Storms Gather Over Historical Ordinance Proposal
Fallout from Eaton controversy: Guthrie Council debates implications of historical preservation ordinance update.
The stage is set this summer for what could be an exciting debate and idea exchange as the Historic District property owners and City Council approve the new Historic Preservation Ordinance.
In the winter of 1998, furious controversy was sparked by the possibility that the Eaton building would be destroyed. This controversy was partially provoked due to possible discrepancies and confusing portions of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
The Historic Preservation Ordinance, which has been in effect for over 20 years, established qualifications and guidelines for preserving buildings and structures in the Townsite Historic District.
This Ordinance also makes provision for a seven member Historic Preservation Commission. The commission is composed of two members of the Logan County Historical Society, one member of the Guthrie Municipal Planning Commission, two persons with special knowledge of the local background and architecture, and two individuals who own property within the district.
The commission has power to establish rules and procedures for conduct of commission business, to recommend to Council properties for designation as a landmark or landmark site, to regulate placement of all signs in the district, to authorize all work in the area that affects the exterior of the buildings, to regulate all new construction in the district, and to ask the City Manager to stop work on all projects that do not have this authorization. The Commission also commands other powers and duties.
Upon insistence by Council, including Ward II Councilor Foster, the City Staff has re-written the Ordinance with the goal of preventing future situations like that of the one in December of 1998. This goal is to be accomplished with clarity of language throughout the 21 page ordinance.
During the March 21st meeting, the Council met to consider if the re-write process should proceed. Discussion arose as Ward III Councilor Aguirre stated that he had a serious objection to the fact that the property owners have only a limited opportunity to appeal a decision of the Historic Commission to the Council. Mr. Aguirre said that he felt property owners have a right to have their cases heard before the elected officials of the City as opposed to only appointed members of the commission. The primary objection is to section 23 of the purposed ordinance which states that a property owner can only appeal a decision of the commission to City Council if the decision involves a demolition permit or if economic hardship is inflicted by the commission's ruling. City Attorney Pierson pointed out that any person, if clever enough, may make an argument that just about any decision of the commission may cause some form of economic hardship. Melody Kellogg, the city staff member who wrote the new ordinance, stated that the reason the appeals process was limited to the above qualifications was to prevent many small cases from having to be heard by council. She feels that if the appeals process were to be changed, many of the commission's decisions would be appealed and this could force Council to hear cases dealing with very minor issues, such as the paint color of building exteriors.
Council Person Aguirre responded by saying that not every property owner is a lawyer and thus may not know to appeal based on economic hardship. He also indicated that he felt Council should do the job they were elected to by hearing all cases that are appealed, no matter how small.
On a motion by Ward 1 Councilman Morelli, the process was approved for continuance. Grant Aguirre stated that he would vote for the process to continue but he said he would have a problem voting for the new ordinance when it came time for final approval if section 23 was not changed. He has also since expressed concern about the fees that can be assessed the property owners if they are not in compliance with the Ordinance or the commission's actions.
This Ordinance should be considered sometime later in the year after City staff and City Council have time to listen to the property owner's opinions.
The Ordinance as purposed is available online at Guthriecouncil.com.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to weigh in.
Join the conversation
Sign in with your OSC account to comment on this story and reply to other readers.