Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 05/12/2004LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting May 12, 2004 TRANSCRIPT City Council Liaison: David Roy (407-7393) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chair: W. J. "Bud" Frick, Jr. (484-1467) SUMMARY OF MEETING: LPC accepted amended findings of fact from the April 28, 2004, preliminary hearing for 4824 S. Lemay Ave., the Rule Property. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission called to order with a quorum present by Acting Chair Per Hogestad at 5:35 p.m. at 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado. Agnes Dix, Janet Ore, Ian Shuff and Myrne Watrous were present; Chairman Bud Frick and Vice Chair Angie Aguilera recused themselves and were not present. Karen McWilliams and Joe Frank represented City staff. No City Council members were present. GUESTS: Rick Zier, attorney for owners Dick and Dianne Rule, 4824 S. Lemay Ave.; Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. MINUTES: The minutes of April 14, 2004, were corrected to eliminate a line of type repeated on both the bottom of the first page and the top of the second. Agnes Dix moved to accept the minutes as corrected, Janet Ore seconded, and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. STAFF REPORTS: None. COMMISSIONERS REPORTS: Myme Watrous reported on the May 6 meeting of the Downtown Development Authority. The DDA voted to commit $75,000 of the $160,475 requested by developer Harold Sommers for the redevelopment of 300 E. Mountain Ave. into retail and office space. This is the old Paramount Laundry building, next to the Old Armory, a designated building. The addition of a second story will more than double the existing square footage to 8,160 sq. ft. The proposed addition will not share a common wall with the Armory. DDA accepted a proposal from EDAW for professional design assistance to improve and upgrade the alley beginning on W. Mountain Ave. between Austin's and Laporte Ave. and Trimble Court. DDA supports a proposed change to the City Code that would prohibit a motorist "after having vacated a time restricted parking space in a lot or black face," from parking "...the same vehicle in the same lot or block face, or within 500 linear feet ... of the space previously occupied by the vehicle, for a four-hour period, regardless of whether or not the maximum time restriction as elapsed." Ms. Watrous pointed out that Fort Collins city bocks are slightly less than 500 feet long. The stated purpose of the proposed change is to increase utilization of privately owned parking lots downtown. Chip Steiner read Carl Tunner's letter recognizing the DDA as a Friend of Preservation. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 2 DISCUSSION ITEM Discussion and Approval of Findings from Rule Hearing, April 28, 2004 — introduced and presented by Karen McWilliams, assisted by Paul Eckman. Karen McWilliams: The City Attorney's office has prepared you with draft findings from the Rule hearing held on April 28. We have a memo here that explains the issue, and here are the findings, the resolution the Commission passed at the meeting. This is the adoption hearing, so if everyone could look at these findings, see if this is, indeed, what you said and wanted to say. You can amend or change this. Paul Eckman from the City Attorney's office is here to explain if anyone has any questions how that can be done, or under what circumstances. And then at the end, you'll make a motion and take a vote to adopt. Janet Ore: Can I ask, do we move on each? If we make a change, we make a motion, and we also make a motion on the final? Paul Eckman: Probably be easiest to propose an amendment and vote on the amendment, and then vote on the document as amended if it passes. Janet Ore: OK. Per Hogestad: I think maybe we ought to take a look at the last item, Item 4, on this. Maybe, in the spirit of making things a little easier here, we ought to strike the part that, ur, um, the plan has to be approved by the Chair of the Commission and Director of Advance Planning. Just ask them to submit something as informational to us or to, I guess, the Planning Department. That would be better -- to you, Karen. Myrne Watrous: Per Hogestad Myrne Watrous: Per Hogestad: Myrne Watrous: Per Hogestad: by Joe ... Myrne Watrous: Per Hogestad: Myrne Watrous: What? Yeah. Say it again. Well, read the last paragraph. I am, I am. OK, and it asks that their plan be approved by the Chair and also Yes. ...and I guess... What's wrong with that? Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 3 Per Hogestad: I'm wondering if we're asking a little much now, you know, since chances are they'll move it out into the County, so we don't have to worry about it, and it might cause them to move it out into the county, for one. And secondly, I think that it may be an unreasonable request at this point. Myrne Watrous: Doesn't seem so to me. Per Hogestad: It does to me, personally. Myrne Watrous: I don't know why it would be. Janet Ore: So what happens? I mean, we've never done this before, so we're sort of feeling our way through.. Per Hogestad: Yeah... Janet Ore: ...the process that would happen. Myrne Watrous: You want nobody or you want some...? Per Hogestad: They're going to move the buildings, hopefully, and it would be nice if they moved them in the city limits and supply us with documents that show, well, this is the site and this is how the buildings sit on it, just as an informational thing. But to go through some, some agonizing, long review of this thing and Bud and Joe have to do... Janet Ore: What is the review? Myrne Watrous: What's agonizing and long about it? Per Hogestad: It just seems to me that we're sort of asking them to do more than ... I don't know what the purpose is. Myrne Watrous: I think we're already letting them get away with murder. Per Hogestad: Well, what's the purpose? What's the purpose of the review, then? Karen McWilliams: Let's, I think Janet had a good question, what is the process. Janet Ore: What are our options? Per Hogestad: I think we just ask them to, you know, identify that this is the site, this is where the buildings go, and give it to us as a piece of information, rather than have to go through this, you know, this review that goes nowhere. Janet Ore: But what is the review, is my question. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 4 Karen McWilliams: Per, excuse me, I mean Paul, at least they're both Ps — What review process would they need to go through if they came in with plans that need to be approved? Paul Eckman: Well, the way this is written, it would be another hearing before the board, I think, or at least before the Chair and the Director of Advance Planning. Ms. McWilliams: And then, the way our Code is written, if the Chair and the Director were to disagree, it's referred back to the whole board. Paul Eckman: Right. So they could have another hearing. Karen McWilliams: And then they go through the whole hearing process. Joe Frank: I think one of the questions I had when I saw this was, what criteria are we supposed to be using? I mean, we like Johnstown but we don't like Wellington? Or these kinds of ... Per Hogestad: Would it even come to us if it goes outside the City limits? Joe Frank: Under this, it would. Janet Ore/Karen McWilliams: Under this, yes. Per Hogestad: It would still. Joe Frank: And, what is it, it's something we're supposed to look in terms of our approval criteria. And in talking with Karen, it sounded like the intent was, was that they would submit us a plan, that we would look at it, and, simply for information's sake: Here, we found a site, we saved it, we moved the building and the barn to a comfortable site, here's the plan we had. And we'd accept it, and send it on to the LPC for information. Per Hogestad: I think the original idea of the plan was talking about what could have happened, not necessarily what we required, and somehow it got built in to the motion. I don't know that it serves much of a purpose at this point. Karen McWilliams: There would actually be in my opinion, and Paul can certainly correct me if not, but I think there's a disincentive if we are reviewing the plans for the buildings to stay within the Fort Collins city limits. If they stay within Fort Collins, they have to be reviewed, and presumably reviewed under all of our Code and everything else. If they move them outside, we don't have purview outside the city limits, so our review would purely be complimentary with no... Per Hogestad: So it doesn't serve a lot of purpose. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 5 Karen McWilliams: So it would actually be a disincentive to keeping them within the city to require a review. To have them just provide plans for informational purposes... Per Hogestad: And who knows what the site looks like. I mean, it may be difficult for them to orient them in anything that resembles the original, so where do you go then? Janet Ore: So kind of what the question is then that it's such a big unknown on if they did come back, and what do we review them under, and what criteria do we use, and what's the purpose? Per Hogestad: Yeah, I don't think there's any purpose for it. Joe Frank: Other than just wanting to know had they been saved, and that was, I thought, the intent, talking with Karen I heard that was the intent of the motion. But how they're located or where they're located, whether it's in the GMA or outside the GMA, or in Wellington or Loveland or Johnstown or you know, it didn't seem, at least talking to Karen it didn't seem like it mattered. Per Hogestad: Again, I think the whole idea of that preservation plan was talking about, well, you know if they had earlier considered a preservation plan and moving the buildings, it made sense at that point. And somehow it got into the motion maybe stronger than it really should have been. Janet Ore: However, I do think the reason -- I mean, I made the motion -- the reason why I put that in there was the idea that if you just say they can be moved, then there is no, um, we want to encourage and give an incentive to make sure they are moved and not just, you know, destroyed or moved someplace where they're in a gravel pit or something like that. Karen McWilliams: Once they are moved outside the City limits, Paul can correct me if I'm wrong, the City would have no purview, so once they are outside the City limits, they could be... Paul Eckman: ...moved again. Karen McWilliams:... moved again, or demolished or whatever, again with no review. So, if you're saying they can be moved outside of the City, which is what was said at the hearing, then again, to require, we don't have the ability to impose our Code restrictions outside the City. Paul Eckman: I don't have any problems with the way the resolution is written, from a legal standpoint. I think if they are going to move them outside of the City, you have the jurisdiction as long as the relocation was occurring inside the City. And so you could require the Commission to go through this hearing process again. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 6 Karen McWilliams: Within the City. Janet Ore: So, if that happened then, do we get put, does that throw it back under the Land Use Plan or the City Code to do the steps all over again? Paul Eckman: That may be part of the motivation for this amendment, is to avoid the additional set of brain damage. Per Hogestad: Thanks for clarifying that. Karen McWilliams: This is, if it indeed has to follow our City processes, which is the way it is worded now with approval and everything else, it indeed would have to go under preliminary hearing, and then go to a final hearing, and preparation for a final hearing would require fully approved plans which the Land Use Code requires. Per Hogestad: Does that really kick in, though? I mean, the motion isn't asking for that, it's only asking that it be reviewed by two people and nothing more. Joe Frank: Not according to the demolition ordinance, that's what you're sort of saying. Karen McWilliams: Right. Janet Ore: However, if it were next to a landmark, would that kick in, if it were considered new development next to a landmark building, would it have to come under review? Paul Eckman: Well, I think said the way this is written, and maybe we should make it a little more clear, that the Commission is not a player in this, as long as the Chair and the Director agree. So, the way I see this, it seems that it was intended -- that Ingrid intended at least when she drafted it -- that If the Chair and the Director are presented with plans as to how this is to be relocated and they are in agreement, then the relocation is permissible, not that it would have to come back. It would only come back in the case that y'all couldn't agree. Per Hogestad: There's nothing in there that really tells us how detailed that plan has to be; it could be on a napkin, just a couple of squares. Karen McWilliams: And what does the Chair and the Director base their approval on? Janet Ore: What would be different than... Paul Eckman: Maybe we should add criteria, if you want to preserve this language. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 7 Per Hogestad: I guess I don't understand why we would really even do that. What's to gain out of it? Janet Ore: I'm wondering what the difference is if the two people just, they have to actually approve the plan other than it being submitted for information only? Per Hogestad: I guess I'd rather, rather than approve, that they just review the plan to sort of get away from the whole idea that it becomes a legal thing. If we were to change that word to "review" rather than "approve"? Myrne Watrous: I'd prefer "approve" to "review," because "review" does imply a process. "Approve" means just, you know, Bud and Joe Janet Ore: But... Myrne Watrous: ...and if it's written on a napkin... Janet Ore: "Review" it would still be just by the Chair and the Director. Per Hogestad: It's still spelled out that it's just the Chair and the Director. Myrne Watrous: Yes, yes, and that can be it. Karen McWilliams: It could be even more clear if the words "for informational purposes" were added. Really, in my mind, the two choices are, we either say that the whole purpose of receiving the plans is to have some information on them and what's occurring and we'll keep that, versus OK, this is the criteria which any review or approval has to be given under. Then we need to establish that criteria, have some sense of what we're supposed to be approving it or disapproving it under. Janet Ore: It sounds like if that were contested, that would be the vague point: How do you -- what's approval given on? Per Hogestad: Yeah. Paul Eckman: So, we'd need some kind of criteria, probably, to guide the Chair and the Director in the approval process. It wouldn't have to be real specific, but it would have to be spelled out. Good luck with that. [tape unintelligible] Per Hogestad: You could say it's reviewed for location only. Couldn't you do something like that? Make it that vague? So they show us, this is the lot it's going to go on and that's it. Paul Eckman: "Located in a manner that is sensitive to the historic character of the building.." Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 8 Per Hogestad: Yeah, but you know, that's... Myrne Watrous: We have the Secretary of the Interior's standards for not relocating. Karen McWilliams: No. Well, there are some different things, but once these buildings are moved... Ian Shuff: ...they'll be compromised... Agnes Dix: ... by moving them... Per Hogestad: No, I don't think... Karen McWilliams:I think the buildings will be compromised; it would be hard to start establishing standards. And certainly once again, if they are moved outside the City limits, where do our criteria come into play? Per Hogestad: I guess, again, I have to ask the question: What purpose does it serve? I'd just as soon strike the whole thing. Myrne Watrous: If you strike the whole thing, then we'll have all this and have absolutely no closure. Per Hogestad: Well, they're still required to move the buildings. Myrne Watrous: Yes, but we will have nothing in our records to indicate what happened to it. Karen McWilliams: OK, but then if we go ahead -- I agree with Myrne there -- we change it to "information," so that they do give us a plan, they tell us where they are being moved to, tell us how they expect them to be placed on the site, but again for information purposes. We're not expected to act on it, and say this is approved or disapproved. Janet Ore: Not approve or disapprove... Karen McWilliams: It's for information purposes. Per Hogestad: I agree. Myrne Watrous: They can just dump them in a heap on a vacant lot. Joe Frank: It would probably be enough to say... Per Hogestad: We'd make no decision, it's just information. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 9 Paul Eckman: Let me pose the question: If we do it the way you have suggested, Karen, where it's just for informational purposes, and the information comes back to you that we intend to relocate the buildings in the Larimer County landfill, that's information. Myrne Watrous: Right. Karen McWilliams: We have no control -- unless I'm wrong, Paul, and if I am, please tell me -- once they're outside the City limits, they can do anything they want with them anyway. Right? So it seems a little convoluted to me to say, you know, we have to have approval to make sure they don't end up in the Larimer County landfill, but, gee, once you move them outside the City limits, then you can do anything you want with them. Paul Eckman: ...you can do anything you want then. Karen McWilliams: Exactly. Joe Frank: In that respect, could you say something like, "Find a site to which they can move them and a plan for moving them and preservation — moving and preserving them has been submitted to the Chair of the Commission and the Director." Karen McWilliams: "and submit it for information." Per Hogestad: So then they have to do a preservation plan also? Joe Frank: I was just trying to think how it won't end up in the dump. Per Hogestad: And what if that is the plan? The preservation plan is to locate it close to the dump. Joe Frank: I think that wording can avoid that from happening, and saying just submit it means, they would just submit to us showing where the found a site and how they are preserving it, and just submit that to us. Per Hogestad: So tell me, how does that keep it from ending up in the dump? Joe Frank: The fact that you would say... Paul Eckman: It would make it a two-step process: They have to show you plans for relocation and preservation, then set there for a while. Then, after a while, that could be changed once it's under County jurisdiction. Per Hogestad: If we're not approving it, what does it matter? Paul Eckman: Right. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 10 Myrne Watrous: That's why we need to approve it. Janet Ore: It seems that would be a real breach of faith if it ended up in the landfill. Karen McWilliams: Well, the truth of it is, my understanding from the telephone calls I've gotten and so forth, is that there is a lot of interest in the community for people who wish to purchase it, or not to purchase it, but wish to have the buildings donated to them or pay a nominal sum, and are willing to move them all over the darn county. I don't think that they're truly -- These are nice buildings, they have value, and I don't think that you're going to see them in the dump. They'll be relocated somewhere, outside the City. Agnes Dix: And like you say, once they are outside the City, we have no control over them anymore. Per Hogestad: I think we're just adding a lot of complexity here and getting nothing for it. Karen McWilliams: If the Commission wants the control over the buildings, then they need to say they have to stay within the City limits only. That's the only way the Commission gets that control. But, if you don't want that — at least that's what... Janet Ore: No, when I made the motion. Karen McWilliams: Exactly. Janet Ore: ...there's no point in doing that. Myrne Watrous: Keep in mind the city limits do include a certain amount of rural territory going clear out to the Brewery... Janet Ore: But that limits the choices very drastically. Ian Shuff: There's not that much available, really... Karen McWilliams: And it must be the City limits, not the Growth Management Area, in order for our Codes to apply. Joe Frank: Paul, would you have any language that would do what they're suggesting? Paul Eckman: I do. We could say — I wrote this down after discussing this with Karen -- "that the relocation of the house and barn from the property may be accomplished following submittal by the applicants (for informational purposes only) of relocation" — "and preservation," we could add — "plans showing the location and character of the relocated buildings." That takes... Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 11 Joe Frank: There's some extra words in there. Per Hogestad: Yeah. Paul Eckman: Yeah, and maybe we have to say "submittal to the Chair and the Director," add that so they know who to submit it to. Janet Ore: Let's go on to approval, the process. Joe Frank: I think the process would be, at this point, when the discussion is ended, will be a motion on this, which conditions, then a motion. And then people can suggest some amendments to it. Is that right, Paul? Per Hogestad: I thought we were doing it the other way around, where we would consider language for an amendment, and then ... Joe Frank: You usually have to have a motion on the floor and know what you are amending. Per Hogestad: Oh, OK, so that would come first. Joe Frank: Usually. That's the way Council would do it, they have a resolution, and it's put on the floor, and the first and the second, and then the amendments start. Per Hogestad: OK. Janet Ore: Amendments to our amendment. Joe Frank: Yeah. Right Per Hogestad: OK. Joe Frank: At some point, when you're ready, you should have discussion. Per Hogestad: I guess I'm still at little confused with some language here. Myrne Watrous: Well, I like it just as written, myself. Per Hogestad: Then the criteria; I think Joe and I can cook something up in a couple of minutes. As long as the plan is larger than a napkin, it works for me. I mean, it's so, you know, so weird. There are no criteria, so we can say almost anything. Janet Ore: I think that "approval" is still shaky, because we don't know what we're approving it on or what we're approving it for. Agnes Dix: Yes. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 12 Per Hogestad: And it serves no purpose. Myrne Watrous: Yes it does. Per Hogestad: I don't think so. Janet Ore: What's the purpose it serves, then? Agnes Dix: Without criteria -- would you add the criteria? Janet Ore: We'd need the criteria, and we have to be careful in that, in any case. Per Hogestad: I guess we'd just like to know where the building ends up, basically is it. Janet Ore: So they're not lost. Per Hogestad: Exactly. Even the orientation of the buildings, you know, within that approving of buildings doesn't mean anything. Janet Ore: Well, the sites may not allow it. Per Hogestad: Well, that's the thing. If it's within the City Limits, it would be very tough to find a site that you could actually arrange these buildings on so it would sort of resemble what it was. Then again, I think they've lost quite a bit of their importance, anyway, once they're moved. Joe Frank: I was wondering if the intent was the house and barn be moved together, relocated together? The way the motion is, it just says it could be done either way: the house could be moved one place, the barn another. Is that what you intended? Per Hogestad: I don't know that we had really thought about that. Janet Ore: No, I didn't think about that. I assumed they would be together. Joe Frank: The way it's worded, I don't think ... Myrne Watrous: It doesn't say that. Joe Frank: It doesn't say that, so I was just wondering if that was your intent... Per Hogestad: It would be easier to find homes for them if they could be split up. Certainly, we don't have a preservation plan. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 13 Joe Frank: How do you think the wording is, Paul? Does it seem to indicate it's one site? Paul Eckman: I don't think so. Unless you want to make it that way, make it more clear. Joe Frank: Whatever. I just think that could come up, and I just wondered. I mean, I, Per Hogestad: That's a good point. Joe Frank: They could probably interpret it that they could be split, if they found a site. Per Hogestad: I wonder if we could just say that it would be preferable that they be moved together, but wouldn't be required. Certainly the house, you could find a home for that easily, but the barn is a different story; it's a tough one. Janet Ore: Well, moving it, too. Per Hogestad: Well, I mean, we had, at the hearing testimony that yes, it would be easy to move — we have to take that as being true. You know, the barn may end up out in the County and the house in the City limits. But we'd could say... Myrne Watrous: That's why we have to approve... Per Hogestad: ...that we'd prefer them to be together but don't require it. Myrne Watrous: You're right, though, about the house. It could very well wind up in the City limits, and that's another reason why we should require plans and approve them. Per Hogestad: But you move them to separate locations, there is no plan, other than an address. Myrna Watrous: But that would be information, something that would say, OK, after all this, this is where the house went. Case closed. Per Hogestad: OK, so maybe that's the information, just ask for a location. Janet Ore: The other thing that would happen, too, is that if there were any disagreement between the two — now we're in the future — then I assume it would get kicked back to the Commission to start the process all over again, if approvals had been handed out. Is that..? Per Hogestad: I suppose. Isn't that the way it works? Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 14 Karen McWilliams: If the Chair and the Director of Advance Planning disagree ... on its eligibility... Janet Ore: On the approval? Per Hogestad: See? That doesn't mean anything, either. Janet Ore: Well, what would happen if they didn't both sign off on it, the approval? Paul Eckman: It would come back to the board, if you're going the approval route. Janet Ore: It would. Paul Eckman: If you're going with just informational purposes, why then there's no problem. Joe Frank: Does the Code say that? I was thinking about that question today. Normally we have brought it back to the Commission, but I don't know if that's what the Code says. Karen McWilliams: The Code says, if there's a disagreement on the eligibility or on the work that's being proposed, Per Hogestad: Maybe that would cover it. Karen McWilliams:... that would kick it right back to the LPC. Paul Eckman: I've written this down again, in terms of the amendment, that I think you are thinking of. Let me read it and see if I've got the gist of that: "That the relocation of the house and barn from the property may be accomplished following submittal to the City by the applicants" — I just said "to the City" rather than to, to — "by the applicants, for informational purposes, of relocation and preservation plans showing the location and character of the relocated and preserved buildings." Joe Frank: I wonder about that "character" ... Agnes Dix: yes... Ian Shuff: Me too... Per Hogestad: Does that sort of imply this very complex sort of... Joe Frank: ...yeah, analysis, and drawings... Paul Eckman: So, "location only"? Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 15 Per Hogestad: I like that. [general agreement by Commission members] Karen McWilliams:And I would be very careful with the word "preserved" in there, because in historic preservation, it is a very specific term. Paul Eckman: I put that in, because of... Joe Frank: Yeah... Paul Eckman: ...the concern about the location being in a... Joe Frank: When we say preserving, we mean they're not being torn down... Per Hogestad: ...or being moved to the dump... Karen McWilliams: Well, again, giving us a location tells us it's not being torn down. Joe Frank: Well, it does, unless the location is the dump. Per Hogestad: Maybe they could use them out there, as an equipment building. Paul Eckman: They could be used, there could be a different proposal than that, too. Maybe it's just my personality, but I can think of other bizarre things, like, the Poudre Fire Authority, they need places to practice fire fighting... Karen McWilliams:All right. Joe Frank: That's not quite preserving them. Myrne Watrous: Well, and saying "the City" is an awfully vague concept, too. I think we better be specific who "the City" is. Joe Frank: I think ought to be to the Director of Planning... Janet Ore: I do, too. Per Hogestad: I agree. Janet Ore: And also the Chair, too; it would be nice if the Chair knows what's going on. Myrna Watrous: Yes. Per Hogestad: That's fine. If it's for location only, I think that's great. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004. Meeting Minutes Page 16 Karen McWilliams: We will automatically inform the Chair, we will certainly let you folks know that we have the plans. Per Hogestad: So, do we have something figured out? Paul Eckman: I changed "City" to "Director of Planning," and took out "character." Janet Ore: So how would it read? Paul Eckman: "That the relocation of the house and barn from the property may be accomplished following submittal to the Director of Planning by the applicants, for informational purposes, of relocation and preservation plans showing the location of the relocated and preserved buildings." Per Hogestad: I know they're going to ask, "what the heck is a preservation plan?" Joe Frank/Paul Eckman:: Yeah. Janet Ore: Well, how about if you put it, "upon submittal to the Director of Advance Planning plans for relocating..." Paul Eckman: ...and preserving... Myrne Watrous: Make that Advance Planning. Per Hogestad: The problem with that "and preserving" or "preservation plan" is that, what is it? Karen McWilliams:... preserving to the standards of the Secretary of the Interior, which is one meaning... Janet Ore: Maybe we want to make it simple and just say, "the plans for relocation." Per Hogestad: Yeah, I think that's good enough. Karen McWilliams: And, if indeed, the plans happen to be in the dump... Per Hogestad: ...take out all that preservation stuff, because we don't really know what that is... Karen McWilliams:... they will have lost their integrity... Per Hogestad: ...and besides, we don't trust Joe to review that anyway... Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 17 Myrne Watrous: But there's nothing there for approval? So they can just donate it to the Fire Authority... Karen McWilliams: They could. They could take it to the dump, they could... Myrne Watrous: I don't like that. Per Hogestad: I don't think the Fire Authority would take it. Joe Frank: They're not going to relocate them and then take them over to burn them down, I can tell you that. Karen McWilliams: Yeah, I was going to say, clearly, the cost alone... Joe Frank: ...it would be very expensive... Karen McWilliams:... yeah, it would be... Joe Frank: They may burn them down on site... Karen McWilliams: Yeah, no one is going to spend the money to left these buildings and move them outside the city limits only to take them to the dump. Joe Frank: No, they won't do that either. Karen McWilliams:And again, there's a lot of interest from folks in having these buildings relocated to their property. Per Hogestad: Once those buildings are up on wheels, I think there will be a lot of people interested. Myrne Watrous: I'd still like to have approval in there, even if it is only pro forma. Karen McWilliams: If you do that, then you have to list all the criteria for approval. Janet Ore: And we may end up with another hearing, and do we want that? Do we need that? Myrne Watrous: I don't think we're going to end up ... I think the criteria is whether Bud and Joe like it. Karen McWilliams: What if Bud and Joe don't? Per Hogestad: I think the way we have it written now at least we know where the buildings are going to be moved. I think that's bottom -line what we're looking for. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 18 Janet Ore: And that was our concern at the meeting. So I'll make a motion, and then other people can amend the motion and figure out how they want to do it. I'll just put something on the floor. Sound all right? I make a motion that we change — I guess amend would be the proper term... Joe Frank: ...we adopt the findings... Per Hogestad: yeah, yeah that would... Paul Eckman: You want to have it all in one motion then? Joe Frank: That seems to be where you're headed. Janet Ore: Why not just do the amendment first, and then do the whole document? Per Hogestad: Remember, Joe said that typically, we would approve the document... Paul Eckman: Well, the way Council would do it, they would have a motion to approve the document -- I move we approve the findings as proposed -- and then that would be seconded, but they wouldn't vote on that until they go around and ask for amendments — Are there any amendments? Joe Frank: So you know what you're amending. Paul Eckman: It's just a technicality. Per Hogestad: Or you could do it just in one motion, with amendments. Janet Ore: So, I could say something like, I move that we adopt the findings of the hearing of April 28... is that the correct way to do it? Paul Eckman: ...as received by the memorandum of May 6, 2004... Janet Ore: OK. Janet Ore moved the LPC adopt the findings of fact from the April 28, 2004, preliminary hearing, as received by memorandum of May 6, 2004, with item 4 amended to read: That the Commission will permit relocation of the house and barn from the Property, following submittal to the Chair of the Commission and the Director of Advance Planning, for informational purposes, of plans for relocation. Janet Ore: Then, everyone else can work from there. Agnes Dix: I second. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 19 Per Hogestad: Is there any further discussion? Myrne Watrous: Yes. I would like to see approval in there. Janet Ore: Well, then you have to make a friendly amendment to this amendment. Right? Paul Eckman: Well, that's if you will accept her suggestion as a friendly amendment. Karen McWilliams: You can discuss... Janet Ore: Then we vote on the friendly amendment, then we vote on the amendment. Then I'll accept... Paul Eckman: If it's not acceptable to you, then you'd say, No I don't like that. Joe Frank: And you just vote on the motion. Paul Eckman: Or, I suppose you could table your motion until that issue is resolved. I think you just vote on your motion. Joe Frank: And if there's not enough people supporting it, you probably go to OK, another motion. And that's when Myrne would suggest hers. Janet Ore: OK. And the reason I would do that is because I would not vote for the friendly amendment for approval, so I assume we can forego this and vote it up or down and go from there. Per Hogestad: But you don't have to accept it. Could I hear that motion back again? There's something in there... Kate Jeracki: Oh, gosh. That would actually be fabulous because I was gong to rely on the tape. Janet Ore: Here's what I had: Number 4: That the Commission will permit relocation of the house and barn from the Property, following submittal to the Chair of the Commission and the Director of Advance Planning, for informational purposes, of the plans for relocation. There may be some grammatical, because it's a long, convoluted sentence... Paul Eckman: Or "of plans showing the proposed location of the buildings"? Janet Ore: That's fine, too. It's the same thing. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 20 Per Hogestad: I think it makes clear what the plans are intended to convey. We don't want them to be full-blown plans that show restoration of the buildings and all that. Janet Ore: Well, I just said "plans for relocation," but if we want to have plans showing the location. Paul Eckman: "Showing the proposed location of the buildings," that's very similar. Janet Ore: OK. Per Hogestad: Would you consider that we include that we prefer that the two buildings be moved together, rather than split up and moved to separate locations? Janet Ore: Personally, in my view, I'd like to leave it just as it, and we deal with that when the time comes. Per Hogestad: Well, we won't have any purview over it. Janet Ore: So, what, we put "preferable"? Per Hogestad: Yeah, it's not strong language, it's just, you know, it just explains our intent is all it does. Agnes Dix: It's a suggestion. Per Hogestad: It doesn't bind them to anything, it just makes us feel good. Janet Ore: It isn't that I wanted to bind them to anything, it was that it seems to me that's what it says: "permit relocation of the house and barn from the property." Ian Shuff: We'd have to say, "together," or something. Agnes Dix: "Preferably together." Ian Shuff: "Preferably together," that would work. Joe Frank: Was that a friendly amendment? Per Hogestad: Yes, it was. Janet Ore: OK. I'll accept that friendly amendment. So, someone has to second that, right? Per Hogestad: Yes. Ian Shuff: I second it. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 21 Janet Ore: Then we have to vote on the friendly amendment, then the amendment? Paul Eckman: Well, actually, the way you've framed your original motion, it was the entire thing, with the amendment to paragraph 4. Janet Ore: Right. Paul Eckman: So, once you vote on that... Per Hogestad: Including the friendly amendment. Paul Eckman: You've accepted the amendment, so it's now part of your motion. Janet Ore: Oh, we don't even have to vote on the friendly amendment? Paul Eckman: The other amendment you did not accept. Janet Ore: Right. Paul Eckman: So if this passes, it passes. That's the only vote you have to take. Janet Ore: All right, then. That's fine. Per Hogestad: Is there any further discussion? I think we'll do a roll call vote. Kate Jeracki: All right. And before we do this, I just want to get the wording, so we all know exactly what we're doing. Number 4 now reads: That the Commission will permit relocation of the house and barn, preferably together, from the property, following submittal to the Director of Advance Planning and the Chair of the Commission, for informational purposes, of plans showing the proposed location of the buildings. Paul Eckman: We'll add commas where necessary. Per Hogestad: Any further discussion? Can we have the roll call? Kate Jeracki: Agnes Dix? Agnes Dix: Yes. Kate Jeracki: Per Hogestad? Per Hogestad: Yes. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 22 Kate Jeracki: Janet Ore: Yes. Kate Jeracki: Ian Shuff: Yes. Kate Jeracki: Myrne Watrous Janet Ore? Ian Shuff? Myrne Watrous? (� The motion carried, 4-1, with Myrna Watrous voting against. Per Hogestad: That's it. Janet Ore: So, can Myrne propose anything different if she wants to? Per Hogestad: It's done... Joe Frank: She tried, with the friendly amendment. Karen McWilliams will generate an amended document for signatures by Per Hogestad and Paul Eckman following the meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Myrne Watrous suggested that as part of the regular routine of the Commission at the beginning of the meeting to identify guests. Kate Jeracki offered that a sign -in sheet was available for each meeting. Rick Zier identified himself, and reminded the Commission that he was the attorney for the applicants, who had appeared at the April 28 hearing. Meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Kate Jeracki, Recorder June 15, 2004