HPC agenda 032801 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

January/February 2001 16 historic integrity and character. Most of the non preservation- dards in place, good guidelines, good procedures , there are no ists (and some of the preservationists tool ) had a hard time dis- " investment-based expectations " that accrue to a developer by cerning the difference, even when presented with the ordi- the simple act of subdivision, nances that said so . Most of our districts are small lot districts , so the issue of sub- The conflicts were often political as well. The powers of our P dividing - and trying to . cram in more is not usually an & Z commission were sometimes ' used to push through pro- issue. . .they 're already all crammed in together. But I also have jects that the historic district commission otherwise found no doubt that under our code and enabling legislation, if we unacceptable, regardless ardless of any of the differences that I've had a large lot district, we would have no problem at all deny- described, t ing proposals that are too dense or too tall for the historic dis- trict character and making it stick. e Chris Hetzel chris@historicla. com But our jurisdiction tries to cooperate in these things , to pro- vide developers with clear notice of what the regulations are as soon as we are able . We as . a staff try to build personal rela- To add to Chris ' remarks , as well as Krista' s well- considered tionships and look out for each other, providing the best service advice to compare all this to the enabling legislation . . . . to the public we can, and not putting the public in the middle Most codes will have language that the more restrictive provi- of our competing interpretations of the code . We try to work it sions will govem when there is a conflict. In our attorney' s out among ourselves . Our code is also designed to reinforce the interpretation, that means the design review process is the more legislative intent that historic districts are a valuable asset to restrictive and thus governs . Furthermore, our zoning ordi- the city and tries to minimize the conflicts , where those con- nances include language for building setbacks (or zoning yard flicts exist, I have every confidence that the historic district areas) and heights that "the standards of the underlying zoning standards will prevail if we conduct our procedures according district are modified by [the historic overlay district design to good due process practices . But I have a city attorney that guidelines ] " . . . as do the sections of the code that establish station supports the program (and successfully defended it to the NC dards for sidewalks , curb cuts , streets , and curbs : All of which Supreme Court when it was first established) , I have a city means that the intent is clear that in the historic districts , the code that supports the programs I have state enabling legisla- whole idea is to ensure that new development conforms to the tion that supports the program; I have an administration that " special character of the historic district. " supports the program, I have a local governing board that sup - ports the program. None of these things are accidents . They are This subdivision problem is sheer idiocy of two agencies of the the product of a lot of dedicated people working together over same organization (the municipality) fighting over internal turf the years since the establishment of Raleigh' s program in 1961 . of who is in charge . What about serving the public. . .identifying the rationale of the legislative intent, and then structuring the From the descriptions of your problems , I am obviously a organization' s operations to reflect that and carry out the man- lucky man to be able to stand on the shoulders of these dedi- date ? Does the community want historic districts or not? Why cated people. But the lesson is that if there are conflicts in your are we struggling9 jurisdiction, they can be addressed, it just takes a lot of work on the part of a lot of people to take care of it. And if the juris - Small subdivisions in our jurisdiction are processed adminis- diction is engaged in internal fighting , then you need to have tratively (most subdivisions in historic districts will be small, the public that supports the program make the case to clear up although we did once have a 3 . 3 acre tract for a former florist's the conflict. The ultimate answer is always political when deal- greenhouse operation subdivided into 23 building lots . . .the 22 mg with local government programs ; sometimes the answer is new houses are great, blend right into the district) . While we do not the one we want to hear either (they might tell you " no, the not issue COAs for subdivisions (there is no physical exterior community really doesn't want historic districts , we want lots change in a subdivision) , subdivision staff does route them to of infill development to increase the tax base by the maximum the commission for the commission to review and comment on amount" ) , but at least you know where you stand. whether it believes that the subdivision will result in . "build- OK, lecture mode off. able" lots under the historic district development standards . That is to say, that they may be able to subdivide it, but there is Dan Becker no guarantee that the commission will issue a COA for new dbecker@,rhdc. org construction if it does not fit the character of the district. The power is in the guidelines ; if your guidelines address issues like proximity of buildings to one another, height of buildings in the district. . .if a proposal violates the guidelines , you can certainly deny it. The legal record is clear on this . if you have your stan- 9