Sorry for the delay in posting some of the latest developments; I was pretty busy with other things this past weekend.
I’ve had a little more feedback from Planning & Code Director Greg Ossont regarding the discussion of the master plan element at the 10/05/06 HPAC meeting. With regard to my comment last week that “It is unclear if this means that the City staff expects in the future to make decisions on historic preservation without consulting HPAC or the HDC.” Mr. Ossont explained:
First, let me clarify this for you. Staff does not expect to make decisions on historic preservation without consulting HPAC or the HDC. The City Code dictates the procedures for historic preservation, regardless of what’s adopted as part of the Master Plan, which is a guide. I can assure you that staff has neither the authority nor the presumption to make determinations on historic preservation without following customary and prescribed regulations.
That said, we had a good discussion with HPAC. The short version is the tier system of prioritizing properties was not well received although HPAC does better understand our intent to make the historic element of the master plan and useful tool and document rather than a simple inventory of properties already designated. Staff will be revising language in the draft document and returning to HPAC next month.
Hope this helps. Have a good weekend
It does, thanks, Greg.
In an exchange with another person who attended the HPAC meeting, I learned that one of the concerns expressed by HPAC was that, while there could be some value in identifying high-priority historic sites, the labeling of sites by priority at all is rife with potential for creating confusion and difficulty. It is often difficult to tell whether a site has historic value before the proper research has been done.