2000-09-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

182 7. Neither the structures nor their features represent "one-of-a-kind", first or last examples of a particular type of architecture, but nevertheless they do represent authentic examples of the commercial architecture just before and aRer 1900. 8. In light of their current overall condition, by undergoing careful rehabilitation these structures are capable of earning a reasonable economic return; 9. Applicant has recently purchased the subject properties; and, as such, the deteriorated condition of these buildings is not properly attributable to Applicant. 10. There has been no convincing testimony or evidence suggesting that there is a public necessity favoring demolition. 11. The proposed project is a private one and as such has no related public purpose. 12. These buildings are located in the City's oldest and one of its most distinguished historic districts. 13. Relocation is not a feasible alternative. 14. The proposed demolition by reason of its location, setting, and feeling will adversely affect the current design district's sense of time and place and historical development and therefore the character of the district. 15. Conflicting economic and structural engineering evidence has been submitted but on balance, this Council finds that greater weight needs to be given to the work done by Commonwealth Architects which argues against demolition at this time. For the reasons stated above, this Council fmds that the public interest will best be served by requiring the Owner to postpone the requested demolition and to make a bona fide offer to sell such structures and the land pertaining thereto pursuant to City Code § 34-580 and Virginia Code § 15.2-2306. The only exceptions to this finding are with respect to (a) 107 East Main Street, the building which had its initial facade replaced in 1950, and (b) the two story structure or appurtenance attached to and located behind 105 East Main Street building, and (c) ail of the building at 111 East Main Street except for its East Main Street facade. Demolition of these last described structures or portions thereof need not be postponed. In accord with the foregoing, a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the subject buildings, and all of the related applications which have come before Council on this consolidated appeal, are hereby denied except for (a) 107 East Main Street, the building which had its initial facade replaced in 1950, and (b) the two story structure or appurtenance attached to and located behind 105 East Main Street building, and (c) all of the building at 111 East Main Street except for its East Main Street facade. A certificate of appropriateness to demolish these last described structures is hereby approved. Prior to the start of demolition for these structures, Applicant shall first obtain the usual and necessary building permit from the appropriate City official. Before the start of any new construction, Applicant must also obtain the necessary building permit. Mr. Cox said he hopes that the developer will take the BAR up on their offer to work with them. Mr. Caravati postponed the Living Wage report due to the lateness of the hour. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSUMER UTILITY TAX AMENDMENTS ORDINANCE (GAS/ELECTRIC) Ms. Linda Peacock, Assistant City Manager, explained that as a result of deregulation, the State has mandated that localities change the manner in which utility taxes are collected. Ms. Peacock said that the change could have a detrimental impact on the City in the long term.