Log in
Historic Preservation

Council approves appeal for partial demolition of Tempe historic property

Posted

Tempe City Council recently approved an appeal of a Historic Preservation Commission decision to deny a request for the partial demolition of and alterations to the First Congregational Church building, a property on the Tempe Historic Property Register.

The Tempe Historic Preservation Commission denied two certificates of appropriateness during its March 12 meeting regarding the project, and the applicant, Sender Associates, appealed this decision on March 17.

Four items were being considered at the meeting regarding the project, and Sender Associates appealed the two certificates of appropriateness for the demolition of and alterations to the non-sanctuary portions of the First Congregational Church building at 101 E. Sixth St.

A proposed redevelopment of the building, along with several surrounding parcels, would create a new 29-story mixed-use building next to the historic site.

At the April 10 city council meeting, the mayor and council members heard about the project from the appellant and city staff. Ryan Levesque, deputy director of planning, spoke first, discussing the historic preservation process and staff’s recommendation.

Original proposals for this redevelopment had previously suggested the total demolition of the historic property, and staff had been concerned with that proposal, according to Levesque.

Eventually, the applicant and city staff began working on the proposed project so that there could be some preservation of the historic building while also allowing for the new redevelopment.

“Community development staff did recommend support of the request for the project and recommended to the commission to approve the requested items,” Levesque said.

He noted that staff had cited other public-private partnerships that have been successful in preserving historic properties, like the historic Hayden House, which was able to preserve the former Monty’s building site.

Darin Sender of Sender Associates followed Levesque, presenting the case for the appeal, saying that the church’s sanctuary building would be preserved while removing ancillary structures and aligning with Tempe’s historic preservation goals.

Sender said that the proposal would remove two attached structures on the actual sanctuary building, posing no major changes to the structure itself.

“We are committed through our development agreement to replace all of that, to make it whole, make sure the roof structure and everything is safe, as well as the structural integrity of that building,” Sender said.

While there will be some demolition involved with the development of the new building, she assured council that there will be sufficient work included to preserve and repair the historic structure and any other aspects.

Following their presentations, city council discussed the project, talking about the importance of historic preservation, but also noting how potentially new projects can be included with that mission.

While Councilmember Randy Keating was absent, the rest of council shared their support for the proposed project.

Mayor Corey Woods said that he understood the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision to deny the applicant’s request, but their decision “does not stop the demolition of these buildings at the end of the day.”

“I think letting them move forward on this, but also that building eventually being transferred over to the city, means, as a long-term holder of that building, we will obviously ensure that it’s taken great care of,” Woods said.

City council approved the appeal in a 6-0 vote, with Councilmember Keating absent.

Please send your comments to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines. Reporter Caroline Yu can be reached at cyu@iniusa.org

Tempe City Council, Historic Preservation Commission, First Congregational Church, appeal

Share with others


Have an opinion on this story? Click here to send a letter to our editors.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here