May 2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

139 3. 405 N. Main/ 207 Madison — Scottish Rite Temple 140 Mr. Oxian stated that proposed local landmark known as the Scottish Rite Temple, be 141 tabled until May to allow the owners to meet with the Commission. Mrs. Choitz moved 142 to table proposed local landmark, 405 N. Main/ 207 Madison, until May 15, 2000. Mrs. 143 Sporleder seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 144 145 4.427 N. Main — Masonic Temple 146 Mr. Oxian noted that proposed local landmark known as the Masonic Temple, should be 147 tabled until May to allow the owners to meet with the Commission. Mrs. Choitz moved 148 to table proposed local landmark, 427 N. Main, until May 15, 2000. Mrs. Sporleder 149 seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 150 151 5.53233 Fir Road — Cheerhart Farmhouse 152 Mr. Huff, owner of 53233 Fir Road, stated that he was against the landmarking of his 153 house because he feels it would be too restrictive. He sighted the development of the 154 area and the possible conversion to commercial property as reasons why the property 155 should not be landmarked. He also noted the fact that the property might be annexed into 156 Mishawaka within the next few years. Mr. Oxian stated that rezoning to commercial is 157 not a problem, however, a concern would be that the house would be annexed into 158 Mishawaka. Mr. Huff stated that several acres around their house have been annexed and 159 that if they needed to replace their sewer system Mishawaka would likely annex their 160 property and tie it into the citys' sewer system. Mr. Oxian noted that if landmarked 161 property is annexed into Mishawaka the historic designation is terminated. He further 162 noted that the Commission has agreements with various cities within St. Joseph County 163 that if a county landmark is annexed into their city limits it would remain a landmark, 164 however, such an agreement does not currently exist with Mishawaka. There was more 165 discussion over the fact that there are numerous commercial structures in the city and 166 county that are landmarked. Mr. Huff again expressed his concern that landmarking 167 might adversely affect their property if it were rezoned to commercial. He sighted the 168 need for parking lots and new landscaping as potential problems if the property wase 169 landmarked. Mr. Oxian stated that the Commission often approves parking lots signs, 170 etc. He further noted that the Commission takes all aspects of commercial needs into 171 account when making decisions regarding proposed changes to landmarks, including 172 large additions. Mr. Huff noted that he does not plan to sell any time soon but the 173 possibility does exist and he does not want landmark designation to hamper a future sale. 174 Mrs. Sporleder stated that she would hate to lose the house, which would be possible if it 175 is not protected. Mr. Huff stated that he would not allow someone to demolish the house, 176 however, a future owner may want to move it to a new location. Mr. Ujdak expressed his 177 concern over the house being bulldozed for future commercial structures. Mr. Huff again 178 stated that he and his wife would not allow a future owner to demolish the house, by 179 insisting that they apply for historic designation at the point of purchase. Mr. Oxian 180 stated that Mr. Huff could always donate the facade to the Commission. This would 181 protect the house even if it were annexed into Mishawaka. Mr. Huff asked if the fagade 182 meant only the front. Mrs. Choitz stated that by donating the fagade would mean all 183 sides. Mr. Huff stated that he would be interested in donating the facade versus 184 landmarking the site. 4