Laserfiche WebLink
� K <br />retained, and that their retention be a consideration for a COA for anv <br />further construction. Commissioner Eide seconded the motion. The motion passed <br />4 -1 with one abstention. <br />Mr. Duvall asked for clarification on the issue of documentation noting that <br />the guidelines say the applicant will provide documentation of the structure <br />before demolition. President Oxian said he believed the Commission staff <br />should be responsible for documentation. <br />Mr. Greta said he thought the idea of criminal penalties for owners of <br />historic district properties who allow demolition by neglect should be <br />pursued. President Oxian noted the tremendous effect demolition in a intact <br />historic district has, especially in a case like this when it is on a corner <br />and on a very significant street. <br />Mr. Dent said he was very disappointed that the Commission had no poker to <br />prevent this from occurring. Commissioner Eide explained until last year the <br />Commission did not have maintenance standards, but now that it does, this <br />would probably not happen. President Oxian noted Code Enforcement had enforced <br />HPC maintenance standards on certain properties and it has worked, but this <br />house was already improperly maintained before the Maintenance ordinance was <br />adopted by the Council. Mr. Kent said the same thing could happen again. <br />Commissioner Hostetler explained a property owner would not be able to let the <br />property get to the point of demolition. Mr. Duvall said Code Enforcements <br />ultimate recourse is still demolition, however there is the alternative of the <br />receivership program which is more appealing when taken on at an earlier stage <br />of disrepair. <br />President Oxian adjourned the meetinc- at 5:30 <br />