Discussion on Demolition Delay Ordinance
2.
Staff presented a draft demolition delay ordinance to the Commission. Staff
thanked Commissioner Reiman for his work on this draft. Staff stated that
overall it was a great start. It is great to establish an age criteria, but still need
to discuss instances where certain parts of building are of age and others are
not or other unique circumstances. Staff also stated that they would like to
reduce the amount of other department staff needed for this process so as to
not burden them with additional work and potential create opposition to its
passing. Would like to build the process off of an existing process, such as the
existing demolition sign-off form.
Ellie McLoone asked if their was a list of all of the existing historically
designated structures and if there were properties that were considered for
designation but not designated. Staff stated that all of the nominated
properties are listed online and that all of the files not approved are in their
office.
Natalie Heneghan stated that the purpose may not be solely for preservationist
but also to require salvaging or recycling buildings.
Laura Godden also stated that salvage should be defined. She also stated that
Section 3.3 regarding emergency situations for demolition should be expanded
and made more clear. Laura also asked what happens if nothing is determined
after the delay, and if 120 days is too much or not enough. Staff and the
Commission thought that the time frame could be adjusted accordingly.
Natalie Henghan asked if the other communities required a plan for reuse in
order to apply for demolition. CM Mindel stated that there was some plan that
was required. Natalie asked about how deconstruction would fit into this
ordinance. Staff stated that should be a separate ordinance as we would want
all buildings to be considered for deconstruction.
Eric Garland asked if Habitat for Humanity has exclusive rights to
deconstruction rights. Staff stated that they do not, they are just one of the few,
if only, organizations that do that.
Staff suggested that they make all of the requested revisions and changes and
then bring back another draft to the Commission for review. They would also
like to include other staff.
Review and Discussion on Chapter 115 Heritage Preservation Commission
related ordinances.
3.
Staff requested that the Commissioners review the current ordinances in
Chapter 115 that the Commission administers and discuss any proposed
changes as part of the City's zoning code update project. Staff suggested that
front yard parking could operate on its own without Commission approval as
there is criteria already in place.
Eric Garland left the meeting at 6:45pm.
Staff also suggested removing rescue platforms from review by the
Commission. Would need to work with Inspection's staff to confirm. John
Reiman stated that if we do not get many of them then is there a reason to
remove it? Then they could review the rare one that is applied for. Staff stated
that the carriage house ordinance and the accessory dwelling unit ordnance
needs to be consistent with each other and part of a larger discussion with the
