February 2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

entity, that's willing to sink a lot of money into this property in an effort to renovate it. Thank you, and we'll be more than happy, either Ms. Primmer or I, or either of the appraisers, to answer any questions the Commission members may have. Shawn Peterson: Before the Chair opens up to questions I would like to make some clarifications and add a couple things for the record as well. First of all, I have a copy of ordinance No. 9150 [Exhibit 6], adopted on October 23, 2000, which designated the gatehouse as a landmark, and I will put that into evidence appropriately. John Peddycord: I have no objections. Shawn Peterson: Secondly, the Building Inspector for the City of South Bend did go out to the premises today and took some photos of it in its current condition [Exhibit 8]. I would like to pass these over to Attorney Peddycord and ask if those photos are the historical premises and they fairly accurately represent the structure as the architect indicated. John Peddycord: Yes, yes, I agree on the record to that. Shawn Peterson: I will also pass these around so you can all look at it. Finally, we have pulled our minutes for September 18 of 2000 in which Jim Masters, attorney for the then owners, which Oak Enterprises owned the gatehouse and consented to the designation of the premises and the landmark, as a landmark, and so I would like to submit that as well as an exhibit. [Exhibit 7] John Peddycord: I have no objection to that. I've seen that. Shawn Peterson: Let the record reflect that consent. Also, a point to clarify for the record, you mentioned a few points, I just want to run through them quickly, as I was making sure it was properly reflected. First, have you sought approval for zoning redesignation? Have you had this rezoned or not? John Peddycord: No, there is an expense factor involved and it wouldn't do any good to seek that. Normally, the Area Plan Commission, of which I was a member in `72 to 1976, longer ago than I care to admit, in their practice even today is they normally do not like rezoning without a final site plan, in other words, the final use you are going to commit the property to, and they discourage petitions for rezoning unless you have a specific site plan; how you are going to use the property? It's difficult to do that when you don't represent the ultimate end user. Shawn Peterson: Secondly, you talked about the narrow right-of-way. You mentioned the map that was submitted to record, the map of what the city is planning to do. Is your interpretation that it is narrow with the city improvements or exclusive of the city improvements? John Peddycord: It's narrow both north and south of the intersection. Obviously, it wouldn't be, assuming they do the round -about, which as far as I know they are someday, the intersection is going to be improved in my mind. There's no doubt about that. And it will be much broader than it is now, expanded, but I was referring to the main route of Portage. It's a very narrow right-of-way. We observed that. I don't remember the distance, but it wasn't very significant on the simple plat maps that the county uses and the city uses. Shawn Peterson: And is it my understanding that you still at this time would entertain an offer from an entity to purchase the property? 23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] 10