Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly delays adoption of Sitka Historic Preservation Plan after debate over permit review (Appendix G)
Summary
Assembly members split over Appendix G, the permit‑review flowchart in the Historic Preservation Plan; concerns centered on whether it would require property owners to seek commission recommendations for minor in‑kind repairs. The assembly voted to postpone the plan to the first meeting in May for further work on Appendix G (vote 4–1).
The Sitka Assembly postponed a final vote on the Sitka Historic Preservation Plan after prolonged public comment and an extended assembly debate over Appendix G, the plan’s permit‑review flowchart.
Planner Ariadne Will told the assembly the plan (in development since 2009) formalizes existing processes and helps maintain the city’s Certified Local Government status. “The plan before you has been underway since 2009 and is meant to act as a guiding document for the Historic Preservation Commission,” she said.
Property owners and some assembly members said Appendix G could impose an extra step—requiring Historic Preservation Commission review or recommendation—for comparatively minor, in‑kind repairs, adding time and cost to routine permitting. Business owner Steven Eisenbeis, who said he is replacing rotten studs on his building, asked for an administrative review path to avoid months of delay. “This process adds at least two months to my permitting process,” Eisenbeis said.
Planning staff and the community development director, Amy Ainsley, responded that the flowchart documents the status quo rather than creating new authority, and that exemptions and procedural clarifications could be formalized as part of the plan’s Action 3.3. “This is a representation of the status quo. This does not change their authority under code or give them additional authorities that they don't currently have,” Ainsley said.
Assembly members debated options including amending Appendix G, sunsetting Appendix G for one year, or postponing final adoption until staff and the commissions returned with clarified exemptions and an implementation timeline. After several amendment attempts and a recess, the assembly voted 4–1 to postpone the item to the first meeting in May to allow staff and the historic preservation and planning commissions to return with more specific revisions and outreach plans. The vote to postpone carried with Miss Riley voting no and Mister Christiansen, Miss Carlson, Mister Celine and Mister Pike voting yes.
The assembly did not adopt the plan at this meeting; members who supported postponement said they wanted clearer language about categorical exemptions for minor repairs and a public outreach plan for property owners located within historic districts. Members urging prompt adoption said passing the plan would provide staff direction to prioritize process improvements.
Next steps: staff and commissions are expected to refine Appendix G (exemptions and administrative review paths), define a public outreach approach for affected property owners, and return to the assembly in May with proposed changes or a recommended timeline.
