Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 19, 2008 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br /> <br />Muth noted that the applicant is in attendance. Muth reminded the Commission of their <br />options, either to release the demolition permit or hold the permit for the remainder of the <br />180-day period. The 180-day period would expire on October 1, 2008. In that 180-day <br />period, the Commission and applicant may work to find an alternative to demolition. If no <br />alternative is found by October 1, the applicant is then free to demolish the building. <br /> <br />Lewis asked the applicant if he would like to speak. <br /> <br />Tim Hancock, 500 Grant Avenue, stated that he has looked at renovating/rehabilitating <br />the building, but he feels it is too costly to do so. The electric, plumbing, and mechanical <br />systems would all need to be replaced, as well as new windows. The building is on a <br />rubble foundation which cannot support an addition. He added that he knew the <br />condition of the building when it was purchased and planned to demolish the building at <br />that time. He plans to build a craftsman, cottage style home that will complement the <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />Lewis asked what the estimated cost for repairing the electrical and plumbing would be. <br />Hancock replied he had no specific cost estimates. He noted that because there is no <br />crawl space, he cannot see enough to get an exact picture of what needs to be replaced. <br /> <br />Koertje asked if he has considered placing a rear addition on the building and <br />maintaining the front. Hancock replied that he didn’t think the building could support an <br />addition. <br /> <br />Koertje noted that the home appears to have had few alterations over the years when <br />compared to the photo used for the review. He added that the porch, while it has been <br />enclosed, could easily be rehabilitated to its original state. He stated that the porch posts <br />all look original. <br /> <br />Tofte asked Hancock if he has had an architect review the home to see if it could <br />support an addition. Hancock replied he had not. <br /> <br />Lewis asked if the only reason to demolish is the condition of the home, or if there are <br />other factors. Hancock replied that yes that is the main reason to looking at demolition. <br /> <br />Lewis asked for any public comments. <br /> <br />Michael Menaker, 1127 West Choke Cherry Drive, stated that the home had only <br />changed hands once in thirty years, and that was the sale to the current owner at a cost <br />of $260,000. He stated that if people are spending $260,000 for a house that is less than <br />1000 square feet, it is unreasonable to think that they are going to live in them as is and <br />without significant incentives people won’t keep the small homes, or even keep the <br />facades. He stated his opinion that it would be punitive to hold the permit as there are no <br />good options with the home in its current condition. <br /> <br />John Leary, 1116 LaFarge Avenue, stated that a number of homes have kept their <br />original structure with a second story added later. He added that he feels the <br />Preservation Ordinance should have language in it that allows the Commission to review <br />what will replace the building along with the historical value of the original building. He <br />wanted to know what the replacement building would look like. <br /> <br /> <br />