HRC 3/16/2006 Historic Resources Commission

DRAFT March 2006 Action Summary

Pg. 2

 

 

ITEM NO. 3: DR-12-110-05:      429 Indiana Street; Demolition; Certified Local Government Review.  Submitted by William Mumford and Kristi Kesinger, property owners of record. The property is located in the environs of the Pinckney I Historic District and the Pinckney II Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.  This item was deferred from the February 23, 2006 meeting.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Staff showed pictures of all elevations and gave an overview of the proposal.  The property owner had been cited by Neighborhood Resources for Code violations and had been ordered by the City Commission to deal with the property – either through repair or demolition by March 21, 2006.

 

Ms. Zollner explained the applicants had only recently gained full control of the property and repair of the existing structure was not their intent.  Staff had been unable to gain interior access to the property, so Staff Report analysis was based solely on the building’s exterior. 

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Kristi Kesinger, property owner, explained that the house had been caught in probate for some time and had only recently been released to their full control.  She said health issues facing several family members made repair of the structure unfeasible at this time.

 

Alstrom arrived at 7:05 p.m.

 

The applicant stated an intent to clear and sell the lot, leaving decisions about the replacement structure to a new owner.  She said one potential buyer had indicated preliminary interest in the existing structure, but had changed their mind when seeing the interior.

 

Ms. Kesinger said only one room (a back kitchen) inside the house was not “completely stripped”.  She described extensive ceiling and floor damage and noted a few places where repairs had taken place (window replacement) before current health issues had set in.

 

The applicant suggested that, if demolition were denied at the point and the property did change hands, the new owner would likely submit the same request in the future.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

No member of the public spoke on this item.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

The Commission noted the presence of multiple existing additions that appeared to be separating from the primary structure.

 

There was discussion about the March 21st deadline imposed by the City Commission.  Staff said the City Commission would receive the minutes of this meeting and would take the HRC’s decision into consideration.  If the HRC denied the request, the applicant could choose to file an appeal of this decision to the City Commission.  Staff noted that the property was already on the City Commission’s March 20th agenda, so the appeal could be made at that time.  Based on discussions with Code Enforcement, Staff thought it likely that demolition would be the ultimate outcome. 

 

The Commission expressed sympathy for the applicant’s situation, but expressed concern about breaking precedent:

 

  1. The Commission typically requires the applicant to provide cost estimates of repair vs. demolition/new construction.  In this case, this analysis cannot be prepared before the March 21st deadline.

 

  1. The Commission typically does not approve demolition without a proposal for the replacement structure.  In this case, the applicant does not propose a replacement structure, leaving that element to the eventual new property owner.

 

It was suggested that the applicant would be unduly hampered if the Commission denied the request based on strong precedent, since it was likely the City Commission would take action to allow demolition to proceed.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Antle, seconded by Hickam to deny the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 429 Indiana Street, based on concerns of precedent and lack of information as discussed.

 

          Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.