2000-09-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

179 Mr. Cox noted that the letter from the State Department of Historic Resources makes reference to the fact that 107 East Main Street may not be a contributing structure. Mr. Lynch asked about the 1997 BAR action regarding the property, and MS. Fenton said that an application was made by Wachovia Bank to demolish the buildings, but there was a huge public outcry and the Bank decided it did not want the negative publicity and it withdrew the application. Mr. Caravati asked about D & R Development's response to the letter from the State Department of Historic Resources, and Mr. Slagle said they were exploring all alternatives when the properties were bought. Mr. Caravati asked about the renovation estimates, and Mr. Stagte said they were made by the consultant who used figures from Richmond and he thinks the cost ,would be higher in Charlottesville. Responding to questions from Mr. Caravati, Mr. Slagle said that probable use of the structures would be retail on the first floors and office space on the upper floors, and he would look for a minimum economic return of 20% given the risk. Referring to the highest and best use issue, Ms. Richards noted that the consultant said that it would be possible to strengthen the floors for office use, and asked ifD & R feels that would be feasible, and Mr. Slagle said that anything is feasible but he does not feel it works reasonably financially. Respondin~ to a question from Mr. Camvati, Mr. Goutdman recommended that Council not make its decision based on what may or may not have happened in 1988. Mr. Gouldman said/t is not clear ifa demolition permit was ever issued. Mr. Gouldman said that if the BAR approved the demolition, the certificate of appropriateness would have been limited to one year. Mr. Cox said that on the merits ofwhat has been presented tonight relative to the City's ordinance, he feels that three of the four stmcutm meet the criteria and are contributing structures, but he cannot say that 107 East Main Street contributes in the same way. Mr. Cox said he feels that the side ofthe building on 1~ Street is an authentic example ofthe mercantile fabric of the City. Mr, Cox said the additions behind the structures were not meant to be seen from a public street, and if buildings are added along Market Street, they will again be blocked from public view. Ms. Richards asked fi`the letter from the State Department of Historic Resources clarifies the issue of whether the buildings have been certified as historic, and Mr. Gouldman said there is no definition in the City's ordinance of contributing, but by the state's definition they would be historic. Mr. Gouldman said Council should be dealing with whether the buildings are an integral part of the historic district. Mr. Lynch said he is inclined to support the BAR as he t~nk they came to a reasonable conclusion. Mr. Lynch said he thinks ail four properties are historic and part of the cannon of our time, though he hopes a compromise can be reached with 107 East Main Street. Mr. Lynch said he t~s the unanimous decision of the BAR should be upheld. Mr. Lynch said he does not think the one story rear additions, and maybe the two story addition, are historic, Mr. Lynch said he does not think the City has an obligation to ensure that the developer have a high rate of return, but he said he would support further discussions on how the project can be made more profitable, Mr. Cox said the letter from the State Department of Historic Resources helped clarify what they consider contributing structures, and he agrees that 107 East Main Street has been so heavily altered that it can no longer be considered contributing. Mr. Cox said there is no question that 111 East Main Street is a contributing structure, and even the architectural team said that the buildings at 101-105 have architectural features that are significant and shoUld be recreated. Mr. Cox said he is comfortable denying demolition of 101-105, and 111 as he thinks they are integral to the design district, but not 107,