Loading...
2 - Additional information Below are suggestions that Tim Plass submitted for discussion at this Wednesday's LB meeting: First, I think that we need to expand our idea of what constitutes a threat to a non-designated historic resource. This centers on the idea that non-demolition is not preservation. Ta that end, I would suggest that the demolition ordinance heading be revised to something like "The Protection of Non-Designated Resources." This would address matters like 3231 11th St. and allay concerns about community expectations and predictability of process. Second, I think that a revised ordinance should include additional triggers for prompting passible review by the Landmarks Board. Such additional triggers might include: -when a proposed addition to a non-designated historic resource exceeds a given threshold, for example, the square footage of the addition is >100% of the square footage of the historic structure; -when a proposed addition to a non-designated historic resource exceeds the height (ridge) of the historic building Third, we may want to look at revising the thresholds for demolition review, i.e., whether the 50% mark is effective in maintaining the integrity of non-designated historic resources. Perhaps the number should be more restrictive. Fourth, I think that the code should treat multiple applications for one property submitted within a given period (perhaps 18 to 24 months) as being one application for purposes of necessitating review. This would avoid the incremental approach taken by some property owners, which sidesteps the intent of the ordinance. Fifth, if any of the above triggers are satisfied, I would suggest that the process for moving forward to imposing a passible stay of "inappropriate change" ("stay of demolition" under our current practice} mirror the process that we now use far our demolition ordinance. The DRC would examine the resource to determine if there was probable cause to believe it to be a potential local landmark. If yes, then the matter would go to the full board and a public hearing and potential 180 day stay. Six, the proposed process would not examine the potential action contemplated that triggered the review( i.e., we would not be engaged in design review on non-designated buildings}. Rather, the inquiry would focus on whether the property in question has the potential to be a local landmark (basically the same process and burden of proof that is currently in place). Below are suggestions that Leonard May submitted for discussion at this Wednesday's LB meeting: Triggers We might consider setting the trigger that addresses not only pure demolition, but additions over a certain percentage of the original structure. Let's say that percentage for demo or additions is 3a°lo. This effectively avoids the 49°lo game and it uses an entirely objective criteria. Another demo trigger option is a more subjective solution -establish that an alteration (demo or addition or substantial alteration that neither removes wall, roofs or adds substantially) resulting in a building that would no longer be eligible for landmarking according to all the criteria we currently apply, is a demo. This is mare appealing to me because it establishes a qualitative evaluation standard rather than a "dumb" metric. It actually achieves the intent of a demo ordinance, to protect potential and actual landmarks. I think we all can agree that some of the results of owners reconsidering demolition according to the current definition have not resulted in preservation. Non-demolition is not defacto preservation and non-demo alterations can just a surely destroy historic integrity as literal demo.. Perhaps the best scenario is a hybrid; to have a fairly restrictive metric trigger with a discretionary qualitative review that enables more addition, demolition, or alteration given an appropriate redevelopment proposal. How might this be applied to non-designated resources? If an applicant proposes a project that trips the hybrid metric trigger, we do what we do now. We say its OK to demo or call it up because it may be a potential landmark. It would be difficult to trip the qualitative trigger without first tripping the metric trigger. The second test, demolition issues having been addressed, is, is the structure a potential landmark. If DRC believes it is, then the 3~d test is the qualitative trigger and unlike our current system, we would be looking at the proposed alteration and whether it would prelcude the project attaining landmark stature. If the proposal were to threaten future landmarking, then it would be a demo under the new definition and the board could impose a stay to seek alternatives to demolition, as we currently do. This segues into the next concept. In-betweeners We have resources that may be worth preserving in some fashion that falls short of landmarking. Either conservation districts or individual conservation resources could achieve a middle ground How effective this could be without incentives, I don't know. Can the state tax credits be applied to conservation entities? Some of the unfortunate projects that were previously negotiated to be non-demolitions and that were not considered appropriate far landmarking or were not pursued for landmarking because of other factors, could be altered under less stringent restrictions than landmarks, but still be influenced by a conservation status. Such a middle approach would result in alterations that better preserved those valuable elements of affected structures. This also allows discussions with owners without the requirement that the Board intends to landmark. The utility of this is that without the ability to engage an owner, we are forced to initiate landmarking just to engage. The Clement's case illustrates this circumstance. We may have been able to achieve a mutually acceptable outcome without hair tearing and teeth Hashing and in a more timely fashion. This segues into the next concept DRC Interaction with Applicants A process that thwarts dialogue such as our current process is ultimately counterproductive to the goals of the preservation program. Though I agree that Planning Department should play a gate keeping role with regard to public access to the Board and DRC, it does not have to be so black and white -there can be more middle ground and nuance introduced into the access process. I believe the lack of interaction between applicants and DRC impedes attaining good solutions. Below is additional information that Leonard May submitted for discussion at this Wednesday's LB meeting: Planning Department Support of Board Actions Recognizing the dual role the Planning Department plays, to support the Board and to inform the City Council, what is the appropriate balance the Department should strike in representing a case to Council and the public when they oppose a Board action? There is no issue with the Planning Department recommending against a Board action such as during an initiation hearing. However, after the board decides to initiate, we are reliant on the Planning Department to collect the supporting documentation for a designation hearing. If the supporting documentation does not exist to support designation, so be it. However, if Planning Department does not support the initiation, then they may not be inclined to develop the case for a designation. We recently heard the Dewey Street case; same of us were expecting Planning Department research so we would have some substance on which to base a decision. None was forthcoming, so we had no basis to designate. If the Department does not support an action they can (and did} effectively hamstring the Board. The Planning Department should not have desired outcomes. They should make recommendations, for or against landmarking, based on the facts, but not become advocates. As the Board is reliant on Planning Department for the research and support to make informed decisions and recommendations to Council, if Planning Department has an agenda divergent from ours, we don't have effective support to do our jobs -that jab is to inform Council. The Clements case illustrates same of these process issues that we should improve. In the Clements case, the Owner and Daily Camera had weeks to campaign against our action. The Board can't publicly campaign for support; we are essentially limited to our 10 minute presentation to Council. However, the Planning Department took an advocacy position by speaking to the press about why they opposed the Board action. While the Department should be enabled to make recommendations to Council, the partisan parties in a Council hearing should be limited to the Board and Owner. The Planning Department should not become public advocates against Board decisions before Council. This leads into another issue. There is a notable difference between the Department and Board as to how the preservation ordinance should be applied. In 3 recent non-consensual landmarking initiation proceedings, (11th St, Dewey St and 1936 Mapleton) there was significant resistance to initiating from the Planning Department. It has occurred enough to be considered a trend. As discussed above, at what point does Department advice and recommendation morph into advocacy and the pursuit of an agenda? I think we need to have a better understanding of how the Department and Board interact so that we can develop a mare consistent application of the code.