions about the delineation of powers between citizens and elected officials in the nomination process. Concerns were raised about council members and the mayor having the ability to submit nominations without needing recognition as potential historic resources, unlike other citizens. This was justified as a representation of constituents, but concerns about procedural imbalances were voiced.

The discussion also tackled the interim protection timelines, which have been extended to 16 months with options for longer extensions. Questions arose about how this applies to properties already studied but not designated. Staff clarified that interim protection applies to newly nominated properties.

Further deliberations covered the qualifications for commission membership, with a proposal to explicitly include landscape architecture and planning as areas of expertise. The inclusion of such fields was seen as beneficial to the commission’s capabilities. Concerns were also raised about the indefinite status of potential historic resources. A previous draft included a ten-year sunset clause for these resources, but it was voted down to prevent the premature removal of properties that might later be deemed historically significant.

The meeting also addressed the qualifications for the Planning Director role, with concerns about the absence of specific requirements for the position. While it was acknowledged that qualifications are typically handled through administrative procedures, the importance of relevant experience for major preservation decisions was underscored.

A procedural question arose regarding the removal of the required findings section in the updated certificate applications. Concerns were expressed that this might limit regulatory clarity, but staff explained that the change aims to streamline the process and help diverse applicants better address the ordinance’s intent without excessive requirements.

Public outreach efforts for the ordinance draft were discussed, noting that while the draft has been publicly available since October, there has not been a formal outreach period for broader public engagement. Stakeholder comments have been received, but a structured public comment period has not been incorporated.