Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> SARAH ANDREWS <br />PRESIDENT <br />A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT <br />OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE <br />ROSS VAN OVERBERGHE <br />HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADMINISTRATOR <br /> <br />EXCELLENCE | ACCOUNTABILITY | INNOVATION | INCLUSION | EMPOWERMENT <br />1400S County-City Building | 227 W. Jefferson Blvd. | South Bend, Indiana 46601 | p 574.235.9371 | f 574.235.9201 | southbendin.gov <br />MINUTES <br />HYBRID MEETING <br />January 20, 2026 Council Chambers, 3rd Floor <br />6:00pm City Hall Building, South Bend, IN <br />MEMBERS PRESENT: <br />Sarah Andrews - President <br />Michael Skaggs <br />Kathryn Hough <br />Andrew Fowler - Virtual <br />MEMBERS ABSENT: <br /> <br />ALSO PRESENT: <br />Kate Himick <br />Kelly Meehan <br />John Dorbin <br /> <br />I. CALL TO ORDER – 6:03 pm <br />II. ROLL CALL <br />III. PUBLIC HEARING <br />a. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS <br />I. 2025-1230 626 Portage Ave Chapin Park LHD <br />Ordinance #9575-05 (Audio Position: 01:09) <br /> The staff report was presented by: <br />Kate Himick, Historic Preservation Specialist <br /> Staff Recommendation: <br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The existing storefront is not original to the <br />building, though it was with historic sensitivity in mind. Both proposed <br />designs meet the Standards and Guidelines’ recommendations for <br />replacing an existing non-historic storefront, which recommend the use of <br />traditional design elements and a high degree of transparency (p. 58). <br />The National Park Service’s Preservation Brief on historic storefronts <br />further advises that replacement storefronts should respect historic scale <br />and proportion, maintain the traditional storefront design framework, and <br />maximize transparency (p. 8). While the proposed designs may result in a <br />slight reduction in transparency compared to the existing storefront, Staff <br />have worked with the property owners to develop an appropriate and <br />sympathetic solution that best balances the requirements of the building’s <br />historic design and current use. Furthermore, the differences between <br />Design 1 and Design 2 do not meaningfully affect either design’s <br />adherence to the Standards and Guidelines or to national preservation <br />guidance; rather, the distinction falls within the realm of design <br />preference. As such, the Commission should refrain from “designing the <br />project” for the applicant by approving only one design of the two. <br />Instead, we issue a blanket approval or denial for both designs. Based on