The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHPC Administrative Record Filed in 8orkrs Office Before the Common Council of the City of South Ben =0 � 2017 ERIC BOYD, i CAREEMAH FOWLER Appellant, CITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND,IN V. RE: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness,No. 2017-0602A HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, Appellee. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY'S EVIDENTIARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND POSITION STATEMENT I. Background A. The Powers and Duties of the Historic Preservation Commission The Historic Preservation Commission("HPC")was created by ordinance with the purpose of recommending the designation of historic landmarks and the establishment of Historic Preservation Districts, and to set and enforce standards for maintenance and upkeep for properties designated as landmarks and within Historic Preservation Districts. In order to meet the second of these goals, the City of South Bend requires by ordinance that a property owner who owns a historic landmark or a property in a historic district obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness ("COA") from the HPC before any construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition or moving of any exterior feature of any building, structure, or use. City of South Bend Ordinance 9495-04, Section 21-1302(e)(1). An application for a COA must be voted on by a quorum of the HPC at a public hearing. Routine maintenance and repair of any building which does not involve a change in any exterior feature does not require a COA. Such routine I maintenance may be performed following the grant of a Routine Maintenance Exemption ("RME")by HPC staff and the granting of this exemption does not require a public hearing. B. 1240 W. Thomas Street owned by Appellant Eric Boyd 1240 W. Thomas Street(the "Firehouse") was designated as a Historic Landmark on September 29, 1999 by Ordinance No. 9037-99. The building is described as: A two story Period Revival Style Fire Station. It has a flat roof with limestone parapet coping, metal parapet scupper/cornice with brick brackets underneath with elaborate limestone detailing at the ends. The building is made of brick with ornate limestone detailing. The windows are one over one double hung with limestone sills, all of which except for the windows along the front fayade are boarded up. The building also has a paneled wood entry door and two hinged wooden garage doors for the fire trucks. A true and accurate copy of the Ordinance No. 9037-99 is attached as Exhibit"A". The Firehouse was a designated historic landmark prior to Eric Boyd's ("Mr. Boyd")purchase of the property. Mr. Boyd applied for and received on or about November 10, 2011 an RME to "replace metal roofing to secure the burned out landmark and protect from the elements." A true and accurate copy of this RME is attached as Exhibit"B".' The RME did not allow for any changes or modifications which were not in-kind and did not allow for the construction of a different style of roof than already existed. The RME was originally good for one year, but was extended upon request until November 10, 2013. Mr. Boyd did not simply repair the metal roof as was allowed by the RME. Mr. Boyd instead began constructing a gabled asymmetrical roof on the Firehouse, sometime after the RME expired. 1 COAs and RMEs are applied for and granted using the same form; this is why the RME attached hereto as Exhibit`B" is labeled"Certificate of Appropriateness". 2 In 2015 to 2016, Mr. Boyd filed for an application for a building permit and sometime later filed an application for a COA. The Building Department mistakenly issued a Building Permit without requiring Mr. Boyd to obtain a COA; however, Mr. Boyd did submit an Application for a COA (Application No. 2016-0809) in August of 2016. That application was for the following modifications: Roof, window replacement, apply for addition—siding vinyl and window replacement is long term. Current plan is to keep windows boarded up for security reasons (2 replacement windows have been broken. Color of vinyl siding is brown. Application No. 2016-0809 was denied unanimously in a public hearing of the HPC on September 19, 2016. The denial of that application was appealed to the Common Council of the City of South Bend and was upheld by a tied vote of the Common Council on February 28, 2017. Mr. Boyd then appealed the denial of Application No. 2016-0809 to the St. Joseph Superior Court, Cause No. 71D07-1703-MI-000086, where the appeal was dismissed as against the HPC, St. Joseph County Common Council and St. Joseph County Building Department on May 24, 2017 and against the City of South Bend on July 21, 2017. The dismissal as against the HPC was for a 12(B)(6) failure to state a claim, making this a dismissal on the merits. Ragnar Benson, Inc. v. Wm. P. Jungclaus Co., 352 N.E.2d 817 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976) ("However, it is generally considered that the entry of judgment following dismissal on the ground of failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted constitutes an adjudication on the merits of the asserted claim barring its subsequent assertion.") Mr. Boyd, following the dismissal of his appeal of the denial of Application No. 2016- 0809, then filed a subsequent COA application, Application No. 2017-0602A on June 2, 2017. The description given of the proposed work for Application No. 2017-0602A was: 3 Mono Roof 4/12 pitch, rise west to East ending at Center of Building resting on ledger/East stud hall. Low profile Mono Roof resting south Brick wall and interior Brick wall. Open Courtyard. Two of the three plan drawings attached to Application No. 2017-0602A were identical to plan drawings attached to Application No. 2016-0809, the previously denied COA application. Application No. 2017-0602A is attached hereto as Exhibit "C", with Application No. 2016-0809 attached hereto as Exhibit"D"for comparison. Per normal HPC procedure, the staff at HPC issued a Staff Report on the Application. A true and accurate copy of the staff report is attached as Exhibit "E". Elicia Feasel, as Executive Director of HPC,recommended the following: After careful review of this application, it appears to a large degree to be similar as applied for in COA application 2016-0809 that was denied by HPC and is a pending Violation of City Ordinance with the Building Department. As in COA 2016-0809, Staff does not recommend approval of the roof deviation from flat to asymmetrical gable and does not recommend a roof on only half of the structure as it does not conform to the standards and guidelines, A, B, and C. Staff recommends approval of a flat roof covering the entire main structure. Staff recommends that the owner be in compliance with the Building Department at the request of the Building Commissioner and that all work is remanded to the discretion of the Building Department prior to installation. Staff recommends that the owner be in compliance with Code Enforcement as there are noted violations of Minimum Maintenance Standards. HPC held its public hearing on COA Application No. 2017-0602A on June 19, 2017. The COA application was unanimously denied by the six Commission members present. A true and accurate copy of the minutes from the hearing are attached as Exhibit"F". HPC mailed a copy of HPC's findings on June 23, 2017, setting forth in writing the reasons for denying COA application 2017-0602A. A true and accurate copy of the HPC's findings are attached as Exhibit "G". In summary,the HPC found that the modifications proposed in Application No. 2017- 4 0602A would alter and modify the structure, fagade, architectural integrity, and style, by adding the slanted roof; did not meet the existing character of the structure; and was generally not in keeping with the historical character or look of the building. The HPC also found that the application lacked information on the material to be used for completion of the roof or how it would be covered. The HPC generally found that the roof proposal was not in keeping with the Standards and Guidelines for review of COAs. II. Standard of Review When the Common Council is called upon to review an appeal of an HPC decision, the Common Council is required to determine only whether the action taken by HPC was: (1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with applicable law; (2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, limitations, or statutory rights; (4) Without observance of procedures required by applicable law or ordinance; (5) Unsupported by substantial evidence. Mr. Boyd's position statement does not argue that HPC's decision was arbitrary and capricious, or that the decision to deny his application was contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity. He also does not contend that HPC was without the authority to deny his application or that they lacked substantial evidence to do so. Mr. Boyd instead makes the following arguments, presented in a somewhat difficult-to-follow fashion, for the Common Council to overturn HPC's denial of COA Application No. 2017-0602A: (1)the failure to send notification of a municipal administrative hearing via U.S. mail to Mr. Boyd violated Robert's Rules of Order, which had not been suspended; (2)that the HPC did not follow the municipal codes for"The Preservation of Meridian Street Area", which is located in Indianapolis; (3) that 5 by failing to inform Mr. Boyd that his COA Application was processed and available for the public to inspect and failing to properly mail the notification of hearing to Mr. Boyd, the HPC violated the Indiana Anti-Secrecy Act and Access to Public Records Act; (4)that HPC violated its own standards and guidelines; and (5) that HPC failed to issue an individual exterior historic preservation plan for the Firehouse. These are generally spurious arguments, and not appropriate reasons for the Council to overturn HPC's denial of COA Application 2017-0602A. III. Argument A. Application No. 2017-0602A was barred by res judicata and thus correctly denied by HPC. Under Ind. Code § 36-7-11-4, a final decision of the HPC is subject to judicial review under Ind. Code § 36-7-4 as if it were a final decision of a board of zoning appeals. Therefore, appeals of HPC decisions should be treated in the same manner as if they were appeals from a zoning decision. The concept of res judicata applies to administrative proceedings, such as those before a zoning board or the HPC. Porter County Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Bolde, 530 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). Generally, "'a zoning board should not indiscriminately or repeatedly reconsider a determination denying a variance absent a change of conditions or circumstances. If it were otherwise there would be no finality to such proceedings."' Id. The same principle applies to COA Applications. For zoning board decisions, "[R]emonstrators against subsequent [] petitions may successfully assert a defense in the nature of res judicata by merely establishing the fact of the prior denial unless the petitioner proves that there has been a change in the conditions, circumstances or facts which induced the prior denial." Easley v. Metropolitan Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 161 Ind. App. 501 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974). Because, under Ind. Code § 36-7-11-4, decisions of the HPC should be treated in the same manner on review as those of boards of zoning appeals, the same principle applies here. 6 As described above, the HPC has already considered and denied COA Application No. 2016-0809, which requested alterations to the roof of the same kind as that requested in COA Application No. 2017 -0602A. In the Staff Report for Application No. 2016-0809, the work pertaining to the roof was described as: Owner proposes a 4/12 shed roof be constructed over part of the main building, from the west exterior wall 30' east to a 10'H wall built on existing brick interior wall, with a 1' overhang at west wall. See Exhibit "H", the Staff Report for Application No. 2016-0809. In the Staff Report for Application No. 2017-0602A, the work pertaining to the roof was described as: Owner has constructed a 4/12 single sloping roof surface over part of, roughly one half, of the main building, from the west exterior wall 30' east to a 10'H wall built on existing brick interior wall, with a F over hang at west wall. See Exhibit "E". The similarity of the proposed roof projects is supported by the inclusion in both COA Application No. 2016-0809 and No. 2017-0602A of two identical plan drawings. No description of changed circumstances was included in Application No. 2017-0602A, which would have explained to HPC why Mr. Boyd believed that a roof alteration which was not deemed appropriate before would have become appropriate in the interim. As described above, the principle of res judicata applies in the context of zoning decisions and HPC decisions. Res judicata is divided into two types, claim preclusion and issue preclusion. The current COA Application No. 2017-0602A presents a case of claim preclusion. "'Claim preclusion applies where a final judgment on the merits has been rendered which acts as a complete bar to a subsequent action on the same issue or claim between those parties and their privies."' First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 65 N.E.3d 1045 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Where this doctrine applies, "'all matters that were or might have been litigated are deemed 7 conclusively decided by the judgment in the prior action."' Id. The HPC had already rendered its decision on the merits of the roof alterations for COA Application No. 2016-0809. In addition, by its dismissal of Mr. Boyd's appeal of HPC's denial of Application No. 2016-0809, the St. Joseph Superior Court had also entered a final decision on the merits pertaining to the issue of denial of a COA Application on the roof alterations to the Firehouse. Therefore, the only issue left which would prevent the application of res judicata on COA Application No. 2017-0602A is whether the COA applications were substantially similar. Although the short verbal descriptions in each COA Application themselves are not identical, the inclusion of the identical drawings, as well as photographs with both COA Applications which show similar views of the Firehouse and the changes to the roof which were requested in both COA Applications, show that the proposed roof alterations for each COA Application(2016-0809 and 2017-0602A) were the same. In addition, Mr. Boyd during the June 19, 2017 public meeting agreed that the staff description of his proposed project was correct, meaning he admitted the proposed roof project in COA Application 2017-0602A was the same as the project proposed in COA 2016-0809. See Exhibit "I", an electronic recording of the June 19, 2017 HPC meeting at 2:16:15. The HPC entered specific findings in both COA denials justifying their denial of the roof alteration. See Exhibit "J", the Denial Letter for COA Application No. 2016-0809. Mr. Boyd states in his Position Statement that the difference between the appeals involving the roof is that the 2016 COA requested roofing the entire building, while the 2017 COA requested to roof only half of the building. The identical drawings included in the two Applications make it clear that this assertion is inaccurate, and that the Applications were both for the same (previously denied)roof design. B. Mr. Boyd's arguments supporting his contention that the Common Council should overturn the HPC's denial of COA Application 2017-0602A are spurious and irrelevant, and 8 are inappropriate bases for any reversal of HPC's denial of COA Application 2017-0602A by the Common Council. Mr. Boyd makes the following arguments, for the Common Council to overturn HPC's denial of COA Application No. 2017-0602A: (1) the failure to send notification of a municipal administrative hearing via U.S. mail to Mr. Boyd violated Robert's Rules of Order, which had not been suspended; (2)that the HPC did not follow the municipal codes for"The Preservation of Meridian Street Area", which is located in Indianapolis; (3)that by failing to inform Mr. Boyd that his COA Application was processed and available for the public to inspect and failing to properly mail the notification of hearing to Mr. Boyd, the HPC violated Ind. Code § 5-14-1 and Ind. Code § 5-14-3; (4)that HPC violated its own standards and guidelines; and(5)that HPC failed to issue an individual exterior historic preservation plan for the Firehouse. Four out of five of these arguments are irrelevant to the Common Council's consideration of HPC's denial of COA Application No. 2017-0602A. As established by Mr. Boyd's own Exhibit"A", the HPC did in fact put his Notice of Hearing in the mail,meeting their administrative policy requirement. It did not"knowingly" fail to send him a Notice of Hearing; the HPC did its duty of placing that notice in the mail to be sent to Mr. Boyd. Any failure of the postal service to deliver this to Mr. Boyd is not the fault of HPC. In addition, Mr. Boyd appeared at the public hearing on June 19, 2017, so there was no harm caused by any failure of delivery of the Notice of Hearing in question. The agenda for the HPC June 19, 2017 meeting was public, and Mr. Boyd clearly learned of the public hearing for his COA Application because he attended that public hearing in person. Mr. Boyd asserts in his position statement that HPC should have followed the municipal codes for"The Preservation of Meridian Street Area", which is inapplicable to the present 9 situation. Meridian Street is located in Indianapolis, and is under the authority of Meridian Street Preservation Commission, a state-created agency which follows the Indiana Administrative Code. However, even if it applied to this case, under 925 IAC 2-4-3 the responsibility for notice of an application for a certificate of appropriateness falls on the applicant, not the Meridian Street Preservation Commission. Regardless, this argument is spurious and inapplicable to a landmark located within the City of South Bend. Ind. Code § 5-14-1, the Anti-Secrecy Act, was repealed and so cannot be violated. Ind. Code § 5-14-3, the Access to Public Records Act, requires a public agency to allow a person to inspect and copy the public records during the regular business hours of the agency upon request by that person. Mr. Boyd never requested a copy of the COA Application No. 2017-0602A, or the corresponding Staff Report, and so no violation of Ind. Code § 5-14-3 could have occurred. Ind. Code § 5-14-3 does not require that a public agency affirmatively inform anyone of the existence of a particular record without a request for that record. Section 21-13.02 of City of South Bend Ordinance 9495-04 lays out the powers and duties of the HPC. Under this Ordinance Section, some of the items enumerated are powers of the HPC which are discretionary, and some of the items are duties of the HPC which the HPC is required to carry out. Whether a subsection refers to a power or duty is a matter of statutory interpretation. "'The cardinal rule of statutory construction is that if a statute is unambiguous, then . . . [the court] must apply its plain and clear meaning."' Certain Tell City Annexation Terr. Landowners v. Tell city, 73 N.E.3d 210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). In statutes and ordinances, mandatory duties are clearly delineated by using the word"shall", "must", or other prescriptive words. Discretionary powers do not use such words, and might use a word such as"may" or merely state a power that exists. For instance, Section 21-13.02(d)(1) states, "The Historic 10 Preservation Commission shall recommend the designation of historic landmarks . . . " (emphasis added). Section 21-13.02(g), to which Mr. Boyd refers, states, "Develop historic preservation plans for historic landmarks and districts and, together with other public or private agencies or officials, assist in the administration and implementation of such plans." There is no use of prescriptive terms such as "shall" or"must". This is merely a statement of a power which the HPC possesses, and not a duty to affirmatively do anything. The HPC has the power to create a preservation plan and to assist in the administration and implementation of such a plan, but has no duty to do so in any particular instance. C. The HPC correctly denied Mr. Boyd's COA application after it considered all required factors in its evaluation of COA Application No. 2017-0602A. HPC complied with all applicable laws, ordinances, and guidelines when it voted to deny Mr. Boyd's application. Under City of South Bend Ordinance 9495-04, Section 21-13.02(e)(1), the HPC must consider the following factors in its evaluation of a COA application: (1) Appropriateness of the proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition, or moving to the preservation of the historic landmark, specifically, and/or the Historic Preservation District, generally. (2) The detriment to the public welfare if the proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition or moving is permitted even though it is not deemed appropriate; and (3) The potential hardship that the denial of a certificate of appropriateness would cause the applicant. HPC has also been authorized to publish, and has published, standards and guidelines known as the Group B Standards. These standards give an applicant and HPC additional factors to consider when ruling upon a COA. A true and accurate copy of the Group B Standards are attached as Exhibit "K". Mr. Boyd's COA Application No. 2017-0602A, like its predecessor, 11 Application No. 2016-0809, fell afoul of Group B Standard, "C", which states, "additions to landmarks should not detract from the original form and unity of the landmark." The six out of the nine commissioners of HPC who were present at the June 19, 2017 public hearing explained that Mr. Boyd's proposed modifications did not keep to the architectural integrity of the building. In its denial letter, the HPC specifically found that the roof would"alter and modify the structure and change it greatly by adding this type of roof'; "does not meet the existing character of the structure"; "alter the fagade, architectural integrity, and its style"; "does not keep the historical character or look of the building"; "not in keeping with the Standards and Guidelines that the Commission must use"; and"too far outside of the mandated Standards and Guidelines". The HPC's decision that the proposed alterations were not I appropriate was entirely consistent with the Appropriateness standard of Section(e)(1) of Ordinance No. 9495-04. I Mr. Boyd presented no evidence at the hearing to show that the public would benefit from the proposed modifications,the second consideration HPC must evaluate. If the HPC had issued the COA, it would change the very structure that was given Historic Landmark protection by the Common Council through Ordinance No. 9037-99. The Landmark status was given in the first place in order to preserve the Firehouse as it then existed. Allowing a modification that changed the frame, mass, and overall silhouette of the building would remove all value of the Historic Landmark. HPC was within its ordinance authority to determine that the proposed alteration in Mr. Boyd's COA Application No. 2017-0602A would impose a detriment to public welfare by violating the Historic Landmark Ordinance which protects the Firehouse, and to therefore deny the application. 12 Mr. Boyd's financial hardship was considered multiple times during the June 19, 2017 public hearing. Mr. Boyd told Commissioner Gordon that the main purpose of changing the style of the roof to the new style was economics. See Exhibit"I"at 2:19:16. Commissioner Gordon confirmed that the economic reasons in question were that Mr. Boyd could get material donated or cheaply and do the construction himself, which would be unlikely if the new roof were flat. See Exhibit"I" at 2:19:50. Commissioners Buccellato, Klusczinski, and Gordon suggested that the materials which had already been expended into the current roof system be repurposed, in order to save Mr. Boyd the expense of purchasing all new materials to change the roof to something more appropriate. Exhibit"I"at 2:29:03. Mr. Boyd brought up the hardship issue himself, later in the public hearing, which resulted in extensive discussion. Exhibit"I" at 2:29:03. Commissioner Klusczinski explained his view of the hardship consideration. In the hearing minutes, a public comment from Mr. Mike Boyd asked, "Could this application be withdrawn and come back with application with different options for roof—different dimensions and/or style?" Elicia Feasel,the Executive Director of the HPC, replied by reminding the HPC and all listeners present that when denying COA 2016-0809 for the same roof project, four of the Commissioners specifically requested Mr. Boyd obtain additional quotes and estimates for different design options. Mr. Boyd failed to present any quotes for keeping an in-kind flat roof. According to Mr. Boyd, the reason he did not bring any new quotes for a new roof was, "there's no funding for the roof." Exhibit"I"at 2:33:09. Commissioner Gordon specifically advised Mr. Boyd that the Commission"understand the cost of a new flat rubber roof,that's why we're giving you the option to bring us some kind of a design that's less obtrusive than this one here, that is more hidden, because that won't probably be the expense of a new flat rubber material 13 roof. I don't know that as a fact, but I'm positive it'll be less, with some of this material possibly being reused, or other donated material." Exhibit"I" at 2:34:37. The Commission also went above and beyond its mandate by giving suggestions to Mr. Boyd for places he could look for additional funding if he needed financial assistance. Commissioner Hertel in particular made several suggestions for community grants and funding, and Executive Director Feasel stated that HPC had suggested Mr. Boyd look into Indiana Landmarks and Community Investment for funding options. Exhibit"I" at 2:36:40. Commissioner Molnar specifically stated that while the current roof design was too far from design standards for him to approve it, he hoped"we can come to some compromise that isn't as financially crazy as a flat roof." Exhibit"I"at 2:53:59. Commissioner Klusczinski encouraged Mr. Boyd to withdraw the current application and to research whether or not reusing the materials that had already been installed in the current configuration could be used for a different version of the roof and make a new presentation to the Commission. Id. Commissioner Klusczinski advised Mr. Boyd that if he withdrew his application to research these issues then the fee would be preserved and rolled into the next application. Id. In the final statement on financial hardship during the consideration of COA Application No. 2017-0602A, Commissioner Anderson stated outright that HPC was "not asking for that $40,000, $30,000 flat roof proposal, we're talking about work you could possibly do on your own as a licensed contractor to create that hipped roof. We're not looking to outstrip any resources that you have, we're looking at what is also available through you, to you,to be able to do this project in a way that makes all parties happy, and makes that building happy." Exhibit "I" at 2:55:30. Mr. Boyd stated in reply that he wanted to go forward with the vote on the current application instead. 14 Clearly, HPC considered the financial hardship to Mr. Boyd extensively during the June 19, 2017 meeting in its consideration of COA Application 2017-0602A. The Commissioners made several attempts at describing projects which would be both architecturally appropriate and financially feasible to Mr. Boyd, and requested several times that he withdraw the current application and research other possible options, which he had failed to do between being denied for COA Application 2016-0809 and submitting Application 2017-0602A. HPC demonstrated its understanding of the financial issues and indicated a willingness to work with Mr. Boyd in determining an architecturally appropriate and financially feasible solution to the Firehouse roof. HPC clearly did its duty to consider financial hardship to Mr. Boyd when it denied COA Application 2017-0602A. For all of these reasons, HPC did not act outside of the authority granted to it by ordinance. It is granted the power to review and deny applications for a COA. HPC observed the procedures required by the applicable laws and thoroughly considered all applicable guidelines when making its decision. IV. Conclusion HPC acted in accordance with the City of South Bend Ordinances and HPC guidelines. Mr. Boyd's application was properly denied because it proposed modifications that had already been denied and such denial had been affirmed, and because the modifications proposed failed to conform to the architectural integrity of the Firehouse. The roof described in the COA, which has been built, destroys the historical value of the landmark. Accordingly, HPC respectfully requests that the South Bend Common Council deny Mr. Boyd's appeal and affirm HPC's decision to deny Mr. Boyd's application for a COA. 15 Respectfully submitted, THORNE • GRODNIK, LLP Brandie N. Ecker, Esq. (#32574-75) Attorney for Appellee 420 Lincolnway West Mishawaka, IN 46545 (574) 256-5660 /FAX(574) 256-5137 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I ce ify that service of the above document was made on the day of 2017, by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to: Eric Boyd 1240 West Thomas Street South Bend, IN 46601 Brandie N. Ecker 17 pi-Q P 5511 ORDINANCE N®. 9037-99 Passed by the Common Council of the City of South Bend,Indiana September 27, 19 99 Attest: City Clerk Attest: President of Common Council Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of South Bend,Indiana September 27, 19 99 City Clerk LO A J. Approved and signed by me September 29, - 19 99 � ---- Mayor COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND: Your Committee of the Whole, to whom was referred: BILL NO. 68-99 A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ESTABLISHING AN HISTORIC LANDMARK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1240 WEST THOMAS STREET, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Respectfully report that they have examined the matter and that in their opinion,this bill is being recommended to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Charlotte Pfeifer Chairman I PROPOSED LOCAL LANDMARK 1240 WEST THOMAS SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County April 1999 r=sly a CIP!'1 oda ! M f J Q li 1 2 i Q i Y.1 ii,d,V.J_%A CRY CLE,i i",50,i:i FiJ,In. —r..._<..+..w.,.. ;-v-. ,.::': n.i.�.'.'-r.\.,�.s:.�ri:....,,�._:_..._ _ •�'.i '�;`.TC2;:7:c�iLi:�slMivr�''':�fMriaru.4:y,�.-:;1�:-,:°:c....__ j - s' +'Ii.SC+r.',':j�.,iiiy57f-1•,'4�" •7. - � 1 1� •,: t� ;.tyy��d;tr.r l,i$%�•-•i� '.1 ""•�II••;,r:r.;ay.�•„ I ��2`diS.��'s'J:�.'1'ir]'f`•.:tSG��;t, 'i!•�.= 'i.�::':' .rr.'si!.,�;�' I�^^•r..,,a,-crrc�r;1 '(�4 i�'+ v......._..,-. .` :M1 by r.i. ,i;es' �:I;ry.Ie_ :..: C, ' e{. o.• ..'. r.'• �'!t.�'`1�•<'i r1.��t°'✓y ll'� .r r;-:- •'`. i ',.�: '-�r.�.-,r�� J,�.,•-Sr_ `.'�i�.., ,��t.fs�tf{�wJr',3'".�j?,��t�.;\�,�\ q iii�r: .;:•. °'" .� :i7'>. �� r T�;,Y:i�r'•r '.•..,':.:•i•' ;.I;'' � t't'• Y )a/` i�t• y.Y;r f n �' V•��:%:l .: ,s 'J,�:'V�`• f 1" IYS• L �4lile � I•; `tefhr�ft��'':•r. SY :rj�,�r»j'I:.�i�;t�n[^�yt„�'��-,y�' �y.I�;.\�,tt�„_.�.��Y,: ' '�•' �Rr2� _�: ';• ��Sr;ir �i`;=:�: '' � '' e•..•• -a.,�,•2!;l\� 'gip `• 'r'`�:.,:�.�- ' .��ti(�S,'�t,\.!°}„�'`Lt+,y+.."r�G:.'r�i..r"r ;''Ii•..�:U..'.l.`�lY�k�\ rrs.rr ,� �•� �. .i r ��r-r) �rFI.r evA:.r!ir ��1.M�1�_.'�°'.T,;',1�Tt,.'S,'.�;+..W'.'L'1 .t'�;�..: .�1it'..v'.• �'`•�. � c:C;'N • k�� \'. �. °tip"'�Sa'.:•i,.i•`�/'y.-! f I w��Yy�f3?aily�:'r.:j�••:`,'r[c.r R'I •`�'�._i3.�c,''�(rTi�::��3�yt'i'•`:iii lY•`5�'r� ��I^ -- J CURRENT PHOTOG. RAPH LO>S iAJ;.Dl, cT{'f CLEW',ti 0.BE Itl,1`: RECOMMENDATION Based on the Historic Preservation Commission's Local Landmark Criteria's adopted by the Common Council, the building at 1240 W. Thomas has been recommended to the Common Council for designation as a Local Landmark by Historic Preservation Commission. The building meets the criteria in at least three areas: 1.) Its embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship which represents an architectural characteristics or innovations. 2.) Its suitability for preservation. 3.) Its identification with the life of a person or persons of historical significance. The building fulfills criteria#1 as an example of a 1920's Period Revival Style, two-bay, fire station. The building is rated a Significant 11 in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory. The building fulfills criteria#2 by the integrity of its original construction with little alteration to the facade. The building is a wonderful example of an early Twentieth Century, Period Revival Style, fire station. The building fulfills criteria#3 by its association with ??? (the south bend fire department?) Staff finds that the building meets the criteria for designation as a Local Landmark and recommends that the Commission send such a recommendation to the Common Council. 4/29/99 [[ `� y i+tl:�:•d� 3 i•.)i"S�r`i•Siv hw.S�FIL•L �,llG 2 3 1999 cr:,of c-nl:,30.8fllu,VA. EXHIBIT B W� CERTIFICATE 1 / J APPROPRIATENESS Tian Klusezinski,President The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St.Joseph County has reviewed the proposed work: Replace metal roofing to secure burned out landmark and protect from elements per City of South Bend Code Case#08- 069 adjudicated on 10 November 2011. Wayne.Deolfttle, Preservation Specialist and Inspector present at hearing. TBD,Contractor for the following location: HISTORIC 3240 Mom South Bend,IN 466o PRESERVATION COMMISSION Application A'o. 2o11-nio OF, in the-County of St.Joseph;State of Indiana;which is: SOUTH BEND Located in a Local Historic AND A.Local Historic Landmark and found this application to be appropriate according to the S11'. JOSEPH Standards pertaining to.Local historic Landmarks and/or Local �O� Historic Districts.Regulations pertaining to the Historic Preservation Commission are found in Chapter 21(Zoning),South Bend Municipal Code and Chapter 26 of the St.Joseph County Code. The issuance of this permit does NOT in any manner,release the recipient from the responsibility of complying with the requirements of the zoning ordinances,building codes,safety codes,ADA or other requirements of:the City of South Bend,the County of St.Joseph,the State'of Indiana;:or;the United States Federal Government. Phone:(574)255-9798 a This permit is'goiid-for one year from the date of issuance and is rAx:(574)235-9578 "effective from the date entered herein.Plans are on file and open for E-mail:SBSJCHPC@co.st-joseph.in.us public inspection at the office of the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St.Joseph County,125 S.Lafayette Blvd.(mailing address:227 West Jefferson Blvd.))South Bend,Indiana,during normal business hours. ' •THIS PERMIT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE IssloNv G S A ` �c ATAME OF APPLICAN r: Eric Boyd fbo 124o Thomas o ` ,�. DATE PEAL ITT O M TAIQ,S FORCE: 11/10/2011 �CO PERMIT ISSUED BX: �yl' Catherine D.Hostetler Director CATHERINE D.IfOSTETLER, _2A Q C'U:1 V G�1 11I I I 2b 13 . :. POST IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE ON THE STRE• SLT IDE ,{{ Director Or THE PROJECT UNTIL COMPLETION OF TALL WORK. �Q.�?\tip+; .::>•• . EXHIBIT C 450HT�8� � Applicatic o��ssiakF� f -FOR- Cet fieate of Appropriateness _° \� RE�ACB�j m HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMhIISSION s 1865 of SOUTH BEND&ST.JOSEPH COUNTY 125 S.Lafayette Blvd.,South Bend,IN 46601 httpd/www.st osePhcoun4indiana.com/departments/SJCHPTmdex•htin p:574-235-9798 f 574-235-9578 e:SBSJCBPC@co.st-josephin.us OFFICE USE O)VLPy»»>AO NoT COMPLETE A11TY iR CONTAIIVED IN 1HE5 BOX«««OFFTC USE ONLY [DaR ved: 7j©�7 Application Number: ' �7 i l — ws: YES (DvenftasrRnien) �'I LI I ,1�L (/ El NO oval authorized by: Title• ese rvation Commission Review Dater® Local Landmark ElLocal Historic District(N=e)El National Landmark National Register District(Name) of Appropriateness: Denied 11 Tablgd F1 Sent To Committee Approved and issued: (Please Print) Address of Property for proposed work: (Street Number-Street Nmne-Cui --Zip Code) Name of Property Owner(s): r- "eir- �/ Phone 7o y- 3 Address of Property Owner(s): _�at (Street Number-Street Name, -Qty-Zip Code) Name of Contractor(s): d1_4 Phone#: Vx - Contract Company Name: —ZL ue/ e!5 '/'?I q_ /.e Address of Contract Company: /01- &- J x VK (Street Number Street Nmne--Gttp-Zip Code) Current Use of Building: <L"a /ham W-ej'?, ( (Single FwW4-Multi-Famt4-Commercial--Government-Indus&wl-Vacant-etc.) Type of Building Construction: (Wood Frame-Brick-alone-Steel--Concrete-Other) Proposed Work: In-Kind Landscape Fj New Replacement(not in-kind) Demolition (more than one bax may be checked f / Descriptionyf Prop ed Work: 4/l3` ) h w", � G✓GS�' ` F F /`P�ilr<n�, So::�j1 b,Jr i�/'t i-*�&•L( if yc..! in ate+fy" -,-f`� t+—i�. �/',t" C"r7-\i t,KJ Owner/Contractor Fax#: e-mail: `j / a// / (Staff will correspond with only one designee) �S 7`�?p' /�.5� S/� � l X l� �f1✓� and/or X Signature of Owner Signature of Contractor A DDT Tt'A WnM DVC%TTMVhX %PV4-'+ ADTP T TC'PL it&-%AT DQTTrTDOC oy"V { zz OWNS= �' 0, .,c tit uo t^'aifv l 'mow _ FZ=Yr�.0 NOWN +�[F��frS.'ema ^i,i- :�r�.w �'tir p `„�" �` '�,;Ffr��1,�93 "K:+3•-� Z <, S� �S�1""�r'.�r F M� ,j x'L.a^ I.AS•a��.- a r � � G�_,t� .,k s d-''7 �- �y,y!;�'s�iY - i `✓A��'.�+°ib3'X+.J.' S�T ids r K G- `w ~Gr p �l �Lt tC 'r YX vv 7T r r� • .rte I �� ° �_ ,,:�� r r.r i.,..• �i �. - ,:414.d_r�i'r:�• +_/l F,.., fAO:-':S..af T:ftfG —I .\41•°J�'.yr lr •ic� 'O-�S r .., ' (_Cr r\�rrr 1 , t r� _...__...__ ` ..---••r�° ;T.*'yam t t1 (( � I �. ------ ----- .30 1�r .� i✓ �)i . �;• �` l�U LEI f ;D 1'f Ilr it, f �•o'jf t � ` VC 0 "2 M Q O O � �V1 wi si NI M) YIO O 8 U to-tt-il _ N .f-ll-l1 N O O t - 0 } QOZ N N g00f•f Sa $040CZ F � V 0 O yyL n t �I 8 h rn 3 O Ot 1 V_ � W v J O N w � tr " N t- !t� L O i a} fuN c C Q) �� $ N l Q1 v; m • � 2 O U o CJ C„ In F .. t" d 7 fi m O .Q s CA IN t LU \rrV r �_ •t t spa� O � � n O \ .'mac �•. -� , 4.3� - �•� v SIQUEIRA, L.L.C. November 23,2016 Re:Eric Boyd, 1240 W.Thomas,South Bend,IN Gentlemen, I was asked to do a structural inspection on the building at the above referenced address on November 21,2016.The inspection was limited to specific issues as stated below. Eric stated that all joists, rafters &beams used were pine—(SPF)#2. 1 assumed any studs to be SPF stud grade. I. Joists spanning 17.5' running east-west at 16"oc, supported at masonry walls. I find these to be inadequate.A 2x4 stud wall should be added north-south,to support joists, limiting joist span to 14'.Assuming a 6'opening,the header should be(2)2x10. 2. Steel beams at courtyard—south face at 2"d floor level&(2)at west face at north end—(1)at roof level&(1)at 2"d floor level.These are adequate,except that the roof level beam at west face is sagging. Eric intends to build a 2x6 wall (16"oc)under it,which should take care of the problem.(3)studs should be placed under where the east west steel beam meets the north south beam. 3. Courtyard wall bracing. In the absence of a roof and 2"d floor,the exterior walls lack bracing.The north&east walls need to be permanently braced.At the least,(3)beams—each(3)2x12 across the width should be installed at between 15'-18'above 15`floor.These beams should be placed at%points along the length of the courtyard.Then, beams running north south should be placed at the end bays,from east west beam to wall at mid courtyard width.The beams should be extended into a 4" pocket into wall.Alternately,a 2x12 ledger—2' long with(2)%"x 6" bolts, 16"oc min hor.can be used in lieu of the pockets.At the 2x6 stud wall,the beam should bear on the face of(3)2x6 studs.Also, it is suggested that the trash pile in the courtyard should be removed. It is also noted that without a roof, provisions will have to be made to dispose of snow &drain rain water in the courtyard. 4. Framed mono-sloped roof at North West:A ledger(2)2x8s should be added to the east stud wall,raised up to be snug under the birdsmouth cut rafters. Hurricane clips should be added- rafter to ledger. 16d nails at 8"oc—ledger to wall top plate and(2) 16d nails to each stud below. Note that the 15`2x8 should be nailed as above&the 2nd 2x8 nailed to the 1"—2 rows 16d nails at 12"oc.Add blocking 2'oc at north end bay at rafters to ext. framed wall.Attach wall to masonry at top of existing parapet. 5. At the South West end at V floor ceiling,the 10x10 timber beam running east west bears on a built up column.The load is calculated at just over 2700 lbs&the built up column should be adequate. 6. Just to the north of the office,2x4 joists spanning 10'were used.This should be removed and replaced with 2x8 joists at 16"oc. TEXAS ~YYJFLORIDA INDIANA COLORADO 15635 EMBERS DRIVE, MISHAWAKA, IN. 46545 E-MAIL:BVBIQ @CQMCABT.NET TEL:734-341-3861 SIQUEIRA, L.L.C. If the above corrections are made as stated,these specific issues will be resolved. Sincerely, i B an V.Siqueira, P.E. 1 TEXAS FLORIDA INDIANA COLORADO 1 5635 EMBERS DRIVE, MISHAWAKA, IN, 46545 E-MAIL:BVBIQ @CQMCABT.NET TEL,.734-341-3BB 1 EXHIBIT D �SpUTFl Ll� Application ,A°o��b ss�ioptgro FOR Certificate of Appropriateness HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 00 " 1865 " of SOUTH BEND&ST.JOSEPH COUNTY 125 S.Lafayette Blvd,., South Bend,IN 46601 http://�v�viv.stjbsdphpO untyiridiaiia.cdnVdepartments/SJCHP/index.htm P.:574-235-9798 f:574-235-9578 e:.SBSJCHPC @co.st joseph.in.us OFFII�CE USE ONLYy»»>DO NOT COMPLETE ANY rg!TRIES CONTAiYED!N THIS IIOX<<<<«OFFICE USEOXI.Y Date Received: —1 0 Application'Number: A V$O Past Reviews: VES. (Dnfc.fLasf Rcv1m) ❑ NO Staff Approval authorized by: Title: Historic Preservation Commission RevicW Date: 10\ScInA� 1Q dLocal Landmmark ❑ Local Historic District tName) ❑ National Landmark ❑ National Register District name) Certificate of Appropriateness: ❑ Denied ❑ Tabled ❑ Sent To C6nimittcc ❑Approved and issued: (Please Print) Address of Property for proposed woric (Street Number=Street Nanre—City—Zip Code) Name of Property Owner(s): G v�� /?` ��Y� Phone#: Address of Property Owncr(s): I L/ ° 711 51'e• )',"z ((S Street Number—Street Nanre—Clly--Zip Code) Name of Contractor(§): �"r�� v,�y Phone 9: Contract Company Name: G+�� 5-(-Vk Address of Contract Cernpauy: 12- r-1 W. 77torwlut 9�L• �el, Y-k-' ;"z,;•�7'/Y deoI — (Street.N(mber—Street Nanre—City—Zip Code) Current Use of Building: �GrKM oy`-L ,`Ix (Single Famil)i—Multi-Fariril y—Coiri»rercial—Governureut—Inditsirial—Vacant—etc.) Type of Building Construction: /1", K_ (Wood Frar)ie—Brick—Sione--S7ee1—Concrete—Othet) Proposed Worla ❑ In-Kind ❑ Landscape ❑ New M Replacemcut(not in-kind) ❑ Demolition (more than one box may be checked) ,J_ / Description of Proposed Work: "ZJ i tti '+�oc�� •c�. ./�, /� (.— c y�1::.�—`� S i�"da; +-r� � 1v,tn/�i.•_ �e,�ir��.--+/�- ;r le� � +�.._ �/ � � 7a ��' � t Owner/Contractor fax It: a-mail: t/"l„ro c_a,a (Staff Ivill correspond)vilh 0111ygite designee) X C and/or Signature of Owner Signature of Contractor —APPLICATION REQUIRE,MENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE- /� � w' _,.t��`rl 5 ;` ' to `°n'I (, i;�Jr�� , (: �.�,:1�5.�.. 1•,:.:•; • P.c4:.•�C j,.l !4, ��'� iJpo;:yq,.:� �/mac IV vv t.vc J I rt(t to c r.. .,,.:: ;a i •r k �' .. 2AJ U, X''' .0 y tit , ,:' sl rCe• 1 —30 i tr _. s4-0 7' 1 • 30 • �N` J /(�f 5 �G+�� , mr r. ,ta �z .1.1 �* s-Lu, a '+ a 1 l R^ T Ni IAL' ii ik9L 3ry A R R ' * �� - 1t r '� , ^s� t# "'� -"- J4"a,=r 'fig i i,I `i• � �"�' s��' "N"' w A 1(� d+: �t 4�•� $€i'h$,�t b'r�P � °�`#'t'a°�'$ '' '8 �l S° I � �� .�� .�) FE lklj it y� 1 1 4 kt a . ,' � it ��•� � ,4 A ;j ygs�M ,�yx�t��,v��p � �y,$•�a :te�� } � 'I Its I ''i'1 � I' � � I� i,�t r�� s�{ v �rl� _�•' c�',41 t I I 7k� �, �t{ A- 4 ' NP n ; t T• -� •t• 2 :ail t7�': �I rF� S � �1 ,t, I} ti t (( k i I - ,a 'r1 d 3 � Ir. '•� ' 1 1 tt jf rtl�ftlrtffl t ,, It �i } kf_ �• C,I M' i ,y i ,��ri, (i. 1� la�I,�I.i�k�•. ,L��_I . II Ililli�(�f.X. }k. i ,� . 1�. �.( 1 i�tl( k� f�(�f�ll►Ih�j!9ijl►. I I,(['. t• / f �f {I fll�lllll�II(rlPllill(q t l l r�(f Ilirf'U11IN I l l l i i I I I�; krl�LIf t I III t, J �. �1jr11�1�11r � 1�l�4�!„�i!11 11��,�i1i tl��fiy�'Efitfr�r 11�''fritE�j`'ftEll��jFlEjil(`il!'. I •" ,�9 J, � ,I� ,..'.,�. 1111 _ I. rEE ;IN'm' Ir f 1 f I1t �► 'FI 1 f r r 1 r 11 t. . �r')�t I(trr��rl�rll ft; t tike ., �,s � Eu4t , `►!� , , ;� ( �_. . �. , f; r,fll!11�11 alijl�11r1 1a ),,1 i �j�1( � 111rtlt �Etl t �t 1 l�EtEEEiE.� f t t "lift 1I,E; t E t�I I E t )� frltt '1�1'!, [f ( t� I' � 1 t11 � ! �t • (t,,• , ,. I,f(:�r`[I( , r I { , t { 1)1t1t;)!� {1 �rr{I r p �w 1;�61't t'd"+`F,}•1!i i 'si' I;w I`c I i it tll,'► r' . ,1 � i if •,t } ,. r ` � klltlt` E PIk I� f J, �k , .��q f ,f 9!'�•• f�t[y'tt;E E, I tt-f ,�Y}t��;,fl �I)�, i; •{ • .� 1 1�t � I'T►� i!►1 t I I f i' 11{�il;:tlllt�; ',,,,� jk,►`�� , ., i ,. ttt!�tlltif }'k tif�`Ikk t 1� I;ttl ittl l i0tlll {Ilt(��'!1�• I,��t��(? IfY .il tti�l I f , d. ! ''f ►jP I IP i°;1�1�� I't(i�jt�n� ! � � •� • ' 'r ��, • �� If I L-1 Th 7� ' t �.f: a,1 dr.• ') . as .1? r 1 t i f5 v"�'�Jd/ �•//Y',ylayJe�,.i' ry ♦ i r '�ti ! ._ . .":ir'�?Ge. d�,.:.... -r.Yi-.<r�.;:•;1 f,ri£:. !,s�C�i�•1�1I�3P� L l C` L) j. 1� s'(-i EXHIBIT E STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPMATENESS Date: June 2,2017 Application Number: 2017-0602A (Application delivered by property owner to Building Department on June 1, 2017) Property Location: 1240 West Thomas Street Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Period Revival/1920/Firehouse#4 Property Owner: Eric A. Boyd Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark, ordinance #9037-99 Rating: Outstanding DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE: Firehouse#4 is a 2-story rectangular brick building. It had a flat roof with limestone parapet coping, metal parapet scupper/cornice with brick brackets underneath and ornate limestone detailing at the ends. The windows are 1/1 double-hung with limestone sills. There is a brick side chimney,and a roof penthouse with hip roof. ALTERATIONS: Most of the windows in this former firehouse have been boarded tip prior to a 2007 fire. RME 2011-1110 approved replacement of metal roof to secure the building and protect it from the elements, although there is no evidence it was ever installed. An asymmetrical gabled roof has been installed without an approved COA on approximately half of the main structure, as well as a second story addition and gabled roof on the rear of the building. Areas where large overhead garage doors were originally located have been covered with vinyl siding. Most window openings have been covered with plywood or vinyl siding. COA 2016-0809 to construct shed roof over part of building,and second floor addition atop one-story brick portion at rear of building with vinyl siding and replacement windows was denied. APPLICATION ITEMS: Mono roof 4/12 pitch, rise west to east ending at center of building restinh, on ledger/East stud wall. Low profile mono roof resting south brick wall and interior brick wall. Open courtyard. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: See COA 2016-0809, pending with the Building Department as a Violation of City Ordinance. Not in compliance with the Violation Remedy Requirements as ordered to be completed by March 13, 2017. Owner has constructed a 4/12 single sloping roof surface over part of, roughly one half, of the main building, from the west exterior wall 30' east to a 10'11 wall built on existing brick interior wall, with a I' overhang at west wall. Concrete floor of open courtyard is 6-8" lower than adjacent floor. Owner plans to utilize existing floor drain and lower floor height to manage accumulated moisture in the courtyard. This roof has been installed without COA. See report of structural inspection by Siqueira, LLC, submitted with this application. In summary, the inspection reveals inadequate joists spanning 17.5' running east-west at 16"oc, supported at masonry walls; roof level beam sag, exterior walls that lack bracing, trash pile in"courtyard", recommended provisions to dispose of snow and drain rain in "courtyard", multiple deficiencies in the framed mono- sloped roof at North West, and 2x4 joists spanning 10' that are insufficient. PRESERVATION SPECIALIST REPORT: n/a STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: Group 13 A. Maintenance The maintenance of any historical structure or site shall in no way involve any direct physical change except for the general cleaning and upkeep of the landmark. The Commission shall encourage the proper maintenance of all structure or sites. B. Treatment Treatment shall be defined as any change of surface materials that will not alter the style or original form. Such improvements include re-roofing, glazing, or landscaping lawns and may involve a change that can potentially enhance or detract from the character of the landmark. A treatment change of any surface whether on the landmark or in its environment may require a Certificate of Appropriateness if it significantly alters the appearance of the landmark. Although these kinds of changes may not require a Building Permit, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be necessary. The commission should review the proposed treatment for character and style consistency with the original surfaces. C. Renovation and Additions Renovation is the modification of a structure,which does not alter the general massing while an addition, is a change in mass. A modification,which involves the removal of a part of the landmark,should be considered under demolition (see demolition).Additions to landmarks should not detract from the original form and unity of the landmark and should not cover singular examples of architectural detail. Additions to landmarks should be added in a manner that does not disrupt the visible unity of overall appearance of the site. The proportions, materials and ratios of the existing structures should be carried through in the additions. Care should be taken not to change or alter the following: 1. Structure—Necessary structural improvements,where safety demands should be accomplished in such a way as to cause minimal visual change to the original style and construction. 2. Material—Additions and improvements involving any new material in the landmark should be of the same material as the original. It should be the same size and texture. An alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the original. a. wood—all wood trim should conform with existing trim in shape and size. b.siding materials—the Commission discourages the covering or alteration of original materials with additional siding. Structures already sided with incompatible materials should be returned to a siding similar to the original when renovation is considered. D. Demolition Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a landmark poses a threat to the public safety, and demolition is the only alternative, documentation by way of photographs, measured drawings, or other descriptive methods should be made of both the exterior and interior of the landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the landmark shall be responsible for this documentation. E. Moving The moving of landmarks is discouraged, however, moving is preferred to demolition. When moving is necessary, the owner of the landmark must apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. F. Signs No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to the structure. Billboards and super- graphics will also be disallowed. Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business. G. Building Site and Landscaping 1. Required Major landscaping items, trees, fencing, walkways, private yard lights, signs(house numbers) and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures such as: gazebos, patio decks, fixed barbecue pits, swimming pools, tennis courts, green houses,new walls, fountains, fixed garden furniture, trellises, and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way. 2. Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings, and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration to the buildings historic fabric should be removed. However, trees and plant materials that must be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. Front yard areas should not be fenced except in cases where historic documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in character with the buildings style, materials, and scale. I Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items, trees, fencing,walkways, outbuildings, and other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped. The installation of unsightly devices such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be viewed from public thoroughfares. Minimum Maintenance Standards approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, December 16, 1991, state that"all landmarks and all contributing structures located in an historic district shall be preserved from decay and deterioration, and shall be maintained in good repair and kept structurally sound. The owner or other person having charge or control of landmarks and property in an historic district shall not allow or permit deterioration of such property from defects or conditions which in the judgment of the Commission produce a detrimental effect on the character of the district as a whole or the life and character of the landmark, structure or property in question." In particular, this property exhibits the following from the itemized (but not exclusive) list of detrimental conditions: b. Deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members causing conditions such as sagging,splitting, buckling, crumbling, holes, missing shingles or similar conditions; e. The ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roof and foundations, including broken windows or doors; h. The deterioration of any feature so as to create or permit the creation of any hazardous or unsafe condition or conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: After careful review of this application, it appears to a large degree to be similar as applied for in COA application 2016-0809 that was denied by HPC and is a pending Violation of City Ordinance with the Building Department. As in COA 2016-0809, Staff does not recommend approval of the roof deviation from flat to asymmetrical gable and does not recommend a roof on only half of the structure as it does not conform to the standards and guidelines, A, B, and C. Staff recommends approval of a flat roof covering the entire main structure. Staff recommends that the owner be in compliance with the Building Department at the request of the Building Commissioner and that all work is remanded to the discretion of the Building Department prior to installation. Staff recommends that the owner be in compliance with Code Enforcement as there are noted violations of Minimum Maintenance Standards. Elicia Feasel Executive Director Deb Parcell Deputy Director EXHIBIT F MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND&ST.JOSEPH COUNTY June 19,2017 1311 Floor Conference Room County—City Building South Bend,IN 46601 1. CALL TO ORDER President Klusczinski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Timothy S. Klusczinski, President; Elizabeth Hertel, Vice President; Tom Gordon,Asst. Secretary; Brandon Anderson,Kevin Buccellato,Joseph Molnar,Treasurer Members Not in Attendance: Jennifer Parker, Architectural Historian; Michele Gelfinan, Secretary;Mike Voll Staff Present: Elicia Feasel, Executive Director; Deb Parcell, Deputy Director; Steve Szaday, Preservation Specialist;Katlyn Foust,Legal Counsel Members of the Public Present: Roman Sysyn,K&J Building Contractors,Mark Wenkus,Mike Fernander,Deb Fernander,Beadenual Williams,Mike Illes,Karl Nichols,Leticia Morris,Theresa Johnson, Kevin Jakiel, Eric Boyd, Aaron 66, Michael Boyd, Gloria Jones, Unetta Jones, Kirstin Champer, Steve Mihaljevic,Gladys Muhammad,Derek Wright,Todd Zeiger II. PUBLIC HEARING A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 1.,1327 East Wayne Street COA#2017-0508 East Wayne Street Representation by Mike and Debbie Fernander, 1327 East Wayne STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: May 8,2017 Application Number: 2017-0508 Property Location: 1327 East Wayne Street North Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Colonial Revival/1941/Mills House Property Owner: Michael&Deborah Fernander Landmark or District Designation: East Wayne Street Local Historic District,ordinance#7796-87 Rating: Contributing DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE Two story,rectangular floor plan,wood frame construction with limestone first story and asbestos shingles on balance of exterior. Side gabled roof with gable returns and simple entablature. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles,8/8 double hung wood windows with ornamental louvered shutters. On the south of the home,there is a one-story porch wing with flat roof and diamond pattered wood railing. Porch wing fagade has plain entablature and plain pilasters,enclosed with sliding glass doors and pergola. Attached two car garage is on the south end of the home. ALTERATIONS: The survey card,updated in 1998,notes"major"alterations to this home including:aluminum storm door and windows,enclosed south porch wing,and siding. COA 2002-0522 was approved for the removal of"existing gray asphalt 3-tab shingles from roof of home and garage and replacement with light`shake wood brown'color asphalt architectural shingles on roof and garage." COA 2009-0601B approved an 8'x 31'kitchen addition and 7'x 20'covered porch. COA 2013-0620 approved removal and replanting of a maple tree on street lawn. APPLICATION ITEMS: Fencing along 3 sides of yard. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Owner proposes installation of 5'wrought iron gate at northeast comer of garage,attached to a 38"high decorative wrought iron fence continuing 23'east to sidewalk,then running between shrubs and sidewalk(1'off sidewalk)north 28'and west 38% transitioning to a 6'high wood privacy fence running 34'west,terminating at existing 6'high wood fence(existing fence to 1 remain).Fenced area will be closed off between south end of existing wood fence and house with 7'wrought iron gate with two side pieces. Although this plan proposes a fenced area in front of the house,this would be on the Jacob Street side,not East Wayne Street,as the house actually faces Jacob. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: EAST WAYNE STREET LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT I.THE ENVIRONMENT B.BUILDING SITE,LANDSCAPING AND ACCESSORIES Required Major landscaping items,fencing,walkways,private yard lights,signs(house numbers)and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained.Dominant land contours shall be retained.Structures such as gazebos,patio decks, fixed barbecue pits,swimming pools,tennis courts,greenhouses,new walls,fountains,fixed garden furniture,trellises and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and the neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public walkway. Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs,drawings and newspapers.New site work should be appropriate to existing surrounding site elements in scale,type and appearance.Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration to the building's historic fabric should be removed.However,trees and plant materials that must be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora.All high intensity security lights should be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items,trees,fencing,walkways, outbuildings or other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development.Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped.Front yard areas shall not be fenced and fences shall not extend forward beyond the setback line of the house.The installation of unsightly devices such as television reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be viewed from the public thoroughfare. Not Recommended Telephone or utility poles with high-intensity overhead lights should be installed so that they cannot be seen from the thoroughfare. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Although the proposed fence would extend in front of the setback line of the house,the siting of the house on the lot would position this fence near Jacob Street,not East Wayne Street. A similar fence project was approved for 304 Twyckenham with COA 2011-0606. Staff recommends approval. Elicia Feasel,Executive Director Deb Parcell,Deputy Director Commissioner Hertel moved to approve application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Molnar. Six in favor,none opposed. Vote: 6—0 COA#2017-0508 Approved. 2. 812 Golden COA#2017-0523 Riverside Drive Representation by Leticia Morris,812 Golden STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: May 23,2017 Application Number: 2017-0523 Property Location: 812 Golden Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: American Foursquare/1911 Property Owner: Tim&Leticia Morris Landmark or District Designation: Riverside Drive LHD,ordinance#7469-85 Rating: Contributing DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE: The 2 story frame house has a square plan and is set upon a concrete block foundation.It has a high hip roof with a gable projection on the main fagade and it is covered in asphalt shingles.The walls are aluminum sided. Some of the upper floor windows and the front facade windows appear to be original 1/1 wood double-hung. All the windows have aluminum storms.There is an open porch with concrete block pillars and piers with wood Doric columns. The front door appears to be original. The house is situated on a very small wedge-shaped lot with a narrow front and side yard; the garage completely dominates the rear yard. 2 ALTERATIONS: The house is aluminum sided and all windows have aluminum storms.The steel security door at the rear of the house is a replacement. The garage appears to be original. The storm door is not original. The south kitchen window has been reduced in size and replaced with a modem vinyl replacement window(1985).A south basement window has been replaced with a vinyl replacement window and the other south side basement window has a deteriorating aluminum storm and wood window. A window at the rear of the house has been removed and/or covered with aluminum siding(1985).The roof was replaced with COA 2007-0316.COA 2010-0802A for vinyl replacement windows was denied with the exception of the front third floor window,as it was determined by the Preservation Specialist that existing windows could be repaired and/or rehabilitated. COA 2016-1019 approved tear down of existing garage,and conditional approval of installation of a new wood deck and French doors(replacing windows)at back side of house;removal and replacement of existing wood windows was denied. COA 2016-1205 and 2017-0103 for removal and replacement of existing wood windows were denied. APPLICATION ITEMS: Replace existing stone retaining wall in front yard with landscape blocks;add landscaping plants,and plant flowering dogwood(Comus florida). DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT.Owner has removed stone retaining wall in front of property,and installed dry- laid landscape block retaining walls along sidewalks. New plants,shrubs,and a flowering Dogwood(Corpus florida)have been planted in the yard. This goal of this project was to improve soil retention,as well as the overall appearance of the property. PRESERVATION SPECIALIST REPORT: STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: Riverside Drive Local Historic District 1.THE ENVIRONMENT B.BUILDING SITE,LANDSCAPING AND ACCESSORIES Individual properties in the district are characterized by a house located in the center of a flat lawn,often divided by a walk leading to the front entrance.Several of the residences are sited on two or more building lots;however,the preponderance of the homes have been erected on a single lot.Most of the properties include a double garage,usually located at the rear of the property.The majority of garages are accessed from straight driveways leading from the main thoroughfare,while a few are accessed from the alley.There are also a few homes with a covered carport located at the rear of the property,as well as a few with circular driveways. Driveway and sidewalk materials include concrete,asphalt and brick.All of the properties have trees and most have trimmed shrubbery and/or hedges.Most of the houses conform to a uniform setback line within each block. Required Plants,trees,fencing,walkways,private yard lights,signs(house numbers)and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings and newspapers.New site work should be appropriate to existing surrounding site elements in scale,type and appearance.Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration to the building's historic fabric should be removed.However,trees and plant materials that must be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora.All high-intensity security lights should be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items,trees,fencing,walkways, outbuildings or other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development.Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped.Front yard areas shall not be fenced and fences shall not extend forward beyond the setback line of the house.The installation of unsightly devices such as television reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can he viewed from the public thoroughfare. Not Recommended Telephone or utility poles with high-intensity overhead lights should be installed so that they cannot be seen from the thoroughfare. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:As the new retaining wall and landscaping will prevent erosion,does not detract from the appearance of the property,and is similar to other retaining walls in the Riverside Drive historic district,Staff recommends approval. Elicia Feasel,Executive Director Deb Parcel],Deputy Director Public Hearing: Barbara Gatto,808 Golden: Supports the Morrises as they are good neighbors and are good for the neighborhood. They have improved the neighborhood. Angela PhiIpott, 1077 Riverside: Before this retaining wall was put in, there were loose rocks there,and kids would pick them up and throw them.This will be safer. Commission Discussion: 3 Commissioner Hertel pointed out for the record that the installation of the retaining wall was completed before the application had been filed and that the applicants should have had knowledge of procedure from recent COA projects. Commissioner Buccellato moved to approve application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. Six in favor,none opposed. Vote: 6—0 COA#2017-0523 Approved. 3.511 West Colfax COA#2017-0526A Local Landmark Representation by Steve Majalevich, 117 Franklin Place, South Bend STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: May 26,2017 Application Number: 2017-0526A Property Location: 511 West Colfax Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Tudor Revival/1898/13irdsell House/Wilson Parker,Archt. Property Owner: Steve Mihaljevic/Anisah Michael Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark,Ordinance#8609-1995/West Washington St.National Register Historic District Rating: Outstanding DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE:The wood frame house has field stone veneer facade on the first floor,second floor is brick veneer,gable ends of house are Tudor-style half timbers. The foundation is concrete and stone and the half-timbering in the gables. Wood windows are diamond patterned 4/1. Verandah is supported with stone columns with ornate capitals. The porte cochere has a hipped roof. ALTERATIONS:Original roof has been replaced with asphalt shingles. COA 2000-0316 approved a wrought fence around the property,and a rear yard chain link fence was approved with COA 2001-0129,although neither of these fences were installed. COA 2008-0604A approved reconstruction of chimney. RME 2016-0825A approved repair of five original double hung windows in second story south and third story south. COA 2016-1018 to replace the existing asphalt shingle house roof and metal front porch and porte cochere roofs with standing-seam copper was denied. COA 2016-1128A approved copper standing- seam roofing material to be used on porch and Porte cochere,and alternative(reproduction),synthetic materials for the main roof,subject to commission approval at a later date. APPLICATION ITEMS:Replace current shingle roof with combination of faux slate,copper caps,copper gutters,copper valleys,toper caps,copper drip edges. Main roof will consist of faux slate,porte cochere and front porch will be all copper. Additional work that will be occurring: -Repainting of all exterior surfaces(wood)stucco,windows.-Repair of woodwork(in- kind). DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:This is a reapplication for items approved with conditions on COA 2016- 1128A- Owner proposes to install EcoStar Majestic Slate synthetic slate tiles with copper drip edge,copper valley,edge trim and flashings on house roof,and copper standing seam roof material on front porch and porte cochere. Historic photos show the original house roof to be flat clay tile,and the Portage Township Assessor's card lists a file roof in 1935. The original porch and porte cochere roofs,as well as gutters and accents which still exist,are painted metal;the original house roof was replaced with asphalt shingles. Additionally,the owner proposes to repair all woodwork,and repaint all exterior surfaces:wood,stucco,and windows. These items to be approved as Routine Maintenance Exclusions. PRESERVATION SPECIALIST REPORT: The current roof material is asphalt shingles on the main house and metal raised-seamed roofing on the front porch and porte- cochere. Several patches and alternative coverings are in place in multiple locations where the asphalt roof has begun to roll up and deteriorate.From the interior of the house water damage is evident on the southeast,northeast,and southwest comers. A large area on the northeast has the most significant damage.The exterior patches and correlating interior damage would suggest that an inspection should take place to identify any necessary roof deck repairs or replacement that should take place prior to installation of any new roofing material. Steve Szaday,Preservation Specialist STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:Group B A. Maintenance The maintenance of any historical structure or site shall in no way involve any direct physical change except for the general cleaning and upkeep of the landmark. The Commission shall encourage the proper maintenance of all structure or sites. B.Treatment 4 Treatment shall be defined as any change of surface materials that will not alter the style or original form. Such improvements include re-roofing,glazing,or landscaping lawns and may involve a change that can potentially enhance or detract from the character of the landmark. A treatment change of any surface whether on the landmark or in its environment may require a Certificate of Appropriateness if it significantly alters the appearance of the landmark. Although these kinds of changes may not require a Building Permit,a Certificate of Appropriateness may be necessary. The commission should review the proposed treatment for character and style consistency with the original surfaces. C.Renovation and Additions Renovation is the modification of a structure,which does not alter the general massing while an addition,is a change in mass. A modification,which involves the removal of a part of the landmark,should be considered under demolition(see demolition). Additions to landmarks should not detract from the original form and unity of the landmark and should not cover singular examples of architectural detail. Additions to landmarks should be added in a manner that does not disrupt the visible unity of overall appearance of the site. The proportions,materials and ratios of the existing structures should be carried through in the additions. Care should be taken not to change or alter the following: 1.Structure—Necessary structural improvements,where safety demands should be accomplished in such a way as to cause minimal visual change to the original style and construction. 2.Material—Additions and improvements involving any new material in the landmark should be of the same material as the original. It should be the same size and texture. An alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the original. a.wood—all wood trim should conform with existing trim in shape and size. b.siding materials—the Commission discourages the covering or alteration of original materials with additional siding.Structures already sided with incompatible materials should be returned to a siding similar to the original when renovation is considered. D.Demolition Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a landmark poses a threat to the public safety,and demolition is the only alternative,documentation by way of photographs,measured drawings,or other descriptive methods should be made of both the exterior and interior of the landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the landmark shall be responsible for this documentation. E. Moving The moving of landmarks is discouraged,however,moving is preferred to demolition. When moving is necessary,the owner of the landmark must apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. F. Signs No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to the structure. Billboards and super-graphics will also be disallowed. Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business. G.Building Site and Landscaping 1.R uired Major landscaping items,trees,fencing,walkways,private yard lights,signs(house numbers)and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures such as:gazebos,patio decks,fixed barbecue pits,swimming pools,tennis courts,green houses,new walls,fountains, fixed garden furniture,trellises,and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way. 2.Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings,and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration to the buildings historic fabric should be removed. However,trees and plant materials that must be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora Front yard areas should not be fenced except in cases where historic documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in character with the buildings style, materials,and scale. 3.Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items,trees,fencing,walkways, outbuildings,and other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor black-topped. The installation of unsightly devices such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be viewed from public thoroughfares. S'T'AFF RECOMMENDATION:As the proposed synthetic slate material closely replicates the original flat clay tile roof;Staff' recommends approval. Eiicia Feasel,Executive Director Deb Parcell,Deputy Director Commissioner Buccellato moved to approve application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Hertel. Six in favor,none opposed. Vote: 6—0 5 COA#2017-0526A Approved. 4. 1067 Riverside COA#2017-0524 Riverside Drive Representation by Roman Sysyn, 1067 Riverside STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: May 24,2017 Application Number: 2017-0524 Property Location: 1067 Riverside Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: American Foursquare/1911 Property Owner: Roman Sysyn Landmark or District Designation: Riverside Drive Local Historic District ,ordinance#7469-85 Rating: Contributing DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE: The house is a typical square plan,2 plus stories built in 1907 by real estate developer Frederick Keller of Whitcomb and Keller. The foundation is rusticated concrete block,the first story is clapboard with an enclosed porch;the second floor is wood shingles above a string course. The roof is a high hip roof with three gabled roof dormers,exposed rafter tails,wide overhangs and is covered with asphalt shingles. The windows are 1/1 double hung;the porch has horizontal 1/1. There is a bay window on the east side. ALTERATIONS: The porch windows are not original to the house. The roof is a replacement(1986-0417)and re-roofed over with Art Lock shingles(2007-0705). The porch had a complete tear off and re-roof with asphalt shingles(2007-0705). COA 2009-0826 approved removal of existing chain link fence and installation of new wood fence. COA 2013-0422C approved restoration of wood spindle rail on 3 sides of front porch. COA 2015-0929A approved removal of dying Sugar Maple in front lawn. APPLICATION ITEMS:Install one replacement window. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Owner proposes installation of new Champion vinyl replacement window in front attic window opening.Currently there is only a triple track aluminum storm window in the opening. The new window will be an interior replacement type,installed behind the existing aluminum storm window,and therefore difficult to see. Existing wood trim will be retained. PRESERVATION SPECIALIST REPORT: This morning at approximately 9:30 AM,I met with the owner of 1067 Riverside Drive at the property.He has applied to change his attic window(north/front side)from what was there to a vinyl Champion window.The current window is nothing more than an aluminum triple track storm window which will remain in place. There was a wood and glass sash hinged in place that the owner installed himself in 1973.That window was not original but fit in the jamb frame on the inside of the storm window.That sash had finally fallen apart and the owner no longer had possession of it.There was a double hung window there once but that was prior to this owner purchasing the home in 1973. The owner would like to have permission to install a new vinyl double hung window installed inside the existing window framework without any grilles.The house currently has double hung windows without grilles that are covered up by the aluminum storm windows.The new window will also be covered up by the existing storm.The proposed window is an interior replacement type and would be difficult to see after installation. Since the pane that was in place was not available to inspect,I am unable to determine its condition,I am relying upon the owner's account. Steve Szaday,Preservation Specialist STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: RIVERSIDE DRIVE LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT II.EXISTING STRUCTURES C. WINDOWS AND DOORS Window and door frames are in most cases wood.Brick structures have stone sills and brick lintels.In some cases where aluminum siding has been applied window trim has been covered.About half of the structures in the district have aluminum storm windows,the other half wood windows. Required Original windows and doors shall be retained including sashes,lintels,sills,shutters,decorative glass,pediments,hoods, and hardware. When deteriorated beyond repair,they shall be replaced with units and trim resembling the original. Recommended Wood frame storm windows and doors painted to match the original should be used but should not damage existing frames.If new sashes or doors are installed,the existing or original materials,design,and hardware should be used.When metal storm doors are used,they should be painted,anodized or coated to match the existing. When awnings are used they should be of canvas material. Pr hi it Original doors,windows and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and reused in place.New window and door openings which would alter the scale and proportion of the building shall not be introduced. 6 Inappropriate new window and door features,such as aluminum insulating glass combinations that require removal of the original windows and doors,shall not be installed. Not Recommended Awnings,hoods,and fake shutters made of metal,vinyl,or fiberglass should not be used if they would detract from the existing character or appearance of the building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:As the new window will be difficult to see when installed behind the existing storm,Staff recommends approval Elicia Feasel,Executive Director Deb Parcell,Deputy Director Commission Discussion: Evidence supports that only a storm window exists to cover the current opening—the original window no longer exists. Commissioner Gordon moved to approve application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Molnar. Six in favor,none opposed. Vote: 6—0 COA#2017-0524 Approved. 5. 620 West Washington COA#2017-0601 Local Landmark Representation by Kevin Jakiel,620 West Washington Street Kevin Proffitt, 52222 Pickwick Lane,Nappanee STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: June 1,2017 Application Number: 2017-0601 Property Location: 620 West Washington Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Richardsonian Romanesque/I889ITippecanoe Place/Henry Ives Cobb, Architect Property Owner: Brian and Kristi Matteoni/Norm Matteoni Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark,ordinance 46569-1979;West Washington Street National Register District;National Historic Landmark designated by the National Park Service(only NHL in St.Joseph County and of only 42 in Indiana) Rating: Outstanding DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE:This four-story house with an irregular plan has a 12/12 red tile covered central hip roof with numerous intersecting hips,towers,and gables,and a simple eave line with copper gutters. The exterior walls and foundations are rough stone,with limestone window and door trim. The house has large bay windows on the north fapade,a four-story tower at the northeast corner,projecting turret with conical roof at the southeast corner,a steep gable on the port- cochere at the west end,and six stone chimneys with simple banding and cut stone caps. Most windows are one-over-one wood double-hung;there are also windows with double transoms,as well as a few Gothic windows. Generally,windows are deeply recessed and feature stone lintels and sills. At the west end of the house,colonnettes flank six windows with double transoms on the fourth floor,while first story windows are set in rounded heavy stone arches with colonettes. The front entry porch is enclosed by round stone arches supported by clusters of Romanesque columns. The porte-cochere has intersecting gables and large arched openings.The rear veranda stretches around the south and east,featuring short Romanesque columns with a variety of capitals.Doors are wood. ALTERATIONS:COA 1979-1107 to convert house into a restaurant through exterior changes listed in Appendix I(including #10: enclosing rear garden veranda)was denied. COA 1979-1217 addressed concerns discussed on previous COA to convert house into a restaurant;it was conditionally approved pending treatment of the porte-cochere. COA 1980-0219,upon review for the third time,approved conversion of the house into a restaurant,enclosure of the porte-cochere doorway openings with nonfunctional paneled wood doors,and enclosure of rear veranda with 6-and 3-light casement and fixed wood windows. COA 1980-0317 approved construction of a stone sign south of the Washington Street entrance. COA 1980-0903 approved construction of a wooden fence to enclose area south of building to install a freezer. COA 1982-0524 approved repair of roof. COA 1988-0721 approved in-kind replacement of front steps and repair of north garden wall. Six-and three-light casement and fixed windows enclosing rear veranda have been replaced with new vinyl windows without COA approval,in violation of Ordinance Section 21-10(0(10). COA 2017-0214A to replace wood windows in rear veranda with vinyl windows encased with wood molding to cover all exposed vinyl was denied. 7 APPLICATION ITEMS:Removal of a total of 21 windows. Install single glass pane Low E DS Insulated Glass 1:from The Glass Doctors as recommended by HPC. To restore to the previous 1979 installation per pictures attached. Exterior trim will be installed and painted to historically match. Existing interior trim and concrete pillars will be resealed and painted using proper materials and procedures by K&J Building Contractors. Due to our seasonal time as well as the cost incurred we are requesting to complete the Southeast side this Fall 2017 and the back-South Side next fall 2018. K&J Building Contractors on our behalf will obtain permits with both City of South Bend and the Historical Commission if needed. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Owner proposes removal of 21 vinyl windows installed without HPC approval,and installation of single glass pane Low E DS Insulated Glass windows from The Glass Doctors,for an in-kind replacement of the windows which were first installed when this area was enclosed to provide seating space for the restaurant. Exterior trim will be installed and painted to match existing trim on house. Although the porch was not originally enclosed,the proposed treatment will restore to the previous 1979 installation per pictures attached. Existing interior trim and concrete pillars will be resealed and painted using proper materials and procedures by K&J Building Contractors. Request has been made to install new windows on the southeast side of the rear porch in Fall 2017,with the balance to be replaced Fall 2018,due to the seasonal time as well as the cost incurred. PRESERVATION SPECIALIST REPORT: STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:Group B B. Maintenance The maintenance of any historical structure or site shall in no way involve any direct physical change except for the general cleaning and upkeep of the landmark. The Commission shall encourage the proper maintenance of all structure or sites. B.Treatment Treatment shall be defined as any change of surface materials that will not alter the style or original form. Such improvements include re-roofing,glazing,or landscaping lawns and may involve a change that can potentially enhance or detract from the character of the landmark. A treatment change of any surface whether on the landmark or in its environment may require a Certificate of Appropriateness if it significantly alters the appearance of the landmark. Although these kinds of changes may not require a Building Permit,a Certificate of Appropriateness may be necessary. The commission should review the proposed treatment for character and style consistency with the original surfaces. C.Renovation and Additions Renovation is the modification of a structure,which does not alter the general massing while an addition,is a change in mass. A modification,which involves the removal of a part of the landmark,should be considered under demolition(see demolition). Additions to landmarks should not detract from the original form and unity of the landmark and should not cover singular examples of architectural detail. Additions to landmarks should be added in a manner that does not disrupt the visible unity of overall appearance of the site. The proportions,materials and ratios of the existing structures should be carried through in the additions. Care should be taken not to change or alter the following: 1.Structure—Necessary structural improvements,where safety demands should be accomplished in such a way as to cause minimal visual change to the original style and construction. 2.Material—Additions and improvements involving any new material in the landmark should be of the same material as the original. It should be the same size and texture. An alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the original, a.wood—all wood trim should conform with existing trim in shape and size. b.siding materials—the Commission discourages the covering or alteration of original materials with additional siding.Structures already sided with incompatible materials should be returned to a siding similar to the original when renovation is considered. D.Demolition Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a landmark poses a threat to the public safety,and demolition is the only alternative,documentation by way of photographs,measured drawings,or other descriptive methods should be made of both the exterior and interior of the landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the landmark shall be responsible for this documentation. E.Moving The moving of landmarks is discouraged,however,moving is preferred to demolition. When moving is necessary,the owner of the landmark must apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. F. Signs No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to the structure. Billboards and super-graphics will also be disallowed. Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business. G.Building Site and Landscaping 1.Required Major landscaping items,trees,fencing,walkways,private yard lights,signs(house numbers)and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures such as:gazebos,patio decks,fixed barbecue pits,swimming pools,tennis courts,green houses,new walls,fountains, fixed garden furniture,trellises,and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way. 2.Recommended S New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings,and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration to the buildings historic fabric should be removed. However,trees and plant materials that must be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. Front yard areas should not be fenced except in cases where historic documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in character with the buildings style, materials,and scale. 3.Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items,trees,fencing,walkways, outbuildings,and other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped. The installation of unsightly devices such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be viewed from public thoroughfares. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The vinyl windows currently installed replace wood windows that were not original to the structure. Group B Standards state that change of materials should be consistent with the character and style of the structure. Renovations,Section C 1,state"Necessary structural improvements,where safety demands should be accomplished in such a way as to cause minimal visual change to the original style and construction." As the porch was originally open,but is now used for dining,enclosure is necessary. The proposed windows will restore to the look of the windows installed in 1979,and will continue to allow dining in the porch area while providing a consistent visual appearance;therefore,staff recommends approval of the proposed window installation. Additionally,staff recommends approval of the proposed time schedule,with installation of windows on southeast(most visible)side in Fall 2017,with balance of windows to be installed Fall 2018. Elicia Feasel,Executive Director Deb Parcell,Deputy Director Public Hearing: Jason Germano, 52222 Pickwick Lane,Nappanee_ In an effort to expedite this project,is there any way to access previous plans/drawings to determine what the actual window size was in 1979? Todd Zeiger,Indiana Landmarks,801 West Washington: Indiana Landmarks has an easement on the property. They were understanding the project would be replicating 1979 windows,not just swapping out wood for vinyl. Indiana Landmarks supports the three divisions between the stone pillars,replicating what was installed in 1979. Any information in their files from the previous window installation will be made available to help determine the original window size. They will continue to work with the owners and HPC to reach an agreeable solution. Application withdrawn by Kevin Jakiel,on behalf of the owners. COA#2017-0601 Withdrawn. 6. 1240 West Thomas COA#2017-0602 Local Landmark Representation by Eric Boyd, 1240 West Thomas STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: June 2,2017 Application Number: 2017-0602(Application delivered by property owner to Building Department on June 1,2017) Property Location: 1240 West Thomas Street Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Period Revival/1920/Firehouse#4 Property Owner: Eric A.Boyd Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark,ordinance#9037-99 Rating: Outstanding DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE:Firehouse#4 is a 2-story rectangular brick building. It had a flat roof with limestone parapet coping,metal parapet scupper/cornice with brick brackets underneath and ornate limestone detailing at the ends. The windows are I/1 double-hung with limestone silts. There is a brick side chimney,and a roof penthouse with hip roof. ALTERATIONS:Most of the windows in this former firehouse have been boarded up prior to a 2007 fire. RME 2011-1110 approved replacement of metal roof to secure the building and protect it from the elements,although there is no evidence it was ever installed. An asymmetrical gabled roof has been installed without an approved COA on approximately half of the main structure,as well as a second story addition and gabled roof on the rear of the building. Areas where large overhead garage doors were originally located have been covered with vinyl siding. Most window openings have been covered with plywood or vinyl 9 siding.COA 2016-0809 to construct shed roof over part of building,and second floor addition atop one-story brick portion at rear of building with vinyl siding and replacement windows was denied. APPLICATION ITEMS:Two story addition,brown vinyl siding and three windows. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: See COA 2016-0809,pending with Building Department as a Violation of City Ordinance.Not in compliance with the Violation Remedy Requirements as ordered to be completed by March 13,2017. Owner has constructed a second-floor addition with gable roof atop one-story brick portion at rear of building.It has been partially vinyl sided to match existing brown vinyl siding used to fill garage door openings.Three windows,that appear to be vinyl have been installed. The proposed work has been installed,without a COA or Building Permit. This is not a free-standing structure;it is attached to the main building,No report of structural inspection has been submitted with this application. PRESERVATION SPECIALIST REPORT:n/a STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:Group B C. Maintenance The maintenance of any historical structure or site shall in no way involve any direct physical change except for the general cleaning and upkeep of the landmark. The Commission shall encourage the proper maintenance of all structure or sites. B.Treatment Treatment shall be defined as any change of surface materials that will not alter the style or original form. Such improvements include re-roofing,glazing,or landscaping lawns and may involve a change that can potentially enhance or detract from the character of the landmark. A treatment change of any surface whether on the landmark or in its environment may require a Certificate of Appropriateness if it significantly alters the appearance of the landmark Although these kinds of changes may not require a Building Permit,a Certificate of Appropriateness may be necessary. The commission should review the proposed treatment for character and style consistency with the original surfaces. C.Renovation and Additions Renovation is the modification of a structure,which does not alter the general massing while an addition,is a change in mass. A modification,which involves the removal of a part of the landmark,should be considered under demolition(see demolition). Additions to landmarks should not detract from the original form and unity of the landmark and should not cover singular examples of architectural detail. Additions to landmarks should be added in a manner that does not disrupt the visible unity of overall appearance of the site. The proportions,materials and ratios of the existing structures should be carried through in the additions. Care should be taken not to change or alter the following: 1.Structure—Necessary structural improvements,where safety demands should be accomplished in such a way as to cause minimal visual change to the original style and construction. 2.Material—Additions and improvements involving any new material in the landmark should be of the same material as the original. It should be the same size and texture. An alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the original. a.wood—all wood trim should conform with existing trim in shape and size. b.siding materials—the Commission discourages the covering or alteration of original materials with additional siding.Structures already sided with incompatible materials should be returned to a siding similar to the original when renovation is considered. D.Demolition Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a landmark poses a threat to the public safety,and demolition is the only alternative,documentation by way of photographs,measured drawings,or other descriptive methods should be wade of both the exterior and interior of the landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the landmark shall be responsible for this documentation. E.Moving The moving of landmarks is discouraged,however,moving is preferred to demolition. When moving is necessary,the owner of the landmark must apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. F.Signs No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to the structure. Billboards and super-graphics will also be disallowed, Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business. G.Building Site and Landscaping 1.Required Major landscaping items,trees,fencing,walkways,private yard lights,signs(house numbers)and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures such as:gazebos,patio decks,fixed barbecue pits,swimming pools,tennis courts,green houses,new walls,fountains, fixed garden furniture,trellises,and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way. 2.Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings,and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration to the buildings historic fabric should be removed. However,trees and plant materials that must be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. Front yard areas should not be fenced except in cases where historic documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in character with the buildings style, materials,and scale. 10 3.Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items,trees,fencing,walkways, outbuildings,and other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped. The installation of unsightly devices such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be viewed from public thoroughfares. Minimum Maintenance Standards approved by the Historic Preservation Commission,December 16, 1991,state that"all landmarks and all contributing structures located in an historic district shall be preserved from decay and deterioration,and shall be maintained in good repair and kept structurally sound. The owner or other person having charge or control of landmarks and property in an historic district shall not allow or permit deterioration of such property from defects or conditions which in the judgment of the Commission produce a detrimental effect on the character of the district as a whole or the life and character of the landmark,structure or property in question." In particular,this property exhibits the following from the itemized(but not exclusive)list of detrimental conditions: b. Deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members causing conditions such as sagging,splitting, buckling,crumbling,holes,missing shingles or similar conditions; e. The ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls,roof and foundations,including broken windows or doors; h. The deterioration of any feature so as to create or permit the creation of any hazardous or unsafe condition or conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:After careful review of this application,it appears to a large degree to be similar as applied for in COA application 2016-0809 that was denied by HPC and is a pending Violation of City Ordinance with the Building Department.As in COA 2016-0809,Staff recommends approval of rear second story addition with gable roof.Staff does not recommend the proposed window and siding treatments as they can be considered an incompatible material as reference in C,2. Staff recommends approval of a wood siding or fiber cement siding to complete the new second story addition.Staff recommends double hung windows,wood or aluminum clad,without rounded tops in the same style as the original windows in the main structure.Staff recommends that the owner be in compliance with the Building Department at the request of the Building Commissioner.Staff recommends that the owner be in compliance with Code Enforcement as there are noted violations of Minimum Maintenance Standards. Elicia Feasel,Executive Director Deb Parcell,Deputy Director Owner concerns: 1)HPC office was closed twice when Mr.Boyd tried to turn in COA application, and he eventually turned it into the Building Department. 2)He did not receive a copy of the staff report and agenda in the U.S.mail,but rather had to come to the office to obtain a copy to prepare for the meeting properly. 3) Structural report included with second COA is also relevant to this COA. Owner noted discrepancies: 1)Boarding of windows was done to comply with Code Enforcement regulations. 2) He stated that his project is in compliance with the Building Department, and provided copies of correspondence stating application for COA would be a remedy for non- compliance. Public Hearing: Gladys Mohammed, 808 North Ironwood: worked for South Bend Heritage. Goal to reinvest in the west side of South Bend, and get residents to do likewise. Eric has a dream and is trying to pursue it. It appears that someone in the city made a mistake and they need to fix it and not make Eric pay for it. She is encouraging HPC to allow Eric to pursue his dream, and advise him right, and not have to pay for someone else's mistake. Would like to see the building be something valuable for the community. Mike Boyd, 1207 West Thomas: big brother of Eric. This is the neighborhood where we grew up. Here to support his brother in his dream, to see what the process entails, hopes this can move forward. Communication is important. Carl Nichols, Gethsemane Church of God, 308 South Walnut: church adjacent to the land Eric owns. They own property between viaduct and Firehouse and are in the process of developing it. It is not appropriate to leave the Firehouse vacant and abandoned. The neighborhood is growing. No one cares what the building looks like;they care that it is not vacant. Please approve the COA. 11 Beadenual Williams, 1209 Thomas Street: She has wondered since she moved in what was going to happen with the Firehouse. There aren't a lot of houses on that block, but we try to maintain what we have. Eric is improving the building. It looks nice now; not like the ghetto. Somebody took pride and did something with the building. She supports Eric; he made a change to the neighborhood. Gloria Jones,2705 Fredrickson: We all grew up on Thomas Street. It is time something happens with that building. 25 years from now Eric will be putting her away and using that building. She supports the COA. President Klusezinski stated for the record this is a 1920s structure. There are standards and guidelines we use that are universal for single-site landmarks like this. There is a law that the city of South Bend passed that declared this building an historic Iandmark to the city of South Bend, and gave the Historic Preservation Commission jurisdiction for review of exterior changes to the structure. The HPC has supported preservation and stewardship of this badly damaged landmark. A Routine Maintenance Exclusion was granted in 2011 to replace the roof on the structure. The current project happened without a building permit and without a Certificate of Appropriateness. The HPC supports Mr.Boyd in his efforts to preserve the building,but we have a set of standards and guidelines that are very objective for the kinds of allowances that we could permit for the exterior of the structure, and in that we try to maintain some discipline about things that are in the best interest of the structure, to keep its 1920s appearance, or to accept installations of additions that are sympathetic with that original intent,architectural and historic. Commissioner Gordon moved to approve second floor addition remanding final review authority to staff to approve double-hung aluminum clad or wood windows as replacement for existing second floor windows, retaining existing vinyl siding and installing siding to match on balance of second floor addition exterior.Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. Five in favor,one opposed. Commissioner Hertel(NAY)-Vinyl does not fit with the historic integrity of the building. I love this building,this building is beautiful, but I think we are doing it a disservice putting vinyl on it, and it is not the original intent of the building materials. Vote: 5— 1 COA#2017-0602 Approved with conditions. 7. 1240 West Thomas COA#2017-0602A Local Landmark Representation by Eric Boyd, 1240 West Thomas STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: June 2,2017 Application Number: 2017-0602A(Application delivered by property owner to Building Department on June 1,2017) Property Location: 1240 West Thomas Street Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Period Revival/1920/Firehouse#4 Property Owner: Eric A.Boyd Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark,ordinance#9037-99 Rating: Outstanding DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE:Firehouse#4 is a 2-story rectangular brick building. It had a flat roof with limestone parapet coping,metal parapet scupper/cornice with brick brackets underneath and ornate limestone detailing at the ends. The windows are 1/1 double-hung with limestone sills. There is a brick side chimney,and a roof penthouse with hip roof. ALTERATIONS:Most of the windows in this former firehouse have been boarded up prior to a2007 fire. RME 2011-1110 approved replacement of metal roof to secure the building and protect it from the elements,although there is no evidence it was ever installed. An asyrnmetrical gabled roof has been installed without an approved COA on approximately half of the main structure,as well as a second story addition and gabled roof on the rear of the building. Areas where large overhead garage doors were originally located have been covered with vinyl siding. Most window openings have been covered with plywood or vinyl 12 siding. COA 2016-0809 to construct shed roof over part of building,and second floor addition atop one-story brick portion at rear of building with vinyl siding and replacement windows was denied. APPLICATION ITEMS:Mono roof 4/12 pitch,rise west to east ending at center of building resting on ledger/East stud wall. Low profile mono roof resting south brick wall and interior brick wall. Open courtyard. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:See COA 2016-0809,pending with the Building Department as a Violation of City Ordinance.Not in compliance with the Violation Remedy Requirements as ordered to be completed by March 13,2017. Owner has constructed a 4/12 single sloping roof surface over part of,roughly one half,of the main building,from the west exterior wall 30'east to a 10%wall built on existing brick interior wall,with a 1'overhang at west wall. Concrete floor of open courtyard is 6-8"lower than adjacent floor. Owner plans to utilize existing floor drain and lower floor height to manage accumulated moisture in the courtyard. This roof has been installed without COA. See report of structural inspection by Siqueira,LLC,submitted with this application.In summary,the inspection reveals inadequate joists spanning 17.5'running east-west at 16"oc,supported at masonry walls;roof level beam sag,exterior walls that lack bracing,trash pile in"courtyard",recommended provisions to dispose of snow and drain rain in"courtyard",multiple deficiencies in the framed mono-sloped roof at North West,and 20 joists spanning 10'that are insufficient. PRESERVATION SPECIALIST REPORT:n/a STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:Group B D. Maintenance The maintenance of any historical structure or site shall in no way involve any direct physical change except for the general cleaning and upkeep of the landmark. The Commission shall encourage the proper maintenance of all structure or sites. B.Treatment Treatment shall be defined as any change of surface materials that will not alter the style or original form. Such improvements include re-roofing,glazing,or landscaping lawns and may involve a change that can potentially enhance or detract from the character of the landmark. A treatment change of any surface whether on the landmark or in its environment may require a Certificate of Appropriateness if it significantly alters the appearance of the landmark. Although these kinds of changes may not require a Building Permit,a Certificate of Appropriateness may be necessary. The commission should review the proposed treatment for character and style consistency with the original surfaces. C.Renovation and Additions Renovation is the modification of a structure,which does not alter the general massing while an addition,is a change in mass. A modification,which involves the removal of a part of the landmark,should be considered under demolition(see demolition).Additions to landmarks should not detract from the original form and unity of the landmark and should not cover singular examples of architectural detail. Additions to landmarks should be added in a manner that does not disrupt the visible unity of overall appearance of the site. The proportions,materials and ratios of the existing structures should be carried through in the additions. Care should be taken not to change or alter the following: I.Structure—Necessary structural improvements,where safety demands should be accomplished in such a way as to cause minimal visual change to the original style and construction. 2.Material—Additions and improvements involving any new material in the landmark should be of the same material as the original. It should be the same size and texture. An alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the original. a.wood—all wood trim should conform with existing trim in shape and size. b.siding materials—the Commission discourages the covering or alteration of original materials with additional siding.Structures already sided with incompatible materials should be returned to a siding similar to the original when renovation is considered. D.Demolition Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a landmark poses a threat to the public safety,and demolition is the only alternative,documentation by way of photographs,measured drawings,or other descriptive methods should be made of both the exterior and interior of the landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the landmark shall be responsible for this documentation. E.Moving The moving of landmarks is discouraged,however,moving is preferred to demolition. When moving is necessary,the owner of the landmark must apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness F. Signs No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to the structure. Billboards and super-graphics will also be disallowed. Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business. G.Building Site and Landscaping 1.Required Major landscaping items,trees,fencing,walkways,private yard tights,signs(house numbers)and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures such as;gazebos,patio decks,fixed barbecue pits,swimming pools,tennis courts,green houses,new walls,fountains, fixed garden furniture,trellises,and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way. 2.Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings,and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration to 13 the buildings historic fabric should be removed. However,trees and plant materials that must be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. Front yard areas should not be fenced except in cases where historic documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in character with the buildings style, materials,and scale. 3.Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items,trees,fencing,walkways, outbuildings,and other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped. The installation of unsightly devices such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be viewed from public thoroughfares. Minimum Maintenance Standards approved by the Historic Preservation Commission,December 16, 1991,state that"all landmarks and all contributing structures located in an historic district shall be preserved from decay and deterioration,and shall be maintained in good repair and kept structurally sound. The owner or other person having charge or control of landmarks and property in an historic district shall not allow or permit deterioration of such property from defects or conditions which in the judgment of the Commission produce a detrimental effect on the character of the district as a whole or the life and character of the landmark,structure or property in question." In particular,this property exhibits the following from the itemized(but not exclusive)list of detrimental conditions: b. Deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members causing conditions such as sagging,splitting, buckling,crumbling,holes,missing shingles or similar conditions; e. The ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls,roof and foundations,including broken windows or doors; h. The deterioration of any feature so as to create or permit the creation of any hazardous or unsafe condition or conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:After careful review of this application,it appears to a large degree to be similar as applied for in COA application 2016-0809 that was denied by HPC and is a pending Violation of City Ordinance with the Building Department.As in COA 20I6-0899,Staff does not recommend approval of the roof deviation from flat to asymmetrical gable and does not recommend a roof on only half of the structure as it does not conform to the standards and guidelines,A,B,and C. Staff recommends approval of a flat roof covering the entire main structure.Staff recommends that the owner be in compliance with the Building Department at the request of the Building Commissioner and that all work is remanded to the discretion of the Building Department prior to installation.Staff recommends that the owner be in compliance with Code Enforcement as there are noted violations of Minimum Maintenance Standards. Elicia Feasel,Executive Director Deb Parcell,Deputy Director Owner corrected staff report reference to structural inspection by Siqueira, LLC, regarding inadequate joists spanning 17.5' and 10'as these reference the second story addition in COA 2017- 0602A and do not reference the roof project of this COA. Commission Questions: With respect to discussion regarding the withdrawal of the current application to allow for changes that better reflect design guidelines, President Klusczinski asked the applicant if he wished to withdraw his application. The applicant declined. Public Hearing: Mike Boyd, 1207 West Thomas: Could this application be withdrawn and come back with application with different options for roof—different dimensions and/or style? Executive Director Feasel reminded that when denying COA 2016-0809 for this same roof project, four Commissioners specifically requested additional quotes/design options. Mr. Boyd further hopes we will work together to move this project forward. Theresa Johnson, 2630 Prairie Avenue,Apt. 1-108: Asked for clarification on what needs to be done for this to pass. If Eric followed the suggestions proposed, would it be OK? The Commissioners explained what details they would need to approve a project that would be more in keeping with the guidelines. Unetta .Tones, 1204 Thomas: Questioned what kind of roof the Commission wanted to see? President Klusczinski explained that to be approved,a new roof would have to be more in keeping with standards and guidelines. 14 I Karl Nichols, Gethsemane Church of God, 308 South Walnut—church adjacent to the land Eric owns. They own property between viaduct and Firehouse and are in the process of developing it. It is not appropriate to leave the Firehouse vacant and abandoned. The neighborhood is growing. No one cares what the building looks like;they care that it is not vacant. Please approve the COA. Kirstin Champer, 1240 West Thomas: Supports project not just because she is Eric's wife, but because of what its improvement has done for the community. This building is becoming a community hub. Before the windows were boarded up,kids were breaking them out. A lot of the things Eric is doing takes into consideration the area where this building is located. A new roof is necessary to preserve the building, but a flat roof may not drain as well, and is economically not feasible. At the end of the day, it came down to saving the building and securing the community or making the roof look pretty. It's not a cute roof,but in this case,it comes down to purpose over aesthetics,for the safety of the building and the protection of the community. Gloria Jones,2705 Fredrickson: You need to understand the history of the firehouse. It's not like Tippecanoe Place or Kizer House. It is a simpler structure that's part of the fabric of the local neighborhood. The Commissioners assured that this building is just as important as Tippecanoe or any other landmark. Commissioner Gordon moved to deny application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. No further discussion.President Klusczinski clarified that votes in the affirmative will support the motion to deny the application and reminded the members to state their reasons when voting. Roll call was ordered. Commissioner Hertel(AYE)—under Standards and Guidelines Group B Section C this would alter and modify the structure and change it greatly by adding this type of roof; plus, we are lacking information on the materials to be used for completion of the roof. Commissioner Bucceilato(AYE)—The design simply does not meet the existing character of the structure. Commissioner Anderson (AYE)—It would alter the facade, architectural integrity, and its style, which are some of the most important things we have to make a decision on as a Commission. Commissioner Gordon(AYE)—It is not in keeping with the guidelines for this building, does not keep the historical character or look of the building, and we are missing some information of how that roof would be covered. Commissioner Klusczinski(AYE)—Ordinance 9037-99 designating 1240 West Thomas Street as a Local Landmark details a number of stylistic features,specifically two-story Period Revival Fire Station with fiat roof and limestone parapet coping. Long term preservation of the structure and safety of its occupants are not served by the installation which is both inadequate and architecturally inappropriate. I affirm the staff recommendation for flat roof and the noted remedies for violations of Minimum Maintenance Standards and seek the support of this body, the Building Department, Code Enforcement, and the owner's cooperation to effect changes that will preserve this unique and special building. I also believe that the current roof being proposed is not in keeping with the Standards and Guidelines that the Commission must use in review of all the local historic landmarks under its jurisdiction. I believe that other more appropriate remedies exist and should be explored instead of granting this particular application. Commissioner Molnar (AYE) — The design is too far outside of the mandated Standards and Guidelines which the Commission, by law,must follow. The roof would be prominent in display in the front of the structure, as opposed to the rear. I would be in favor of looking at something with a lower pitch,not necessarily a flat roof. None opposed. Vote: 6—0 COA 42017-0602A Denied. 8. 821 Ashland COA#2017-0605 Chapin Park 15 Representation by Derek Wright,Access Properties, 623 East LaSalle Avenue STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: June 5,2017 Application Number: 2017-0605 Property Location: 821 Ashland Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: American Foursquare/1901 Property Owner: Robert&Carlotta Levy Landmark or District Designation: Chapin Park Local/National Historic District,ordinance#9574-05 Rating: Contributing DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE:This 2-story wood frame house with square plan sits upon a brick foundation. The hip roof has asphalt shingles,and a brick chimney offset from the peak with three simple corbel courses. The house front features a full height bay with windows. Windows are wood 1/1 wood double hung with diamond pattern muntins on front far,ade. A hipped roof garage is at the rear of property. ALTERATIONS:House has had aluminum siding,storm windows and doors added. In 1949 the front porch was removed and a front stoop was added,with a small plastic porch roof over the entrance. APPLICATION ITEMS:Demo garage structure,haul away debris. Pad will remain,possibly for extra parking since very limited street parking. South Bend Code Enforcement affirmed demo.(Stan Molenda) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:Owner proposes to tear down garage. Building is composed of several garage structures/additions,some block,some frame,in varying conditions,all of which are to be demolished. The 1932 Portage Township Assessor's card lists a 2-car(19x19)block garage noted in 1949 as being used as a shop,as well as a 1 car(24x 12) wood garage. There is also a note from 1955 listing a 23.5x24 concrete slab car port. Demolition order on garage was affirmed at June 18,2015 Code Enforcement meeting. Debris will be hauled away,but concrete pad will be retained to provide extra parking. PRESERVATION SPECIALIST REPORT: June 9,2017 I had received a call from Derek of Access Properties giving me permission to enter the building last evening.I went first thing this morning and was able to take interior photographs.There are multiple sections to the structure.There is an apartment in there as well.The roof has collapsed in the"breezeway"between the apartment and garage.The roof of the garage itself has two areas that have holes and deterioration.The pads of the garages are in fine condition and could be reused even for just parking.The additions are really where the deterioration is the worst.The makeshift walls are rotted through and the exterior walls are a combination of block and doors.The two strongest walls are those that run north and south and are part of the original garage structure,but the removal of the rear wall and all the additional weight of the newer walls on the original has begun to pull the structure apart.The argument could be made to save the original small garage structure;however,the roof and framework of that roof would still have to be removed and rebuilt as well as the rear wall rebuilt.It may be more effective to tear down and rebuild a solid larger structure that utilizes the entire pad area.The main house is currently used as multi-unit apartments(4,I believe by the number of mail boxes) Steve Szaday,Preservation Specialist STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: CHAPIN PARK LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT V.GENERAL A.Buildings in the district should not be demolished except where a building poses 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:While evidence from the Assessor's card shows several of the garages have been on the property for some time,the current arrangement of connected garage structures does not contribute to the historic character of the property. Demolition has been affirmed by South Bend Code Enforcement. Due to significant deterioration of the later additions and compromised integrity of the altered original garage,staff recommends demolition of the entire garage,and retention of the concrete pad,and would further recommend owner propose a new garage design to be built in the future. Elicia Feasel,Executive Director Deb Parcell,Deputy Director Commissioner Gordon moved to approve application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. Six in favor,none opposed. Vote: 6—0 COA#2017-0605 Approved. 16 9. 813 Park COA#2017-0605A Chapin Park No Representation. STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: June 5,2017 Application Number: 2017-0605A Property Location: 813 Park Avenue Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: T-Plan/I880 Property Owner: James Hickner Landmark or District Designation: Chapin Park Local/National Historic District,ordinance#9574-05 Rating: Contributing DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE:This 2-story irregular plan house has abrick foundation. The asphalt-shingled cross gable roof with pyramidal hip roof in back has molded cornice at rake in gables. There is a small front porch. Windows are 1/1 double hung. Siding is wood clapboard. ALTERATIONS:Aluminum storm windows and door have been added,as well as concrete steps to front porch. Existing 1/1 double-hung wood windows have been replaced with new vinyl windows without COA approval. COA 2017-0216 approved replacement of five wood windows on back and side of house with vinyl windows. RME 2017-0517A approved replacement of existing front and back doors with 36"fiberglass doors and replacement of temporary support post on front overhang with square turned posts. APPLICATION ITEMS:Project upper deck with stairs coming down to ground level deck surrounding french doors. I plan to sink(6)6x6 posts in areas close to the house to support the structure of a second floor fire escape door and decks also part of the stair structure. All structure beams will be wood. Decking is preferred to be composite. Spindels and rails will be wood. Decking also already partially approved is landing for the back french doors that I would like to have connected to stairs and upper deck. The addition of French doors and decking that connect to upper stairs door. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: In response to an anonymous call to the HPC office,Preservation Specialist Steve Szaday visited the property on February 12, 2017,and as part of observations noted the installation of French doors replacing an existing double-hung window in a first-floor bay window at the rear of the house. On a return visit March 2,he noted the French doors had been removed and replaced with an improperly sized window, Owner now proposes to:(1)reinstall French doors in bay window,with wood steps beneath doors leading to a composite deck built over an existing sidewalk at rear of property;(2)install a door and build a deck on the second floor at rear of property as a means of second floor egress. Second floor decking will be composite,with wood rails and balusters. Deck will be supported by six 6x6 posts. Stairs will connect second floor deck with first floor deck adjacent to new French doors. See attached drawings. Preservation Specialist's June 7 site visit revealed the French doors have been reinstalled. PRESERVATION SPECIALIST REPORT: STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: CHAPIN PARK LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT II.EXISTING STRUCTURES C. WINDOWS AND DOORS Window and door frames are in most cases wood and vary depending upon the style of the home.Many are double hung windows with wood trim and sills.Brick structures have stone sills and brick lintels.In some cases,where aluminum siding has been applied,the window and door trim has been covered.About half of the structures in the district have aluminum storm windows;the other half have wood storm windows. Required Original windows and doors shall be retained including sashes,lintels,sills,shutters,decorative glass,pediments,hoods and hardware.When deteriorated beyond repair,they shall be replaced with units and trim resembling the original. Recommended Wood storm windows and doors painted or finished to match the original should be used but should not damage existing frames. If new sashes or doors are installed,the existing or original materials,design and hardware should be used.When metal storm doors are used,they should be painted,anodized or coated to match the existing.When awnings are used,they should be of canvas material. Prohibited Original doors,windows and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and reused in place.New window and door openings,which would alter the scale and proportion of the building may not be introduced. Inappropriate new window and door features such as metal,vinyl or fiberglass awnings,hoods or aluminum insulating glass combinations that require removal of original windows and doors,shall not be installed. Not Recommended Fake shutters that would detract from the existing character or appearance of the building should not be used. 17 11I.NEW CONSTRUCTION C. SHEDS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS Required Sheds and accessory structures(gazebos,decks,doghouses,playhouses,fountains and small reflecting pools,outdoor sculpture,children's play equipment,etc.)shall be located at the rear of the property and as unobtrusively as possible while preserving historical relationships between the buildings,landscape features and open spaces.Proportions and materials shall conform to those required for new construction. Recommended Accessory building designs should be compatible in character and mood to the residence and the neighborhood. Prohibited Prefabricated metal sheds shall not be used. Not Recommended Prefabricated wood composition sheds should not be used unless they conform to all other guidelines and standards. IV.SAFETY AND BUILDING CODES A.BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS Re uired 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. Prohibited Construction of new stairways and elevators that would alter important architectural features and spaces is prohibited. Not Recommended Fire prevention equipment should not damage the appearance or fabric of the building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:(1)French doors,and related steps and deck are located at the rear of the house and,if properly installed and trimmed,will be compatible with the structure. Staff recommends approval of the installed French doors trimmed to match existing doors and windows on house,as well as steps and deck constructed to meet Building Code requirements. (2)This property differs from many in that it is zoned and utilized as multi-family,necessitating proper egress from all units. Installation of a second-floor door and stairway at the rear of the house will provide proper egress while providing no change to the historic character of the building as viewed from the street,and will not alter important architectural features; therefore,staff recommends approval of the second-floor door,deck,and stairway,constructed to meet Building Code requirements. Proper permits should be secured before commencing project(1)and(2). Elicia Feasel,Executive Director Deb Parcell,Deputy Director Commissioner Anderson moved to deny application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Molnar. No further discussion. President Klusczinski clarified that votes in the affirmative will support the motion to deny the application and reminded the members to state their reasons when voting.Roll call was ordered. Commissioner Hertel(AYE)—questions that cannot be answered Commissioner Buccellato(AYE)- lack of information to make a ruling Commissioner Anderson(AYE)—lack of representation and questions not being answered Commissioner Gordon(AYE)—no representation Commissioner Klusczinski(AYE)—unable to approve the application for lack of information and representation by the applicant. We are unable, as a body, to continue the application because it requires a waiver from the applicant,and our only recourse at this point is to deny the application to prevent things that we don't yet understand from happening. Commissioner Molnar(AYE)—lack of representation to answer questions about the project None Opposed. Vote: 6—0 COA#2017-0605A Denied. 10. 314 West LaSalle COA#2017-0606B Local Landmark Representation by Mark Wenkus,314 West LaSalle 18 STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: June 6,2017 Application Number: 2017-0606B Property Location: 314 West LaSalle Avenue Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Parapet Front/I892/Frederickson Candy Store Property Owner: Mark Wenkus Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark,ordinance#7050-1982 Rating: Outstanding DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE:The Frederickson Candy Store is set upon a brick foundation with a rectangular plan. Walls are wood clapboard with comerboards and decorative shingles in the front pediment. A full front porch at entry has a wood floor,turned columns,wood steps and railing. The door has a double panel with etched glass top lite and transom. Windows are wood double hung, 1/1,with wood surrounds and wood shutters. ALTERATIONS:Front door has been replaced and most wood shutters have been removed. APPLICATION ITEMS: Overlay roof. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:Owner proposes to install Certainteed Highland Slate fiberglass shingles over existing 3-tab shingles. Existing shingles will become the underlayment for the new roof as they are laying flat,and ice and water shield were properly applied. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:Group B E. Maintenance The maintenance of any historical structure or site shall in no way involve any direct physical change except for the general cleaning and upkeep of the landmark. The Commission shall encourage the proper maintenance of all structure or sites. B.Treatment Treatment shall be defined as any change of surface materials that will not alter the style or original form. Such improvements include re-roofing,glazing,or landscaping lawns and may involve a change that can potentially enhance or detract from the character of the landmark. A treatment change of any surface whether on the landmark or in its environment may require a Certificate of Appropriateness if it significantly alters the appearance of the landmark. Although these kinds of changes may not require a Building Permit,a Certificate of Appropriateness may be necessary. The commission should review the proposed treatment for character and style consistency with the original surfaces. C.Renovation and Additions Renovation is the modification of a structure,which does not alter the general massing while an addition,is a change in mass. A modification,which involves the removal of a part of the landmark,should be considered under demolition(see demolition). Additions to landmarks should not detract from the original form and unity of the landmark and should not cover singular examples of architectural detail. Additions to landmarks should be added in a manner that does not disrupt the visible unity of overall appearance of the site. The proportions,materials and ratios of the existing structures should be carried through in the additions. Care should be taken not to change or alter the following: 1. Structure—Necessary structural improvements,where safety demands should be accomplished in such a way as to cause minimal visual change to the original style and construction. 2.Material Additions and improvements involving any new material in the landmark should be of the same material as the original. It should be the same size and texture. An alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the original. a.wood—all wood trim should conform with existing trim in shape and size. b.siding materials—the Commission discourages the covering or alteration of original materials with additional siding.Structures already sided with incompatible materials should be returned to a siding similar to the original when renovation is considered. D.Demolition Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a landmark poses a threat to the public safety,and demolition is the only alternative,documentation by way of photographs,measured drawings,or other descriptive methods should be made of both the exterior and interior of the landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the landmark shall be responsible for this documentation. E.Moving The moving of landmarks is discouraged,however,moving is preferred to demolition. When moving is necessary,the owner of the landmark must apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. F. Sins No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to the structure. Billboards and super-graphics will also be disallowed. Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business. G.Building Site and Landscaping 1.Required Major landscaping items,trees,fencing,walkways,private yard lights,signs(house numbers)and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures such as:gazebos,patio decks,fixed barbecue pits,swimming pools,tennis courts,green houses,new walls,fountains, 19 fixed garden furniture,trellises,and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way. 2.Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings,and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration to the buildings historic fabric should be removed. However,trees and plant materials that must be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. Front yard areas should not be fenced except in cases where historic documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in character with the buildings style, materials,and scale. 3.Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items,trees,fencing,walkways, outbuildings,and other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved not blacktopped. The installation of unsightly devices such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be viewed from public thoroughfares. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Although no specific evidence of the original roofing material could be located, recommendation for roof repair at the Frederickson House,which was once adjacent to this building,state"to be historically correct,the house should have wood shingles." As synthetic slate would achieve an appearance more in keeping with possible original material and profile,Staff recommends approval. Elicia Feasel,Executive Director Deb Parcell,Deputy Director Commissioner Buccellato moved to approve application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. Six in favor,none opposed. Vote: 6—0 COA#2417-0606B Approved. III. HEARING OF VISITORS TV. REGULAR BUSINESS A. APPROVAL OF NIINXJTES 1. May 15,2017—Approved by general consent. B. TREASURER'S REPORT 1. Location Report—Distributed. Budget for 2018 seeks a 5%reduction and comingles the annual grant from the City of South Bend. Treasurer Molnar will continue in his efforts to rectify. Discussion. C. STAFF REPORTS Commissioner Hertel moved to suspend the agenda and defer staff report questions for the next meeting,with the exception of legal. Seconded by Commissioner Klusczinski. Six in favor,none opposed. Vote: 6—0 1. Correspondence—Circulated. 2. Executive Director—In packet. 3. Deputy Director—In packet. 4, Preservation Specialist—Distributed. 5. Legal— Brett Hummer has left to take a job with Thor D. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. President—Distributed. 2. Standards and Maintenance Committee—Referencing topics of sustainability and deterioration by neglect,Chairman Hertel reported that they have determined that everything should be viewed on its own merit. No official policy at this time. V. OLD BUSINESS—None 20 VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS A. Commissioner Buccellato discussed need for better documentation,particularly inclusion of a site map, with COA application to expedite decisions and meetings. Staff will continue to work to improve this,and follow COA application documentation checklist more carefully. B. Commissioner Molnar thanked the Commissioners for the tone of their conversation with COA applicants,and reminded them of the importance of attitude with the public when representing a government agency. VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hertel moved to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. Six in favor, none opposed. Vote: 6—0. Meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m. Attest: Michele elfman, Secretary Date E� z� 7 /7117 21 EXHIBIT G p[JTg South Bend and St. Joseph County c0MH,SS10,ty" o�s� ',�,;�8�'►'p HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ��` 11,/� s � / J s� j�x 227 WEST JEFFERSON BLVD d o �M.A / SOUTH BEND, IN 46601-1830 m r, a www.stjosephcountyindiana.com/sjchp/index.html x 65 Phone:574-235-9798 Fax: 574-235-9578 e-mail: SBSJCHPC@co.st-joseph.in.us Timothy S.Klusczinski,President A Certified Local Government Elicia Feasel,Executive Director June 23, 2017 Eric Boyd 1240 West Thomas Street South Bend, IN 46601 Dear Mr. Boyd, The Commissioners, at the regularly scheduled monthly Historic Preservation Commission meeting on June 19, 2017, unanimously denied approval of the items originally listed on COA Application# 2017- 0602A: "Mono roof 4/12 pitch, rise west to east ending at center of building resting on ledger/East stud wall. Low pro- file mono roof resting south brick wall and interior brick wall. Open courtyard. " Following is the record from the meeting concerning your project which states the reasons why your application was denied: Commissioner Gordon moved to deny application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. President Klusczinski clarified that votes in the affirmative will support the motion to deny the application and reminded the members to state their reasons when voting. Roll call was ordered. Commissioner Hertel(AYE): Under Standards and Guidelines Group B Section C this would alter and modi- fy the structure and change it greatly by adding this type of roof plus, we are lacking information on the materi- als to be used for completion of the roof. Commissioner Buccellato(AYE): The design simply does not meet the existing character of the structure. Commissioner Anderson (AYE): It would alter the faVade, architectural integrity, and its style, which are some of the most important things we have to make a decision on as a Commission. Commissioner Gordon (AYE): It is not in keeping with the guidelines for this building, does not keep the his- torical character or look of the building, and we are missing some information of how that roof would be cov- ered. Commissioner Klusczinski (AYE): Ordinance 9037-99 designating 1240 West Thomas Street as a Local Landmark details a number of stylistic features, specifically two-story Period Revival Fire Station with flat roof and limestone parapet coping. Long term preservation of the structure and safety of its occupants are not served by the installation which is both inadequate and architecturally inappropriate. I affirm the staff recom- mendation for flat roof and the noted remedies for violations of Minimum Maintenance Standards and seek the support of this body, the Building Department, Code Enforcement, and the owner's cooperation to effect chang- es that will preserve this unique and special building. I also believe that the current roof being proposed is not in keeping with the Standards and Guidelines that the Commission must use in review of all the local historic landmarks under its jurisdiction. I believe that other more appropriate remedies exist and should be explored instead of granting this particular application. HISTORIC COMMISSIONERS STAFF PRESERVATION Thomas Gordon(Vice President) Deb Parcell,Deputy Director COMMISSION Mike Voll(Treasurer) Brett Hummer,Legal Counsel Jennifer Parker(Architectural Historian) Steve Szaday,Preservation Specialist OF SOUTH BEND&ST.JOSEPH COUNTY Elizabeth Hertel(Secretary) EST Kevin Buccellato SOUTH South Bend and St. Joseph County coMMISS1oNey o� �I<<' HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2,� `I'/� S0� 227 WEST JEFFERSON BLVD �o tv /, SOUTH BEND, IN 46601-1830 o b PFACF www.stjosephcountyindiana.com/sjchp/index.html M 81 65 Phone: 574-235-9798 Fax:574-235-9578 ti, e-mail: SBSJCHPC@co.st-joseph.in.us Timothy S.Klusczinski,President A Certified Local Government Elicia Feasel,Executive Director Commissioner Molnar(AYE): The design is too far outside of the mandated Standards and Guidelines which the Commission, by law, must follow. The roof would be prominent in display in the front of the structure, as opposed to the rear. I would be in favor of looking at something with a lower pitch, not necessarily a flat roof. Six in favor,none opposed. Vote: 6—0 COA#2017-0602A Denied. Although the historic preservation commission did not find your proposed project to be architectur- ally appropriate and did not believe that the denial would be a detriment to the public or cause hardship, the commission and staff believe it is important to save this building. Accordingly, staff believes that it is important to revisit design alternatives that were mentioned during deliberation. As a compromise to in-kind flat roof replacement, members of the Commission suggested a devia- tion for a hip roof (originating from the north facade parapet and having a downward slope to the south). This would make a drastic improvement over the current plan by not detracting from key architectural features, still be compatible with water management/drainage proposals and allow for building material from the current structure to be reused.The latter representing a significant cost savings for you. HPC Staff encourages you to thoughtfully consider this alternative design concept and wecomes the opportunity to consult on a new application. Thank you for your continued stewardship of this local landmark. Please contact this office with any questions or concerns or for any assistance. Sincerely, Debra Parcell, Deputy Director cc Building Department Code Enforcement Department of Community Investment COMMISSIONERS STAFF Thomas Gordon(Vice President) Deb Parcell,Deputy Director HISTORIC Mike Voll(Treasurer) Brett Hummer,Legal Counsel Jennifer Parker(Architectural Historian) Steve Szaday,Preservation Specialist PRESERVATION Elizabeth Hertel(Secretary) Kevin Buccellato COMMISSION Brandon Anderson OF SOUTH BEND 8c ST.JOSEPH COUNTY Michele Gelfinan - ---- —--- Joseph Molnar EXHIBIT H STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: 9 August 2016 Application Number: 2016-0809 Property Location: 1240 West Thomas Street Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Period Revival/1920/Firehouse#4 Property Owner: Eric Boyd Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark Rating: Outstanding DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE: Firehouse 94 is a 2-story rectangular brick building. It had a flat roof with limestone parapet coping, metal parapet scupper/cornice with brick brackets underneath and ornate limestone detailing at the ends. The windows are 1/1 double-hung with limestone sills. There is a brick side chimney,and a roof penthouse with hip roof. ALTERATIONS: Most of the windows in this former firehouse have been boarded up prior to a 2007 fire. RME 2011-1110 approved replacement of metal roof to secure the building and protect it from the elements,although there is no evidence it was ever installed. An asymmetrical gabled roof has been installed without an approved COA or Building Permit on approximately half of the train structure,as well as a second story addition and gabled roof on the rear of the building. Areas where large overhead garage doors were originally located have been covered with vinyl siding. Most window openings have been covered with plywood or vinyl siding. APPLICATION ITEMS: Roof, window replacement,apply for addition—siding vinyl and window replacement is long term. Current plan is to keep windows boarded for security reasons(2 replacement windows have been broken). Color of vinyl siding is brown. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: HPC Staff has worked with the current owner in recent years to support a tax abatement and rezoning petition. Although an RME was issued for a replacement roof in 2011, the details of what was actually installed were not presented at that time. Additionally,the Building Department has provided a statement that indicates the current roof configuration was not approved with a Building Permit and has ordered all work to stop until a formal submission and plan is set for the proposed work.This property was heard at a July 26,2016 Code Enforcement hearing where a date of January 26,2017 was given for Code compliance. Owner proposes a 4/12 shed roof be constructed over part of the main building, from the west exterior wall 30' east to a 10'H wall built on existing brick interior wall, with a 1' overhang at west wall. Second floor addition atop one-story brick portion at rear of building is to be vinyl sided to match existing brown vinyl siding used to fill garage door openings; replacement windows to be used to fill window openings in this addition. Existing windows in building are to be left boarded up for security reasons. Most of this work with the exception of the windows and vinyl in the rear addition have been installed without COA or Building Permit, PRESERVATION SPECIALIST REPORT: n/a STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: Group B A. Maintenance The maintenance of any historical structure or site shall in no way involve any direct physical change except for the general cleaning and upkeep of the landmark. The Commission shall encourage the proper maintenance of all structure or sites. B. Treatment Treatment shall be defined as any change of surface materials that will not alter the style or original form. Stich improvements include re-roofing, glazing, or landscaping lawns and may involve a change that can potentially enhance or detract from the character of the landmark. A treatment change of any surface whether on the landmark or in.its enviromrient may require a Certificate of Appropriateness if it significantly alters the appearance of the landmark. Although these kinds of changes play not require a Building Permit,a Certificate of Appropriateness may be necessary. The commission should review the proposed treatment for character and style consistency with the original surfaces. C. Renovation and Additions Renovation is the modification of a structure,which does not alter the general massing while an addition, is a change in class. A modification, which involves the removal of a part of the landmark,should be considered under demolition(see demolition). Additions to landmarks should not detract from the original form and unity of the landmark and should not cover singular examples of architectural detail. Additions to landmarks should be added in a manner that does not disrupt the visible unity of overall appearance of the site. The proportions, materials and ratios of the existing structures should be carried through in the additions. Care should be taken not to change or alter the following: 1. Structure—Necessary structural improvements, where safety demands should be accomplished in such a way as to cause minimal visual change to the original style and construction. 2. Material—Additions and improvements involving any new material in the landmark should be of the same material as the original. It should be the same size and texture. An alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the original. a. wood—all wood trim should conform with existing trim in shape and size. b. siding materials—the Commission discourages the covering or alteration of original materials with additional siding. Structures already sided with incompatible materials should be returned to a siding similar to the original when renovation is considered. D. Demolition Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a landmark poses a threat to the public safety,and demolition is the only alternative,documentation by way of photographs, measured drawings,or other descriptive methods should be made of both the exterior and interior of the landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the landmark shall be responsible for this documentation. E. Moving The moving of landmarks is discouraged, however, moving is preferred to demolition. When moving is necessary, the owner of the landmark must apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. F. s. Vigils No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to the structure. Billboards and super- graphics will also be disallowed. Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business. G. Building Site and Landscaping 1. Required Major landscaping items,trees, fencing,walkways, private yard lights, signs(house numbers)and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures such as: gazebos, patio decks, fixed barbecue pits, swimming pools,tennis courts,green houses,new walls, fountains,fixed garden furniture, trellises,and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way. 2. Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs,drawings,and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration to the buildings historic fabric should be removed. However, trees and plant materials that must be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. Front yard areas should not be fenced except in cases where historic documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in character with the buildings style, materials,and scale. 3.Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items, trees, fencing,walkways, outbuildings, and other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped. The installation of unsightly devices such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be viewed from public thoroughfares. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of the roof deviation from flat to asymmetrical gable and does not recommend a roof on only half of the structure as it does not conform to the standards and guidelines, A, B, and C. Staff recommends rear second story addition with gable roof, however, is not recommending the proposed window and siding treatments as they can be considered an incompatible material as reference in C,2. Staff recommends that the owner be in compliance with the Building Department at the request of the Building Commissioner. Elicia Feasel Executive Director EXHIBIT • June 19, 2017 Meeting Recording o Application #2017-0602A ■ Begins at: 2:12:33 0 2:16:15 ■ Commissioner Klusczinski: Asked Mr. Boyd if the description of project was correct • Response is that the structural engineer's report was mischaracterized—certain pieces of it are not in reference to the roof and points those out • Otherwise does not dispute the description of the project 0 2:19:16 ■ Commissioner Gordon: What is the purpose of changing the style of the roof to new style? ■ Response: Economics. ■ CG: Economics? ■ Eric Boyd: Economics and . . . 0 2:19:50 ■ Commissioner Gordon: So, the economic reasons are that you can get material donated or at a very cheap cost and do the construction which is much cheaper than applying a new flat roof which probably would not be donated and you could not do the work. ■ Eric Boyd: That is correct, yes, sir. ■ CG: It has nothing to do with the function of the building, and what you want to do with the interior of it. ■ EB: No. I would think since it had a flat roof prior and it caught fire, um, and the condition of the building, the exterior walls would be the strongest part of the building, so having an A-frame roof with most of the weight on the exterior of the building rather than in the center where the water would pool, um, would be safer since it's a 124 year old building. ■ CG: Well, they do flat roofs currently that do not pool water. 0 2:24:11 • Commissioner Buccellato: I'm trying to figure out a way to put a roof on this structure, so we can save it. • Commissioner Klusczinski: Right. • CB: So, it can live another eighty years, at which point it will need a new roof. Ah, I think the intention is to save the structure, I think the [inaudible] we're all there, I'm just trying to figure out how we can work with this applicant to help achieve, uh, the same common goals, which are- • CK: So you're saying repurpose the materials that have already been expended into the current roof system. • Commissioner Gordon: Some of them could be, I think. ■ CB: I think all of the sheathing could be used, I mean you could, if, um, if you braced it at the centerpoint of the thirty feet,you could potentially have the, have it, and just literally lay the wood down. I mean, it would have to be engineered, and it would have to meet code, again that's outside of our jurisdiction. I think if, if we could get a roof on this, and cover half of the structure to shed the water, um,the waters would slide down . . . o 2:29:03 • Eric Boyd: And the hardship clause, that you guys- • Commissioner Klusczinski: Well, we do that too. • EB: OK • CK: Yeah,there are three criteria that we use for every decision. First and foremost, the appropriateness of the design to the architecture, and the history of the building. Second thing is public detriment, public detriment in that trying to uphold the law that was passed over a designated district or single site landmark, in keeping with the intent of that feature was, as well as public safety, right, that kind of thing in general. And then the third thing is financial hardship. They're not mutually exclusive items, so, when we have to consider something we can't consider financial hardship and throw away appropriateness to historic and architectural features, and we can't throw away public detriment, they all have to be in the same mix. And so, the way that it's always meant to me is that when we have different applications, or like your previous one, right,when we're working through some of the details of projects, maybe there is some latitude given towards some nonconforming material like vinyl over wood, as far as financial hardship, um, but because it served the same reveal, and it's in the back of the building we can make exceptions for that, so,that's where financial hardship comes in, even though for the last project I would recommend that you seek wood or see a [inaudible "B"?] material because it's much better for the—but, but that's where the financial hardship comes in. It's not at the beginning of the application, or there would be no standards and guidelines for historic properties. Somebody would always come in, or a contractor, and they would always be able to create a scenario to where you're going to have to select this based on lower dollar amount, and that's not what the standards call us to do. o 2:33:09 • Eric Boyd: And, on the issue with quotes for a new roof is, there's no funding for the roof. • Commissioner Klusczinski: Right. • EB: So- • CK: And that is a predicament, sir-- ■ EB: Exactly • CK: --that you have to deal with on your own- • EB: Exactly ■ CK:--because, you've bought it- ■ EB: And it was permitted ■ EF: Well, so-- ■ CK: --because of your own choice, and now we're all in this together whether we want to be here or not. ■ EF: And, I mean, I understand the Building Department gave a permit but, in their building permit it specifically says permit,this permit is issued in conformity with the laws of the state of Indiana and the ordinance of St.Joseph County, so in my opinion- CK: Yeah ■ EF: It doesn't matter what comes first,the COA, or the building permit. ■ CK: Right. You need both- EF: --Right- CK: --And the fine print- EF: --You need both- CK: -- says that you didn't have both. ■ EF: That's- ■ EB: And the understanding is that, per the state ordinance, when you apply for a building permit, and give them your application, they have five days to give that application to Historic Preservation. ■ CK/EF: Right. ■ EB: And they also have the dimensions of this roof. 0 2:34:37 • Commissioner Gordon: And Eric, we all understand the cost of a new flat rubber roof, that's why we're giving you the option to bring us some kind of a design that is less obtrusive than this one here,that is more hidden, because that won't probably be the expense of a new flat rubber material roof. I don't know that as a fact, but, I'm positive it'll be less, with some of this material possibly being reused, or other donated material. • Eric Boyd: Mm-hm. ■ CG: That's where we're at. That's where I'm at, I'm not sure where they're at 0 2:36:40 • Commissioner Hertel: Have you explored, are there any community grants or funding right now- • Elicia Feasel: Okay, so we're going back to the same thing Joseph referred to last year, and, I'm just going to state it again, we want to be helpful, but at the same time, we're doing our job right now, so- • CH: Right, so- EF: --So, we've given Eric— CH: You've looked- EF: --Indiana Landmarks, Community Investment, this and that, but, I would just, please ask that you refrain from offering any further funding advice at this I point, and let's stick to what we're reviewing, which is the architectural integrity. • CH: Right. ■ EF: Advice is great,financial advice is great— CH: I just asked- ■ EF: --But I can tell you that there's no pot of gold at the end of a rainbow and there's no promise we can make to Eric that if he calls Community Investment, or my mom, that we're going to give him money, so let's not even talk about money right now. ■ Mike Boyd: Can we, let's just kind of— Laughter ■ CH: I was asking him to see if he had reached out, so I'm sorry- 0 2:53:59 ■ Commissioner Molnar: I'm , I don't mean to generalize, but I typically try to always see where the standards and guidelines can be looked at in favorable lighting and stuff but, this particular roof is just a little too far out, even for me. But I hope, I hope we can come to some compromise that isn't as financially crazy as a flat roof. ■ Commissioner ? : There we go. ■ Commissioner Klusczinski: I would encourage the applicant to research whether or not reusing the materials that have already been installed in this configuration could be utilized for a different version roof and to make potentially that presentation to the commission, we haven't voted yet, but, like your big brother, I think I know where we're heading, right, and I'm just trying to do everything I can. ■ CH: So, we could make a motion, or you could withdraw- ■ CK: Right ■ CH: And come back with, um, other options, another, maybe— Commissioner Gordon: Design ■ CH: Another design. Um, and you know again,we would waive the fee- ■ CK: Yep. If you withdraw the application we preserve the fee and you roll it into the next application. 0 2:55:30 • Eric Boyd: I guess, my position is, I mean last year we were at the same point, and, um, I did explore some of the options that you guys put on the table and I think there's a history of those resources not just coming through, um, and so far as that, I guess that's kind of where I'm at where we're still at the same point. • Commissioner Anderson: Other resources meaning if we're saying to look at a hipped roof with a lower pitch, that, do you consider that a resource? We're not talking about, we're not talking about Community Investment, we're not talking about any of that stuff, maybe tax abatements in the future, but, resources, how would you define resources. So we're not asking for that $40,000, $30,000 flat roof proposal, we're talking about work you could possibly do on your own as a licensed contractor to create that hipped roof. We're not looking to outstrip any resources that you have, we're looking at what is also available through you,to you,to be able to do this project in a way that makes all parties happy, and makes that building happy. So I want to try and understand what you mean by resources. ■ EB: I guess the option to apply for a different COA for an adjusted roof still is on the table, so I guess if that is an option that's viable and seems to be the most resourceful towards my resources I guess that may be an option, but, I guess moving forward seems like the best thing to do. EXHIBIT J soaTxB South Bend and St. Joseph County �,ssroro �V HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 227 WEST JEFFERSON BLVD �• \� , tv o SOUTH BEND, fN 46601-1830 a b www.stjosepheountyindiana.com/sjchp/index.html CP os 1865 Phone:574-235-9798 Fax:574-235-9578 e-mail:SBSJCIHPC@co.st-joseph.in.us Timothy S.Klusczinski,President A Certified Local Government Elicia Feasel,Executive Director September 27, 2016 Eric Boyd 1240 West Thomas Street South Bend, IN 46601 Dear Mr. Boyd, The Commissioners, at the regularly scheduled monthly Historic Preservation Commission meeting on September 19, 2016, unanimously denied approval of the items originally listed on COA Applica- tion# 2016-0809: "Roof, window replacement,apply for addition—siding vinyl and window replacement is longterm. Current plan is to keep windows boarded for security reasons(2 replacement windows have been broken).Color of vinyl siding is brown". Following is the record from the meeting concerning your project which states the reasons why your application was denied: Commissioner Gordon moved to deny application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. President Klusczinski clarified that votes in the affirmative will support the motion to deny the application and reminded the members to state their reasons when voting. Roll call was ordered. Commissioner Hertel(AYE): the best course of action in maintaining the historic integrity of the building Commissioner Parker (AYE): due to the architectural character of building, and the lack of other op- tions/quotations Commissioner Anderson(AYE): lack of conforming to architectural integrity of historic building Commissioner Gordon(AYE): not in keeping with the integrity of the landmark status Commissioner Klusczinski(AYE): work is not in keeping with Landmark standards and guidelines, work was performed without prior approval by the HPC and the Building Department, evidence suggests that the new changes are not structurally sound and in compliance with current building code, there is only one quotation obtained by the applicant for in-kind work, and there is insufficient documentation to consider alternative pro- posals at this time. Commissioner Voll (AYE): a tough decision because of all the work the owner has put into it. The build- ing, if it were restored, in that neighborhood, would be a classic piece. That is a difficult option here, but there is hope that there may be ways to achieve that. Commissioner Buccellato (AYE): project does not meet standards and guidelines, in particular that addi- tions to Landmarks should not detract from the original form. This roof, as proposed, will detract from the orig- inal form. Would like to see the building saved, and recommended that if a sloped roof is necessary financially, the owner would come back with a proposal that does not detract from the form of the structure. Commissioner Gelfman (AYE): architectural integrity, lack of other quotes on a flat roof, changing from flat roof to gabled roof, losing the structural integrity of the building as-is historically, and materials being used COMMISSIONERS STAFF Thomas Gordon(Vice President) Deb Parcell,Deputy Director HISTORIC Voll(Treasurer) Brett Hummer,Legal Counsel Jennifer Parker(Architectural Historian) Steve Szaday,Preservation Specialist FARES ERVA`TIC31� Elizabeth Hertel(Secretary) Kevin Buccellato COMMISSION Brandon Anderson Michele Gellman OF SOUTH BEND&ST.JOSEPH COUNTY Esr.197s Joseph Molnar Te South Bend and St. Joseph County `oM�,ssroNF9s �+�+t;�It;y,�'►'o HISTORIC PRESERVATION. COMMISSION 227 WEST JEFFERSON BLVD °a \E^.C,% SOUTH BEND, W 46601-1830 m - ,.. www.stjosephcountyindiana.com/sjchp/index.html 6 S 1865 Phone:574-235-9798 Fax:574-235-9578 e-mail:SBSJCHPC@co.st-joseph.in.us Timothy S. Klusczinski,President A Certified Local Government Elicia Feasel,Executive Director Commissioner Molnar (AYE): echoes Commissioner V011's statements that this is a tough choice. Suggests checking with Community Investment to see if they have any programs that could assist in this project. Nine in favor, none opposed. Vote: 9—0 COA#2016-0809 Denied. Please contact this office with any questions or concerns or for any assistance. Sincerely, Debra Parcel[, Deputy Director COMMISSIONERS STAFF Thomas Gordon(Vice President) Deb Parcell, Deputy Director HISTORIC Mike Voll(Treasurer) Brett Hurnmer,Legal Counsel Jennifer Parker(Architectural Historian) Steve Szaday,Preservation Specialist PRESERVATION Hertel(Secretary) Kevin l COMMISSION Brandon n And Andersrs on Michele Gelfinan OF SOUTH BEND&Sr.JOSEPH COUNTY Joseph Molnar EST.197; EXHIBIT K �'{-' - �z?�^ - ::,iii-a�La�`r'�r.'-+i'i•_. �:ji:;:r 3s:��:!>t:,;r:�;�;;,:^ i4 fir f�i }^{t }f Tf'< it r n PR "7S.ER VA.TIZON STANDARDS �£ FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS '.Y IN SO UTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY �x �c •;rl DEFINITIONS Shall—Defined as an expression of something that is mandatory or must be done. Should—Defined as an expression of obligation, something that ought to be done but that is open to compromise. Required—Defined as work which shall be done in a restoration or rehabilitation project in order to restore or maintain the original or existing character of the structure or site. Recommended—Defined as work which should be done to help restore or maintain the original or existing character of the structure or site. Prohibited—Defined as work which shall not be permitted in a restoration or rehabilitation project because it may have a negative impact on the original or existing character of the structure or site. b. siding materials—the Commission discourages the covering or alteration of original materials with additional siding. Structures already sided with incompatible materials should be returned to a siding similar to the original when renovation is considered. D. Demolition Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a landmark poses a threat to the public safety, and demolition is the only alternative, documentation by way of photographs, measured drawings, or other descriptive methods should be made of both the exterior and interior of the landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the landmark shall be responsible for this documentation. E. Moving The moving of landmarks is discouraged, however, moving is preferred to demolition. When moving is necessary, the owner of the landmark must apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. F. Signs No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to the structure. Billboards and super-graphics will also be disallowed. Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business. G. Building Site and Landscaping (These standards apply to both A and B) ----1. Required _ Major landscaping items, trees, fencing, walkways, private yard lights, signs (house numbers) and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures such as: gazebos, patio decks, fixed barbecue pits, swimming pools,tennis courts, green houses, new walls, fountains, fixed garden furniture,trellises, and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way. 2. Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings, and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration to the buildings historic fabric should be removed. However, trees and plant materials that must be removed To apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness, or if there are any questions regarding these Standards or about work you wish to do on your Landmark building, please contact: Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County Mailing Address: Office Location: County-City Building Law Building 227 W. Jefferson Blvd. 125 S. Lafayette Blvd. South Bend, IN 46601 South Bend, 1N 46601 Telephone: 574/235.9798 Fax: 574/235.9578 Email: SBSJCHPC0co.st joseph.in.us Executive Director: Elicia D. Feasel Deputy Director: Deb Parcell Preservation Specialist/Inspector: Steve Szaday Commission Members 2016: Tim Klusczinski, President Thomas Gordon, Vice President Mike Voll, Treasurer Elizabeth Hertel, Secretary Kevin Buccellato _ _ Brandon Anderson Jennifer Parker, Architectural Historian Michele Gelfman