Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Condemnation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee told attorneys recommend condemnation process for downtown building; walkthrough planned
Summary
Committee members were told attorneys advised pursuing a condemnation process after interior damage and owner noncooperation were documented; a walkthrough with attorneys is planned and the committee seeks participation. No formal decision or timeline was recorded.
Speaker 3, a committee member, told the Woodland Park Historic Preservation Committee that city attorneys have advised pursuing a condemnation process for a deteriorating downtown building, stating the legal route may be the "best way to go" to address the property's condition. Speaker 3 said the next step is a walkthrough with the property's owner or attorneys to document interior damage and determine whether legal requirements for condemnation are met.
The committee heard that the building has not been inspected recently after a reported sewer backup that may have caused significant interior harm. Speaker 3 said the property owners "don't have the financial capabilities to address it" and described them as uncooperative, adding that the condemnation process could put pressure on owners "to sell it" or allow the city to take other remedial steps.
Speaker 3 also said Woodland Park lacks an eminent-domain claim for the property and that the city has not used a condemnation process before, calling the path "uncharted territory" for the municipality. "It does remain on our radar and something that we are actively working on," Speaker 3 said, and warned that once a structure is removed "it's gone" — underscoring the committee's interest in preservation and reuse where feasible.
Committee members expressed a clear preference not to see the building demolished if alternatives exist. Speaker 5 offered a technical perspective, noting that structural issues — including framing and utility systems — would affect the feasibility of reuse for functions such as restaurants or offices. Speaker 1 asked whether committee members could participate in the walkthrough; Speaker 3 said they would seek permission from attorneys to include the committee in the inspection and promised an update by the next meeting.
No formal motion or vote concerning the building was taken at the meeting and no timeline for any condemnation steps was provided. The committee was advised only that attorneys consider the condemnation pathway a likely next legal step pending the walkthrough and further assessment.
