HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCDATE=JANUARY 04, 2005 (3) 5. Elgin Northw'est Area Surrcv. Mr. Scher indivamd that the request to the Elgin City
• Council to consider the selection or that consultant to complete (be UrnCy world be
brmiglt before the Council at January 26 meeting The nosou for the debate ere
issues repairing to lunding the project.
E. New Nnxinax
1. I.nitdmark Vomiralinn- NlCClnre >Iansiou at ]]0 \\'. Highland Aoenue. The
Commission hadjuet conducted a public hearing to obtain matimony on the Landlnntkito
saltine property. There ryas no opposition to the nomination, au the Conmtiscinn decided
to pans a rssolutiwl to recommend to the Elgin City Council that the property be
tlwiwtatcd an flat landmark.
A nlopoll was made by Commissioner Stroud in recommend the resignation of The
Property as an Elgin landmark.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Skaggs.
'I'hn motion Passed unanimomly.
. Appeal Consideration-600-620 Villa Sri eet (Los than Aeudenn). The Commis,len
had just conducted a public hearing to obtain lestim riv on the appeal ofthe property
on the denied request to demolish the building on the properly to cpnemrcl a nes.
Walgrern's drug store.
• .Mr. Saherreitemled IIIc recwmnendatim of staff to allow for dwolition ofthe building
since it did not posxess as original significance and had been added onto over the ycan-
He assn sited that the Planning and Do.elopmem Commission had approved the request
fora \fop Atncmhnent to allow for nes• Wdjdchifs dogs Ire contingent upon
approvals o Cthe demolition and proposed design by the Elgin Heritage Conrad Psion. He
f natty recsaonra alcd that in the interest of limn, Al, Corral Bron consider mukirg u
decision that evening since additional infomndnn on the condition and corbital vion of
the interior and cater ion of the bnildine had been provided for the consideration of the
Contribution
I lowtveq it was suggested that since historic itart iett represenmti ve Eynne Diamond had
i moininthrocd that do Ldndrnar Es Pi eser,runs Cannot I of➢linwi v H,PC I) he a is all the
oppmnmity to pro ide assistance in dommuning whether the structures on the pmpapy
is ere Tificuu enough to be cared. and provide some feedback on possible deadens
uses or oration, that the decision on the appeal be made at the nail treating ofthe
Cuntrussmll.
No dec l Pion wits therefore made or this muctum.
O. Appeal Cansidcrarion- 1568. Porter Street, I Le Commission had conducted a public
hemi ng to obtain testimotn on an appeal of a denied request to pennon, w maintain rins-0
w'mdo s on fine pi openly. The nubile hearing was huld on Nov,minor 2, 2004_
• Commissioner Brisket had suggeemd to the property owners that they corider Maididing
One sun ices of an nuomey as ho would be interested in taking the case. This is ould be to
dine rr ire whether the contractor on the project ons liable because no pepnitx had been