|
REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017
<br />Mr. Boyd's application and it considered the ordinance factors as it is allowed to do, but the
<br />ordinance specifically says that the HPC can consider the following when it's reviewing a COA,
<br />the Certificate of Appropriateness, application: it can consider the appropriateness of the
<br />proposed alteration or construction — that's one (1); it can consider the detriment to the public
<br />welfare if the alteration is permitted; and the other one (1) is that it can consider the hardship a
<br />potential denial will cause to the applicant if it's denied. And then it can also consider —and this
<br />is something Mr. Boyd alluded to —he is suggesting that the HPC has dropped the ball in terms
<br />of preparing some sort of Preservation Plan with respect to his property. The HPC is not required
<br />to go out proactively and develop Preservation Plans for every single individual historic
<br />landmark or property within its jurisdiction. What that means is, it is by ordinance allowed and
<br />permitted to —and should— create at least minimum maintenance expectations for districts or for
<br />historic landmarks. It has done that, and they refer to those as "Group B standards." And, by the
<br />way, Mr. Klusczinski, President of HPC, and Ms. Feasel, Executive Director are here, and they
<br />certainly know a lot more about this than I do. If any questions need to be answered, they can
<br />also come up here afterwards.
<br />Mr. Hummer stated, There is a Preservation Plan in effect for what this property is: it's a historic
<br />landmark. These standards also are included with the materials before — that's in my Position
<br />Statement as "Exhibit J." Most importantly, and you can probably hone in on this quote and
<br />probably realize what was done here by HPC was appropriate —it says in the Group B standards,
<br />which are applicable to historic landmarks like this property: "Additions to landmarks should not
<br />detract from the original form and unity of the landmark." Really, all we need to look at is the
<br />picture of what this building looked like at the time landmark status was granted to it in 1999,
<br />and what Mr. Boyd has now done to this roof. It has completely and unfortunately destroyed and
<br />decimated what was a very historical and classic looking firehouse station with a flat roof, as it
<br />was built when it was built. It has violated the Group B standards. HPC, at the meeting in
<br />September —it was a unanimous nine (9) to zero (0) vote in favor of denying Mr. Boyd's
<br />application. It did a roll call vote in denying that. A brief reading of those comments, if I may,
<br />shows exactly how the Commission respected and appreciated what's in its ordinance, as far as
<br />the factors that it can consider; it also shows that they were mindful of the Group B standards
<br />applicable to historic landmarks; it also shows that they were inclined to listen to Mr. Boyd's
<br />financial issues with it —you will hear overtones of that in these roll call letters. The nine (9)
<br />commissioners present there —I'll just read these for you briefly —this is "Exhibit H" in your
<br />packet, it's on page six (6). Commissioner Gordon moved to deny the application. All of these
<br />are votes in favor of denying the application. Commissioner Hertel's statement, though, with her
<br />vote was: "The best course of action in maintaining the historic integrity of the building." So,
<br />obviously, she's concerned with the architectural integrity and the appropriateness of this and the
<br />public detriment in allowing this because, frankly, the public detriment here is eviscerating
<br />landmark status to a previously designated historic landmark. Commissioner Parker also voted
<br />the same way. She said, "Due to the architectural character of the building, and the lack of other
<br />options /quotations." So, she's also considering the financial hardship that this might create to
<br />Mr. Boyd, although he kind of already did this to himself, respectfully, with going about this
<br />without getting the application first. It does show that the commissioners were interested in the
<br />quotation and the financial aspects of this project.
<br />Mr. Hummer stated, Commissioner Anderson, when he voted, cited the "lack of conforming to
<br />architectural integrity of historic building." Again, that's the [unintelligible] the appropriateness
<br />of the proposed construction, which is in the ordinance itself. Commissioner Gordon, his
<br />comment was: "Not in keeping with the integrity of landmark status." Again, hearkening to that
<br />idea that this is a historic landmark and this construction is really deleting that stature as historic
<br />landmark. Commissioner Klusczinski, he stated, "The work is not in keeping with landmark
<br />standards and guidelines." Like those Group B standards I mentioned. "The work was performed
<br />without prior approval by the HPC and the Building Department. Evidence suggests that the new
<br />changes are not structurally sound and in compliance with the current building code." And if I
<br />can go on a slight rabbit trail on that one, Mr. Boyd also referenced that he had some out -of -state
<br />approvals showing that this is structurally sound —those were not before the HPC at the time of
<br />the meeting in September. I want the Council to be aware of that. Jumping back into what
<br />Commissioner Klusczinski said, though— again, this goes to the fact that the Commission did
<br />21
<br />
|