September 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

excess of $100,000. She indicated that she had worked with potential buyers who were willing to purchase in the range of $20.000. To the best of her knowledge the mortgage has been paid off. Commissioner Choitz proposed that the outline scope of work would not take long, noting that winter was coming and the structure might not survive another year. John Oxian asked whether if the COA for restoration has been approved, would the HPC be able to take legal action to make the owner complete work. Mrs. DeRose stated that the Minimum Maintenance Standards can be enforced but the COA cannot. The COA just indicates how work should be done if it is undertaken. She noted that the Minimum Maintenance Standards are enforced by Code Enforcement where the applicant already has a history of non-compliance. The discussion then turned to procedural questions regarding various scenarios of appeal which might transpire subsequent to the various courses of action discussed above. Some discussion ensued to the general consensus that it was not possible to understand clearly what the owners intentions were for this property. Commissioner Choitz indicated that Dr. Klopfer had made it clear at the time of the designation of the Historic Preservation District that he was not pleased by that action and that he had represented at that time that he had an option with McDonalds to place a restaurant at this site which was terminated as a result of the designation. The commissioners returned to the subject of how deadlines could be imposed. Mrs. DeRose indicated that although the HPC may not impose completion of work, it may entertain Code Enforcement's application for demolition after a set period. Commissioner Eide moved that Dr. Klopfer's application be assigned to the Standards & Maintenance Committee for recommendation reRardin2 the application. and that thereafter if the COA is approved. the work will need to be complete within 90 days after which the HPC will reconsider Code Enforcement's application for demolition. The commission discussed the necessity of requesting Dr. Klopfer's permission for entry and inviting his participation in the definition of the scope of work. An individual who did not register his name identified himself as a neighbor and commented that it appeared that the owner seemed to have a grudge and may continue to perform in such a minimal way as to prolong this process. He indicated that a minimal stabilization of the property which neither removed the structure or returned it to use was bad for the neighborhood. President Oxian observed that in previous HPC meetings other neighbors had presented differing opinions. Mr. Duvall added that it was .important to remember that the authority of the HPC applied only to the exterior features of the property. Commissioner Eide repeated his motion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hostetler. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hostetler inquired about whether there was riot something that the city was able to do in cases of recalcitrant property owners who refused to maintain properties which would lead to a conservation solution rather than recourse to demolition. Mrs. Dempsey responded that the city did have a receivership program but that in the case of 1244 Linco.lnway the cost of necessary repairs exceeds the Code Enforcement's budget for receivership