02-09-98 Zoning & Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zooms sad Aooacation Committee Faxlo ry 9, 1998 Page 3 In response to a question from Council Member Hosinski, Mr. Moerlein noted that the subject property is on the acquisition list. He filed his remonstrance with the St. Joseph Superior Court. Mr. Kil noted that with set back requirements, windows were possible, and that a 20'pull back of the top floors could be possible to permit windows. Don Fozo, Building Commissioner noted that there are provisions for both 20' and 10' setbacks to permit windows. David DuVall, speaking as a private citizen, spoke in favor of the proposed historic landmark designation. He voiced concern over using downtown property for not-for-profit uses. Mr.Jon Hunt stated that the not-for-profit use will have structured payments similar to real property taxes. Mr.Moerlein noted that he did not get a "clear message in 1996 from the Redevelopment Commission since their only comment was that they did not believe it was the best use for the property. He stressed that the building is structurally sound,and he believes it deserves the historic landmark designation. Council Member Ujdak asked several questions to Ann Kolata. She answered that $ 30,000 to $ 30,500 was offered for the property. She also noted that the business assistance staff report for the building when the tax abatement request was made was in favor of the proposed abatement. Council Member Ujdak inquired of Mr. Fozo regarding a second means of egress. Mr. Fozo noted that the fire escape could be used to satisfy that requirement with a proper easement from he Board of Public Works. A precedent was established with the State Theatre. He noted that there are two (2) separate easements needed namely one from the City and one from the adjacent property owner. A residential use on the top floor would not require the pull backs previously discussed. Council Member Aranowski questioned whether Mr. Moerlein was the legal property owner of the subject property. Mr.Moerlein noted that his fiancee is the owner of record however she has signed a deed on the property which has not been recorded as of this date. Council Member Hosinski noted that he agrees with many of the remarks made by Mr. Kil. He noted concern with regard to the Council taking action while there is pending litigation. He suggested that in his opinion,the best action would be to continue this Bill pending the outcome of the litigation. Following discussion, Council Member Hosinski made a motion, seconded by Council Member Broden,that Bill No. 1-98 be continued pending the litigation on this matter. The motion passed. It was noted that the Committee action was not binding on the Council. The petitioner could request a continuance prior to the Common Council meeting. Member of the -