SR 05:258 - Laserfiche WebLink

Demolition ofthe Existing House Downtown Specific Plan During the Specific Plan update process, a Preliminary Historic Resources List and Map of the Downtown historic resources were developed as a Technical Supplement to identifY individual sites and neighborhoods that contain outstanding examples of heritage structures within the Plan Area. These documents were intended for use in implementing the proposed Historic Preservation ordinance which was under consideration at that time. However, that ordinance was not adopted, pending further input and discussions with interested Downtown neighborhood residents. Although not included in an earlier draft considered by the Historic Preservation Subcommittee of the Downtown Specific Plan Committee, the property at 520 St. John Street was included in the final map boundaries for the historic neighborhood of St. Mary Street and St. John Street Committee report. While the Specific Plan's Historic Preservation policies and programs do not include specific reference to demolition of buildings in this historic neighborhood, it does recommend that future residential development should generally provide for the preservation of existing on-site street frontage homes that exceed 50 years in age. However, exceptions are permitted where the home can be either relocated or demolished where it can be found that the structure has minimal redeeming historic and/or architectural significance. Demolition vs. Rehabilitation Staff does not believe that the existing residence is currently "unsafe or dangerous". However, The applicants have submitted information demonstrating that the structure is in need of a number of repairs, including plumbing, electrical, roofing, and foundation repairs. For these reasons, staff questions whether or not it would be "feasible" to ask the applicants to retain and rehabilitate the residence. It has been staffs experience that when older buildings are extensively damaged, most of the building will need to be demolished to such a point that the original building is not recognizable. It would be difficult for staff to determine how much of the house would need to be replaced without the applicants opening up numerous walls in the building for staff to assess the damage. Instead, staff asked the applicants to demonstrate that the necessary repairs to the existing structure exceed more than 50% of the value of the existing structure. The applicants did demonstrate this when they submitted an appraisal ofthe house and a copy of a report by a contractor listing needed repairs and costs. A copy of the reports are attached to a memo from the Chief Building Official (see Exhibit F). The report estimates that the repairs would total more than 50% of the house value. For the reasons stated above, staff supports a demolition of the structure. Case No. PUD-37 Planning Commission Page -13-