December 2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Michigan was declared "substandard, dangerous and a public nuisance" on August 3, 2017; bids for demolition were requested by the city; and the city subsequently awarded one on November 31, 2017 (see attached documents and news articles). PRESERVATION SPECIALIST REPORT: On November 6, 2017 at approximately 10 AM, I met with inspectors from South Bend Code Enforcement to walk through the property located at 805 Leland/806 Ashland. I am familiar with the property as I did a previous walk through in 2014. The property has had a number of owners by way of tax sales and transfers. I have attended 6 different code hearing in regards to this property since 2014. This last owner had done a down to stud removal of walls on the first floor. There have been numerous repairs on the rear portion of the structure and some ceilings that were down in 2014 that are now in place. However, the ceiling on the south side of the structure on the second floor has indications of water damage and infiltration. The outside photos show an area where the roof meets the fascia and the roofing material is hanging. This is the same room that has the water damage inside. The rear addition was actually an attached garage that had a second story added later on. As well as an additional story added to a lower level located at the northwest corner. Although the addition above the garage appear sound, the addition added later is "spongey" to walk on. There was movement as I walked across the floor both from the floor and the wall that separated the two additions. I walked through the basement and could see areas where the mortar has failed as well as some attempts to make repairs. Disintegrated mortar is in plies as a result of water infiltration. I saw from the outside symmetrical cracks on both sides of the east wall about 12 inches off the corner. These cracks go from the siding well into the ground level. The foundation on the exterior is concrete but the interior Michigan basement is brick. Photographs will show daylight from the interior of the basement. I do not find the structure to be deteriorated beyond repair. However, the rear additions would need to be removed as they are not structurally sound and add burden to the rear wall of the original structure. The roof line at the addition has failed in the past as water marks and ceiling cave-ins have been indicative of that. The east wall of the basement would need serious repair and bracing. The chimney has had stucco applied over brick but is out of square and is leaning. Steve Szaday Preservation Specialist STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: CHAPIN PARK IV. Safety and Building Codes A. Building Code Requirements Required Building code requirements shall be complied with in such a manner that the existing character of the building is preserved. Recommended Local building code officials should be consulted to investigate alternative life safety measures that will preserve the architectural integrity of the structure. Variances for historic properties should be investigated. [...] V.GENERAL A. Buildings in the district should not be demolished except where buildings pose a threat to the public safety, and demolition is the only alternative. Documentation of interior and exterior features of the original buildings, especially homes rated as historically significant, is encouraged. Measured drawings and photographs may be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for safekeeping and future reference. B. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required before moving any building or structure. The moving a building within, out of or into the district is discouraged; however, moving is preferred to demolition. Building incompatible with existing structures in the historic district shall be prohibited. VL ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Enforcement of the preservation guidelines and standards for the historic district is made possible in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of South Bend, ordinance No. 5565-73, as amended and the Historic Preservation Commission's Preservation Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may petition the Building Commissioner to use the legal means available to him/her to force the maintenance and/or repair of any building or structure within the historic district in accordance with the intent of this ordinance. This ordinance, however, does not prevent the ordinary maintenance and repair of any building or structure which does not involve a change in any exterior feature, nor does it prevent the reconstruction, alteration, demolition or moving of any building or structure which the Building Commissioner or other official has determined to be a hazard to public safety. [... ] In making its determination, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider three factors: first, appropriateness of the proposed work to the preservation of the building and district; second, the detriment to the public welfare if the proposed work is permitted even though it is not deemed appropriate; third, the potential hardship that the denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness would cause the applicant. 0