08-27-01 Zoning & Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Plith- .4111.............11. Zoning and Annexation Committee August 27,2001 ' Page 5 Council Member Kelly said that the bottom line is what is to happen to the building. If it is granted historic landmark status what will become of the building? Whatever happens it should be resolved by the School Board especially in light of the growing maintenance concerns. Council Member Coleman stated that he originally did not support landmark status for Nuner School and he does not support such a designation today. He thanked the advisory committee for their "terrific work". Council Member Coleman stated that he has a deep belief, recognition and respect for where responsibilities begin and where they end. II[ Council Member Ujdak noted that all parties have come together to participate,and as a result there has been a lot of effort and good work. Nevertheless, he does not believe that forcing landmark status on an unwilling landowner would be in anyones best interest. Council Member Ujdak suggested that the Historic Preservation Commission consider withdrawing this Bill or backing off for six (60 months. Dr. Varner stated that he does not want to hamstring one entity against another. Conceptually you can put people together and try to find a solution. If a realistic RFP comes forward and if the school board would permit a realistic and needed adaptive re-use that would be the best solution however now we need to move on. Council President Pfeifer voiced concern that the issue is greater than the Riverpark Neighborhood or South Bend Schools;noting that whenever a business leaves a neighborhood that there needs to be a process to address what will happen. When large buildings are abandoned, the community in which they are located are affected and should be part of the process. Council President Pfeifer then inquired whether the Common Council has the power to remove an historic landmark status wants it is granted. Thomas Bodnar, the attorney for the Historic Preservation Commission, stated that on July 1st a new state law took effect which takes the power to remove landmark status away from the II Common Council and places it with the Historic Preservation Commission. He noted that this same legislation applies only to this county;and further speculated that he does not believe hat this I entire new state law is constitutional. The Council Attorney inquired of the representatives of the Historic Preservation Commission how many criteria are in existence when determining if a structure is qualified as an historic landmark; and further inquired whether each of the criteria are weighted equally. Mr. Oxian stated that three (3) of four (4) criteria are needed and that they are all treated equally; however the historical component may be given added weight. Following further discussion, Council Member Coleman made a motion, seconded by Council Member Ujdak that Bill No. 45-01 be recommended unfavorably. The vote was 2-2;therefore the Bill goes to the full Council without recommendation. Council Member White thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. • There being no further business to come before the Committee, Council Member White adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m. ii........ ...