Church opposes proposed addition to Mitchell historic district; commission asks state to reconsider
Loading...
Summary
After a church representative told the Historic Preservation Commission that the congregation opposes including a modern addition and adjacent parking lot in the Mitchell Historic Commercial District, the commission voted to ask the state historic preservation office to reconsider that inclusion.
The Historic Preservation Commission voted to ask the state to reconsider including a modern addition and an adjacent parking lot north of the local Methodist church in the Mitchell Historic Commercial District, after a church representative said the congregation opposes the change.
John, representing the church, told the commission the congregation and trustees are “adamant” that the recent addition and parking lot not be included because that inclusion could limit future work on the building. He said the church has invested in restoration work: “We just put in $256,000 to redo all of our stained glass,” John said, and asked that the commission keep the original historic church building in the district while excluding the newer north addition and parking area.
Staff explained the draft being reviewed was prepared by the state historic preservation team (SHPO) and that the commission’s role is advisory. Staff noted the proposed boundary change would cut across parcel lines and that the north portion of the building is not historically contributing. Commissioners asked whether the combined parcel status could affect grant eligibility; staff said that the nonhistoric addition would not be eligible for historic preservation grants regardless.
Commissionor Mark moved that the commission request the state to remove the north addition from the district and retain the original church building as contributing, citing public input from the meeting; the motion was seconded and carried on a roll-call vote. As read aloud by staff, the roll call responses were: Bridal — yes; Clark — yes; Genslinger — no; Jerza — yes; Logan — yes; Luzak — yes; Schwann — yes. One commissioner voiced opposition during the voice vote stage before the roll call, but the final roll-call tally recorded the motion as carried.
The staff member leading the review said the commission’s recommendation will be included in the minutes and transmitted to SHPO; SHPO and federal reviewers will make the final determination on the boundary.
The commission’s action is advisory: while its minutes and recommendation will be forwarded, the state office has the authority to accept or reject the requested change.
