Appeal Final Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2 1. Historical District/Property Alteration Appellants Argument The Harlow Neighbors assert that EC 9.8175 Historic Property – Alteration Approval Criteria 1 through 8 have not been met. The Harlow Neighbors argue that the applicant’s conclusion that after demolition the site will be “bare ground” is incorrect. The appeal goes on to argue that an inventory of all items on the site that may have value needs to be provided, that toxic items may exist, and that commemorative place making type items need to be provided. Planning Commission’s Determination The applicant’s materials make clear their request to demolish existing structures to build a new four- story multi-family building that will provide 123 units of low-income housing. The approval granted by the Historic Review Board allows for the demolition of the existing structures. Additionally, as discussed in the Board’s Final Order under the evaluation of Factor 4: Historic significance, vegetation associated with the Harry and Etta Chase house was not specifically listed as being historically significant as part of the National Register nomination. To the appellant’s other arguments about toxic items or commemorative items, it is unclear how the Board would have been required to consider the items in the manner proposed by the appellant, and how consideration would have had an impact on whether the applicant complied with the approval criteria. The Planning Commission notes that the applicant has proposed to construct an interpretive panel that will be installed within six months of the project’s completion. The applicant included information about this proposal in their supplemental materials submitted on February 15, 2022 on a page 68. The Planning Commission finds that this appeal issue is not a basis for reversal or modification of the Historic Review Board’s decision. 2. No Native Peoples History or Archaeological Conditions Appellant’s Argument The Harlow Neighbors argue that the applicant should have made an effort to include Native/ Indigenous Review of the site. Planning Commission’s Determination The Planning Commission finds that the applicant offered, and the Historic Review Board imposed conditions of approval, related to archeological resources under EC 9.8175(8) that require the applicant to comply with a plan to address any artifacts found on the site. The first condition requires a note on the plans that states “Any Inadvertent Discovery will be immediately reported as detailed by the Inadvertent Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources attached to this plan set.” The second condition requires the Inadvertent Discovery plan be attached to the applicant’s plan set. It is unclear what else the appellant believes the applicant should have done, or what authority the Historic Review Board had to require the applicant to undertake other inventories or processes prior to submittal of their application. The Planning Commission finds that this appeal is not a basis for reversal or modification of the Historic Review Board’s decision.