| 10/21/2008 | Attorney's Office/Approval Group | This Ordinance was Referred for Introduction | |
| Notes: Plan Commission; Public Hearings: Plan Commission, 12/01/08; Common Council, 01/06/09 |
| 10/28/2008 | COMMON COUNCIL | This Ordinance was Referred for Public Hearing to the PLAN COMMISSION, due back on 1/6/2009 | |
| Notes: Due back at the 1/6/09 Common Council Meeting. |
| 12/1/2008 | PLAN COMMISSION | A motion was made by Cnare, seconded by Boll, to Rerefer to the PLAN COMMISSION and should be returned by 12/15/2008. The motion passed by voice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: With this referral, the Commission requested the following:
-That staff provide explanatory language further clarifying the phrase "previous condition" in Paragraph 2, subdivision (d) and
-That staff add a provision that the revised definition sunset on December 31, 2010. (The "exemption" described in Paragraph 2 was not to be included in this provision). |
| 12/15/2008 | PLAN COMMISSION | A motion was made by Gruber, seconded by Cnare, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO REREFER - PUBLIC HEARING to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: In recommending referral of this zoning text amendment, the Plan Commission requested that this ordinance be referred to the Landmarks Commission for consideration and for a subcommittee of the Plan Commission to convene for one meeting to discuss the proposed ordinance language, gather input from interested parties and make a recommendation to the whole Plan Commission for consideration. Ald. Gruber, Olson, and Boll agreed to serve on the new subcommittee, with Fey as an alternate. |
| 1/6/2009 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Bruer, seconded by Ald. Verveer, to Rerefer for Recessed Public Hearing to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: Additional Referral(s): Landmarks Commission, Plan Commission Subcommittee |
| 1/6/2009 | PLAN COMMISSION | This Ordinance was Refer to the LANDMARKS COMMISSION | |
| Notes: |
| 3/23/2009 | LANDMARKS COMMISSION | A motion was made by Konkel, seconded by Levitan, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval of the demolition definition with the note that staff should work on language to separate out the two clauses into “a” and “b” to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: Mr. Tim Parks, City Planner and Mr. Matt Tucker, City Zoning Administrator, gave a brief presentation on the process of developing a demolition definition over the last 18 months.
Mr. Levitan asked staff if “demolition by neglect” was covered under any other city codes? Mr. Tucker replied that the Building Inspection Division has several different building and maintenance codes that generally deal with that issue. Ms Konkel asked staff if there was a definition of “siding”? Mr. Tucker replied that there is definition about weatherized exterior finishes. Ms Konkel asked staff how the 10-year clause in the definition would be monitored? Mr. Parks replied that the new Enterprise Land and Asset Management software that will be used by the City should help with this cause, adding that staff will also look for previous permits.
Mr. Levitan asked staff about the reason that a “street-facing” wall is a separate clause in the definition. Mr. Parks noted that the word facade had some definition issues, and that the subcommittee wanted to put an emphasis on public facing walls and facades. Ms Konkel asked if staff could consider the idea of having and “a” and “b” parts to the definition to more clearly separate the street facing walls from the other exterior walls clause.
Ms Konkel also noted other public facing rights-of-way, water, alleys, etc, and wondered how the street facing clause is affected by these issues? Mr. Tucker noted that alleys are exempt, along with unsigned right-of-ways. This is consistent with the intent to have greater scrutiny of street-facing publicly viewable facades. He noted that conditional use issues should cover most waterways, parks and other areas of concern.
Ledell Zellers, 570 N Carroll Street, registered to speak, noting that in general the subcommittee was responsive to the earlier concerns about a 75% threshold, as well as the concerns about a “rolling demolition”. She noted that the State Historical Society’s 10% tax rehabilitation guidelines have an additional condition concerning enclosing walls of an existing building by building a larger building around it. They require retention of external walls in place.
Paul Schoeneman, 1108 E Gorham St #3, registered in opposition and asked about the idea of neglect, citing St. Raphael’s Cathedral, which was left to stand and get additional weather damage. He was also concerned about the demolition of landmark properties. Mr. Levitan noted that landmarks and buildings in historic districts have additional protections.
Gary Tipler, 807 Jenifer Street, registered in opposition, stating that he is worried about he 50% threshold. He talked with Jim Sewell at the State Historical Society, and noted that the State uses 25% as an unwritten general threshold, but they are more concerned with the quality of the demolition versus the quantity of the demolition.
Mr. Levitan asked why the Commission was seeing this definition at all, considering the additional protections in place for historic structures. Mr. Parks replied that the definition was referred to the Landmarks Commission by the Plan Commission to get feedback, especially concerning older building that may or may not be historic.
Mr. Tucker noted that 75% seemed to big, 25% seemed too small, and that the Plan Commission doesn’t want every little issue to come to them, especially for routine/easy items. The subcommittee thought that 50% seemed like a good compromise and that they can alter the definition again if City staff, citizens, or the Plan Commission feel like it isn’t working. |
| 4/6/2009 | PLAN COMMISSION | A motion was made by Boll, seconded by Gruber, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO ADOPT - RECESSED PUBLIC HEARING. The motion passed by voice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: The Plan Commission recommended approval of an ALTERNATE version of the zoning text amendment ordinance with the following proposed definition and revisions:
- That the definition be revised to read as follows: “Demolition. Demolition is an act or process that (a) removes, pulls down, tears down, razes, deconstructs or destroys an existing building wall facing a public street or (b), during any ten (10) year period, removes, pulls down, tears down, razes, deconstructs or destroys fifty percent (50%) or more of the area of the exterior walls of a building. This provision does not apply to the repair or replacement of windows, doors or siding.”
Members of the Plan Commission clarified that the intent of provision (a) was intended to apply to the entire wall facing a public street.
The Plan Commission also recommended that the pre-application requirement to notify the registry of persons to receive notice of proposed demolitions or removals be revised to include a provision that allows the notice to be reduced to not less than 10 business days per the approval of the district alder, president of the neighborhood association and Director of the Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development or his/her designee. |
| 5/5/2009 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Bruer, seconded by Ald. Verveer, to Adopt and Close the Public Hearing. The motion passed by the following vote: | Pass
(19:0) |
| Notes: |