2000-09-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

177 ~: BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION RE: DEMOLITION OF I014 11 E. MAIN STREET Mr. Clyde Goutdman, City Attorney, explained that aggrieved parties are allowed to speak during the appeal, meaning those persons who have a personal or property interest, legal or equitable. The applicant has requested demolition of four properties, and Council has the choice ofgr~qting the request in whole or in part. If Council denies the appeal, the applicant can offer the property for sale for a year and if it has not sold, the properties can be demolished. Mr. Goutdman said that Council's rote is to hear the case de novo, as if for the first time. Mr. Gouldman said there are fffieen criteria in the City's ordinance related to the demolition request, and Council should weigh the evidence in relation to those. Mr. Gouldman said that the applicant will argue that the buildings are not historic per se, and others argue that historic should be mad broadly. Mr. Goutdman said that the consultant hired by the City and the applicant found that the buildings have architectural significance. Mr. Gouldman said that his best advice to Council, after reviewing the evidence and ordinance, is to deliver their best judgment on whether the buildings are historically significant enough to postpone demolition for one year. Mr. Tim Slagle, Chief Financial Officer for D & R Development, said that the BAR has a fairly limited focus, and asked Council to look at the issue from a broader perspective, and to look at the request in the context of the recent past and furore. Mr. Slagle said the buildings will likely be tef~ boarded up for a year, and there would be substantial benef~ to the City if the property is developed. Mr. Slagte said D & R has done quality development in the past. Mr. Slagle presented the following compromise: save the faqade of 1 t 1 East Main Street, reproduce the nicer architectural character of t 01 and 105 East Main Street and use those in new facades for I01,105 and 107. Mr. Slagle said the filigree may be able to be retained and there may be other things that can be done with the BAR. Mr: John Little, 1306 Blue Ridge Road, attorney for D & R Development, saki there are legal masons why Couneit should approve the demolition. Mr. Little said the buildings are not historic, and because ofthe D~llon rule, the City can only prohibit demolition ofbnildings that are historic. The buildings do not have any importance in history and the consultant has said they are contributing, but not individually historic. Mr. Little said that in t988 the BAR approved a demolition request for the properties in question~ and when a decision has been decided prior, the first decision is binding on the City. Mr. Little said not to permit demolition would be arbiVrary, Mr. Little said new buildings will be architecturally compatible, and he requested that the applications be approved. Mr. Little added documents in the packet to record. Mr. Slagle said the issue of historic versus non-historic is the main argument. Mr. Slagle reviewed the criteria for demolition and made the following comments: the buildings at t01-105 E. Main Street have no identifiable style; the buildings have been in a state of neglect for 25 years; the backs of the buildings do not contribute anything; and all four facades have been altered. Mr. Slagle said he took the cost assannptions the consultant used to rehabilitate the buildings, but disagreed with the tax credits figures, and there would only be a 6% return on the project. Mr. Slagle said the feasibility of saving the facades of the buildings was examined by a firm in Washington, D. C. and it was estimated to cost $575,00t) to save the four existing facades, a substantial cost to the project. Mr. Slagle said if the demolition is approved and the property developed, the City's tax revenue would double, jobs would be retained, the project would be mixed use, and underground parking would be provided. Mr. Colin Rolph olD & R Development, said he hopes a compromise can be reached. Mr. Rolph said the project would provide needed class A office space, it would attract new retailers, and would provide 200 underground parking spaces. Mr. Rolph said he believes the compromise offered by Mr. Slagle is reasonable. Mr. Jim Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Planning and Development Services, presented a letter from the State Deparm~ent of Historic Resources which speaks to the structures as beh~g historic.