Laserfiche WebLink
212 <br /> <br />possible uses of the site within the constraints; a BAR <br />member to discuss what the property owner had previously <br />proposed for the property; an appraiser; and an arborist. Mr. <br />Gouldman added that~he would argue that the General <br />Assembly's mention of "land" in the enabling legislation <br />was intended to apply to the totality of the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Spurzem asserted that the City will get an <br />unattractive project on the property if the BAR decision is <br />not overturned. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she felt Council had two options <br />at this time: 1) take a vote on the appeal, or 2) discuss <br />possible variances for use of the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Downer stated that it would be expensive to submit a <br />concrete proposal for the property, noting that informal <br />discussions held in the past with the BAR have not been <br />fruitful. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated -that she agreed with Mr. Gouldman's <br />opinion regarding the determination of fair market value <br />because otherwise it would be impossible to protect historic <br />properties. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman stated that unless an agreement is reached <br />between t~he City and the property owner, the issue of fair <br />market value will be decided by the Court. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards questioned whether the City would be sued <br />for damages should the Court decision go against the City; <br />and Mr. Gouldman replied that was possible, but uncertain. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever made a motion to uphold the BAR decision, <br />adding that the BAR decision had not harmed the property <br />owner since the purchase of the property had been a <br />speculative investment and Council does not have an <br />obligation to assure that speculation is paid off. Mr. <br />Vandever stated that he felt the property was worth <br />preserving. Mr. Buck seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Towe stated that while he would like to see <br />sOmething worked out, with the trees preserved and possibly <br />moving the building, he was not in favor of a long court <br />suit. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she was concerned about <br />maintaining the structure as part of the City's historic <br />fabric and that she would favor postponing the final vote to <br />see if further negotiations would be useful. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that Council voting on the matter would <br />not prevent further negotiation from taking place. <br /> <br /> The BAR decision regarding 205 14th Street, N.W. was <br />upheld by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Buck, Rev. Edwards, <br />Mr. Vandever, Ms. Waters. Noes: Mr. Towe. <br /> <br />STAFF REPORT: <br /> <br />URBAN DESIGN PLAN <br />DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC STUDY <br /> <br /> Mrs. Elizabeth Gleason, former Council Member and <br />Chairman of the Urban Design Task Force, reviewed the <br />preliminary work of the Task~Force and stated that the <br />purpose of the Plan was to provide an overall guide to <br />preserve the past and control the future with regard to urban <br />design. Ms. Gleason stated that the Task Force and <br />consultant had addressed the following areas of the City: <br />downtown, West Main Street, University Corner area; and four <br />entrance corridors. <br /> <br /> Mr. Satyendra Huja, Director of Community Development, <br />gave a slide presentation of the Urban Design Plan and <br /> <br /> <br />