Separated Demolition Permits, Excavation Permits, Foundation Permits, Structural Permits and Fit-up Permits are there to help speed up the process for large developments -- Construction companies would absolutely balk at an attempt to tie them all together (i.e. there would be no need to have them separated and the time advantage to get a project in motion would absolutely be lost -- a huge cost factor for some developments). More sense would be to say that Demolition Permits have a penalty clause that could be tied to one or more of:
-- Taxes (in perpetuity tax the proposed built-out as though it was already in existence thereby making holding onto undeveloped land unprofitable)
-- Council should enact a "no surface parking" mandate in any area zoned for mid-to-highrise development thereby making surface parking a "no-go"
-- Delay penalties for lack of response timing from one Permit to another (e.g. If a Demo Permit is granted then the actual demolition must begin within 180 days -- with one possible extension whereby half the demo fee must be paid in honor of the 180-day extension; once demo is complete then another 180-days deadline is imposed for an Excavation permit with the same parameters in place; once the excavation is complete then another 180 days deadline is imposed for the Foundation Permit, again with the same parameters in place... and so on to building completion).
You don't want to kill the development incentive -- in fact positive incentives could also be part of the picture (reduced municipal taxes for projects that exceed the Permit-to--Permit process from a time-frame perspective).
But tying Permits one to the other is not a very bright idea where you have to have one in order to get the other.
