My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SM 02-02-71
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1971
>
SM 02-02-71
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/6/2012 10:43:14 AM
Creation date
9/11/2012 2:13:02 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
3. <br />Mr. <br />Ind <br />spe <br />The <br />the <br />tea <br />The <br />o rd <br />NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd) <br />Hammerschmidt stated it is his feeling that the <br />ana law -- although not tested in this state in <br />:ifics- -gives this Commission a lot of authority. <br />Commission has the power and responsibility for <br />elimination of blight- -both in acquiring and <br />•ing down of property, and in rehabilitation. <br />approval of signs would best be covered by an' <br />nance. <br />Mr. Hammerschmidt said he also discussed with.Miss <br />Mar aret White, our HUD site representative from <br />Chi ago, her thoughts if an SBA loan were involved. <br />It is believed that we can condemn over any mortgage, <br />public or private. Aesthetics and design can -be a <br />new trend in the law. He said this is his legal <br />opi ion; however, the Supreme Court.will be the <br />final determining factor. The same.`philosophy has <br />beei tested and there has been no violation of the <br />con titution. He said the language in the Urban <br />Ren wal Plan is sufficient and specific enough for <br />sta dard guidelines that can be up `in Court. <br />Mr. Hammerschmidt further said the joint venture <br />brochure sections on Signs, Canopies and Awnings are <br />excellent. However, relative to the Building Facades, <br />although not illegal, we are minimizing what the owner <br />has to accomplish. He would like here to:go back to <br />the urban renewal manual. <br />The Urban Design Review Committee analyzes each pro- <br />posal on an individual basis. If they are not comply- <br />ing.--either in Code or exterior aesthetics - -the Com- <br />mittee states in writing why the plan does not comply <br />with the urban renewal plan. The Committee should meet- <br />within two weeks of the submittal of proposals and plans. <br />The Commission should request the owners to submit under- <br />sta dable and specific plans and specifications, as well <br />as their financial plans and schedule for completion, so <br />the whole thing can be reviewed by the Review Committee` <br />and returned to the Commission with recommendations. There <br />is a definite commitment and understanding; i.e.`, the Com- <br />mission's power of enforcement is spelled out both'in the <br />Urban Renewal Plan and in the Indiana Statutes, along with <br />its power to acquire the property, refinish and sell it.- <br />Thi should be in the package we give to each owner. Keep <br />the standards high; you can always come down, but can't go <br />up. <br />Mr. Mathews advised we should not give them- too.many differ- <br />enct kinds of alternative's,-and was :- delighted at the restrictive <br />suggestions and was hoping this would be brought'up. The <br />Urban Renewal Plan provides that the Commission will provide' <br />-3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.