Laserfiche WebLink
211 <br /> <br />APPOINTMENTS: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS <br /> <br /> On motion by Mr. Vandever, seconded by Mr. Towe, Ms. <br />Theresa payne was unanimously appointed to a three-year term <br />as the School Board designee on the Social Development <br />Commission. This term will expire on August 31, 1991. <br /> <br /> On motion by Mr. Towe, seconded by Rev., Edwards, Mr. Ron <br />Roberts was unanimously appointed to a four-year term as the <br />Police Department representative on the Highway Safety <br />Commission. This term will expire on June 30, 1992. <br /> <br />APPEAL: BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION RE: 205 14TH ST., NW <br /> <br /> This matter was carried over from the previous meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Richard Spurzem, son of the owner of the property at <br />205 14th Street, N.W., stated that the trees on the property <br />are only regulated because of the presence of the historic <br />structure, which he argued has questionable historic <br />significance. Mr. Spurzem stated that this matter involved <br />many legal issues which could take a long time and be costly <br />to resolve. <br /> <br /> Mr. Robert Downer, attorney for the property owner, <br />stated that the Council should take the broader view when <br />considering this matter and consider what is best for the <br />City. Mr. Downer stated that there was confusion over the <br />original site of the cottage and that only half of the <br />building was the original construction. Mr. Downer stated <br />that the State enabling legislation does not speak to the <br />issue of regulating environs around historic structures. Mr. <br />Downer stated that the property owner is willing to donate <br />the cottage to the City, but felt that it was unfair for the <br />City to require that the building remain on the property. <br />Mr. Downer maintained that the fair market value of the <br />property should be determined on the basis of having the <br />cottage and trees removed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Robert Moje, Chairman of the Board of Architectural <br />Review, stated that the intent of the ordinance is not only <br />to preserve great structures, but to preserve those buildings <br />which represent the City's architectural history. Mr, Moje <br />added that the BAR has remained flexible regarding possible <br />uses of the site, but has never received a concrete proposal <br />from the property owner. <br /> <br /> Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney, stated that the issue <br />'of the appeal should be separated from the issue of the fair <br /> market value of the property. Mr. Gouldman explained that <br /> the ordinance allows the property owner to place the <br /> property for sale on the open market and that if the <br /> property is not sold within a year's time~ then the historic <br /> structure could be removed by the property owner. Mr. <br /> Gouldman stated that the fair market value of the property <br /> should be set as exists today, with the existing <br /> constraints in place, and speculative uses should not be <br /> considered in the determination, i Mr. Gouldman recommended <br /> that should the appeal be denied,l that a new appraisal of the <br /> property be conducted, with the year beginning at the <br /> completion of the appraisal. <br /> <br /> Mr, Gouldman stated that if the Council upholds the <br />BAR's decision, then the property owner can appeal the <br />decision~to the Circuit Court. Mr. Gouldman stated that <br />should the matter betaken to the Circuit Court, the City <br />would argue the significance of the history of the building <br />and the trees and might~call the following expert witnesses: <br />an historian who would discuss the totality of the site and <br />why the trees should be considered part of history~ a land <br />use expert to discuss what other communities have done, <br />especially with regard to trees~ an architect to discuss <br /> <br /> <br />