Laserfiche WebLink
• understood that the entire neighborhood was being considered as a historic district. She then asked <br />to be allowed to keep the gutters because of the financial burden involved in their replacement, <br />allowing her time to decide what to do with the house. <br />Discussion ensued as to the state of the neighborhood and to the construction company next door <br />described as 'leaving piles of dirt everywhere.' Ms. Shriner stated that trucks 'used the street all <br />day long.' She also said that the house could not be sold as commercial property because of the <br />noise. <br />Ms. Brubaker asked if the owner was aware of certificate of appropriateness procedures and the need <br />to come before the HPC for a COA and if she had considered alternatives and priced other types of <br />gutters. <br />Ms. Shriner stated that she did not know that she needed a COA; she thought that only 'changing <br />windows, doors or an addition' required the permit. She had them changed because of concern for the <br />house and out of 'ignorance and panic.' She then stated that she did not know what to do and was <br />considering having the property 'undesignated.' <br />Mr. Holycross distributed a map to the HPC showing the house location and the zoning areas of the <br />neighborhood. <br />Discussion ensued concerning the neighborhood, zoning and the industrial nature of the area. <br />Mrs. Choitz moved that the ro osal be approved as submitted with the provision that the, HPC be <br />allowed to participate in the process of saving the house. <br />Mrs. Choitz then stated that the house was a fine example of what the HPC was trying to save. The <br />house might possibly have to be moved; if so, the HPC would then look at the house and reconsider <br />what nedds to be done to save it. <br />Mrs. Sporleder seconded the motion. <br />Mrs. Choitz stated that she felt it was the HPC's responsibility to contact owners on a periodic <br />basis and to inform them of their obligations to apply for COAs. If the owner truly felt that her <br />situation was hopeless, the HPC would like to play a part in saving the structure. It would be a <br />mistake to remove the landmark status. <br />Mrs. Sporleder then stated that the HPC should do something to ameliorate the situation. Heavy trucks <br />and piles of dirt were not allowed in the area according to zoning. It was unreasonable to expect an <br />owner to preserve a structure while 'the neighborhood deteriorated around it.' <br />Mr. Oxian directed staff to draft and send a letter to City Engineering inquiring as to the zoning <br />restrictions on the street. Mr. Holycross stated that he would send such a letter. <br />Mrs. Choitz told the owner that the HPC would follow through with its responsibility to protect the <br />property and that the owner also had the responsibility to stay in touch with the HPC in order that <br />the property could be saved. <br />Motion approved unanimousl <br />2. 551 River Ave. -- Edgewater Place LHD <br />Mr. Holycross stated that this COA application was disapproved at the February meeting by <br />committee; that motion was subsequently concurred with by the fifth member of the commission. He <br />explained that the owner has not contacted the office after having been informed of that decision; <br />2 <br />