2006-06-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10 following vote. Ayes: Dr. Brown, Mr. Caravati, Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Schilling. Noes: None. APPEAL : BAR DECISION RE: PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF 101-105 EAST MAIN STREET st Ms. Scala said that the owner has requested that all but the Main Street and 1 Street facades be allowed to be demolished. She said the two buildings were constructed as a commercial duplex. She said the decision by the BAR in April was identical to action Council previously took on the buildings as an appeal from the BAR. She said the intent of the developer is to building a nine story building on the site. She said staff recommends that the demolition be denied. She said the interior wall is a structural wall. Mr. Schilling asked about the result and scope of the certificate of appropriateness for demolition issued in 1988, but Mr. Scala said she does not know. Mr. Caravati said the information is in the packet and indicates that demolition was approved, but the owner at the time never moved on the demolition. Mr. Keith Woodard, owner of the property, said he wants to preserve the character of the mall and add to its vitality. He said the buildings have been mostly vacant for six years. He said a mixed use project is proposed and there will be more opportunity for underground parking and a more unified development if the interior wall is removed. Mr. Greg Brezinski, architect for the project, said the plan is to preserve the facades, but remove the dividing and rear walls which will allow them to do a better project. He said the buildings are not listed as national historic structures. He said the primary distinguishing qualities are the facades. He said the structures are relatively structurally complete, but they do not meet current buildings code. He said the parking plan is for 180 cars underground, but the interior wall creates a hardship for parking. He noted that the walls proposed for demolition will not be seen. Mr. David Pettit, attorney for Mr. Woodard, said they are talking about the balance of two very significant interests: tax revenue and contributing to the vitality of the mall. He said they are also proposing to underground utility lines. He said there is potential for the site to have great benefit to the City. He said Council is the right place to strike the balance and take into account a wide range of factors. He said the project will preserve what can be seen, and he urged Council to grant the appeal. Mr. Caravati asked what the proposed set back for the new building is, and Mr. Pettit said he thinks it is 25 feet. Mr. Wolf said the BAR felt it was striking a balance in its decision. He said the integrity of the buildings are there, but they do not suit the applicant’s purpose. He said nothing has significantly changed since the previous decisions about the demolition. He said there is a large public interest in protecting the structures. Mr. Caravati said the owner can build up to the back wall, and asked why it should be saved. Mr. Wolf said he would revert to the previous decisions. He said once the wall is encapsulated it has far less influence. He said the BAR looked at the structure as it is. Mr. Caravati asked about the interior wall and roof which is not seen, and Mr. Wolf said it goes back to the definition of the envelope of the building. Mr. Lynch said does it not make sense to see this in the context of what is built next. He said the BAR might make a slightly different decision if it did that. Ms. Hamilton said the loss of 180 parking spaces would be significant. She asked how many housing units are being proposed.