Loading...
6 - Review Historic Preservation Code to Increase Protection for Non-Designated Historic Resources 1. Revise the Historic Preservation Code to Increase Protection For Non-Designated Historic Resources. The Landmazks Boazd's highest priority is to implement changes to Preservation Code to stem the ongoing and irreversible loss of the city's non-designated historic resources. The historic buildings that are individually designated or are in historic districts represent only a fraction of the valuable historic building stock within our community. Increasing land values and limited area for new development have led to mounting pressure on these non-designated resources, and the code needs to be modified to meet the challenges we are facing today. The recent case of the stone cottage at 3231 11's Street highlighted the code's inadequacy and illustrated that non-demolition is not the same as preservation. Unfortunately, there are many other less well-publicized cases where the city has, indeed, lost significant historic resources through inappropriate changes. For a sampling of those cases, see the attached images.[ADD IMAGES] In order to remedy the ongoing and irreversible loss of our non-designated resources and to address the concerns raised by the Planning Department and the City Council with regard to predictability of process and community expectation, the Landmazks Board proposes that Council make the following changes to section 9-11-23 of the B.R.C.: • Change the heading of the demolition ordinance from its current language to encompass a broader array of threats to these resources. The boazd recommends that the new heading be "The Protection of Non-Designated Resources." • Increase the scope of the triggers that would prompt review by the preservation program. • One new trigger would be the size of a proposed addition to anon-designated historic structure. When the proposed addition exceeded one hundred percent of the historic structure, the resource would be subject to review. • Another new trigger would be the height of the proposed additions/renovations. If the height of the modifications exceeded the ridge height of the historic structure, that would also prompt review. • Lower the threshold at which a building is considered "demolished" for purposes of review. The current threshold of fifty percent is not restrictive enough to ensure that the integrity of anon-designated building is maintained. The Landmarks Board recommends a threshold of 30 percent to ensure the continued integrity ofnon-designated historic structures. • Serial applications be treated as one application for purposes of prompting review. The boazd recommends that multiple demolition permit applications or building permit applications for anon-designated historic resource submitted within atwenty-four month period be treated as one application for purposes of requiring review by the preservation program. • The term "stay of demolition" be replaced with "stay of inappropriate change." However, the process that would be employed by the preservation program would mirror the system currently in place. Thus, an application that triggered review would be examined by either staff or the Design Review Committee, and, if there were a finding of probable cause that the resource was a potential local landmazk, the matter would go to a public hearing before the full Landmarks Boazd for a potential imposition of a "stay of inappropriate change." A property examined under this revised ordinance would not be subject to design review. Rather, the focus of the review would be on whether the historic resource itself merited protection as a potential local landmazk. In conclusion, the proposed changes address a real, irreversible and ongoing loss of valuable historic resources. The proposed changes also address concerns raised about community expectations and predictability of process in the wake of the landmarking of the stone cottage at 3231 11'~ St. The changes would not require a wholesale restructuring of the current program. Rather, the additional triggers and enlazged scope would fit naturally into the existing program.