Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Preservation Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews preservation grants, funding pace and push for local landmark nominations
Summary
The commission reviewed recent grant awards and discussed expanding incentives tied to National Register or local landmark status, noted roughly $200,000 spent of an approximate $500,000 program, and considered outreach to property owners including the historic Studebaker building.
The Mishawaka Historic Preservation Commission used its meeting to update members on small preservation grants, the program's spending pace and outreach to encourage local landmark nominations.
"We approved one for the old dentist office," the Chair said, describing a recent grant award and noting the program also expanded its boundary to allow nonprofits (excluding churches) to apply. The Chair said Scooby's submitted plans for a new outdoor patio and landscaping that will be supported by the program once processed.
Commissioners discussed a code-related issue at a recently sold downtown restaurant: because the building predates current grease-trap requirements, the new owner does not have a trap and the commission suggested grant funds might help cover necessary plumbing work. "Because it was built before we had the grease trap rules, it's grandfathered," a commissioner said, adding the city will work with the owner to identify solutions.
Funding levels and pacing drew attention. One speaker said the commission has "spent 200,000" to date and that the program's overall pool is roughly $500,000, prompting discussion about whether demand will slow or money could be depleted quickly. Commissioners spoke about using the remaining funds to encourage landmark nominations and to target dollars to projects that leverage additional funding.
The meeting also flagged the former Studebaker building (built in 1926) as an opportunity for recognition tied to an upcoming anniversary; members proposed outreach including a photo op and suggested sending personalized letters to owners of eligible properties to explain the local-landmark process. The commission discussed posting a how-to guide online with links to Sanborn maps and application steps to make the nomination process easier for property owners.
Members reviewed technical guidance from Indiana Landmarks about alternative materials and repair approaches (for example, cement-board porch products and traditional pine-tar finishes) that can be acceptable, durable options for historic repairs.
No formal roll-call votes were recorded in the transcript for these approvals; the Chair described recent approvals and directed staff to follow up on quotes, outreach letters and web resources.
