September 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

projects and the combined involved and the risk of disincentive for potential effect of the extent of rehabilitation investment recapture by the present owner proved to be a independent receivership. Commissioner Hostetler stated that the city should have some kind of ability to confiscate in such situations. Mrs. Dempsey said that the city was pursuing such policies but had not yet a proper legal framework. Mrs. DeRose commented that in situations of condemnation the City would be required 'to compensate the owner at fair value noting that in this case the owner seemed to believe that the property was in excess of $100,000. Commissioner Choitz noted that there were possibly organizations which would have interest in this as a development project if the could be assured ownership or even interest on their investment. Mrs. Dempsey commented that a receiver could take out receivers notes and then foreclose on the notes. She continued that foreclosure is not quick or easy but is accomplishable. The businesses which had indicated interest in this property had been interested in it as a business location and not as a speculative investment. 3. Thelma Lawrence House 14603 Brick Road (not on agenda) President Oxian recalled Mr. Eric Eckert's presentation about the Thelma Lawrence house at the July HPC meeting and noted the extensive correspondence from the owner, Mr. Tom Murray in the ensuing month. He invited discussion about this structure and how the TIPC should proceed. Commissioner Eide asked whether private houses had been designated as landmarks over owner's objection in the past. President Oxian stated that it had been done. Commissioner Hostetler stated that if Mr. Eckert's presentation was verifiable, the structure would be eligible for landmark status. Mr. Duvall spoke to the issue of the veracity of Mr. Eckert's presentation to the effect that although the house was clearly patterned off of a Sears House plan; that Thelma Lawrence was a Sears Employee; and that by inference it could be assumed that the house was a Sears house. He further stated that the chronology of its construction was such that it would be among the last of the Sears houses built, but that Sears did not maintain sufficient archives to substantiate the claim that this was the last Sears house. He also observed that the wooded land associated with the house were already platted as lots B & C of the adjacent subdivision, fronting onto a cul-de-sac and not onto Brick Road. Commissioner Choitz noted that the property was for sale and that a subsequent owner might be more receptive to landmarking. She continued that physical evidence could substantiate the Sears connection if we had access to the property. Mr. Duvall stated that this could no doubt be verified by deposition from her survivors. The consensus was that the HPC should wait not take immediate action. Commissioner Wiener indicated that we should write another letter to the owner. Subsequent discussion refined that the letter should be of a conciliatory nature indicating that the HPC is not presently moving forward with landmarking process but that we would ask him to consider the structures importance and inform new buyers of the property's potential historic importance. VI. New Business There was no new business introduced.