|
|
|
|
Council Searches for Ways to Save Old Adobe Buildings |
|
|
|
Written by Jeff Radford
|
|
Tuesday, 18 December 2007 |
Village officials are searching for ways to ease regulations and
minimize impediments to renovating the old earthen buildings that give
Corrales so much of its character.
At their November 27 meeting, Councillor Sayre Gerhart sought and got a
go-ahead from fellow councillors to develop proposals that might make
it easier, or more economical, for business people to renovate old
buildings along Corrales Road, rather than demolish them.
Her call for action to protect the streetscape along Corrales Road,
especially the commercial district, was bolstered by proposals from
former Corrales Planning and Zoning Administrator Taudy Smith and
former chairwoman of the Corrales Historic Preservation Committee Mary
Davis.
At a minimum, the Village Council is expected to pass an “historic
earthen building code” modeled on a State statute which may make it
easier for renovators here to satisfy building codes. Councillors
considered an ordinance to be posted and published at their December 11
meeting.
Gerhart and others at the November 27 council meeting warned that when
Corrales’ building inspector applies a strict interpretation of the
code, renovators are apt to conclude it is better to just tear down the
old building and start over from the ground up.
Gerhart introduced the topic by explaining “last summer the issue of
the re-use of the adobes [structures] was brought to my attention by a
village architect and by a village realtor separately as an issue of
businesses relocating in Corrales. Both parties were concerned that
when they are approached by business owners interested in moving into
an existing building in Corrales, that they could not in good faith
encourage the business owner.
“The hurdles to the business owners include:
“1. getting C-zoning (as mentioned in the Revenue Advisory Report, this
is time-consuming, requires an ordinance and success is not
guaranteed);
“2. site development plan review (can be time-consuming with no guarantee/matter of right outcome for the property owner); and
“3. the renovation of the existing buildings to meet building codes
result in little left to re-use, especially due to what I am hearing is
the strict/limited interpretation of the codes by our building
inspector and a lack of useable appeal process,” she said.
“I am told that there is a difference in how New Mexico Construction
Industries Division inspectors and how our inspector are working with
the codes on existing buildings, and the result is that in Corrales it
would be much easier and cost-effective to tear down the old building
and start new.”
Gerhart did not say which realtor or which architect have been
advising prospective business people not to come to Corrales. But the
current renovation of the old building at the corner of Corrales Road
and Rincon Road is likely to be a focus of concern.
The architect for the renovation of that property as a photography
studio, Michael Krupnick, spoke at the November 29 meeting, telling of
his difficulties.
He said the new owner has spent a considerable amount of money
improving the old structure, but had determined that the existing
foundation was basically sound. “I looked at it and the engineer looked
at it and we said, ‘well, it doesn’t meet code, but the building has
been here for the last 100 years or more and we don’t see any cracks
and it looks like it works.’
“But a week later [presumably at the insistence of Corrales’ building
inspector] we poured a $8,000 footing to reinforce the foundation.”
Krupnick said similar problems arose over the existing exterior
stairway. After “obvious tripping hazards” were eliminated, he
concluded that “maybe it doesn’t meet code, but it does work.”
He said the building inspector wasn’t satisfied. “Instead of fighting
the process, we decided it would be easier just to incur the expense”
to make unnecessary changes.
Krupnick said the Rincon Road project has attracted the attention of
other people interested in opening businesses here. “Other commercial
businesses have come to me and said, ‘I want to relocate in Corrales…
you’re doing these buildings, what do you think?’
“I tell them to go to Albuquerque; it’s easier there. It’s too
expensive and too complicated working with the Village of Corrales. I
don’t want to steer people away, but professionally when they ask my
real opinion about the expense and ‘can you do it?’ my answer is ‘It’s
easier not to.’”
Krupnick said other communities have a more lenient policy for old
earthen buildings which are not required to meet a strict
interpretation of today’s building codes. “Here there are no
exceptions. But the old buildings didn’t meet code when they were built
and they will never meet code.”
Some of the speakers at the November 27 meeting laid blame directly on
Corrales’ building inspector, Charlie Bratton. It was argued that he
has been too inflexible or lacked knowledge of adobe construction
methods.
Gerhart and others suggested that State building inspectors with the
Construction Industries Division (CID) have expertise in evaluating
historic and earthen structures, and that perhaps they might be called
in conduct such inspections here.
Gerhart touched on that prospect in her presentation. “Does the Village
have a building department and inspector that encourages and
understands adobe construction?” she asked, by way of sparking
discussion. “What is the difference between the CID inspectors and our
Village inspector regarding renovation of existing adobes?… I am
told the CID inspectors use discretion, our inspector is not so
inclined, and requiring ‘the explicit written approval of the
appropriate CID building official’ is unreasonable in the field.
“I am hearing complaints about lack of a reasonable appeal process
(appeal is to governing body, Section 8-34), and having a building
department of one person with all authority, to review drawings, and
carry out all inspections, puts too much power in one person.”
Gerhart also suggested the Village enact an anti-demolition ordinance
that set restrictions on razing structures within the designated
commercial district. She offered no details for such a law.
Among other suggestions, she aired the idea of allowing greater lot
coverage for adobe structures in the commercial district, noting “the
thick walls of adobes leaves them with a disadvantage due to how we
calculate lot coverage, and limit the interior square footage of
leasable or usable commercial space.’
Taudy Smith addressed the mayor and council with her own
recommendations. She is now a consultant working on historic
preservation issues.
Smith suggested a series of steps: incentives for renovating earthen
structures; mandates against demolition; and removal of obstacles.
An anti-demolition ordinance, she said, “can work both as a
preservation mandate and an incentive. Demolition fees can be placed in
a special fund and utilized for renovation projects. Corrales could
directly assist residents with renovations, updating windows,
weatherizing homes, etc. for people that wouldn’t otherwise be able to
afford these housing necessities.
“It can also look at utilizing demolition funds for revitalizing
historically important structures in the commercial zone. This has been
done successfully in other parts of the country as part of
downtown and economic revitalization efforts.”
Considerable discussion arose over the idea that Corrales’ building
inspector needs to exercise more discretion in deciding when codes need
to be strictly enforced.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Tidwell advised against such
discretion, saying the building inspector must apply the rules evenly
and without favor.
Gerhart acknowledged the danger of encouraging discretion in
enforcement of the building code. “It opens up the world of bribery,”
she noted.
The State statute on provisions for “historic earthen buildings,” has
the following definition. “Qualified Historic Earthen Building. Any
earthen building or structure that is 1) listed in the National
Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Cultural
Properties; 2) designated as a historic building or structure by a
state or local register, inventory or survey; 3) certified as a
contributing resource within a national or state register listed or
locally designated historic district; or 4) a building or structure
that is certified, in writing by the State Historic Preservation Office
as being eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places or the State Register of Cultural Properties either individually
or as a contributing building to a historic district.”
Gerhart noted that “all of the adobe structure of which the now-defunct
Village committee, the Historic Preservation Committee, has done a
local historic survey (there was one done in the 1980s and other done
in 1996 of which I took part) could qualify” under part 2 of the
definition.
She suggested that the surveys already done which list those historic
buildings could constitute a qualification as an “historic earthen
building” that would be covered by future building inspections. |
|
|
|
|
