HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19880825HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
MINUTES
City Council Chambers
1st Floor City Hall
August 25, 1988 2:30 p.m.
Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann
Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Zoe Compton, Charles Cunniffe and Joe
Krabacher present. Charlie Knight and Augie Reno were excused.
Bill: Public Comments concerning the Berko Bldg. from the
August 23, 1988 meeting are in the records.
3~9 E. HOPKINS-BERKO BLDG. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Charles Cunniffe stepped down.
Roxanne: The applicant is requesting HPC's conceptual
development approval to relocate the Berko Building to a site
adjacent to the current professor's house on the Aspen Center
for Environmental Studies property on Puppy Smith Street. The
proposal also includes the redevelopment of the 309 E. Hopkins
site to construct a three story commercial structure of 5,877 FAR
with 5,499 sq. ft. of net rentable area. It includes retail and
office space as well as a one bedroom employee housing unit and a
third floor two bedroom apartment. This is as public hearing as
you have stated. Three major elements are involved with this
project review: 1) The historic structure relocation and the pros
and cons of that. 2) The proposed relocation site and renovation
activity. 3) The proposed redevelopment for the cleared site.
This is a question of historic integrity in the commercial core
historic district. The proposal presents a classic historic
preservation dilemma: continued economically-beneficial use for
historic structures whose integrity has been diminished due to
changing neighborhood context. First we will review the
demolition and relocation. Staff finds that the submitted report
from James Mollica and Assoc. regarding the economic issues to be
inadequate in providing substantial information addressing
requirements 5 (a) (b) and (c) in that particular section of the
code Section 7-602 D. In particular 5 (b) requires "estimates
from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser
experienced in rehabilitation addressing the economic
feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed
for demolition be submitted. Estimates have not been included in
the application packet. Mr. Mollica states in his letter, which
he admits is not a formal analysis of the projects feasibility or
value, rather brief comments and valuation parameters that it is
not totally infeasible to keep the original structure and add on
to it. Staff finds that the economic feasibility report lacking
in specific information which HPC may use to base their
determination for action. We have also received a letter from
the Colo. Historical Society, Chris Pfaff who is a preservation
planner and Jay Yanz who is the State Historic Architect. They
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
state prior to approving a removal of the Berko Bldg. the
applicant and HPC must examine every alternative for insight
rehabilitation, taking into consideration the individual
significance of the building and whether its significance is
dependent on the setting. Would an addition be compatible with
the building or would it alter the character substantially to
diminish its historical integrity. HPC should consider whether
the buildings significance is in its contribution to the
surroundings and would a removal disrupt or destroy the historic
streetscape. Questions must be adequately addressed if this
structure will survive the move and if any architectural features
will be destroyed or damaged in such a move. Regarding standards
for demolition Standard #2 which specifically states that the
structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide any
beneficial use for the property, meaning that the applicant must
provide the information that deals with that particular standard.
Staff finds that alternatives for insight renovation have not
been presented and staff recommends HPC require the applicant to
study the many alternatives which exist for reusing the historic
structure insight proving that any addition or alteration will
not diminish its historic integrity. A facade restoration
including porch and bay window restoration should be required
which will provide the owner the most beneficial use of the
property value wise in Staff's opinion. The Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, the Historic Preservation Element of that
comprehensive plan states specifically the following objectives:
TO encourage renovation and
structures through development
economic benefits.
maintenance of historic
review incentives and
To encourage productive and economically attractive
uses of historic structures.
To discourage demolition of significant historic
structures identified and evaluated in the 1980
Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as it has
been amended in 1986.
Allow historic designated structures to be moved if
demolition appears to be the only alternative.
The Berko Bldg. is rated #4 and is the only remaining brick
miners cottage in the commercial core historic district.
Bill: For the record Zoe was seated at this point.
Roxanne: Moving on to the relocation site review which the
applicant has submitted regarding the ACES property should HPC
find that a more beneficial use for the Berko house include its
2
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
removal from the Commercial Core Historic District, the site of
preference as submitted by the applicant is probably one of the
most compatible for the Berko's relocation. The problem
associated with this site is in the dimensional requirements of
the R-15/PUD zone district which the applicant is well aware. A
minimum of 7,500 square ft. per landmark building is required, as
of yet still has not been met with regard to that particular
parcel. A master plan for the ACES site has been requested by
the Planning Office and the site is required to be developed in
accord with the PUD regulations. Certainly relocating an
historic building is preferred over total demolition and in this
case may even be preferred over the structure receiving an
inappropriate addition. The redevelopment plan has submitted a
memo but I won't go through the details of that at this time.
The State Historical Society stated that they found that the
redevelopment proposal is appropriate for that particular area in
scale and massing and they did not choose to deal with the
details of design. There are four alternatives that Staff has
provided for HPC that you may consider today which is approved as
submitted:
1. Approve the plans as submitted.
2. Approve the plans as submitted with conditions.
Table approval based upon the need to examine a variety
of alternatives to relocate the structure off site.
4. Deny approval based upon inadequate information.
Staff's recommendation is that HPC table action to allow the
applicant to further study a variety of on-site rehabilitation
alternatives to demonstrate to HPC why the structure cannot be
rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the
property. Tabling action is also recommended finding that the
economic feasibility report required in the demolition
application does not adequately provide the information required
by Code (refer to Sec. 7-602 D-5 and further that the application
does not adequately address the standards for demolition review
#2 (stated above), #4 neighborhood impact and #6 architectural
integrity - upon relocation.
Gideon Kaufman, attorney: In Nov. of 87 we came before you and
discussed the various alternatives for this particular property.
At the end the mtg. the majority thought if an appropriate
location could be found for moving the bldg. it would be
beneficial to move rather than do an expansion. We also answer
all the code requirements.
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
Lisa Purdy, president of preservation consulting firm in Denver:
I help numerous clients obtain historic designations for their
buildings and help get their buildings on the National Register
and help owners use the investment tax credits. I have been in
the field of preservation for 8 years and worked in design and
construction for five years before that. I spent 6 years getting
an historic district in lower downtown Denver and I also wrote a
book on historic incentives. My concern is what is best for the
historic Berko building. The owner, Jack King, hired me to look
at the alternatives for the Berko bldg. The four alternatives:
1. To look at the building as it stands now. I noticed because
of the contemporary buildings on either side of it that building
is lost. A lot of the context has been lost and in my opinion
the battle was lost seven years ago when the Mill St. Plaza bldg.
was built. That building itself is over scaled that it doesn't
respect any of the patterns of the historic building. The
building on the other side, the corner, does very little to
enhance the building. The owner of that building has informed us
that he is about to put on two more stories and that will make it
even worse, that little building sandwiched in between. The
building in its present location is in a bad spot. I know it was
designated historic but the context has been lost through the
years and unfortunately has put this one in a bad position. It
has also lost its architectural character. The code states that
the economics do need to be taken into consideration. It is
pretty clear that a 900 sq. ft. building on a 3,000 sq. ft. lot
that is zoned for the highest commercial development doesn't
make economic sense. The second alternative, the expanded
version (addition on back), we tried to incorporate the historic
property into a commercial structure. In terms of design the
architects did a very good job. I think the expanded version in
fact makes it worse. From an historic standpoint because of the
problems of getting into this building you end up going through
the historic building and it becomes not much more than an entry
way to the larger structure. You have lost its original use of
residential. The third alternative would be to demolish the
historic structure and this consideration the owner wouldn't even
look at. The fourth alternative is to move the historic
structure. In order to make that work we needed to find a site
that allowed this building to be seen and return it to its
original use, residential and also a place where it could be
restored, the ACES site. The second issue was to determine
whether or not the building could be moved without damage. Carl
Ryberg a mover from Denver I have worked several times with and
feel comfortable about the move. From an historic perspective
the ACES area works best as there is another historic building on
the site, the professor's house that is compatible in both scale,
height and massing. The new site allows for open space and
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
landscaping around the building and the public will be able to
view it. The Berko bldg. will be returned to residential use.
While some people in the community feel the present site of the
Berko historically important I happen to disagree. Over the
years the setting and use of this building has been lost. The
Mill St. bldg. was allowed to be built in a way that was totally
disrespectful not only of the historic street patterns but of the
Berko bldg. next door. It is presently over powered by its
neighbors and its historic context on that side of the street was
lost years ago. While I agree that Aspen should retain its
historic fabric in this particular instance the best is to move
the Berko bldg. to a more suitable and compatible site. I was
also glad to see the letter from the State Preservation office
stating that the site was compatible. I had to look at the
standards for demolition because there are non for moving the
building and I will be adapting those to this particular
situation. Standard #1 says that the structure must be
structurally sound. In this case the building is sound and there
would be no problem moving it.
Richard Klein: The mortar and building is in very good shape
because it has been on a stone foundation. After the assessment
it was determined that the building would be very easy to move.
Lisa: Standard #2 asks if the structure can be rehabilitated or
reused for a beneficial use of the property. Others will address
that reusing the building doesn't make economic sense. Standard
93 asks if the structure can be moved to another site and it can
and is a site that is suitable. Standard #4 asks if the project
mitigates any impact that occurs to the character of the
neighborhood. That is where I keep talking about the historic
context of this block. To me the historic context is gone as it
is the last piece and is already out of context. The addition of
a newer building enhances the block better. Standard #5 asks
that the impact be mitigated on the historic importance of the
structures located on the parcel and adjacent structures. There
are no adjacent structures on this side but the professor's house
on the new site will gain architecturally and historically.
Standard #6 asks that the impact on the architectural integrity
of the structure be mitigated. We will be moving the house to a
site that I think allows greater architectural integrity, the
building will be restored and viewed on all sides. The best
thing to me for the building is put it in a more suitable site.
Jim Mollica, appraiser: On July 29, 1988 I was asked by Richard
Klein on behalf of Mr. King do try and meet the guidelines in
this requirement for the HPC. The guidelines were new and I had
never dealt with them so I dealt with them the way I had for the
last 15 years. I prepared evaluation comments and in section AA
it asks for the market value of the site as it stands today with
5
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
and without the building. At that point I said approximately
$300,000. The feasibility and economic benefits of the
restoration I did not deal with specific numbers. It was never
my understanding that a governmental agency was looking for
specific numbers as to what Mr. King may or may not make. If the
building stays the way it is the underlying land value would be
100 to $150 thousand range. If there was a small addition to the
property the value might be up to $200 to $250 thousand. It is
the result of the size of the addition and the quality of the
space that is generated from the addition. If you do a large
addition to the back of the property then the land value would be
$250 to $300 thousand. If a new building were placed there the
land value would be $350 to $450 thousand.
Joe Wells, Landuse Planner: We did a calculation on land cost
and building costs, the cost of relocation and the consequent
City exactions that come out of the GMP process. The option of
doing a relocation and rebuilding on this site without any of the
consultant fees or utility costs, tap fees, bldg. permits etc.
it has been estimated at $160. sq. ft. The expansion alternative
increases up to $200. a sq. ft. due to the City's exactions.
Gideon: There are three items to discuss.
Georgeann: What do you mean by exactions.
Joe Wells, Landuse Planner: Employee housing, parking, a cash
in lieu for parking in the cc district, the open space now has a
cash in lieu provision; under the expansion alternative the
city's exactions are all almost the same as the cost of
construction.
Bill: I will open the public hearing at this time.
Frank Berko: At the last meeting I had a certain feeling that
it would be nice to keep the front part of the house. There were
no strings attached to the sale. Hearing today it seems that the
logical thing would be to move the building.
Tom Cardamon, Director of ACES: We
this building. Its use would
professors and naturalists.
are interested in accepting
be for employee housing,
Larry Brooks, owner beside Berko bldg., one story: I have
retained Charles Cunniffe to help me do a two story addition to
the building and funding is currently in place.
Leslie Holst: I presented a petition at the last
stated: The undersigned are in opposition to any
moving of the old Berko building at 309 E. Hopkins.
meeting that
alteration or
We feel this
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
building does have redeeming architectural value and is an
important link in Aspen's past. People cannot maintain their
spiritual roots and their connections with the past if the
physical world they live in does not sustain these roots. What
happens, as no one has mentioned how this relates to the
community or the quality of life of the people that have lived
here all their lives. I have been a builder, remodeler all my
life and I just finished a 1880 brick bldg. and a 1904 brick
bldg. and I am redoing a log cabin right now. Anything you want
to do can be accomplished. The only redeeming factor on that
street is the Berko bldg. and that is the only building we will
remember when we walk down the street. On moving this the best
thing they had to say was that they have a lot of insurance. I
don't consider that an adequate criteria for picking a mover.
Did they do any inspection on the mortar, is it sand, portland or
what. Where do you draw the line and you have to start
someplace. At least Mr. King is looking at alternatives.
Everybody in town that I talked to has an emotional involvement
one way or another. I think this building is a good place to
start and there are alternatives on this building.
Dave Lettingham: My mother owns the Snow Queen lodge and I grew
up here and I just wanted to say that I understand wanting to
move it but we renovated the Snow Queen to make it fit the old
style and it has also been financially feasible for us. I think
renovating using the existing building is a really good option.
I can't believe what is happening to the town. You need to take
the whole street into consideration and it is a sad thing that is
happening to Aspen. My Aunt who owns the Little Red Ski Haus is
leaving. I see the logical alternative of moving it but I am
really concerned about loosing what Aspen is.
David Fleisher: You ha~e to draw the line somewhere as we are
loosing all the old buildings. In New York you see a large
building (sky scraper) and then a small building. Those people
have a sense of fortitude and kept their old buildings. As far
as the financial aspects the purchaser of the building had to
have some idea of the down side risks when he bought the
building. There has to be some way to maintain the building and
still make the project financially feasible.
Carl Bergman: The HPC will just have to make their choice.
Personally, I just bought the two houses beside the Miners Bldg.
and they will be retained as they are and I will take my loses.
Bill: We did get a phone call from Bill Stirling, Mayor and he
would like the HPC to know that the Berko Bldg. should remain
where it is as it is important to retain the character of the
town and it is in the long term the best interest of the
community.
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
Bill: I also go a letter from Don Fleisher and that letter will
be entered into the records. It briefly states that the Berko
site is a contribution to the historic character of the
community. All the comments from the previous meeting are
entered into the records.
Mrs. Charles Edison:
this location.
What business is Mr. King proposing for
Mr. King: It depends on the square footage that we have to work
with; possibly a jewelry store and the second floor a
professional office suite plus employee housing and the third
floor we would put an apartment.
Gideon: That is not relevant.
Mrs. Edison: I think it is, that is like saying you are going
to take the hope diamond and it makes no difference if you
surround it with a septic tank or whether you put it in a museum.
Gideon: One persons trash is another persons treasure.
Mrs. Edison: It is a very valid building and it should be
protected and maintained and used properly. That is logical,
ethical thinking. We need to know Mr. King's intentions for the
City of Aspen.
Bill: Mrs. Edison, we don't require other people on their
review to state what tenants they plan on putting in the
building. We just try to review and evaluate the importance of
this structure.
Mrs. Edison: If you don't require that why then do you require
the financial feasibility changes.
Roxanne: P&Z deals with use and HPC deals with compatibility
issues.
Gideon: We feel that moving the building to the ACES is the
best for this building. It will be restored to a residence.
The rating on this house #4 was done in 1980 before we built the
Mill Street Plaza. Once the plaza bldg. got built the historic
character in context of the building was drastically changed.
Bill: I'll close the public hearing at this time.
Lisa: About context and use it is very difficult to get a
building designated if the context around it has been lost. In
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
terms of use it's preferable in all cases to return the building
to its original use.
Jack King, owner of the building: I'm from Detroit and have
been a skier for 35 years and skied Aspen for the last 25 years.
I always wanted to own a building or house in Aspen. I was the
Mayor of Gross Point Michigan, a suburb of Detroit and I know
where you are all coming from. We couldn't do anything with the
building that is there. There is no kitchen and the bathroom has
a wash basin and a toilet. In order to make this economically
viable it was determined that the building would have to be moved
and we found the ACES site as I wanted to retain the building.
We will retain this house as a home as it was a residential use
and they will restore it and people will be able to see it.
want to give this building to ACES and add additional money to it
to allow them to move it, build a foundation and to have it in
good shape. I'm willing to build a new building in any character
that the Planning Dept. would like to have as long as it is in
good taste. The new building could have many uses, restaurant
etc. I have no idea right now but it will be in good taste.
Zoe: There needs to be a compromise, what is financially and
economically feasible for the owner and what is important for the
City of Aspen and its character. A lot of respect has been
forgotten for the people and the buildings who have made Aspen
the reason why we are all here. If the Berko bldg. remains and
the building next door is built then it has to be in context. If
the old building were to remain would the front facade be
completely restored in terms of the bay windows etc.
Richard Klein: That would be discretionary and up to the
client.
Zoe: I agree that Mill St. plaza is over stated. What reminds
you of what was here are the smaller charming buildings. I think
the compromise would be to retain the building and restore the
front and take the bay window out. We need to construct our
buildings that they conform with some of the original old
structures that are now existing to retain the character and
charm of what we all moved here for.
Joe: I would like to go through the standards for demolition
and give you my remarks. There is nothing in here for removal,
just demolition. It would seem to me under the demolition
standards only if it is appropriate to demolish would it be
appropriate to relocate the building. That is my interpretation
at this point. The first standard %1 is that the structure is
not structurally sound. We have the report that says it is
structurally sound, so from a point of view of demolition we
wouldn't have satisfied that first requirement. Standard %2 that
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
the structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for
any beneficial use of the property. This is the only brick
miner's cottage in the commercial core. This is the last
building. I think we should go out of our way to try and
rehabilitate or reuse it on the present site given the fact that
it is the last one. No one has talked about the properties
across the street and they should be taken into account as well.
It's like the domino effect. On the economics, standard #2
requires us to look at that. Based on the standard that the
structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused or provide for any
beneficial use in my mind we haven't met that standard on that
basis. Some of the numbers that Jim Mollica ran through in terms
of the land value also created a concern. The property was
purchased for $350,000 and with a large addition that the value
would be $250 to $300 thousand for land cost and if we had a new
building $350 to $450 thousand. My conclusion of putting a new
building on here means that the value of the land itself will go
from what he paid, $350 thousand to the range of $350 to $450
thousand. On the other hand if we do a large addition we will be
loosing $50 to $100 thousand of land value. I point that out,
the question is whether or not that prohibits any beneficial use
of the property in my mind. Joe Wells brought up the relative
cost of relocation and rebuilding as opposed to expansion and
said that the reason the expansion was going to be $40 a sq. ft.
more expensive had to do with the relative costs of city
exactions from employee housing, cash in lieu, parking and open
space. If in fact there are other code requirements that make
this more expensive I'm not really sure if that falls in our
purview. We are trying to look at, is this going to be
prohibitably expensive to renovate because of the renovation, in
my mind not because of the peculiarities of how GMP code works on
an expansion as opposed to a relocation. The next standard, the
structure cannot in all practicality be moved to another site in
Aspen. I had a difficult time applying this one at all to moving
it as again these are demolition standards that say the structure
cannot be practically moved and that is the standard for being
allowed to demolish it. I'm confused as how to apply that in
this kind of situation, obviously we can move it. The other
standards on the redevelopment plan mitigating the impact of the
neighborhood, the impact on the historical importance of the
structure etc. obviously we are relying on Lisa Purdy's analysis.
One thing that bothers me is the analysis that we went through on
an alternative plan for adding something on to the existing
building. The assumption that I think was implicit was we should
be allowed to build the maximum floor area for this building and
so what we get is this little model, because the house is on the
front of the lot it is pushing the development back and up in
order to meet the 6,000 sq. ft. maximum floor area that they are
entitled to on this lot. I don't know if that is a valid
analysis of the alternatives. Maybe there is something more in
10
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
keeping with this building on the site and is not quite so large
and dominant. This is the last brick cottage in the commercial
core area and I find that very important and we have to draw the
line somewhere. One other thing I would like to say is that I
was disappointed in seeing the barn on the ACES to be torn down.
We don't have jurisdiction over that. Roxanne wrote that staff
is concerned about the preservation philosophy of the ACES's
board through their current plan to raise the historic 1906 barn
at the edge of Hallam Lake. She then goes on to question whether
adequate preservation alternatives have been investigated. ACES
had stated this would be a great spot for other future buildings
to be relocated to and I have a problem making that like a little
area where all the old buildings will go.
Georgeann: In 1980 we did not give the house a number only a
notable. We only did the fours two years ago.
Gideon: I said the designation.
Roxanne: It is not a designated structure.
Georgeann: Lisa commented on this building as being out of
context but she seemed to forget that people do turn around and
look on the other side of the street. I would like to thank Mr.
King for finding a site for old buildings for the future. The
Berko bldg. contributes significantly to the streetscape here. I
cannot be convinced yet that we couldn't use the Berko bldg. in
its present place and this could possibly be to Mr. King's
advantage. You might have a more unique and marketable structure
here by finding a way to adapt that building. I do think the
design needs more work on it. Even if the building was used as
an entrance I think it would give people going through the
building a terrific opportunity to experience the small scale
intimate spaces of the old buildings. You could create something
exciting by moving from the old small scale into the newer
building. In regards to exactions HPC could recommend some of
these things in order to preserve the building.
Nick: Does everyone remember what "was" the Mill St. Station
and we knew at that time we couldn't control the goings on. The
west wall of the building was going to be cinder block and HPC
made an extended effort to get the red brick there. I would like
to see a little further effort in keeping the building where it
is and developing behind it. I do feel if we are going to move
it where you have selected is a very good spot for it.
Bill: I would like to thank Mr. Brooks for coming because what
this Board says today has an impact on what direction we are
going to take in the future. I am for preserving this building
on this site. It is the transition zone from the commercial core
11
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
to the residential and lodge districts. I would be willing to
give my time to work with the applicant to see if we can help
transfer density rights and some of the economic issues that you
will want to get out of your site if we can. Maybe the corner
can be redeveloped to take into account this building. We are
here as a Board to preserve Aspen.
Zoe: I will be happy to help in any way. The ACES is an
excellent spot but I think it is more of a spot for the moving of
the "true orphans". I don't think it should become the
graveyard for wonderful old buildings just because there is
space.
Lisa: We are all on the same side and where I see the conflict
is the zoning as that area calls for the highest intensity in the
whole county. If the zoning weren't so high we wouldn't have to
put such a large building behind it. You can't see the historic
buildings across the street when you are looking at this side of
the street. To me if you are going to draw the line draw it
across the street where at least you have four buildings in a
row. I also feel that the Committee is ignoring the expertise of
the mover and I have worked with that mover on several buildings
in Denver and never had a problem. I am not nervous about the
move of the building.
Joe Wells: We used to have a mechanism to help preserve
historic structures called GMP exemption but that is gone and
there is nothing that you can do to relieve us from what appears
to be $150 thousand of employee costs. $165,000 in parking
costs at $15,000 a space.
Roxanne: There is a GMP exemption for historic structures of an
expansion of 500 sq. ft. or less.
Georgeann: There must be some ways with an historic building
that we can make it a little smaller, give the developer enough
breaks so that it makes sense for him and the community.
Bill: I think the City has to step up and help. It's nice for
the City to have zoning and allow you to have all these FAR's to
go to but it doesn't say that you have to go to them but we will
try to go as far as we can and still keep compatibility within
the context of the neighborhood. I don't know what that is but
the City has to help. We should put a time limit on it also and
if that doesn't work go on.
Gideon: We have to compete in GMP and without conceptual
approval we aren't eligible for the GMP deadline of Sept. 14th
which puts us back a year. We are more than happy to work with
you and possibly HPC could propose to the Planning Office to see
12
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
if there isn't a way to enable us to continue working with you
and at the same time not be knocked out for over a year in the
process.
Bill: I think that is fair and how can we do that.
Roxanne: I understood that if you were in the pipeline that you
could still apply for GMP.
Gideon: In the past without an actual conceptual approval you
are not eligible to file.
Roxanne: I will have to talk with Alan and 2 1/2
asked Charles where the project was so I don't want
that "we're" under a time frame.
months ago I
it construed
Gideon: In the minutes of the Nov. mtg. we were directed to go
look for a site and we spent 6 months looking. Now given the
input of the community and this Board the direction is different.
Roxanne: I do think maybe Gideon is taking this out of context
as I was not here at that time and all I can do is reconstruct
from files and minutes. It was a pre-application where no
information, no staff memo was presented to HPC and was brought
up at the meeting to add it to the agenda. The alternatives were
not clearly presented.
Roxanne: I have some comments: I would like to help direct the
applicant in dealing with the standards for new construction of
commercial buildings in the guidelines on page 35 as I see it the
expanded proposal does not adequately address the first three
paragraphs. I'm not convinced after looking at the model that
the new development is adequate in context with the building
either. I would like to see a variety of alternatives and I am
willing to have it come before us the 13th of Sept. which is two
days before GMP application deadline. Nobody has talked about
the entire block.
Zoe: If we are going to try and retain these little buildings
we will have to work with the City in trying to make it easier
for the people who want to keep them.
Nick: I want to defend some of my actions on this Committee. I
thought I was supposed to listen to all sides and the public and
put together some thoughts and when we got to a vote act that
way. What I said six months ago when certain things were
presented I made that particular statement. Today the group
comes in, they put three stories there that aren't there, they
expect to convince me in that direction, other people said their
is no portland cement and the building will fall apart so I did a
little evaluation and that is my job on this committee not what
13
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
we locked into two or three years ago but what the situation is
right now. My situation right now is that I would like to hear
some more about moving down there, not moving down there and what
can be done on that piece of property. When that next door
neighbor comes I expect to be sitting here and he going to have
to be concerned about what is sitting next to him.
Gideon: One of the reasons it took us so long was we were
trying to respond to your concerns at that particular time not
that you can't change your mind.
Joe: Maybe we should talk about giving Planning direction to
work with the exactions and economics.
Bill: If this were designated maybe there is some way to help
the neighbor and the developer.
Zoe: Lets give him good solid direction.
Joe: I would be willing to hold a special meeting.
Roxanne: The issue is what direction are we going to give them
so they have time to respond and I have time to respond.
Leslie Holst: When you talk about economic hardship there is no
economic hardship, he chose to jump into the system and
everything in life is a choice. If the guy can't afford the
project he is in over his head.
Jim Gibbons: I have been here for 18 years and 15 years ago I
said to P&Z and Council that all you need to do is come up with
guidelines, code for people to live by. If you have that you
can't expect this guy to come in here and buy a piece of property
with the assumption that he can do something then all of a sudden
change the code. That is not fair.
Zoe: In the Historic Guidelines it does state that any building
that is constructed in the historic district you have to be
sensitive to what is around you.
Jim Gibbons: You are supposed to be working for and with him
not against him.
Larry Brooks: I remodeled the dry cleaners with the hope that
someday I would put a home on top of it. I came to this meeting
to see how my neighbor was progressing and see if I could go
ahead with my project. As it is I would have liked to have
started last year. Coming to this meeting I hear I have one set
of rules for density and another set of rules for setbacks
14
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
because I have an historical building next to me. You are making
it impossible for me to improve the property in terms of costs.
Zoe: Not impossible but it will take a little bit more effort
on your part and the architects to design something that is
suitable. In 1982 the Committee did make some mistakes.
Jim Gibbons:
costs up.
You are eliminating the little guy by keeping the
Bill: May I recommend that we table this meeting.
Roxanne: Does the Committee feel like you have responded to the
application as it has been submitted. Have you reviewed the
application and do you feel that there has been new information
that has not been presented that we need to go over at this time.
If you are going to table this give them direction on what you
want to see from them.
Richard Klein: I won't be available until next Thursday.
Nick: I would like to see the small building with the addition
in the back done in a different manner then was presented to me
today to show good or bad how you could use that area behind the
building where it sits today.
zoe: Start with the old building and exhaust it to the point
where it will either work out or it won't and then go to plan B.
Georgeann: I would like to see the applicant come back with
new studies of the design; the upper building lowered; the front
simplified; use the four ft. space on the right hand side of the
building to draw the people to the back building. At the same
time I would like HPC to have managed to keep the project in the
GMP at least for the next few weeks. Also that HPC come back to
the applicant with some better recommendations, better
possibilities for some relief from these exactions if that is
what we have to do to preserve an historic building. As Bill
said the City has to give also.
Bill: We have to get the City and the P&Z here to see what they
would be willing to give up otherwise we don't have a ground to
stand on.
Gideon: The key element would be to get a two week delay to the
GMP. What you are asking for is important and will take longer.
By Sept. 13th it is not possible to do a GMP application.
Roxanne: I can't recommend that for other GMP applications that
are coming in on other historic issues.
15
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
Gideon: The only one that I am aware of is the one by Cheap
Shots and that applicant may be willing to go along with it.
Gideon: Sometimes we shouldn't put the process ahead of the
goals.
Georgeann: Why don't we do a once only and the deadline would
be extended for everybody.
Bill: I happen to represent that other applicant.
Gideon: We could get a conceptual approval subject to
modifications.
Bill: We could give you conceptual approval and allow you to
change it as you go through the GMP process.
Roxanne: We are going to have to have conceptual approval based
on an application which they are going to have to apply and I see
no other way than a special meeting.
Georgeann: Give them conceptual approval on this.
Roxanne: They have not made an application on this so we can't
grant them conceptual.
Joe: We could schedule a special meeting to review first stage
of conceptual.
Zoe: We need a special meeting and in that meeting give them
advice and direction.
Gideon: We could have a special meeting and get conceptual
approval on this particular building (original with addition)
with the understanding that it is going to have the change the
process and Mr. King is going to have to make a decision as to
whether or not he wants to spend the money to go through the GMP
application with the chance that the P&Z won't give him enough
score based on this building and we get knocked out.
MOTION: Joe made the motion to continue the public hearing
until Thursday, September 1, 1988.
Gideon: Why do we have to go back to square one and do an
application as we are just modifying it.
Roxanne: The applications are completely different.
16
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
Gideon: We asked for removal and we know we are not getting our
removal. We then asked for redevelopment and conceptual
approval. So basically we are just coming back for our
conceptual approval and we were planning on getting conceptual
approval of this. You have looked at this building and decided
that is not the building you are going to give us conceptual
approval on but you are giving us direction to come closer to the
other model so we are continuing the public hearing for you to
reanalyze our conceptual approval for a building similar to this.
Georgeann: We have tabled conceptual approvals in the past.
Roxanne: We are trying to help the applicant and this is going
beyond what the application really is. We could even make a
denial motion. If we go with the tabling and recommend that they
revise their application to show that the building remains on
site with the expansion and go ahead and make that motion now
then make a motion to table the public hearing until that time.
MOTION: Joe made the motion to table the application and
continue the public hearing until September 1, 1988 at 2:30 p.m.
to reconsider the new design that we have given them direction
on, the revised design. Zoe second. All approved. Motion
carries.
Roxanne: I would like to state to the applicant that I will
need a complete application by Monday at 5:00 p.m.
Zoe: At that time is when we will do revaluations on our
comments toward the addition.
Richard Klein: It could be a smaller building if we don't have
to worry about housing and parking.
Bill: We don't have that ability.
Roxanne: Ail we can do is what code says
applicant would make recommendations to us
we might consider recommending to P&Z.
right now and if the
in writing as to what
Georgeann: If you would give us suggestions that you would like
us to recommend that helps us.
Bill: Possibly if this was designated it might help the project
next door as it would be nicer if we could open that area up
somewhat but he has to be compensated some how.
Joe: They are going through minor code amendments right now and
it would be nice to get Council to adopt something that would
give us the ability to have a little more flexibility.
17
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988
Adjourned 5:00 p.m.
Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk
18