Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 10 20

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 22, 2024 Page 3of5 Dunlap asked if applicant had had any additional demolition requests before Commission in the past. Colson said no, just the one other one at 1209 Main. Public Comment: Christine Mestas, resident, former owner, described her strong connection to the home but ultimately spoke in support of Mr. Colson's request. She said that her family had owned the home and she grew up there, and that she wanted a new family to have a chance to build a home on the site. Commissioner Discussion: Beauchamp said that there had been significant changes to windows and doors, and that there was obvious sagging in the roof. He believed that demolition was clearly the best path forward, and was in favor of releasing the property. Dunlap said that he also noted sagging in the roof. Burg said that the property ended up before the full Commission because it was eligible for landmarking, but noted that the applicant was not interest in preserving it. She said that there were a good number of similar properties landmarked and preserved, so it would be okay to release it for demolition. Anderson suggested that the application came from the subcommittee to the full Commission to get a broader opinion. He said that asbestos mitigation was the most important cost consideration, and that it would be easier to manage it during a demolition process. Haley said that came to the Commission because it met the age, architectural, and social significance criteria required for landmarking. She said that the Commission should make sure that holds weren't punitive, so given there was no intention of preservation, it was best to release the property for demolition. Dunlap moved to release the property for demolition, and was seconded by Beauchamp. The motion was adopted by a vote of 7 to 0. c) 824 Lee Avenue — Demolition Review Staff Findings: Brackett Hogstad introduced the presentation for the demolition review. She said that the house was approximately 89 years old, and that it was moved to its current site from a mine in 1964. She noted that there appeared to have been some changes to the doors and windows, however there was very little documentation to show the original condition of the property. It did have some social significance due to its relocation from a mine site, and it could qualify for landmarking. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended releasing the demolition request. Commissioner Questions of Staff. None were heard.