Laserfiche WebLink
9 <br /> Mr. Lynch said he has trust in the BAR and he thinks it is appropriate for <br />buildings to conform to their guidelines. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said he thinks we are treating this applicant unfairly and he does not <br />think they should be punished. <br /> <br /> The BAR's decision to deny the cer tificate of appropriateness to Ruby Tuesday <br />was upheld by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Ms. <br />Richards. Noes: Mr. Schilling. <br /> <br />APPEAL <br />: APPEAL OF BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION RE: <br />114 LANKFORD AVENUE <br /> <br /> Mr. Tolbert sa id that 114 Lankford Avenue is a locally designated historic <br />property. He said that there have been code enforcement issues with the property over <br />the last several years with different property owners, and there has been consistent non - <br />compliance. Mr. To lbert said that previous owners were told by the City that the <br />property was a nuisance and should be demolished, but they were also told that they had <br />to apply to the BAR for permission to demolish it. The owner applied to the BAR, but <br />the demolition perm it was denied by the BAR. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Mr. Tolbert said that the property <br />was visited by members of the BAR and other experts and they discussed ways to work <br />out the problem, but none have gone anywhere. <br /> <br /> Ms. Lynn Heetde rks, Vice Chair of the BAR, explained that the core of the <br />building is a log structure built by a freed slave, though there is some debate about the <br />amount of original logs that remain. She said that the BAR recognizes the poor condition <br />of the structure. She said some members favored saving the logs and incorporating them <br />into a new structure, but the City Attorney felt they could not require reusing the logs. <br />Ms. Heetderks said that based on the criteria, the BAR voted to deny the demolition <br />permit and voted to deny removing its historic designation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Dale Ludwig, owner of the property, said he bought the property at a <br />foreclosure sale and was told by the City's building official that the building should be <br />demolished. He said he is willing to tak e the structure down by hand and donate the logs. <br />He said the house is currently condemned and he cannot do anything with it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tolbert said that the building official did condemn the house, but he said the <br />condemnation can be removed if the owner wan ts to renovate the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he is aware of other log buildings in town. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling asked if there is an issue of the neighborhood feeling the building is <br />a nuisance, and Mr. Tolbert said yes, and they asked that it be secured. <br /> <br /> M r. Cox asked for clarification on what happens to the property if the appeal is <br />denied. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said that the owner can offer the property for sale for a period of <br />approximately six months, and if there are no offers to buy the property then he is enti tled <br />to demolish it. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Cox, Mr. Tolbert said that if the appeal is <br />denied, the applicant will be required initially to secure the property and then submit a <br />plan for improving it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked if the applicant would be eligible for historic renovation revolving <br />loan funds, and Ms. Gillespie said yes, though she said she is not sure when funds will be <br />available. <br /> <br />