2000-09-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

178 Ms. Joan Fenton, Chair of the BAR, asked Council to uphold the BAR's decision to deny the demolition. Ms. Fenton said she understands any prior demolition decision by the BAR would only be good for one year. Ms. Fenton said the burden of proof to justify the demolition is on the applicant, and she feels they failed to prove their case. An independent consultant was hired who concluded that the buildings are of historic significance and the project is economically feasible without demolition. Ms. Fenton requested that if the buildings are put up for sale, not sold in a year, and demolished, that the developer work with the BAR on the development of the property. There were no comments from aggrieved parties. Mr. Toscano asked if the BAR has seen the 1997 analysis of the buildings' facades and, if so, what they made of that analysis. Ms. Fenton said that she did not feel a convincing argument had been made as nothing said the buildings are unstable. The study looked at the bank using the buildings and concluded that the buildings would not support the weight required by the hank. Mr. Toscano noted that the consultant recommended partial demolition of the rear of 107-111 East High Street, but Ms. Fenton said the BAR was never asked to approve a partial demolition and it was not discussed. Mr. Toscano asked if the BAR discussed the rear buildings at all, and Ms. Lynne Ely, BAR member, said that she had asked the consultant if the rear buildings had any significance, but he responded that he could not answer that because of the limited time he had to study the buildings. Mr. Caravati asked if the BAR thinks the rear buildings have any significance, and Ms. Fenton said the BAR did not discuss it, but she does not think they are significant. Mr. Cox asked when the two story back building was added, and if the BAR has any information on its structural integrity, and Ms. Fent0n said that was not looked at and the BAR did not have any information on that. Ms. Richards noted that the consultant made reference to the highest and best use considerations being mixed use, and asked if the BAR discussed the capability of the buildings for office use given the load bearing issue. Ms. Fenton said that the BAR did not look at it from a mainly economic issue, and felt that if the upper floors could be used for residential apartments then that would be okay, though it may not be the highest return. Mr. Cox asked about height restrictions, and Ms. Fenton said that at least six stories can be built in the historic district. Mr. Caravati asked if the BAR considered the probable uses of the buildings, and Ms. Fenton said that retail was assumed for the main floor, with offices or apartments on upper floors. Ms. Fenton said she feels the fair market value of the property has been skewed by the high auction price on the assumption that the properties can be demolished. Mr. Caravati asked if the BAR talked about what is a reasonable economic return, and Ms. Fenton said the BAR felt it did not have those figures. Ms. Richards asked if alternative scenarios were discussed, such as partial demolition, and Ms. Fenton said that the BAR may have been open to allowing demolition of 107 East Main Street, but the consultant felt that could endanger the buildings on either side, Ms. Ely said the fagade at 107 East Main could be removed, and the rest retained.