Laserfiche WebLink
259 <br /> <br />DICE STREET <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix explained that the Board ~of Architectural <br />Review had rendered a decision regarding alterations made to <br />an historic property on 513 Dice Street and the owner of the <br />property, Mr. Clifton Rice, was appealing the decision. Mr. <br />Hendrix added that Mr. Rice had not obtained the required <br />building permit prior to making alterations nor a certificate <br />of appropriateness from the Board of Architectural Review. <br /> <br /> Mr. Clifton Rice stated that when he purchased the <br />property he did not know that it was considered historic. <br />Mr. Rice continued that he thought that the contractor that <br />installed the siding on the house would acquire the necessary <br />buil-ding permit. Mr. Rice explained that he also did not <br />know that it was a violation to remove trees on the property, <br />but added that they were rotten and he intended to replace <br />them. <br /> <br /> Ms. Margaret Cain, attorney representing Mr. Rice, <br />stated that the deed to the property contained no reference <br />to its historic designation. Ms. Cain stated that the Board <br />of Architectural Review maintained that Mr. Rice had been <br />sent a reminder of the property's historic designation, but <br />Mr. Rice had never received the letter. Ms. Cain stated that <br />the property was previously an eyesore and the residents of <br />the neighborhood are happy that the property has been <br />improved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bob Moje, Chairman of the Board of Architectural <br />Review, explained that the BAR could not issue a certificate <br />of appropriateness because the alterations made to the house <br />were not done by historic standards and the BAR was only <br />involved after the fact since a building permit had never <br />been sought or issued. Mr. Moje stated that the building <br />could not longer be considered historic because of the <br />alterations made. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix, while commending Mr. Rice for making needed <br />improvements to the building, stressed that he felt the owner <br />of the building must take ultimate responsibility for <br />securing a building permit prior to making alterations and <br />recommended that the City Attorney file charges against Mr. <br />Rice in General District Court for violation of City <br />ordinances. Mr. Hendrix further recommended that Mr. Rice be <br />required to make the parking area in conformance with front <br />yard setback Code requirements, improve the landscaping <br />and replace trees which had been removed. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Vandever, Mr. Gouldman <br />explained that the penalties for the violations were <br />misdemeanors, with the historic preservation and building <br />code violations allowing a maximum fine of $1,000. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he felt the City should apply <br />the law equally and made a motion to deny the appeal and <br />instruct the City Attorney's office to file charges against <br />Mr. Rice in General District Court. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters questioned whether the stop work order was <br />still in effect. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman explained that another option available to <br />the Council was to approve a certificate of appropriateness <br />contingent upon changes as recommended by Mr. Hendrix <br />regarding setback, parking, landscaping and tree replacement, <br />which would allow Mro Rice to continue working on the <br />property. Mr. Gouldman recommended that charges be filed <br />against Mr. Rice even if Council agrees to this option. <br /> <br /> Mr. Towe stated that he did not think Mr. Rice intended <br />to violate the law and therefore the penalty should be light. <br />Mr. Towe stated that he felt Mr. Rice had improved the <br /> <br /> <br />