Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 22, 2024 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />None were heard. <br />Public Hearing Items <br />a) Caboose Record Clarification <br />Brackett Hogstad explained that there needed to be clarification as to whether the <br />probable cause finding for the "Caboose" from the December 2023 meeting included a <br />condition. She said that it was unclear if the condition recommended by staff was included <br />as part of the resolution adopted by the Commission. She added that the clarification vote <br />was only for those that were present at that meeting. <br />Dunlap asked whether the condition was meant to be an expiration date for the probable <br />cause finding. <br />Brackett Hogstad said yes. <br />Anderson said that he thought the Commission's intention was to have the condition <br />attached. <br />Keller said that this was his recollection. <br />Burg agreed. <br />Anderson moved to amend previous approval to include the expiration condition, and <br />was seconded by Burg. The motion was adopted by a vote of 4 to 0. <br />b) 516 Grant Avenue — Demolition Review <br />Staff Findings: <br />Brackett Hogstad introduced the presentation for the demolition review. She went over <br />the criteria from LMC and its purpose. She showed photos of the structure from 1948 and <br />today, and noted the limited changes. She said that the house was around 80 years old, <br />with some noted social significance, and that it could qualify for landmarking. <br />Staff Recommendation: <br />Staff recommended releasing the demolition request, as even though some social and <br />architectural significance was present, it was not strong enough to warrant a stay. <br />Commissioner Questions of Staff. <br />None were heard. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Vincent Colson, non-resident, noted his record of historic preservation as a developer, <br />but said that the house did not fit as something that could be preserved. He said that his <br />previous experience with the Commission taught him what preservation options were <br />available, but that none were viable in this case. The house was full of asbestos, and <br />would cost upwards of $50,000 to remove and have it remediated. He added that costs <br />have gone up with higher interest rates, and given the larger size of the foundation, it was <br />not viable to rent it out or renovate it. He wanted to preserve some parts of it, like the <br />garden and flagstone. <br />Questions of Applicant: <br />