February 2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Shawn Peterson: And, just so you know we will have all of you available for questions when we open up this hearing. John Peddycord: That's fine. We expect that. Bernard Diedrich: I'm Bernard Diedrich. My office is 922 East Jefferson Blvd, and you have my resume so I'm not going to go into that. The only other comment I would make, because I think Bob pretty much explained what our position was and I don't think that that's very arguable. We've both done a number of historic properties, and this is just another example of a property that may have to . go its way, unless somebody wants to spend the money to relocate it for its highest and best use. The other thing I would like to comment on and ... I have a hard time believing that when this property was made a historic property in 2000 that this property wasn't already in some manner of distress. The inspection was done in 2002. The things that have happened to this property did not happen in two years. So, I don't think that at that point in time whether it was a volunteer, a voluntary preservation or whether there was some pressure to have it done. I think that's what, these things should have been addressed at that time. That's pretty much all I have to say. I'll be available for questioning. John Peddycord: It is interesting, Mr. Diedrich also and he didn't mention this, he had an opportunity to appraise this property did you not?, Bernard Diedrich: Well, I appraised the cemetery. John Peddycord: When was that? Bernard Diedrich: It was probably mid-90s: `94, `95. John Peddycord: And, so ... he remembers the building, he had been in it ten years ago and now recently in conjunction with our efforts here. Thank you. Now, I guess what I would like to say in closing is your standards do require that it be economically practical to renovate this building. I would suggest to you unless you have other evidence that I'm not familiar with, maybe you do, I'd love to hear it, if staff or anybody has it, I don't think it justifies the cost that would be involved in renovating this building. I don't care whether it is $800,000 or $1.8 million. You have to have a reasonable rate of return on your investment these days and unless somebody, Todd and his staff or somebody, can find someone who is in love with historic structures and has a lot of money to throw away and doesn't mind doing that, I think that's so remote though, that I don't think it meets the standards you are bound by. Interestingly, the reason I should say that by the way is: let's face it, even if you spent $800,000 on this building, the debt service costs on $800,000 that you might borrow to put into this building; it would kill it. It would prevent this building from being economically viable for any other use. We think the only evidence that you have in front of you at the present time supports our conclusion that we are entitled to a Certificate of Appropriateness. We are willing as I originally suggested to afford Historic Landmarks Foundation or the Commission itself - I was surprised to find in the state statute and I presume it is in your ordinance too, that you even have the power to acquire historic buildings, if you want. In any event, we are willing to afford the Commission and HLFI the opportunity as contemplated by the statute and I think it is basically contemplated by your ordinance too, to acquire or arrange for the preservation for the building. We want to go forward and we're agreeable to a reasonable period of time for you to do that, but we don't want this thing to drag on for six months or a year. We think we should be allowed to get a, obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness and eventually get a demolition permit to destroy the building, again, unless some third party can find a better use for the property. Whether, Mr. Huddleston suggested moving it down the street or there is some well-healed person out there, or 23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] Z