Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2008 03 19

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 19, 2008 Page 6 of 10 and is not required to request one until such a time as she is ready to demolish the site even though the PUD calls for demolishing the façade of the building. So, under the current established process no demolition review would take place as a part of the PUD process unless a building owner applies for a demolition permit. Therefore, the Planning Commission and City Council can complete the PUD process without ever including demolition review materials and information in their considerations. Staff is concerned about the ramifications of a process whereby the Planning Commission and City Council are making a decision without a full report on the historic nature of a building. Additionally, it encourages the applicant to merely wait out the 180-day stay period as the PUD is already approved. Staff requested that the City Attorney draft an ordinance that would create a system whereby the planning process and the demolition review process work more cohesively. As such, the proposed amendments to Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code would allow the following: ?HPC review of demolition requests without a demolition permit but at the request of the building owner; ?HPC full commission review of a demolition request without the initial subcommittee process if so requested by the owner; ?HPC review of demolition requests when a project is referred from the Planning Department as a part of a larger PUD or building project; ?Each of these would trigger the 180-day clock of the demolition review. Muth stressed that the changes created by this ordinance would not in any way diminish, bypass, lessen, or change the role of the HPC for demolition reviews. The amendments would merely create a new mechanism to trigger a demolition review and allow for the demolition review to have a specific place in the planning and development process. These changes would give the HPC a more identifiable role in the planning process. Muth noted that staff needs specific direction in the ordinance as they relate to the timelines; should an expiration date be placed on a demolition decision, and if so, for how long? Muth gave two examples: ? A building owner gets approval to demolish many years prior to developing the property only so that when the development process begins, and there may be more public scrutiny, he already has the demolition decision in hand. ? Alternatively, there could be a developer who wants direction from the HPC, goes through the demolition process, and creates a plan to do exactly what the HPC requests, but for outside reasons he is not able to implement his plan for five years. If the decision has expired and he must go back through the HPC process, he may face new members on the HPC who disagree with the original plans and want a totally different plan. The Preservation Ordinance requires that all demolition reviews be based entirely on whether the existing building is eligible for individual landmarking. So the question may be what new information about social history or architectural integrity would have to be provided to require a second HPC review. As the HPC cannot base a demolition stay on anything other than landmarking eligibility, perhaps, a permanent decision could apply unless new information has come forward. Muth added that this approach may not be strict enough.