June 1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• members Lueke and Coleman, and the Northern Indiana Historical Society. Mr. Oxian proposed that the general landscape standard be first adopted by the commission at the June meeting and that specific standards be adopted thereafter as part of the Landmark designation. There was discussion regarding drafting a boilerplate or frontpiece to attach to the Landscape standards similar to the Landmark Building Standards. • c. Landmark Proposals , 1) 521 East South Street Mr. Oxian indicated that Owners consent had been received for this property and therefore this meeting could be considered the First Reading for the designation. Second Reading will be scheduled for the June meeting of the commission `J 2) Brick Streets: Navarre St. (Michigan to Portage), Lafayette Blvd (Colfax to Navarre), Park Avenue (Navarre to Forrest), Forrest Av. (Portage to Riverside), LaMont Terrace (Forrest 'to Park), and Marion St. (Portage to Main). Mr. Oxian indicated that this would be First Reading for Landmark Designation of the above referenced sections of street. Mr. Wiener noted that the section of Park should extend from Navarre to Riverside. Mr, Talley stated that this discrepancy arose from the renaming of the section of Riverside from Forrest to Riverside in 1905. He also noted that the 900 block of Park Avenue has one layer of asphalt over the brick. Mr. Duvall stated that he has difficulty with developing a legal description for a web or network of streets. He suggested that each length of street be designated as. a separate Landmark for purpose of descriptXon. He also noted a collateral ambiguity regarding the inclusion or exclusion of tree lawns, curbs, and sidewalks of the proposed designated areas. Mr. Oxian felt that -the street network could be included in a single ordinance so long as street numbers and edge conditions were defined. He allowed that if protection of street lights is intended to be included, then the sidewalk areas may need to be included. Mrs. Choitz suggested that the centerline of the street could be used as a benchmark with described widths of paved areas to identify the intended area. Mr. Talley observed that for instance, Riverside Dr. has a 60 foot right of way but only 30 feet of pavement. Duvall observed that it was not going to be possible to describe a boundary condition as is usual in designating a landmark property because a single contiguous area is not being inscribed. He felt that the best way to describe the areas will be to describe a right—of—way from point A to point B and that a litany of such locations could be listed. Fr. Bullene indicated that he felt the network aspect of this group of street is the aspect which establishes significance in, this case. He suggested language like: "A web of streets composed of:...." followed by a list of the streets to be designated. Mrs, Choitz indicated particular concern to include the intersections of these streets. Mr. Duvall noted that the center of right of way does not necessarily correspond to the center of the paving. Mr. Oxian indicated that the curbs need to be included. Mr. Fine inquired whether the commission had received grant funding for the study of brick streets. Mr. Duvall responded that one of the projects indicated in our Certified Local Government General Assistance Grant for the coming year would be for such a city—wide Context Study. Mrs. Choitz suggested landmarking the brick streets remaining in Monroe Park as well. Mr. Fine asked if we were going to attempt to landmark all brick streets in the city and if not, how the determination was being made as to which streets were of importance. Mr. Oxian indicated that he felt the commission. could proceed with this landmark proposal prior to completing the context study as this interconnecting group of streets was obvious and probably unique in the city. Mr. Fine stated that the purpose of the study was to define the significance of brick streets in the city implying that this should be done to