Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19851217~istoric Preservation Commission Chairman Georgeann Waggaman called the meeting p.m. with Mona Frost, Gretchen Greenwood, present. O~d Business - Esprit Elk's Buildina Qecember 17, 1985 to order at 2:37 Patricia O'Bryan that the vote at the Pasquarella abstained. determining whether a City Attorney Taddune told the Commission last meeting did not count because Nick Taddune said Pasquarella was present for majority voted. Taddune said if the reason for the abstention was a conflict of interest, the proper procedure would have been to remove himself from the proceedings, and then he would have been absent. Taddune said the vote was 3 in favor, 2 against, and 1 abstention, which is not a majority of those present. Taddune said the applicant may not agree with this interpretation, but Taddune's research confirmed his opinion and he feels this issue is still pending before the HPC. Taddune said the case should either be represented or revoted on. Nick McGrath, representing the applicant, said they do not agree with Taddune and are entitled to their legal position. McGrath stated there is no valid public hearing for this meeting. The applicant regards the vote of December 10 as final and a vote of approval. McGrath told the Commission he disagrees that if a member is disqualified he is not, under Robert's Rules of Order or under applicable legal rules, present for reasons of quorum. The other reason for not having a public hearing today is that it was not duly noticed. McGrath said there has been some confusion about the use of alternates for the HPC, and this should be cleared up. McGrath said the reason for rules of fair procedures for public bodies is important legal rights are at issue - the right of fair hearing, the right for adequate notice. The applicant's architect has made a very thorough presentation and this meeting has not had 15 days public notice. McGrath told HPC Harry Teague, architect, has not had time to communicate with the client and explain what went on. McGrath objected to a further public hearing, however, if the Commission wants one, it should be noticed. McGrath reiterated their view that a vote of 3 to 2 was a vote of approval; it was a majority of 5 members who were qualified to be counted as present. McGrath stressed he is talking about fairness of a public hearing. There was an editorial in the paper; however, that was not adequate notice. Mcgrath said they have approval and can rely upon it. Mona Frost asked if it is possible to rescind a motion that has already passed. Taddune said the issue is does the Commission desire to reconsider the motion. Taddune stated his position that the motion that was made did not carry. Taddune said it is Historic Preservation Commission December 17, 1985 the prerogative of the Commission to re-open the public hearing. Taddune said he feels the more considered the decision, the better the decision. Taddune told HPC the applicant is not at a disadvantage. Taddune said the Commission can reconsider a motion that has been made. McGrath said the Commission should not re-open the public hearing. If they want to have another public hearing, it should be noticed. McGrath said the applicant is not prepared for a public hearing, nor is he prepared to make a presentation. Taddune said the first public hearing was duly noticed, information was elicited. Taddune said he feels the Commission can re-open the public hearing and receive additional information. If the Commission wants another public hearing, they should give the 15 days public notice and have another presentation. Taddune said at this point, the Commission has not approved the application. Taddune said at this meeting, there is a quorum and if the members present decide to approve the application, they can reconfirm the action of last meeting. Ms. Waggaman asked if this is not a public hearing, would it be appropriate to let members of the public present speak. Taddune said that would be appropriate. McGrath said the applicant does not want to respond, and this would allow the Commission to take additional evidence that has not been noticed as a public hearing. The applicant is not prepared to offer evidence against this because this has not been noticed as a public hearing. Taddune said the public hearing could be re-opened and continued until this can be noticed. Ms. Waggaman said if she does not open the public hearing and takes no presentation from either side, does the Commission need to vote again. There is a quorum, everyone is familiar with the project. Taddune said if Pasquarella had explained his position at the last meeting, Taddune would have advised he had a conflict of interest and should remove himself from the proceedings, and then would have been absent. Taddune said Pasquarella did not feel he had a conflict of interest. Taddune said because Pasquarella is an officer of the Elk's Club, he does have a conflict of interest. Taddune told the Commission under Robert's Rules of Order, when one abstains he is still present for determining whether a majority of the members present voted. Taddune said when one discloses a conflict of interest, they should remove oneself from any influence over the decision, which means removing oneself from the room. An abstention is more of a prefiguration McGrath said if the Commission decides not to open the public hearing, but some members decide to change their vote it is an unfairness to the applicant. A majority of 4 members present is still 3. McGrath said if some members changes their 2 Historic Preservation Commission Qecember 17. 19~5 minds, the applicant could get a vote of disapproval when at the last meeting the applicant received a vote of approval. Mona Frost asked if the applicant would prefer a duly noticed public hearing in three weeks. Taddune said if the applicant is given approval, they will be happy with that. If the Commission is not inclined to ratify the motion of the last meeting, he would request that 15 days notice be given and the applicant be permitted to make another presentation to respond to concerns. Taddune said the Commission has to focus on what they feel is substantively correct. Taddune said the Commission can decide to receive more information to make a more considered decision. Ms. Waggaman said she feels the motion made at the last meeting probably would not carry. Ms. Waggaman said she has an alternate motion which may address the concerns. Taddune suggested the Commission think of this meeting as an extension of the December 10 meeting. Ms. Waggaman asked if an alternate only votes in absence of a quorum. Taddune told the Commission an alternate votes until the Board is full. McGrath said if the Commission is not going to adhere to the prior vote, he requested the Commission to set another public hearing. Ms. Waggaman suggested the Commission change the wording of the previous motion slightly. Ms. Waggaman recommended the Commission approve the design for the Esprit remodel with the exception of the lower portion of the windows, and ask the architect come back to the Board with a design that will reflect in some manner the proportion and traditional of a kick plate. This will give the architect freedom with what he wants to do with his design. McGrath said he would accept that with a slight change to give the architect the opportunity to bring is as much historical evidence as possible that a kick plate is or is not historic. McGrath suggested the motion state directions that the architect return the design focusing solely on the lower portions of the window and presenting an adequate historical basis for whether there should be a kick plate or not. Ms. Greenwood said that was much of the discussion at the last meeting, whether this is a historical restoration. The architect has given a good presentation on what was historical. A kick plate was never a historical element of the building. Ms. Waggaman pointed out there are kick plates in all the original photographs of the building. Ms. Waggaman said although the Commission has been talking about kick plates with the architect all through this process, he has never given a presentation with kick plates so that the Commission has had no option. Ms. Waggaman said the architect feels he does not have that option and that is the conundrum of the Commission. ~arry Teague, architect, said the proposed motion is very clear on where the Historic Preservation Commission December 17. 1985 Commission stands. Teague told the HPC he cannot state he can do what the motion asks because he has not talked to his clients. Teague said if the Commission wants him to return, that is acceptable. Teague said it is not necessary to follow McGrath's guidelines. Teague said the difficulty is trying to deal with a remote client, and the motion expresses the concerns of everyone. Mona Frost said she misunderstood at the last meeting and thought there had to be lights for the basements, that is why the windows, because they said there were windows there before below the kick plates. (Mary Martin came into the meeting). Ms. Waggaman explained the Commission has discussed approving most of the design except the lower windows. The architect will come back and bring back a reflection of a kick plate. Steve Burstein, planning office, recommended the Commission address the sand stone sill and the illumination plan, to see if there is an effect on the exterior of the building from the interior lighting. Ms. Waggaman said it would be better if the CCLC deals with the lighting. Burstein said the CCLC is not involved with internal lighting. Ms. Waggaman said she would be uncomfortable asking the applicant to submit a lighting plan to the HPC. Ms. Waggaman said there is some concern this corner will be too bright. Ms. Waggaman said she would prefer when the architect comes back to the Commission with more resolution about the lower part of the windows that the architect addresses the sand stone sill. Taddune asked if this is to be 4 feet from the sidewalk. Ms. Waggaman said what is to be re-addressed is anything from the sidewalk and 4 feet. Taddune said the Commission should indicate that the lower portion of the building will be further considered at another public hearing. Mona Frost moved to reconsider the motion made December 10; seconded by Ms. Greenwood. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Waggaman moved to approve the design of the Esprit remodel of the Elk's building as presented by Harry Teague with the exception of the lower portion of the windows, from the sidewalk to 4 feet in height and request the architect come before the Commission again at a public hearing with a design that will reflect the proportion and tradition of a kick plate; seconded by Mona Frost. Mary Martin said the Commission has asked about the kick plate since October, and the architect was told then that was what the Commission wanted. Ms. Waggaman agreed the Commission does not want the applicant to continue to come back without a kick plate design. Taddune said this motion will defer consideration of a kick plate until a renoticed public hearing. This will let the 4 Historic Preservation Commission December 17, 1985 applicant make a presentation to give more information. Teague said everyone's opinion of a kick plate is different and the motion makes it clear that the Commission will have to see the design of a kick plate. Ms. Waggaman said she would like to give Esprit the feeling the Commission is happy with most of the design except the kick plate. Ail in favor, with the exception of Patricia O'Bryan and Mary Martin. Motion carried. Taddune asked the Commission to set a public hearing date. Ms. Waggaman said this cannot be set until the architect has a design. Mona Frost moved to adjourn at 3:22 p.m.; seconded by Ms. Greenwood. All in favor, motion carried. 5