Laserfiche WebLink
139 <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that there is an incentive on the <br />City's part to preserve both the residential and historic <br />natures of the property. ~ <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter noted that the criteria which had been <br />mentioned for Council's consideration are not actually listed <br />in the historic preservation ordinance and are only <br />examples of areas Council may consider. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano questioned whether it would be possible to <br />preserve only part of the structure and Mr. Lawrence replied <br />that preserving only part of the structure would help the <br />situation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Larry Herbert, Chairman of the BAR, stated that the <br />BAR felt the estimate cited by Mr. Lawrence to repair the <br />structure was too high and the BAR was disappointed that the <br />property had been neglected. Mr. Herbert added that the BAR <br />had sought to find creative ways to save the property without <br />success and there was concern that reversing the BAR decision <br />would set a precedent. Mr. Herbert also requested that the <br />ordinance be strengthened to encourage people to maintain <br />historic properties. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kurt Wassenaar, a member of the BAR, requested that <br />Council follow the process in place which would allow the <br />property to be put on the market. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano noted that appealing the BAR decision to <br />Council does follow the process. Mr. Toscano questioned <br />whether the property owner could return to the BAR with~an <br />amended plan should Council uphold the BAR decision and Mr. <br />Gouldman replied that they could. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter recommended that incentives such as tax <br />credits be explored in the future to help property owners <br />preserve historic structures. Ms. Slaughter .stated that she <br />felt it was important to preserve historic structures and <br />made a motion to deny the appeal. Mr. Vandever seconded the <br />motion for denial and asked what the fair market value for <br />the property would be. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman stated that the current assessed value <br />which would also be the fair market value is $169,500. Mr. <br />Gouldman added that the property owner could ask more for <br />the property but would have to deal with Council if they <br />chose to do this. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter questioned whether less'than the whole <br />property could be offered for sale and Mr. Gouldman replied <br />that the historic designation applied to the entire property. <br /> <br /> The appeal of the Board of Architectural Review decision <br />to deny the request to demolish 800 Delevan Street was-denied <br />by the following vote. Ayes: Rev. Edwards, Ms. Slaughter, <br />Mr. Vandever. Noes: Mr. Toscano. Absent: Ms. Waters. <br /> <br />STAFF REPORT: SOLID WASTE <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that the proposed budget for FY 91-92 <br />has approximately $3 million for solid waste management, $1.3 <br />million of which are new costs proposed to be levied against <br />residences and businesses in the form of user fees. Mr. <br />Hendrix explained that the new costs represent approximately <br />$900,000 in costs related to mandated regulations at the~Ivy <br />Landfill and $400,000 for a city-wide recycling program. Mr. <br />Hendrix stated that issues to be addressed in the budget are <br />1) how to fund the new costs and 2) should recycling be <br />expanded and if so, how should it be funded. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mary Ingels, Assistant Director of Public Works, <br /> <br /> <br />