Historic Preservation Commission

ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL CALLED MEETING MINUTES October 19, 2020 The Athens-Clarke County Historic Preservation Commission met and considered the following items at a public meeting on Monday, October 19th, at 5:30 p.m. The meeting, hosted via WebEx, was held at 120 W. Dougherty Street, Athens, Georgia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeff Bishop, Bobbie Epting, Worth Van Linden, Thomas White, Missy Brandt Wilson (voice poll) MEMBERS ABSENT: Heather Fletcher, Ellen Walker STAFF PRESENT: Sandy Beasley, Amber Eskew, Bruce Lonnee (host), Michael Petty, Samantha Trust CALL TO ORDER: 1. Determination of Quorum: Quorum present (rollcall vote) 2. Introduction of staff reports and all other documents submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission at this meeting into the official record: Motion to receive all documents into the official record passed unanimously (rollcall vote.) 3. Ex-Parte Communications: None Prior to the start of business, Mr. Bishop notified the Commission that he would leave the meeting during discussion due to logistical issues that may interfere with his ability to chair the meeting. As the vice-chair was absent, a motion was made to appoint Missy Wilson as acting chair for the balance of the meeting. The motion carried unanimously (rollcall vote.) NEW BUSINESS: 1. Public Hearing on the Designation of the Proposed Oakland Avenue Local Historic District (Development of Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation on the above designation proposed under the ACC Historic Preservation Ordinance) Ms. Eskew presented the staff report. Spoke In Favor of Designation:  Charles Gluodenis (provided photos of Newtown neighborhood) Spoke In Opposition of Designation:  Thomas Rogers  Gregg Schieffelbein  Kingsley Strong  Chas Strong  Dana Cowart  Todd Cowart 1   Trey Crowe Public Comments: none Mr. Bishop left the meeting and turned the meeting over to Ms. Wilson as acting chair. Ms. Epting made a motion “accepting as fact the designation report regarding meeting local historic property designation criteria for a proposed Oakland Avenue Historic District, referenced in Section 8-5-3 (b) (1), I move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the local historic district designation based on current property owners disinterest in obtaining the designation.” Mr. VanLinden seconded. The motion was opened for discussion. Mr. White expressed concern that the proposal was not discussed before the motion was made. Mr. VanLinden questioned if he seconded the denial motion in error, as he did not intend to deny the opportunity for discussion. Mr. VanLinden’s seconding of the motion was determined to be appropriate and in order. There was further discussion by Mr. Bishop, Ms. Epting, and Ms. Wilson. Ms. Wilson then asked for a vote on the motion presently on the table to recommend denial of the local historic district designation. The motion passed 3 – 2. Rollcall vote: Mr. Bishop: yes; Ms. Epting: yes; Mr.VanLinden: yes; Mr. White: no; Ms. Wilson: no. 2. Public Hearing on the Adoption of Design Guidelines for the Proposed Oakland Avenue Local Historic District (Development of Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation on the above guidelines proposed under the ACC Historic Preservation Ordinance) Ms. Eskew presented the staff report. Spoke In Favor of Design Guidelines:  None Spoke In Opposition of Design Guidelines:  Thomas Rogers Mr. White moved to accept the guidelines for the Oakland Avenue Local Historic District in the event that the Mayor and Commission approve such designation. Mr. Bishop seconded. Mr. Bishop made a brief comment. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Miscellaneous Announcements  Mr. Lonnee stated that neither the Historic Preservation Commission nor any HPC member initiated the application for designation of the Oakland Avenue Historic District.  Mr. Bishop thanked those speaking for and against this designation for taking the time to attend the meeting to express opinions. Public input is important in this process. 2   Mr. Bishop suggested that the designation process be revisited to incorporate a required assessment of relative support for a local historic designation earlier in the process timeline. For clarification, there should be a means to chart out what happens when there is opposition. The current process tends to allow for only one possibility where everyone approves. Clarification of how to respond to opposition is needed, and he would like to determine what is the best format and best moment to work through that. If initiated by the Mayor and Commission, the people against the local designation need a voice directly to Commissioners before the very end of the process. With no other business, the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. 3