June 1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

toilets, a leaking roof, and a severe crack in one wall. Mr. „_arcus said it was no secret he was planning to demolish the building, but he was willing to donate it to the City with the restriction that it be maintained as a historic landmark structure for as long as they wished it to and if the designation was removed, the land would revert back to Ivy Tower. He said Ivy Tower had no desire to tear down the building if the Commission wanted it to remain, but they were not in a_p_o_sition __to_rehab_._it--for--its-historical—value. 518 -South Michigan b. Second Reading 511 West Colfax- Birdsell Residence/ F.J. Nimtz Building Commissioner Choitz moved the Commission accent the Proposal for 511 West Colfax as a Local Landmark. Commissioner Talley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. c. Status of Recommendations to Council President Oxian reported the status of 310 West Monroe remained unchanged. He commented 534 LaPorte had been sold and a letter sent to the new owner notifying them of the proposed designation as a landmark. President Oxian reported he had been speaking with the owner of the LaSalle Hotel and the Roma building and they were agreeable to the landmarking of the LaSalle, but there was still a hang up on the Roma building. President Oxian said until the Roma issue was settled, the LaSalle would not go any further.. 5. Standards and Maintenance Commissioner Bullene reported the committee had proposed a check box be added to the COA application by which the applicant indicated whether the proposed project affected in a material way any adjoining property. The other issue of discussion was the general notification of a public hearing by requiring the applicant to put up a yard sign or some type of window sticker. He said in a general way this would notify people what their neighbors were proposing. Mr. Duvall added that if the box were checked, the Commission would be responsible for notifying the adjoining property owner. Commissioner Bullene moved these committee Proposals be adopted as Procedure by the Commission. CoiYonissioner Talley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bullene said the other issue discussed was enforcement and penalties for work done without a COA. He reported the Committee had not conte up with a satisfactory means of -solving the problem. President Oxian inquired what other Commissions do in regard to enforcement. Ms. Anderson said she had received a generic enabling ordinance packet as a response from the National Trust to her inquiries and the responses from other Commissions in Indiana to her inquiry had not been enlightening. President Oxian suggested larger cities as a source for information. Ms. Anderson indicated she had excerpts from other cities ordinances regarding enforcement and they used financial penalties as their means of enforcement. President Oxian said the State law would need to change for the Commission to collect monetary penalties. Ms. Anderson said in some larger cities there are two different types of violations involving two different penalties, one being for staff approvable violations which would carry a $15 dollar a day fine and the second for major alterations, additions, or demolitions which would carry a larger fine. She noted in some cities where real estate is a high commodity, the developers incorporate the historic preservation fines into the cost of their projects. President Oxian asked that Mrs. DeRose get copies of the enforcement articles. Commissioner Choitz said the city attorney's office may not be willing to