Former Preservation Commision's Letter to Council

February 4, 2008

via email and hand delivery:
[PLEASE MAKE THIS LETTER IN ITS
ENTIRETY INCLUSIVE IN THE MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2008]

Mayor Bucky Johnson and Members of Norcross City Council: Jeff Allen, Mayor Pro Tem; David McLeroy, Charlie Riehm, Keith Shewbert, Craig Newton

Subject: Demolition 35 Williams Street

Honorable Mayor Johnson and Council Members:

We, the members of the former Historic Preservation Commission, have learned of the pending demolition of the property at 35 Williams Street. We wish to express deep concern and ask the city to consider alternatives to the destruction of the cottage. Besides the loss of a historic structure, the demolition will likely include loss of tree canopy for adjacent neighbors, as well. Arborists tell us each mature tree adds thirty thousand dollars to the value of a lot.

We understand some confusion exists as the Cook's Cottage sits to rear of the property and apparently was overlooked in the Terracon study that identified historic property in the district. Our recommendation would be that the Community Development Director request Terracon revisit and review the historic merits of the cottage and report back to the council. Further, we would ask that the stated process for demolitions be followed now and in future:

As adopted unanimously by the city council January 2006, Section 86-107(d) of the City Code was amended to read:

No house, dwelling, or commercial structure designated as historically significant which is located within the district listed on the National Register of Historic Places can be demolished without first having a public hearing before the mayor and council. The council shall vote to approve or deny the request to demolish, and shall use the standards of the adopted Architectural and Site Design Standards of the City to evaluate the request.

We ask that you follow the Architectural Review Guidelines as this document has been unanimously adopted since Feb 7. 2005. The ARB Guidelines section 3.4 Demolition and Relocation, pp. 3-36 and 3-37 state:

Each building proposed for demolition must be evaluated for historic and architectural merit as well as its importance to the history of the site, the National Register listed district, and the DDD..

TN255: The demolition of a contributing structure within the district is allowed under the following conditions:

1. It is documented to the satisfaction of the ARB that the building can not feasibly be rehabilitated for use, which should be written by a licensed architect, engineer, or city inspector;
2. Plans for the redevelopment of the site have been through the Design Review process and have been approved by the ARB;

TN256: The ARB is permitted to suspend the application process, and ask the applicant to advertise the property for sale to an entity that will undertake rehabilitation of the property. If after a six (6) month period of time has elapsed without a secured buyer the review process will resume for the demolition of the property.

We are aware the Council is functioning as an Architectural Review Board, whereby because of a kind of disconnect, there is no provision to allow for the ARB to hear demolition applications. We commend you for correcting the disconnect where previous Councils were not required to vote at all. We request the council follow the ARB guidelines as stated. This application should not come before the Council until the owner has presented his plans for the property to the Architectural Review Board. Then the Council will be following the ARB process as defined in the city code.

Demolitions in a historic district should be the exception and not the rule. The developer, Mr. Lowry, has not properly advertised that the house is available so that citizens will be informed and have an opportunity to relocate the cottage. We recall there was much public outcry when the same situation occurred on Wingo Street in 2005 and on Cemetery Street in 2007. A number of residents would have appreciated knowing that historic houses were available for relocation.

It makes sense to take the time to plan and preserve the core of our city's charm, its historic buildings and streetscapes, and not to permit wanton destruction thereof. Our history is the fuel for economic revitalization, and not some contrived charm. If the ball field project is to succeed, we need first to respect the history that came beforehand. As elected representatives, please help us do this by your example.

Respectfully,

Members of the former Historic Preservation Commission:
Anne Webb
Pierre Levy
Catherine Cash
Chuck Cimarik
cc
Warren Hutmacher, City Administrator
Jennifer Peterson, Community Development Director