My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
March 1992
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 1992
>
March 1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:25 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:07:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
South Bend HPC
HPC Document Type
Minutes
BOLT Control Number
1001404
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
page 22 <br />Oxian replied that her earlier motion already carried <br />with it a partial return to this older method. <br />Mr. Eide, Mrs. Dennen, and Mrs. Sporleder voted <br />against the motion. Motion defeated. Mr. Welsheimer <br />abstained. <br />Mrs. Sporleder moved to ask the Council to let the <br />HPC follow the formerly -established procedure to <br />establish a district in the Near Northwest <br />Neighborhood. This involved having the district <br />committee meet with the neighborhood association to <br />establish standards and boundaries. Mr. Herendeen <br />seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian objected that the law <br />in this case excluded reverting to the older method. <br />Essentially, Mrs. Sporleder was making an irrelevant <br />motion. <br />Mr. Welsheimer moved to approve the motion. Mr. <br />Eide, Mrs. Dennen, and Mr. Oxian voted against it.. <br />Motion defeated. <br />Mr. Luecke pointed out that, due to a change in state <br />law, council members were no longer allowed to <br />propose, independently, a rezoning of this type. He <br />would therefore be unable to bring the proposal <br />before them a second time. Next time, it would have <br />to be proposed by a full council vote, or by a 51% <br />vote within the district. According to the City's <br />legal counsel, the HPC could not introduce a district <br />proposal either. Another implication of this change <br />in law was that landmark designation would become a <br />more cumbersome procedure. <br />Mrs. Sporleder said that one reason the hearing had <br />been so complicated was that the whole procedure was <br />entirely new to the HPC. She herself had not seen <br />the ordinance until that evening. <br />Mr. Luecke was advised to make his recommendation to <br />the Council based on his understanding of the HPC's <br />position. Mr. Herendeen said that, since the HPC had <br />voted against proposing alternate boundaries, Mr. <br />Luecke could choose which alternate proposal to make <br />to the Council. Mr. Luecke pointed out that, even <br />with 80% support within the larger district, the HPC <br />would still face the task of administering the <br />district. Mr. Herendeen re-emphasized the need for <br />community support within-a.historic district_. <br />This ended the hearing <br />III. Public Hearing <br />A. Certificates of Appropriateness <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.