April 1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mrs. DeRose reported regarding last months request by the Near Northwest I Neighborhood for sponsorship of their workshop series. She stated in her opinion there was some liability exposure, but as long as the Commission was satisfied the NNN had ample coverage and some kind of provision for waiver by participants, she saw no reason that the Commission could not sponsor the workshops. Mrs. DeRose reported that at the last Common Council Meeting, Common Council Member Cleo Washington raised an objection to the designation of 310 West Monroe as a Local Landmark based on the definition of Historic Landmark being part of a Historic Preservation Plan that had been approved by the Common Council and Area Plan Commission. She noted on that basis, he suggested there be no vote on landmarking structures until the Common Council was satisfied such a plan existed. Mrs. DeRose said she had found a reference to a plan in the Indiana Statute that gives local governments the power to create Historic Preservation Commissions. She stated the statutory definition of a plan was difficult to interpret. She mentioned one interpretation of a plan is an unfolding thing that changes each time a landmark is created. She added another interpretation would be whenever you create a landmark the plan is amended. She said at this point she had no definitive answer to offer. President Oxian reported the landmarking of two other structures was tabled, but 1601 Kemble (Toth Bank) went through. He noted according to the Legal Counsel for the Council, as long as there was owner consent or no owner objection, the landmarking could be passed. President Oxian suggested sending a copy of the survey report and the approaches to setting up landmarks and historic districts to the Common Council to serve as a plan. Legal Council DeRose noted another possibility was to contact other Commissions adopted pursuant to the 1977 Indiana Legislative Act where there is clearly a reference to a plan. President Oxian said at first the objection of Council Member Washington was based on owner consent, but Mr. Washington was told owner consent could not be used as a basis to turn down landmarking a structure. President Oxian reported at that point Council Member Washington brought up the necessity of a plan. Legal Council DeRose agreed with President Oxian that the survey responded to the question of what buildings are candidates for landmark status. Mr. Duvall inquired if the action at Council level would be dependent on the Council's Legal Counsel. Mrs. DeRose noted she had been contacted by the Common Council's Legal Counsel, but had not understood that this matter was to be decided by the lawyers. Mr. Duvall reported his understanding was the Committee Members felt the matter could not move forward without the clarification of the legal issue and the Legal Counsel was not prepared to give an opinion without studying the issue. President Oxian noted Council's Legal Counsel did give the opinion that when the owner consents or does not respond negatively, the structure should not be prevented from becoming a landmark. Legal Counsel DeRose explained her opinion that if the Council passed a landmark without settling the legal question, then they had waived the issue of the plan being a prerequisite. She said she would research the matter and report to the Commission by the Common Council meeting in February. Mrs. DeRose suggested President Oxian's idea of submitting the survey book and the HPC procedure for creating Local Landmarks and Districts be followed through. Mr. Ed Talley inquired if the Common Council adopted the survey book as the Preservation Plan, would they have to approved it every time a change was made. President Oxian replied negatively and added that it would be stated that any structure rated 10 or higher in the survey has the potential to be a landmark if it fulfills the criteria.