August 1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Zmyslo asked what porch item number fourteen was referring to. Ms. Kopczynski stated that item fourteen and item three were both made in reference to the front porch. Mr. Talley stated that item number thirteen on page two of the staff report will be stricken from the report and items number three and fourteen will be joined together. Mr. Talley went on to state that the staff recommendation will be amended to suggest approval of items one through twelve with the addition of the removal of the rear yard Catalpa trees. Mr. Weiner moved to approve the application as recommended by staff with the addition that item thirteen be struck, item fourteen be joined with item three and the recommendation of the removal of the rear yard Catalpa trees. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion passed with Ms. Gallagher abstaining do to her husbands position with Memorial Hospital. 5. 1999-0701 E - 524 N. St. Joseph, demolition. Mr. Talley presented the staff report and circulated photographs. Mr. Oxian asked if Mr. Talley had been in the basement of this house. Mr. Talley stated that he has not been inside the house. There was some discussion over the lack of solid supports for the house. Mr. Oxian noted that the interior walls of the basement are not deteriorated and therefore are not the reason behind the presence of the support jacks. Mrs. Sporleder stated that she feels the house has some severe structural problems. She further noted that the floor joists are rotting causing the floors to bow. She also noted that she did not see any obvious indication of termites or water damage that may have caused the deterioration. Mrs. Sporleder reported that the over all house did not seem to be in real bad shape, the major problems were with the foundation and floor joists. She went on to state that in order to repair the foundation the house would have to be lifted off of it. There was some discussion over the foundation and the support beams. Mr. Oxian stated that to jack up a house is fairly reasonably priced if all the beams are strong enough to handle the load. Ms. Kopczynski stated that fixing the foundation was not economically feasible. She further noted that even if they did fix the foundation they still could not afford to rehabilitate the rest of the house, doing so would double the already predicted lose the association will take on these projects. Ms. Kopczynski stated that there was a possibility that if this house was demolished they would market the lot with the house next door, in essence giving it a backyard. Mr. Oxian stated that by removing the house and creating a yard would alter the neighborhoods environment. . Mr. Oxian further stated that demolishing the house to improve the chances of selling the house next door does not, by the standards, justify the demolition. Mrs. Choitz showed concern that no one would want to move a house onto the sight because of its location and the fact that there is already a house located only a few feet off of the rear of the existing house. She further noted that she would be in favor of demolishing the house if the rear house could be brought forward to keep the streetscape uniform. Mr. Oxian stated that the lot was too small to move a new house onto its location. He went on to state that if the demolition is to be justified all the reasons for the demolition would have to be stated. Mr. Zmyslo stated that the main issues should be the economical feasibility of rehabilitating the house and the impact its demolition would have on the neighborhood. K3