Regular Session:
1. Home Economics Building is unattractive and needs to be restored: unattractive in comparison with adjacent Dunbar Center. By next year, address with funding to restore.
Foundation stabilization of the Home Economics building is under contract with the project moving forward. Currently the contractor is waiting on Notice to Proceed. Alison Brake, Historic Preservation Officer, is working in conjunction with Facilities on a project information sign board to place at the location. Additionally, Alison is coordinating with Communications to get the word out to the public once we have a date. Post Oak Preservation completed a preservation plan for the building May. Future projects that are specific to the restoration of that building should consult that document as it provides an Emergency Stabilization Plan, Mid- to Long-Term Plans for additional repairs, as well as a Maintenance Schedule.
Additional building restoration requests submitted in writing:
• Home on 740 Centre Street: A CDBG Rehabilitation application was received, and staff is currently reviewing it. An estimator will be assigned to determine the extent of rehab needed.
• Jackson Chapel united Methodist Church: This is private property.
• The old First Baptist Church on MLK: This is private property.
• Add the name: Charles S. Cock – William “Doc” Burleson House: This was part of an Historic Preservation Commission recommendation resolution which was forwarded for City Council consideration. It is still on the ‘pending’ list of rolling agenda.
Regular Session (LMC):
1. Questions related to the church: no demo by neglect? Feels if Mr. C been requested to demo his home, how can we let the church go unrestored? The City has not requested demolition of Mr. Callihan’s residence.
2. Push buttons are not available for live viewing on TV? If the push button score isn’t visible do we have plans to fix this? Answered by Stephanie Reyes during the meeting.
3. During citizen comments and public hearings, the screen that is more visible is the timer. Do city staff using words like community perspective think the timer is more important? Answered by Stephanie Reyes during the meeting.
4. Attendees of airport meeting… why aren’t these comments in packet? The only written comments provided were via the webpage and were included in the packet. There were only verbal comments from the public meeting. Please reference them below:
• Impacts to Future Property Development – Multiple community members endeavored to understand how the proposed ordinance would impact the future development of their property. Specifically, many community members wanted to understand what types of development would be permitted (e.g., residential, commercial, etc.) and how tall the developments could be. Some community members requested information regarding how they might be compensated if the future use of their property was limited.
• Property Value Concerns – Multiple community members stated that the future expansion of the airport could impact the value of their property. Some individuals specifically mentioned potential impacts related to noise and air pollution.
• Need for the Ordinance – Several community members inquired about why the ordinance was needed and if the airport was expecting to expand significantly in the future.
• Inquiries Regarding Surrounding Development – Several community members inquired about the proposed SMART terminal area and if it was related to the proposed ordinance. Additionally, some community members inquired about whether Gary Job Corp. would be closing.
Additionally, staff issued a postcard advertising the public hearings at P&Z and Council to over 2,000 addresses matching one of the hazard zones around the airport.
5. Is the radius going to be expanded to be congruent with proximity of development? This topic will be considered by the Notifications Subcommittee that this topic was sent to.
6. Item 17 and with LDC. Make sure application notice goes with meeting. Will we consider making this change for LDC process? Code requires staff send an application notice (push notice) which includes the date of the neighborhood presentation meeting and incorporates appropriate signage.
1. Home Economics Building is unattractive and needs to be restored: unattractive in comparison with adjacent Dunbar Center. By next year, address with funding to restore.
Foundation stabilization of the Home Economics building is under contract with the project moving forward. Currently the contractor is waiting on Notice to Proceed. Alison Brake, Historic Preservation Officer, is working in conjunction with Facilities on a project information sign board to place at the location. Additionally, Alison is coordinating with Communications to get the word out to the public once we have a date. Post Oak Preservation completed a preservation plan for the building May. Future projects that are specific to the restoration of that building should consult that document as it provides an Emergency Stabilization Plan, Mid- to Long-Term Plans for additional repairs, as well as a Maintenance Schedule.
Additional building restoration requests submitted in writing:
• Home on 740 Centre Street: A CDBG Rehabilitation application was received, and staff is currently reviewing it. An estimator will be assigned to determine the extent of rehab needed.
• Jackson Chapel united Methodist Church: This is private property.
• The old First Baptist Church on MLK: This is private property.
• Add the name: Charles S. Cock – William “Doc” Burleson House: This was part of an Historic Preservation Commission recommendation resolution which was forwarded for City Council consideration. It is still on the ‘pending’ list of rolling agenda.
Regular Session (LMC):
1. Questions related to the church: no demo by neglect? Feels if Mr. C been requested to demo his home, how can we let the church go unrestored? The City has not requested demolition of Mr. Callihan’s residence.
2. Push buttons are not available for live viewing on TV? If the push button score isn’t visible do we have plans to fix this? Answered by Stephanie Reyes during the meeting.
3. During citizen comments and public hearings, the screen that is more visible is the timer. Do city staff using words like community perspective think the timer is more important? Answered by Stephanie Reyes during the meeting.
4. Attendees of airport meeting… why aren’t these comments in packet? The only written comments provided were via the webpage and were included in the packet. There were only verbal comments from the public meeting. Please reference them below:
• Impacts to Future Property Development – Multiple community members endeavored to understand how the proposed ordinance would impact the future development of their property. Specifically, many community members wanted to understand what types of development would be permitted (e.g., residential, commercial, etc.) and how tall the developments could be. Some community members requested information regarding how they might be compensated if the future use of their property was limited.
• Property Value Concerns – Multiple community members stated that the future expansion of the airport could impact the value of their property. Some individuals specifically mentioned potential impacts related to noise and air pollution.
• Need for the Ordinance – Several community members inquired about why the ordinance was needed and if the airport was expecting to expand significantly in the future.
• Inquiries Regarding Surrounding Development – Several community members inquired about the proposed SMART terminal area and if it was related to the proposed ordinance. Additionally, some community members inquired about whether Gary Job Corp. would be closing.
Additionally, staff issued a postcard advertising the public hearings at P&Z and Council to over 2,000 addresses matching one of the hazard zones around the airport.
5. Is the radius going to be expanded to be congruent with proximity of development? This topic will be considered by the Notifications Subcommittee that this topic was sent to.
6. Item 17 and with LDC. Make sure application notice goes with meeting. Will we consider making this change for LDC process? Code requires staff send an application notice (push notice) which includes the date of the neighborhood presentation meeting and incorporates appropriate signage.