Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Plan <br />July <br />Page <br /> <br />commission Mtlktes <br />25, 1990 <br />3 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />deciding on the merits of the application. <br /> <br />Chairperson Kreishman first reiterated her statement from the last <br />meeting that she would not be voting on the application due to a <br />potential conflict of interest. She then called on members of the <br />Historic Preservation commission to again explain the application. <br />Ms. Judy Little and Mr. Esley Hamilton, members of the Historic <br />Preservation Commission, expressed their Commission's support for <br />the application and detailed the architectural and historical <br />importance of the building to the University City Loop Business <br />District. Ms. Willa Boiso, President of the University City <br />Historical Society, expressed her support for the designation. Ms. <br />Melanie Fathman, representing Landmarks, Inc., read a statement by <br />Carolyn Toft, Executive Director of the organization, supporting <br />the designation. She also indicated that Mr. Hugh Cannon, <br />President of the Real Estate Securities Institute, had informed <br />their company that the building was "very developable" and the City <br />should encourage its reuse while preserving the historically <br />significant portions of the building. <br /> <br />The Chairperson asked if Plan Commission members had any questions <br />regarding the application. Mr. Marsh asked the Historic <br />Preservation commission to distinguish local designation from <br />national historic designation. Mr. Hamilton explained that <br />national designation became significant only if federal funds were <br />used in rehabilitation of a building; most work on a building would <br />be left unprotected. Local designation requires local review of <br />permits for rehabilitation or demolition according to locally <br />adopted standards. Mr. Marsh asked if the building would more <br />likely be repaired if it were designated a landmark. Mr. Goldman <br />replied that the situation is hard to judge; certain developers <br />might be attracted to a project which involves the high level of <br />communi ty interest which designation could afford; other developers <br />prefer to remain unrestricted by historic standards. Ms. Willa <br />Boiso explained that should the City acquire the building, a court- <br />ordered appraisal would likely spur more development interest. Ms. <br />Ratner asked why the Historic Preservation Commission chose to <br />apply for designation at this time and asked how designation would <br />affect the transfer of the property to the city. Mr. Hamilton <br />replied that if the building were not designated and guidelines <br />were not established for proper renovation of the building, it <br />could be damaged or improperly repaired in the meantime. Mr. <br />Hamilton also stated that, in his experience, historic designation <br />does not increase the value of property for appraisal purposes. <br />Ms. Ratner also inquired as to what the current building owner's <br />duty is to fix the building. Mr. Goldman stated that the City has <br />pursued serious exterior building maintenance issues when <br />deterioration has occurred, but the City has not pursued <br />habitability issues of the apartments with the owner. The upper <br />three floors of the building have been condemned by the City. Mr. <br />Kendall asked members of the Historic Preservation commission how <br />they assess the historical value of a building. Mr. Hamilton <br />