September 2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items, trees, fencing, walkways, outbuildings, and other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped. The installation of unsightly devices such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be viewed from public thoroughfares. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There is insufficient documentation demonstrating a threat to the public safety. The evaluation by Bill Latoza of BauerLatoza Studios is highly regarded. Demolition is not the only alternative. Staff suggests that the South Bend Community School Corporation honor the request made by Mayor Luecke in 2007 by developing a marketing packet to be used to promote the sale of the property and by working with potential developers to identify a viable use and that a list of developers that have contacted SBCSC in attempt to explore alternate uses of the building be made public. Staff recommends denial of the application item as it does not meet the requirements of the Standards and Guidelines for Local Historic Landmarks. Elicia Feasel Executive Director Doug Anderson, 1733 Stucker Place Deb Cyrier, principal at Marquette Jennifer Zackerman, 1730 Stucker Place Stephen Lueke, 810 Leland Avenue Fran Defuro, 1320 Marquette Boulevard Jerry Niezgodski, 1113 North Elliot Street Todd Zeiger, 801 W Washington Commissioner Anderson moved to deny, second by Tom Gordon Commissioner Anderson (AYE) — [I am] voting in the affirmative of denying the application as presented, my rationale is that the Historic Preservation Commission continues to serve under the charge of preserving our historic built environment. As preservationist we know that we can't preserve every historic building and save every building from the wrecking ball, however it is clear from the information presented to us that this historic landmark building is structurally sound and should have every chance for a future life including adaptive reuse. By both barring potential investors from even viewing the site and by not responding to direct offers to form study groups with help from state preservation offices it shows that the school corporation has no desire to see out any outcome besides demolition, or demolition by neglect. The school has allowed us to be the bad guys, and we need to explore options, no negotiations have been present, and presented to us. This building does not need to be abandoned and torn down. Commissioner Gordon (AYE) — I vote to deny this CofA. I do not have any documentation that I have seen that requires demolition through public safety hazard. Commissioner Klusczinski (AYE) — I vote in favor of the motion to deny the application. Approval of this application is not in keeping with Group B standards, specifically Item D: Demolition, Historic Landmarks shall not be demolished when a landmark poses a threat to public safety and demolition is the only alternative. Documentation by way of photographs, measured drawings, or other descriptive methods should be made both of the exterior and the interior of the landmark. There has been no public hazard decree by the either the building department or the code enforcement department. As a quasi-judicial body, this commission has an obligation to evaluate its findings against the standards that are applied to all other designated sites and structures. The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not support historically or architecturally remedies for the deferred structural maintenance of this particular landmark. The evidence of structural deterioration suggests that it is an example of demolition by willful neglect. The evidence has been provided to establish that the landmark is now a public hazard that supersedes the public's interest in establishing a community asset, a local landmark. And so the decision to support the application becomes a public detriment for the failure to honor landmark standards, and sentences a national register and local landmark to an early grave, and the loss of $800,000 demolition funds. I have doubts that the claims of financial hardships and maintenance will exceed the hazardous N