2008-11-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 House and was constructed circa 1883-1893. She said a similar request was made by the previous owner and also denied by the BAR. She said that if Council overturns the BAR decision, the applicant can demolish the building. She said if Council upholds the BAR decision, the applicant has the options of appealing the decision to the Circuit Court or placing the property on the market for sale. If it is not sold within a year, he may demolish the building. Mr. Scala said the applicant’s reason to pursue demolition is he cannot financially justify renovating the building. Mr. Bill Chapman, applicant, said that he could not find a lot to disagree with regarding the BAR’s decision based on their guidelines. He said they suggested waiting until the area is improved to renovate the building. He said the building keeps getting broken into and was condemned. He said the estimate to convert it to retail/office space is $320,000 which is financially infeasible. He said it is an unsafe situation and he wants to fix that. Mr. Chapman said the building was last occupied in 2003 with the previous owner. He said he was not comfortable with the condition of the house when he bought it and he did not renew the lease. Mr. Norris asked if Mr. Chapman was aware the building had previously been to the BAR for demolition and the request was denied, and Mr. Chapman said he did not know for sure, but was not surprised. Ms. Scala said the BAR went through the criteria and found no reason to allow demolition. Dr. Brown said it bothers him to see demolition by neglect to justify tearing down a building. He said he thinks the BAR made the appropriate decision based on the rules, and he is not comfortable allowing the building to be torn down. Ms. Edwards expressed concern that the last vestiges of the African American community are disappearing. She said she likes to think the building is still valuable, and is an historic treasure given the era when it was built. Mr. Huja said he agrees with Dr. Brown and Ms. Edwards. He said he understands the economic hardship, but the building is structurally sound. He said the owner has the option to put the building on the market for a year. Mr. Taliaferro said he sympathizes about the financial burden, but would like to see the building preserved as it is an important part of the City’s history. He said he would vote to uphold the BAR’s decision. Mr. Norris said he concurs. He said there is a fair balance in the Code, and the applicant can offer the building for sale. On motion by Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Taliaferro, Council voted to uphold the decision by the BAR to deny demolition of 110 10 ½ Street, N.W. by the following vote. Aye: Dr. Brown, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Huja, Mr. Norris, Mr. Taliaferro. Noes: None. REPORT : PARKING STUDY Mr. Jim Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Development Services, said a parking study was begun in early spring to address the following basic issues: whether adequate parking is provided currently and for the future; whether the current designation of spaces in the core area is meeting community needs; whether the existing parking exempt zone is still appropriate; and whether and how transit can help to reduce downtown parking demand. Mr. Tolbert said the basic findings of the study are: 1) There are problems associated with the current designation of space in the study area related to an increase in business and a change in the business mix on the mall. Loading and delivery is extremely difficult and solutions to problems it generates will greatly improve traffic flow and safety. 2) The parking exempt zone has outlived its usefulness and should be changed. 3) Increased transit ridership can reduce the demand for parking but these increases need to be substantial if we are to see a significant impact. 4) Parking should be managed and enforced in a coordinated and planned manner. There is no current