Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-13-2017 Council Packet
1 SOUTH BEND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 P.M. 1. INVOCATION- RABBI KAREN COMPANEZ, TEMPLE BETH-EL 2. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON MINUTES 5. SPECIAL BUSINESS 6. REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICES 7. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TIME: ______ BILL NO. 72-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO AMEND AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK PROVISIONS; ARTICLE 3 COMMERCIAL / MIXED USE DISTRICTS TO REMOVE MAXIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTDOOR SEATING FOR RESTAURANTS IN THE O OFFICE DISTRICT, LB LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND CB COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND ADD PROVISION TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING IN THE GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; AND ARTICLE 7 GENERAL REGULATIONS TO ALLOW REQUIRED LANDSCAPING TO BE PLACED WITHIN RIGHT-OF- WAY AND EXEMPT THE MU MIXED USE DISTRICT FROM MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 73-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 1 BASIC PROVISIONS TO REVISE CLEAR SIGHT AREA REQUIREMENTS AND PRIVATE STREET WIDTHS, ARTICLE 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO REVISE GRADE LEVEL IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS, AND ARTICLE 3 COMMERCIAL / MIXED USE DISTRICTS TO REVISE DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY STANDARDS 2 74-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 1 BY ALLOWING USES PERMITTED IN A LESS INTENSE DISTRICT TO BE PERMITTED IN A MORE INTENSE DISTRICT 78-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING A SECTION OF CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 6, SECTION 2-84.14 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TAX ABATEMENTS 79-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING SECTIONS 2-84.9(c) AND 2-84.9 (e) OF CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 6 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TAX ABATEMENTS 8. BILLS ON THIRD READING TIME:______ BILL NO. 72-17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO AMEND AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK PROVISIONS; ARTICLE 3 COMMERCIAL / MIXED USE DISTRICTS TO REMOVE MAXIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTDOOR SEATING FOR RESTAURANTS IN THE O OFFICE DISTRICT, LB LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND CB COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND ADD PROVISION TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING IN THE GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; AND ARTICLE 7 GENERAL REGULATIONS TO ALLOW REQUIRED LANDSCAPING TO BE PLACED WITHIN RIGHT- OF-WAY AND EXEMPT THE MU MIXED USE DISTRICT FROM MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 73-17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 1 BASIC PROVISIONS TO REVISE CLEAR SIGHT AREA REQUIREMENTS AND PRIVATE STREET WIDTHS, ARTICLE 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO REVISE GRADE LEVEL IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS, AND ARTICLE 3 COMMERCIAL / MIXED USE DISTRICTS TO REVISE DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY STANDARDS 74-17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 1 BY ALLOWING USES PERMITTED IN A LESS INTENSE DISTRICT TO BE PERMITTED IN A MORE INTENSE DISTRICT 3 78-17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING A SECTION OF CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 6, SECTION 2-84.14 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TAX ABATEMENTS 79-17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING SECTIONS 2-84.9(c) AND 2-84.9 (e) OF CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 6 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TAX ABATEMENTS 9. RESOLUTIONS BILL NO. 17-70 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROVING A PETITION OF THE AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3419 W. WASHINGTON STREET 10. BILLS ON FIRST READING BILL NO. 80-17 FIRST READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND AND THE COUNTY OF ST. JOSEPH TO PROVIDE CITY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY (THE HPC) AND AMENDING CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 4, SECTION 2- 13, SUB-PART (B) (7) OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE THIS AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY INVESTMENT 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS BILL NO. 17-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA APPROVING A PETITION OF THE AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 926 S. ERSKINE PLAZA BOYD VS. HPC APPEAL- COA #2017-0602A 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR 14. ADJOURNMENT TIME: _________ 4 Notice for Hearing and Sight Impaired Persons Auxiliary Aid Or Other Services Are Available Upon Request At No Charge. Please Give Reasonable Advance Request When Possible. In the interest of providing greater public access and to promote greater transparency, the South Bend Common Council agenda has been translated into Spanish. All agendas are available online from the Council’s website, and also in paper format in the Office of the City Clerk, 4th Floor County-City Building. Reasonable efforts have been taken to provide an accurate translation of the text of the agenda, however, the official text is the English version. Any discrepancies which may be created in the translation, are not binding. Such translations do not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the Common Council or the City of South Bend, Indiana. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____ OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK KAREEMAH FOWLER, CITY CLERK 455 County-City Building • 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard • South Bend, Indiana 46601 Phone 574-235-9221 • Fax 574-235-9173 • TDD 574-235-5567 • www.SouthBendIN.gov ALKEYNA M. ALDRIDGE DEPUTY CLERK DIRECTOR OF POLICY JENNIFER M. COFFMAN CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS JOSEPH R. MOLNAR ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS BUREAU CLERK MEMORANDUM TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL FROM: KAREEMAH FOWLER, CITY CLERK DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2017 SUBJECT: COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE The following Common Council Committee Meetings have been scheduled for MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017: Council Informal Meeting Room 4th Floor County-City Building 227 W. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, IN 46601 3:30 P.M. ZONING & ANNEXATION OLIVER DAVIS, CHAIRPERSON 1. Bill No. 72-17- Zoning Text Amendment pertaining to Common Variances 2. Bill No. 73-17- Zoning Text Amendment pertaining to Engineering Standards 3. Bill No. 74-17- Zoning Text Amendment pertaining to Pyramiding Uses 4. Bill No. 17-70 - Special Exception at 3419 W. Washington 5. Zoning Ordinance Update Briefing- Mike Divita, Dept. of Community Investment 4:10 P.M. PUBLIC WORKS & PROPERTY VACATION JOHN VOORDE, CHAIRPERSON 1. Light Up South Bend Briefing- 466Works & Bowman Creek 4:30 P.M. COMMUNITY INVESTMENT GAVIN FERLIC, CHAIRPERSON 1. Substitute Bill No. 78-17- Tax Abatement Enforcement Code Amendment 2. Substitute Bill No. 79-17- Tax Abatement Enforcement Advisory Review Code Amendment Council President Tim Scott has called an Informal Meeting of the Council which will commence immediately after the adjournment of the Community Investment Committee. INFORMAL MEETING OF THE COMMON COUNCIL TIM SCOTT, PRESIDENT 1. Discussion of Council Agenda 2. Update and Announcements 3. Adjournment cc: Mayor Pete Buttigieg Committee Meeting List News Media NOTICE FOR HEARING AND SIGHT IMPAIRED PERSONS Auxiliary Aid or Other Services may be Available upon Request at No Charge. Please give Reasonable Advance Request when Possible 2017 COMMON COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEES (Rev. 01-4-17) COMMUNITY INVESTMENT COMMITTEE Oversees the various activities of the Department of Community Investment. This Committee reviews all real & personal tax abatement requests. Gavin Ferlic, Chairperson Oliver Davis, Member Regina Williams-Preston, Vice-Chairperson Randy Kelly, Member COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE Oversees the various activities of the Office of Community Affairs and is charged with facilitating partnerships & ongoing communications with other public and private entities operating within the City. Regina Williams-Preston, Chairperson Gavin Ferlic, Member Randy Kelly, Vice-Chairperson Karen White, Member COUNCIL RULES COMMITTEE Oversees the regulations governing the overall operation of the Common Council, as well as all matters of public trust. It duties are set forth in detail in Section 2-10.1 of the South Bend Municipal Code. Tim Scott, Member Dr. David Varner, Member Jo Broden, Member Karen White, Member HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Oversees the various activities performed by the Fire and Police Departments, EMS, Department of Code Enforcement, ordinance violations, and related health and public safety matters. Jo Broden, Chairperson Oliver Davis, Member John Voorde, Vice-Chairperson Karen L. White, Member INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE Oversees the various activities of the City’s Division of Information Technologies in the Department of Administration & Finance so that the City of South Bend remains competitive and on the cutting edge of developments in this area. Reviewing and proposing upgrades to computer systems and web sites, developing availability & access to GIS data and related technologies are just some of its many activities. Tim Scott, Chairperson Dave Varner, Member Gavin Ferlic, Vice-Chairperson Randy Kelly, Member PARC COMMITTEE (Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Entertainment) Oversees the various activities of the Century Center, College Football Hall of Fame, Coveleski Regional Stadium, Morris Performing Arts Center, Studebaker National Museum, South Bend Regional Museum of Art, Potawatomi Zoo, and the many recreational and leisure activities offered by the Department of Parks and Recreation. Randy Kelly, Chairperson Oliver Davis, Member Dr. Dave Varner, Vice-Chairperson John Voorde, Member 2017 COMMON COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEES (Rev. 01-4-17) PERSONNEL AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Oversees the activities performed by the Department of Administration and Finance, and reviews all proposed salaries, budgets, appropriations & other fiscal matters, as well as personnel policies, health benefits & related matters. Karen L. White, Chairperson Regina Williams-Preston, Member Gavin Ferlic, Vice-Chairperson John Voorde, Member PUBLIC WORKS AND PROPERTY VACATION COMMITTEE Oversees the various activities performed by the Building Department, the Department of Public Works & related public works & property vacation issues. John Voorde, Chairperson Jo M. Broden, Member Randy Kelly, Vice-Chairperson Gavin Ferlic, Member RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE Oversees the various activities & issues related to neighborhood development & enhancement. Karen White, Chairperson Regina Williams-Preston, Member Jo Broden, Vice-Chairperson John Voorde, Member UTILITIES COMMITTEE Oversees the activities of all enterprise entities including but not limited to the Bureau of Waterworks, Bureau of Sewers and all related matters. Dr. David Varner, Chairperson Randy Kelly, Member Oliver Davis, Vice-Chairperson Regina Williams-Preston, Member ZONING AND ANNEXATION COMMITTEE Oversees the activities related to the Board of Zoning Appeals, recommendations from the Area Plan Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission, as well as all related matters addressing annexation and zoning. Oliver Davis, Chairperson Gavin Ferlic, Member John Voorde, Vice-Chairperson Jo Broden, Member ________________ SUB-COMMITTEE ON MINUTES Reviews the minutes prepared by the Office of the City Clerk of the regular, special and informal meetings of the Common Council and makes a recommendation on their approval/modification to the Council Tim Scott Dr. David Varner 2016 COMMON COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEES (Rev.01-4-17) TIM SCOTT, 1ST District Council Member PRESIDENT Information and Technology, Chairperson Council Rules Committee, Member Sub-Committee on Minutes, Member REGINA WILLIAMS-PRESTON 2nd District Council Member Community Relations Committee, Chairperson Residential Neighborhood Committee, Member Community Investment Committee, Vice-Chairperson Personnel & Finance Committee, Member Utilities Committee, Member RANDY KELLY, 3rd District Council Member PARC Committee, Chairperson Community Investment Committee, Member Community Relations Committee, Vice Chairperson Information & Technology Committee, Member Public Works & Property Vacation, Vice Chair Utilities Committee, Member JO BRODEN, 4TH District Council Member Health and Public Safety Committee, Chairperson Council Rules Committee, Member Residential Neighborhood Committee, Vice-Chairperson Public Works & Property Vacation, Member Zoning & Annexation Committee, Member DR. DAVID VARNER, 5TH District Council Member Utilities Committee, Chairperson Information & Technology Committee, Member PARC Committee, Vice-Chairperson Council Rules Committee, Member Sub-Committee on Minutes, Member OLIVER DAVIS, 6TH District Council Member Zoning & Annexation Committee, Chairperson Community Investment Committee, Member Utilities Committee, Vice-Chairperson Health & Public Safety Committee, Member PARC Committee, Member GAVIN FERLIC, AT LARGE Council Member Chairperson, Committee of the Whole Community Investment Committee, Chairperson Community Relations Committee, Member Information & Technology Committee, Vice-Chairperson Public Works & Property Vacation, Member Personnel & Finance Committee, Vice-Chairperson Zoning & Annexation Committee, Member KAREN L. WHITE, AT LARGE Council Member Residential Neighborhood Committee, Chairperson Community Relations Committee, Member Personnel & Finance Committee, Chairperson Council Rules Committee, Member Health & Public Safety Committee, Member JOHN VOORDE, AT LARGE Council Member Public Works & Property Vacation, Chairperson Residential Neighborhood Committee, Member Health and Public Safety, Vice-Chairperson PARC Committee, Member Zoning & Annexation Committee, Vice-Chairperson Personnel & Finance Committee, Member LAWRENCE P. MAGLIOZZI E X EC UTIVE DI RE C TOR Angela M. Smith Depu y Di-- AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF ST, JOSEPH COUNTY, IN 227 U'. JEFFL•RSON BLVD., R OOM 11 40COU NTY-CIT) BUIL DIN G, SOUTH BE\D, INDIANA +6601 (574) 235-457i October 3, 2017 Filed in Clerk's Office South Bend Common Council OCT 04 2017 4"'Floor, County-City Building SouthBend, IN 46601 KAREEi,fiAlf FOWLER CITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND.IN RE: Text Amendment—Common Variance Requests APC#2844-17 Dear Council Members: Enclosed is an Ordinance for the proposed Text Amendment referenced above. Please include the attached Ordinance on the Council agenda for first reading at your October 9, 2017 Council meeting, and set it for public hearing at your November 13, 2017. Council meeting. The petition is tentatively scheduled for public hearing at the October 17,2017 Area Plan Commission meeting. The recommendation of the Area Plan Commission will be forwarded to your office by noon on the day following the public hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, aW,/, 7Vj?Z/ K Angela M. Smith Deputy Director CC: Bob Palmer SE R VING ST. JOS EPH C O UN TY, SOUT H B END, LAKEV I LLE. NE W CA RL I SLE, NORTH L IBERTY. OSCEOLA & ROSELAN D W W W.S TJ O S E P H C O U N T Y I N D I A N A.C O N I A R E A P l A N i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO AMEND AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK PROVISIONS; ARTICLE 3 COMMERCIAL/MIXED USE DISTRICTS TO REMOVE MAXIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTDOOR SEATING FOR RESTAURANTS IN THE O OFFICE DISTRICT, LB LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND CB COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND ADD PROVISION TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING IN THE GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; AND ARTICLE 7 GENERAL REGULATIONS TO ALLOW REQUIRED LANDSCAPING TO BE PLACED WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EXEMPT THE MU MIXED USE DISTRICT FROM MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT The Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, adopted a new zoning ordinance that went into effect on May 7, 2004. Since the adoption of the Ordinance, several provisions have resulted in numerous requests for variances from the development standards. This ordinance revision addresses items for which variances are frequently granted with little to no concern from staff agencies or the public. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 21,Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code,Article 2 Residential Districts, Section 21-02.11(f)(2)Additional Front Setback Provisions, subsection (B)ii, is hereby amended as follows: ii. The setback provisions of this Ordinance are subject to the following modification: In any block in any residential district contained in this Ordinance in which an existingfront yard setback is established by existing, legally established meneemArming-buildings or structures en mefe than ^ - Ety pefeent 6004 the t o tal number-of le within the same blockface fronting on the same public street, the minimumfront yard setback for any new building, structure or addition along such blockface shall be the average of such established front yards, if such average dimension is less than the minimumfront yard setback established by this Ordinance. SECTION II. Chapter 21, Zoning, of the South BendMunicipal Code,Article 3 Commercial/ Mixed Use District, Section 21-03.03 O Office District, subsection (b)(12)(A) Outdoor seating for restaurants is hereby amended as follows: iv. shall be included in the calculation of requiredfoundation landscaping area and any applicable buildingfoundation landscaping area and associated plant unit value shall be extended or relocated around the perimeter of the outdoor seating area; and V. shall not exeeed 1 0 vi: V. SECTION III. Chapter 21, Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code, Article 3 Commercial Mixed Use District, Section 21-03.04 LB Local Business District, subsection (b)(12)(A) Outdoor seating for restaurants is hereby amended as follows: iv. shall be included in the calculation of requiredfoundation landscaping area and any applicable buildingfoundation landscaping area and associated plant unit value shall be extended or relocated around the perimeter of the outdoor seating area; and shahn o t e eed10 0% ofth e ,r s eer area of the restaurant; aP 1 vi V. SECTION IV. Chapter 21,Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code,Article 3 Commercial Mixed Use District, Section 21-03.05 CB Community Business District, subsection b)(1 1)(A) Outdoor seating for restaurants is hereby amended as follows: V. shalln o t a eed1 050A of th e .r fleeir areao f th e r e s t..,,r.nt; and,- V. vi-i-. Vi. SECTION V. Chapter 21,Zoning, ofthe South Bend Municipal Code, Article 3 Commercial Mixed Use District, Section 21-03.07 GB General Business District, subsection(b)(11) Outdoor Operations is hereby amended as follows: G) Outdoor seating for restaurants: i.shall not be located between a building line and a residential bu e ard• ii. shall not be located in any required yard or any street right-of- way; iii. shall be located adjacent to the business'tenant bay or storefront; iv. shall be included in the calculation of required foundation landscaping area and any pplicable building foundation landscaping area and associated foundation landscaping shall be extended or relocated around the perimeter of the outdoor seating area; V. shall not block an entrance or exit to or from the business or building; and, vi. shall be located so as to not interfere or conflict with sidewalks, walkways,pedestrian ways, required parking areas, required loading areas, driveways, interior access drives, interior access driveways,perimeter landscape yards or foundation landscaping_ SECTION VI. Chapter 21, Zoning, ofthe South Bend Municipal Code, Article 7 General Regulations, Section 21-07.01(a) General Landscaping Provisions, subsection (2) Location of Landscaping is hereby amended as follows: 2) Location of Landscaping—Required landscaping areas shall consist of four(4) locations on a site: ( i) landscaping of required perimeter yards or residential bufferyards; (ii)foundation landscaping; (iii) interior parking area landscaping; and, ( iv)parking area screening. To the fullest extent possible, landscaping shall be placed on the development site. When circumstances dictate that landscaping required by this Section can only be placed in the public right-of-way to meet the requirements of this Section,permission must be sought and obtained from the Board of Public Works and City Arborist prior to the placement of the landscaping within the right-of-way. SECTION VII. Chapter 21, Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code, Article 7 General Regulations, Section 21-07.04 Off-Street Parking Regulations, subsection (a)Applicability is hereby amended as follows: 1) Parking for Buildings,Structures or Uses. All new development, additions to buildings or structures, or conversions of use for which an improvement location permit is required by this Ordinance in any district except the MU District or CBD District shall provide required off-street parking areas in accordance with the regulations of this Section 21- 07.04. Such off-street parking areas may be provided in either a surface parking area or a parking garage. Ifoff-streetparking areas are provided in a parking garage, such parking garage shall be located in compliance with the development standards of the applicable district of this Ordinance regarding: minimum yards and setbacks; landscaping of perimeter yards and residential I! bufferyards (Section 21-07.01 (b); and, foundation landscaping (Section 21- 07.01 (c)). 2) Exceptions to Off-Street Parking Regulations for any MU District or CBD District. Off-street parking areas shall not be required for any use located in any MU District or CBD District. Any off-street parking areas which are provided, although not required, shall be developed in compliance with the design and construction standards set forth in this Section 21-07.04. SECTION VIII. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. Member of the Common Council Attest: City Clerk Presentedby me to the Mayor of the City of South Bend, Indiana on the day of 2 at o'clock M. City Clerk Approved and signed by me on the day of 2 at o'clock M. Mayor, City of South Bend, Indiana Filed in Clerk's Office I st READING OCT 04 2017 PUBLIC HEARING 3 rd READING KAREEMAH FOWLER NOT APPROVED CITY CLERK,SOUTH SEND, IN REFERRED PASSED LAWRENCE P. MAGLiOZZI EXECUT I VE DIRE C TOR Angela M. Smith Deputy Di,,,t,, q'ARPEAPLLAN COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, IN 22 7 \V. J L FFLRSON BLVD., ROOM 1 140CO UNTY-CITY BUIL DIN G, SOUTH BLVD, I ND IANA 4660 1 (574) 235-95 71 October- 3, 2017 Filed in Clerk's Office South Bend Common Council OCT 04 207 41h Floor, County-City Building South Bend,IN 46601 KAREEMAH iFOWt_ER CITY CLERK,s0UTH BEND,IN RE: Text Amendment—Various Engineering Standards APC#2841-17 Dear Council Members: Enclosed is an Ordinance for the proposed Text Amendment referenced above. Please include the attached Ordinance on the Council agenda for first reading at your October 9, 2017 Council meeting, and set it for public hearing at your November 13, 2017. Council meeting. The petition is tentatively scheduled for public hearing at the October 17,2017 Area Plan Commission meeting. The recommendation of the Area Plan Commission will be forwarded to your office by noon on the day following the public hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, et%e mith Deputy Director CC: Bob Palmer SERVINGST. JO SEP H CO UNTY, SOUTH BEND, LAKE VI L LE, N EW CA RLISLE, NORT H LIB ERT Y, OSCEO LA & ROSELAND W W W.S T I O S E P H C O U N T Y I N D I A N A.C O M/A R E g P L A N ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 1 BASIC PROVISIONS TO REVISE CLEAR SIGHT AREA REQUIREMENTS AND PRIVATE STREET WIDTHS, ARTICLE 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO REVISE GRADE LEVEL IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS, AND ARTICLE 3 COMMERCIAL/ MIXED USE DISTRICTS TO REVISE DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY STANDARDS STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT The Common Council ofthe City of South Bend, Indiana, adopted a new zoning ordinance that went into effect on May 7, 2004. Experience in using the ordinance has shown that several of its engineering-related standards have led to the overbuilding of paved surfaces, poor urban design outcomes, and frequent variance requests. This ordinance would revise Clear Sight Area Requirements, reduce minimum pavement width requirements for private streets and alleys,permit driveways in a rear yard, and amend drive-through stacking requirements. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana as follows: SECTION I. Chapter 21, Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code,Article 1 Basic Provisions, Section 21-01.01 (t) Clear Sight Area Requirements, is hereby deleted and replaced with a new Section 21-01.01 (t) as follows: t) Clear Sight Area Requirements 1) Except in the CBD Central Business District, no building,structure or improvement, including landscaping, shall be erected,placed,planted or maintained so as to interfere with a Clear Sight Area located between the heights ofthree (3) feet and ten (10) feet above the crown of a street, driveway or alley. A Clear Sight Area shall be established for all streets, whether public or private. 2) The Clear Sight Area is the triangular area formed by the street right-of-way line; another street right-of-way line, alley right-of-way line, or driveway surface edge; and a line connecting points ten(10) feet from the intersection of said lines See Figure 21-01.01 A). In the case of a round or corner-cut right-of-way, the measurement shall be taken from the intersection ofthe right-of-way lines extended. I I I I I I 3 I I I o w I CLEAR SIGHT AREA CLEAR SIGHT AREA R/W 0'10' CURB STREET Figure 21-01.01 A The City Engineer or designee may require a larger Clear Sight Area, as provided by Indiana Department of Transportation Design Manual standards, when necessary to provide for the safe movement of vehicles. I SECTION II. Chapter 21, Zoning, ofthe South Bend Municipal Code, Article 1 Basic Provisions, Section 21-01.01 (u) Requirements for All Private Streets and Private Alleys, is hereby.amended as follows: 1) Pavement Width for Private Streets—Minimum pavement width for that portion of a private street available for through traffic(i.e., exclusive of parking spaces): A) Residential Districts: i. 1 way traffic— 12' ii. 2 way traffic—2-4-120' B) Commercial/Mixed Use Districts or Industrial Districts: i. 1 way traffic—4-8-1 14' ii. 2 way traffic—3-6-128' 2) Pavement Width for Private Alleys—Minimum pavement width for that portion of aprivate alley available for through traffic (i.e., exclusive ofparking spaces): A) Residential Districts— 12' B) Commercial/Mixed Use Districts or Industrial Districts— W 12' SECTION III. Chapter 21, Zoning, ofthe South BendMunicipal Code, Article 2 Residential Districts, Section 21-02.11 (a) ( 3)Additional Development Standards for Accessory Uses, Buildings or Structures in any Residential District, is hereby amended as follows: F) Grade Level Improvements. Grade level improvements which do not include a foundation shall be permitted as follows: i.In a minimum front yard—walkways and driveways. ii. In a minimum side yard or minimum rear yard—walkways, driveways, and interior access drives,provided, however-tha4 yarda n d sha4 n o t be lens t han n;i tl-.t (9) foot in Y4& nor gr-e to than sixteen(16) feet; 1A idth SECTION IV. Chapter 21, Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code, Article 3 Commercial Mixed Use Districts, Section 21-03.11 (a) (3)Additional Development Standards for Accessory Uses, Buildings or Structures in any Commercial/Mixed Use District, is hereby amended as follows: G) Drive through facilities - shall be so designed that: i. drive through lanes do not cause any interference to a public rikht-of-way or conflict with the safe and °ffieien4 flow „ t..affi. into and out e movement along sidewalks or walkways or to building entrances or exits, required parking spaces or loading spaces•, vi. it provides at least five (5)three 3 waiting spaces prior to the first occurrence of any ordering,pick-up or service facility; and SECTION V. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. Member of the Common Council Attest: City Clerk Presentedby me to the Mayor of the City of South Bend, Indiana on the day of 2 at o'clock m. City Clerk Approved and signed by me on the day of 2 at o'clock M. Mayor, City of South Bend, Indiana 1 st READING PUBLIC HEARING 3 rd READING NOT APPROVED E'ERRED USED LAWRENCE P. MAGLIOZZI C r:X ECLITIVE n1RECTOR Angela M. Smith Drpvvy Director AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, IN 127 `IV. JE FFE R SO N BL VD., ROOM 114 0 COUNT S-CITYBUILDING, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 4 660 1 (574) 21 5-9571 October 3, 2017 Filed in Clerk's Office OCT 04 2017 South Bend Common Council 41h Floor, County-CityBuilding KAREEMAH FOWLER South Bend, IN46601 CITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND, IN RE; Text Amendment—Allowing Uses to Pyramid in to a more intense District APC#2842-17 Dear Council Members: Enclosed is an Ordinance for the proposed Text Amendment referenced above. Please include the attached Ordinance on the Council agenda for first reading at your October 9, 2017 Council meeting, and set it for public hearing at your November 13, 2017. Council meeting. The petition is tentatively scheduled for public hearing at the October 17,2017 Area Plan Commission meeting. The recommendation of the Area Plan Commission will be forwarded to your office by noon on the day following the public hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, e— WCVW#1 Angela M. Smith Deputy Director CC: Bob Palmer S ERVI N G ST. JO SEPH COUNT Y, SOUTH B END, L A KEVILLE, NEW CAR LISLE, N ORTH L I BERTY, OS CEOLA & ROSE LANO W W W.5 T I0$CPFIC OU N T Y IN DIAN A.CO M/A R EA P LA N ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 1 BY ALLOWING USES PERMITTED IN A LESS INTENSE DISTRICT TO BE PERMITTED IN A MORE INTENSE DISTRICT STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT The Common Council ofthe City of South Bend, Indiana, adopted a new zoning ordinance that went into effect on May 7, 2004. Since the adoption of the ordinance, several properties have had to seek rezoning to a less intense zoning district to permit certain uses, even though those uses are less intense than and are compatible with the uses found in their existing zoning district. This ordinance would add a provision to permit non-residential uses allowed in a less intense zoning district to be permitted in a more intense zoning district under certain circumstances without having to seek a rezoning. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana as follows: SECTION I. Chapter 21, Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code, Article 1 Basic Provisions, Section 21-01.02 Zoning Districts and Zone Maps, is hereby amended as follows: c) Use Permitted in More Intense Districts Other than residential uses, any use permitted as a primary use in a"less intense" district shall also be interpreted to be a primary use permitted in a"more intense" district. Any use that is only permitted as a special exception use in any "less intense" district shall be interpreted to be a special exception use in a"more intense"district unless it is permitted as a primary use in the"more intense" district. Because of the unique characteristics of the CBD Central Business District,this provision shall not be used to p.famid permitted uses into or out ofthat district. e)to (d) tom e)toM 4)to(g) 0 toLhh) to 01 tom SECTION II. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. Member of the Common Council Attest: City Clerk Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of South Bend, Indiana on the day of 2 at o'clock m. City Clerk Approved and signed by me on the day of 2 at o'clock m. Mayor, City of South Bend, Indiana Filed in Clerk's Office 1 st READING OCT 04 2017PUBLIC HEARING 3 rd READING NOT APPROVED KAREEMAH FOWLER REFERRED CITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND,IN PASSED City of SouthBend Common Council M 441 County-City Building • 227 W.Jefferson Blvd 574) 235-9321 South Bend,Indiana 46601-1830 Fax (574)235-9173 TDD: (574)235-5567 Tim Scott http://www.southbendin.gov President October 17, 2017 Oliver Davis Vice-President South Bend Common Council 4th Floor, County-City Building Gavin Ferlic South Bend, IN 46601 Chairperson,Committee of the Whole Re: Proposed Substitute Tax Abatement Enforcement Ordinance, Tim Scott Bill 78-17 First District Dear Council Members: Regina Williams Preston Second District I am filing today the attached proposed substitute amendment to the enforcement provisions of the tax abatement ordinance, Chapter 2, Randy Kelly Article 6, section 2- 84.14(g). This proposed amendment addresses Third District factors beyond the control of the applicant that causes the applicant's jo inability to substantially comply with all of its commitments and the Fourthth District Department of Community Investment's duty to document and disclose those factors. This bill had first reading on October 9, 2017 and is David Varner scheduled for second and third readings and public hearing on October Fifth District 23, 2017. Oliver Davis Thank you for your consideration. Sixth District Gavin Ferlic Sincerely Yours, At Large John Voorde Fled in Clerk's Office At Large Karen White Regina Williams-Preston OCT 1 7 20 17 At Large KAREEMAH FOWLER CITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND,IN SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,AMENDING A SECTION OF CHAPTER 2,ARTICLE 6 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TAX ABATEMENTS STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT It is the intention of the City of South Bend to enforce its tax abatement ordinance and provide assurance to the public that taxpayer subsidies are used to provide real benefits to the community and that companies receiving taxpayer subsidies via tax abatements are complying with the terms of the abatement throughout the life of the abatement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, as follows: Section I. Chapter 2, Article 6, Section 2-84.14 is hereby amended by replacing paragraph(g), andadding paragraphs 0), (k), and (1)to read as follows: Sec. 2-84.14. - Failure of petitioner to comply may result in fines being imposed or termination of economic revitalization designation and repayment of taxes previously abated. g) If the Department of Community Investment recommends to the Council that there are factors beyond the control ofthe applicant that led to the applicant's inability to substantially comply with all of its commitments,the Department shall document these factors in detail to the Council. The Council's Community Investment Committee shall meet promptly to consider the applicant's compliance. All documentation related to the applicant's compliance shall be included in the Council's packet of materials distributed before the above-referenced meeting of the Community Investment Committee. Such packet shall be posted and maintained online on the City of South Bend's website. j) Petitioner must inform each of its employees of the benefits provided to them due to the terms and conditions of its abatement by posting these terms and conditions in conspicuous locations throughout petitioner's premises including in places where EEOC posters are displayed. The posted benefits should include instructions as to how and where an aggrieved employee may file a complaint. Also, all new employees shall be given written notice of the employee benefits due to this abatement at the time ofemployment. k) The chief executive officer, president, managing partner, general partner, managing member, owner, or their approved designee, ofthe petitioner shall represent and warrant to the Department of Community Investment("DCI")under penalty ofperjury within 120 days ofthe end of each calendar year in which the petitioner receives the tax benefit of an abatement, that the petitioner is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the abatement. 1) DCI shall randomly audit no less than five tax abatement recipients each calendar year and certify the recipients' compliance with the terms and conditions of the their abatements. SECTION II. This Ordinance shall take effect upon passage by this Common Council, approval by the Mayor, and any publication required by law. Member of the Common Council Attest: City Clerk Presentedby me to the Mayor of the City of South Bend, Indiana on the day of 2 at o'clock . m. Deputy City Clerk Approved and signed by me on the day of 2 at o'clock m. Mayor, City of South Bend, Indiana Filed in Clerk's Office 1 st READING PUBLIC HEARING OCT l ZQ 3 rd READING NOT AP PP0 Vr_ rI KAREEMA i -t nrt , CITY CLERK,SOU I rs n[ ,.:, IN City of South Bend Common Council M8 6 : 441 County-City Building • 227 W.Jefferson Blvd 574)235-9321 South Bend,Indiana 46601-1830 Fax (574)235-9173 TDD: (574)235-5567 Tim Scotthttp://wwwsouthbendin.gov President October 17, 2017 Oliver Davis Vice-President South Bend Common Council 4th Floor, County-City Building Gavin Ferlic South Bend, IN 46601 Chairperson,Committee of the Whole Re: Proposed Tax Abatement Ordinance, amending Chapter 2, Tim Scott Article 6, Sec.2-84.9 First District Dear Council Members: Regina Williams Preston Second District I am filing today the attached proposed amendment to provisions of the ordinance providing for advisory review by the Community Investment Randy Kelly Department. The addition to subsections 2-84.9(c) provides for Third District additional disclosure of the written report ofthe Community and Jo Economic Development Committee in the Council's packet of materials Fourthth D strictand on the City's website. David Varner The proposed additional language in Sec. 2-84.9(e) addresses the Fifth District redaction of personal information about the employees of the petitioner and/or employees of the petitioner's construction contractors or Oliver Davis subcontractors. Sixth District The bill should be scheduled for first reading on October 23, 2017 with Gavin Ferlic second and third readings and public hearing on November 13, 2017. At Large John Voorde Thank you for your consideration. At Large Karen White Sincerely Yours, At Large Filed in Clerk's Office ReginaWilliams-Preston OCT 1 7 2017 KAREEMAH FOWLER CITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND,IN Substitute Bill No. 79-17 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,AMENDING SECTIONS 2-84.9(c) AND 2-84.9 (e) OF CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 6 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TAX ABATEMENTS STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT It is the intention of the City of South Bend to provide assurance to the public that taxpayer subsidies through tax abatements are used to provide real benefits to the community and that companies receiving taxpayer subsidies via tax abatements are complying with the terms of the abatement throughout the life of the abatement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, as follows: Section L Chapter 2, Article 6, Sections 2-84.9(c) and(e) are amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-84.9.—Advisory review by Community Investment Department. c) Within fifteen(15)days from the receipt of the documents from the Office of the City Clerk,the Community Investment Department shall prepare a written report setting forth a review of its advisory findings. The report shall be sent to the Council's Community Investment Committee,to the City Clerk,and to the petitioner.The report shall be included in the Council's packet of materials and shall be posted and maintained online on the City of South Bend's website. e) The Community Investment Department's report shall also attach to it a copy ofthe petition and statement ofbenefits form and all attachments thereto. The attachments shall include all documentation in support of benefits points awarded and all documentation in support of the minimum wage requirement set forth in 2-76.3(3). Any documentation divulging personal information about any employee of the petitioner, or about any employee of the petitioner's construction contractors or subcontractors, shall be redacted. Member of the Common Council Attest: City Clerk Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of South Bend, Indiana on the day of 2 at o'clock_. m. Deputy City Clerk Approved and signed by me on the day of 2 at o'clock M. Mayor, City of South Bend, Indiana Filed in Clerk's Office I sr READING NOV 0 9 2011 PUBLIC HEARING 3 rd READING KAREEMAH FOWLER NOT APPROCITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND,IN REFERRED PASSED RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA, APPROVING A PETITION OF THE AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3giq W. tJ1qS141Nr-0- WHEREAS, Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.6, requires the Common Council to give notice pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, of its intention to consider Petitions from the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval or disapproval; and WHEREAS,the Common Council must take action within sixty(60) days after the Board of Zoning Appeals makes its recommendation to the Council; and WHEREAS,the Common Council is required to make a determination in writing on such requests pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.4, and WHEREAS, the Area Board ofZoning Appeals has made a recommendation, pursuant to applicable state law. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA as follows: SECTION I. The Common Council has provided notice ofthe hearing on the Petition from the Area Board ofZoning Appeals pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, requesting that a Special Exception be granted for the property located at: 3419 W. WASHINGTON ST. 46619 in order to permit A COMMUNITY CENTER IN A °SF2" DISTRICT SECTION II. Following a presentation by the Petitioner, and afterproper public hearing,the Common Council hereby approves the petition ofthe Area Board ofZoning Appeals, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION III. The Common Council ofthe City of South Bend, Indiana, hereby finds that: 1. The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare; 2. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use ofthe adjacent area or property values therein; 3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character ofthe district in which it is located and the land usesauthorized therein; C 4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations ofthe City of South Bend Comprehensive plan; SECTION IV. Approval is subject to the Petitioner complying with the reasonable conditions established by the Area Board ofZoning Appeals which are on file in the office ofthe CityClerk. SECTION V. The Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption bytheCommon Council and approval by the Mayor. Member of the Common Council Filed in Clerk's Office RESENTED OCT 10 2017 NOT APPRO4 KAREEMAH FOWLER ADOPTIO CITY CLERK,SOUTH BENI' _°+ AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS I25 S. Lafayette Blvd. Suite 100, South Bend, Indiana 46601 574-235-9554 • (Fax)574-235-5541 buildingawsouthbendin.gov www.soutbendin.gov SPECIAL EXCEPTION PETITION ABZA DATE: Wednesday, November 1 st , 2017 PETITIONER Jones PetrieRafinski 574-232-4388 cchockley@jpr1 source.com Name Phone Email 325 S. LafayetteBoulevard South Bend IN 46601 Address Cite ST Zip PROPERTY OWNER(IF DIFFERENT THAN PETITIONER) SouthBend Venues Parks and Arts (574) 299-4765 aperri@southbendin.gov Name Phone Email 321 E Walter Street South Bend IN 46614 Address Cith ST Zip PRESENTER(IF DIFFERENT THAN PETITIONER) Name Phone F.mai I Address City ST Zip PROPERTY INFORMATION SF-2 Portage 7.oni111-okN nship 3419 WWashington St South Bend IN 46619 Address C its S-f Zip Lots 1 Thru 5 &All OfLots 1086 1087 1089 & So 46' Lot 1088 Inc] All Adj Vac Streets & AlleysCont 7Ac +- Lasalle Park 3rd Proposed Lot 1088 Ex 46 Ft S End Lasalle Park 2nd Add Leal Description Filed in Clerk's Office OC 1 11 2017 KAREEMAk 1 FOWLER CITY CLERK: SO!-M-i BEND, IN] t PETITION 1-0 AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION SPECIAL EXCEPTION Seekinu: SpecialException to allow a Community Center in a "SF2" District. In addition, this project is seeking a variance approval to allow for a reduction of parking from the approximate 273 parking spaces to a parking count of 116 spaces, which includes both existing and new parking spaces. Additional parking needs are met through the use of on-street parking. REASON FOR REQUEST(S) When the building was originally construction and when a new building addition was constructed in 1997 the property was zoned Commercial. In 2004 the property was rezoned as "SF2"which then reclassified the existing building as a non-conforming use. APPROVAL STANDARDS 1. The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because: the project consists of existing building renovations and an addition to better serve the community by providing additional programming space. 2. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein because: the project consists of the renovation and addition to an existing community building. 3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which is located and the land uses authorized therein because: the project will enhance an already existing community recreation facility 4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive Plan because: it meets the Public Facility and Community Assets goal to "Provide efficient and progressive public facilities and services that accommodate future growth and meet the community's changing needs". 10-10-20171 Filed in Clerk' `firu V CANT SIGNATURE Dat - Chris ockley OCT 112017 Name KAREEMAH FOWLER CITY CLERK,SO ITH BEMrD. 1NI 2 t NYld 3JJS 7rfT:IAO W.LWd3G NOLLv3vo3v QNV"M ONNS HJ-Ln7OS Jo)-Lo IZ>Vlg qMM-0 E El oc) oojl 11111IT UJ Uj I co C%4 0 LL — C/) C Lj C=) L C) z it L- Q) I I WAS--q T 13 4-4 s--P J r LU cn NO iv S` LL ? U 11JMCE 1 1 5 v C.7 m ' N U LL N J U Ld O W Ul W A r 4.- rEAr. k dpi _a 3I t J. r. t d t i PROP - I r j, ri i .Sw,•^- ' - tom J L a 1s 1 9a" brd ced Nil. lei it aA do LCFL i. ya_. 5 i MY" Li y1 Ir l g _ s U-11I 6m 121AIR AREA BOARDOFZONING APPEALS dle in Clerk's Office 125 S. Lafayette Blvd. Suite 100, South Bend, Indiana 4661 574-235-9554 • (Fas)574-235-5541 g OCT 112017building a suuthbendin,u www.soutbendin.gov KARENAFI FOV,/LER CITY CLERK,SOUTH PEND.IN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Area Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers on the 4th Floor of the County-City Building, 227 W.Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana on the 1 st day of NOvern, 2017 , at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard.This hearing is for the purpose of considering a petition that was filed by: Jones Petrie Rafinski Seeking: Special Exception to allow a Community Center in a " SF2" District. In addition, this project is seeking a variance approval to allow for a reduction of parking from the approximate 273 parking spaces to a parking count of 116 spaces, which includes both existing and new A _1_I:L:-.--1 .-----'-- -----I- --- .__- .1_.__..- On real estate commonly described as: 3419 WWashington St South Bend IN 46619 and is legally described as follows: Lots 1 Thru5 &All Of Lots 1086 1087 1089 & So 46' Lot 1088 Incl All Adj Vac Streets &Alleys Cont 7 Ac +- Lasalle Park 3rd Proposed Lot 1088 Ex 46 Ft S End Lasalle Park 2nd Add Dated this of AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Caro yn A. HetVY f c0 Secretary to the Board 0 6 is TO THE PETITIONER: It is your responsibility to complete this form correctly and deliver it to the Secretary ofthe Board ofZoning Appeals with the other papers at the time of original filing.Once it is signed by the Secretary,then it is your responsibility to make arrangements to have publication of notice made in a local newspaper having g=eneral circulation in St.Joseph County. Such notice must be published one(1)time,being at least ten(10)days prior to the date on which the public hearing is to be held. Proof of publication must be presented to the Board at the time of public hearing. AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 125 S. Lafayette Blvd. Suite 100, South Bend, Indiana 46601 574-235-9554 • (Fax)574-235-5541 buildinerdisouthbendin.;ov www.soutbendin.gov NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: You are hereby notified that a public hearing will be held by the Area Board of Zoning Appeals on Wednesday, the 1St day of Novea, 2017---.,at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the 4th Floor of the County-City Building,227 W.Jefferson Blvd.,South Bend,Indiana. A petition is on file by: Jones Petrie Rafinski Seeking: SpecialException to allow a Community Centerin a "SF2" District. In addition, this project is seeking a variance approval to allow for a reduction of parking from the approximate 273 parking spaces to a parking count of 116 spaces, which includes both existing and new parking spaces. Additional parking needs are met through the use of on-street parking. On property commonly described as: 3419 W Washington StSouth Bend IN46619 Said public hearing will be held as authorized by the applicable Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 138, Acts of 1957 of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana. As a property owner within the immediate appeal area,this notice is sent to you as a courtesy. Sometimes, for reasons beyond our control, property owners within the immediate area of the subject property will not receive a copy of this notice. If you know of someone who should have received notice but didn't, please inform them of this hearing. Any persons desiring to oppose or support this petition will be heard at the time of the hearing. AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Carolyn A. Henry Secretary to the Board Filed in Clerk's Office OCT 112017 KAREE I l FOWLER CITY CLERK,SOUTH BENZ }, 1N Filed in Clerk's Office OCT 112017 CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BENDWILIAMS J T LASALLE PARK HOMES 11 INC 227W Jefferson Blvd 13th FI1815 Champlain Dr 102 S Falcon St -g FRK,SOUTH BEND, INSouth Bend IN 46601 Niles MI 49120 South Bend IN 46619 DAVIS OTIS V&TYRONE&MANSONDEPT OF PUBLIC PARKSBRODIE GAIL A TIC 102 North Sheridan 301S St Louis BI 114 Lake Street South Bend IN 46619 South Bend IN 46617 South Bend IN 46619 MCCLAIN JOHN H AND CHRISTINE MARTINEZ ERIKKA S LLOYD LENORA 110 S Iowa St 2626 Dunham St121 S Iowa St South Bend IN 46619South Bend IN 46619South Bend IN 46619 JENNINGS DEBRAH AGAILDAY ELTON AND MARIECIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND 121 S Kentucky St 114 S. Kentucky St., 227 W Jefferson Blvd 1400 SouthBend IN 46619 SouthBend IN 46619 South Bend IN 46601 LASALLE PARK HOMES INC DEPT OF PUBLIC PARKBROWN ROSE M. 102 SFalcon St 301 S StLouis Blvd 442 S Jackson Street SouthBend IN 46601South Bend IN 46617South Bend IN 46619 NEWMANCHRISTINA GTSC LLC 3019 S. Michigan Street PO Box 5464 South Bend IN 46614 Fort Wayne IN 46805 LEONARD VICKI BONEY CHRISTOPHER SLLOYD LENORA 122 S Lake Street 118 S Iowa St121 S Iowa St South Bend IN 46619 South Bend IN 46619South Bend IN 46619 JENNINGS DEBRAH A MFC SOUTH BEND HOLDINGSII LLC JENNINGS FLORINE 121 SKentucky St 309 S Logan St110 S Lake St South Bend IN 46619 South Bend IN46615 South Bend IN 46619 LLOYD LENORAMCCLAIN JOHN H AND CHRISTINEMI CASA FUNDING GROUP LLC 121 S Iowa St110 Iowa St. 53393 Peggy Av South Bend IN 46619 SouthBend IN 46619 South Bend IN 46635 CIVIL CITY OFSOUTH BEND LOPEZ ALFREDO ANDGRISELDA ARROYO VALENTIN 227 W Jefferson Blvd 1400105 Lake 106 Lake South Bend IN 46601 South Bend IN 46619South Bend IN 46619 Fi'Cd ID Clerk's Office- OCT 112017 MCCLAIN JOHN R AND CHRISTINE CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND HARDEN PAULETTE BIBBS;t3END, IN 110 Iowa St 227 W Jefferson Blvd 14th FL105 S Kentucky Street South Bend IN 46619South Bend IN 46601South Bend IN 46619 MFC SOUTH BEND HOLDINGS II LLC CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND FLEMING YOLANDA A 309 S Logan St 227 W Jefferson Blvd 14th FL 113 S Lake St South Bend IN 46615 South Bend IN 46601 South Bend IN 46619 CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BENDCIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND BONEY CHRISTOPHER S 227 W Jefferson Blvd 14th FL 227 WJefferson Blvd 14th FL 118 S Iowa St South Bend IN 46601 South Bend IN 46601South Bend IN 46619 LLOYD LENORA GAILDAY ELTON AND MARIECIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND 121 S Iowa St 114 SKentucky St 227 W Jefferson Blvd 13th FI SouthBend IN 46619 South Bend IN 46619 South Bend IN 46601 SPIRITUAL ISRAEL CHURCH&ITS DAVIS OTIS V&TYRONE&DAVIS BELLA DEV INC ARMY MANSON TIC 3517 W Washington St 2921 W Sample 109 Lake South Bend IN 46619 South Bend IN 46619 South Bend IN 46619 CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND CALDERA MARIA LASALLE PARK HOMES 227 W Jefferson Blvd 13th FI 26997 Jackson Rd 120 S Falcon South Bend IN 46601 South Bend IN 46619 South Bend IN 46619 FULTZALFRED D CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BENDCIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND 2046 N Meade 227 W Jefferson Blvd 1400 227 W Jefferson Blvd 1400 South Bend IN 46628 South Bend IN 46601 South Bend IN 46601 CIVILCITY OF SOUTH BEND DE LA CRUZ EUNICE HARDEN PAULETTE BIBBS 227 W Jefferson Blvd 14th FL 3102 W Washington105 S Kentucky Street South Bend IN 46601 South Bend IN 46619 South Bend IN 46619 FOWLER SAMMIE AND DELORES J CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND DUKES JOHN AND HELEN 1012 S. Stoneacre Ave 227 W Jefferson Blvd 14th FL 206 N Kenmore Compton CA 90221 South Bend IN 46601South Bend IN 46619 VANLIER ELVERNA UND1/2 INT& OWENS BENITA GREEN BILLIE UND 1/2 INT PO Box 1126 321 S Kenmore St South Bend IN 46624 South Bend IN 46619 Filed in Clerk"s r 1 2011 MAYSONET RENITA L STEWART ROSE FOWLER DELORES&EDDIS BUTLE AND JESSE WALKER JR. LIFE EST. E 214 NKenmore St 442 S Jackson St 1150 79th Street..EHK,SL.)U I H BEND, IN South Bend IN 46619 South Bend IN 46619 Los Angeles CA 90044 SOUTH BEND PARK DEPT LASALLE PARK HOMES INC CITY OF SOUTH BEND 301S St Louis Blvd 102 S Falcon St1200 County City Bldg. South Bend IN 46617 South Bend IN 46619 South Bend IN 46601 it Type: Filing_Fees Filed in Clerk's Office Payor:JONES PETRIE3 FAFINSKI License Number: OCT 1 12017 Address: 3419 W WASHINGTON FOWLER EXCEPTION & PARKING VARIANCE FOR SOUTH KAFEF vA9-! 7Y CLERK,SOUTH BEND,IN BEND PARKS & VENUES/CHARLES BLACK CENTER 10/10/2017 12:14:51 PM Filing_Fees $345.00 Check 393999 345.00 chenry 9365 Filed in Clerk's Office SpUTH 8 t d NOV 08 2017 U d PEACE ItAREEM l FOWLER x x CITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND,IN 1865 CITY OF SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT November 8, 2017 Mr. Tim Scott, President South Bend Common Council 4t'Floor County-City Building South Bend, IN 46601 RE: Interlocal agreement on Historic Preservation Dear President Scott: This ordinance is one oftwo necessary Council actions to provide for a smooth transition ofHistoric Preservation Commission (HPC) staff from the County to the City, as planned for in the 2018 budget. This first ordinance,which needs to be passed before the end of the year, includes the Council's approval of the interlocal agreement between the City and the County and adds historic preservation to the duties of the Department of Community Investment(DCI). The second ordinance will make conforming amendments to the zoning provisions related to historic preservation and will follow the normal process through the Area Plan Commission. As you know, the HPC will continue to operate in service of the residents and property owners ofthe City and the County through this staffing transition. The mission of the HPC remains to identify architecturally or historically significant buildings, structures, sites, and objects; to promote the protection and preservation ofthe same in a manner that enhances both human and economic welfare; and to accommodate development and redevelopment in both the City and County. The interlocal agreement between the City and the County provides a clear path forward for the transition and provides for continuity of services, authorities, and designations, specifically: EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 14005County-City Building 1 227 W.Jefferson Bvld.I SouthBend,Indiana466011 p 574.235.93711 www.southb endin.gov Bill No. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND AND THE COUNTY OF ST.JOSEPH TO PROVIDE CITY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY(THE HPC)AND AMENDING CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 4, SECTION 2-13,SUB-PART (B) (7) OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE THIS AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY INVESTMENT STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT On September 10, 1973 the City of South Bend(the City) adopted Ordinance No. 5565- 73 and on May 14, 1973 the County ofSt. Joseph(the County) adopted Ordinance No. 154-73, both ofwhich ordinances mutually established the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County(the HPC). The HPC's mission is to identify within the City and the County architecturally or historically significant buildings, structures, and objects, and to promote their protection and preservation in a manner that enhances human and economic welfare and that accommodates development and redevelopment in the City and the County. The City and the County have agreed and determined pursuant to the attached,proposed Interlocal Agreement(Exhibit 1)that it is in their respective best interest that the City assume responsibility from the County for the day-to-day management ofhistoric preservation matters related to or that may come before the HPC. In accepting such management responsibility,the City is willing to accept the transfer to its employment ofexisting County staff positions consisting oftwo full-time positions and one part-time position serving the HPC by creating analogous positions within the City's Department of Community Investment. The County will reimburse the City on an hourly basis at an agreed rate for certain time expended by such staffpersons performing work related to historic preservation matters outside the corporate boundaries ofthe City. The 2018 budget ordinance and the 2018 non-bargaining employee wage and salary ordinance recently approved by this Common Council (Ordinances Nos.10499-17 and 10546-17 respectively)have included and provided for the funds needed to pay for the HPC's operations, including but not limited to the costs of employees hired by the City to fill the staffpositions serving the HPC during calendar year 2018. The Interlocal Agreement identified and approved by this ordinance(Exhibit 1) is authorized pursuant to Ind. Code §36-1-7,the Interlocal Cooperation Act,which provides that one or more governmental agencies may exercise jointly or by one entity on behalfof others, powers that may be exercised by such units severally. The transfer of the HPC management responsibility to the City's Department of Community Investment requires an amendment to The South Bend Municipal Code at Chapter 2, Article 4, Section 2-13, Sub-part(13)(7). Further amendments to the zoning provisions of the South Bend Municipal Code (Chapter 21, Article 13)are also required by this Interlocal Agreement,but these amendments will be undertaken separately because a different approval process is needed. It is desirable, advantageous, and in the public interest of the City to enter into this Interlocal.Agreement(Exhibit 1 hereto),and to amend the South Bend Municipal Code at Chapter 2, Article 4, Section 2-13, Subpart(13)(7). NOW,THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Common Council of the City of South Bend,Indiana,that: SECTION I. The Council hereby approves the Interlocal Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit"1"by and between the City of South Bend and the County of St. Joseph for the City's management responsibility for the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County, Indiana. SECTION H. Chapter 2,Article 4, Section 2-13, Sub-part (B) ( 7) shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows: Section 2-13.Departments established. B). In addition to functions statutorily provided,the administrative functions of the departments of the City shall be as follows: 7) Community Investment Department a) Redevelopment; b) Community Development; c) Housing programs; d) Economic Development; e) Planning; f) Neighborhood development; g) License issuance h) Historic Preservation Commission SECTION III. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its passage by this Common Council and signature by the Mayor, conditioned upon St. Joseph County's executive and legislative approval of the same Interlocal Agreement. Member, South Bend Common Council ATTEST: City Clerk Presentedby me to the Mayor of theCity of South Bend,Indiana,on the day of 2017,at o'clock_.m. City Clerk Approved and signed by me on the day of 2017, at o'clock M. Mayor, City South Bend, Indiana Filed in Clerk's Office 1 sr READING NOV 0 8 2017PUBLIC HEARING 3 rd READING NOT APPROVED KAREEMAH FOWLER REFERRED CITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND,IN PASSED EXHIBIT A Interlocal Agreement This portion leftintentionally blank] Filed in Clerk's Office NOV 0 8 2017 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT KAREEMAH FOWLER This Interlocal Agreement(this"Agreement") is made as of the_da Q6ITY CLERK,SO H BEND,IN 2017,by and between the Board of Commissioners of St. Joseph County, Indiana e ounty and the City of South Bend,Indiana(the" City") (each a" Party," and together the "Parties"). WHEREAS, by virtue of the City's Ordinance No. 5565-73 adopted on September 10, 1973, and the County's Ordinance No. 154-73 adopted on May 14, 1973, the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County (the "HPC") was established as ajoint board for purposes of historic preservation in the City and the County; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to continue the HPC's jurisdiction and operations in service of the residents and property owners of the City and the County; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to assume from the County the responsibility for the day- to-day management of historic preservation matters related to or that may come before the HPC; and WHEREAS, in accepting such management responsibility, the City is willing to accomplish the transfer of the existing County staff positions serving the HPC to City employment by creating analogous positions within the City's administration; and WHEREAS, the administrative efficiencies of transferring such management responsibility and staff positions to the City will benefit the County; and WHEREAS, Ind. Code 36-1-7, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, authorizes one or more governmental entities to exercise, jointly or by one entity on behalf of the others, powers that may be exercised by such units severally; and WHEREAS,the Parties agree that it is desirable, advantageous, and in the public interest to enter into an Agreement for joint and cooperative action as embodied herein. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, and pursuant to the authority granted the parties under Ind. Code § 36-1-7, the City and County agree as follows: Article I. Mission Section 1.01. Mission. The Parties agree that the HPC's mission is to identify architecturally or historically significant buildings, structures, sites, and objects in the City and the County and to promote the protection and preservation ofthe same in a manner that enhances both human and economic welfare and that accommodates development and redevelopment in the City and the County. 1 Article II. Statutory Authority; Purpose and Duration ofAgreement Section 2.01. Authori . The Parties make this Agreement under the authority and subject to the terms and provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Ind. Code 36-1-7 (the Act"). The Parties agree that, upon its full approval by the City and the County (and their respective fiscal bodies),this Agreement will satisfy each requirement of Section 4(a) ofthe Act, exempting it from the necessity of approval by the Indiana Attorney General. Section 2.02. Purpose. Pursuant to Section 3(a)(2) of the Act, the Parties agree that the purpose of this Agreement is to continue the HPC's operations in pursuance of its above-stated mission and to provide for the effective management ofhistoric preservation matters related to or that may come before the HPC, including the Parties' mutual coordination of the transfer of management responsibility.from the County to the City. Section 2.03. Duration. Pursuant to Section 3(a)(1) of the Act,the Parties agree that this Agreement shall become effective on January 1, 2018 (the "Effective Date"), and will continue until December 31, 2018; provided, however, that this Agreement shall thereafter automatically renew for successive one (1)year terms unless terminated as provided herein. Section 2.04. Termination. Pursuant to Section 3(a)(4) of the Act,the Parties agree that either Party may terminate this Agreement, by the adoption of a resolution by its executive, no later than August 1 of the calendar year such Party wishes to be the final calendar year of this Agreement, resolving to terminatethis Agreement as of December 31 of that calendar year. In the event of the termination of this Agreement, the Parties agree to cooperate to insure the smooth transition from the existing structure of the UPC, as a joint board, to separate boards operating independently by the City and the County, respectively. If such termination occurs within five (5) years of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will be entitled, upon written request to the City, to recover and take possession of the equipment, office furniture, vehicles, and any other personal property or assets the County contributed to the HPC (or to the County staff members serving the HPC), irrespective of whether the County made such contribution of assets before or after the Effective Date of this Agreement. If such termination occurs more than five (5) years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will have no right to recover any equipment, office furniture, vehicle, or any other personal property or asset the County contributed to the UPC (or to the County staff members serve the UPC) and will not be entitled to any compensation or payment for the value thereof. Article III. Administration Section 3.01. Governing Ordinances; Non-preemption. The Parties mutually acknowledge that, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, (a) Article 13 of Chapter 21 of the South Bend Municipal Code, asmay be amended from time to time (the " City Ordinance"), governs the HPC's functions and processes concerning historic preservation matters within in the corporate boundaries of the City; and (b) Title XV, Chapter 154, §§ 154.245-154.263 of the St. 2 JosephCounty Code of Ordinances, as may be amended from time to time (the " County Ordinance"), govern the HPC's functions and processes concerning historic preservation matters within the unincorporated areas of theCounty. In addition, the Parties mutually acknowledge that the HPC has operated continuously since its creation as a joint board by the City and the County in 1973, and that, pursuant to Ind. Code § 36-7-11-2(a), the City, the County, and the HPC are not required to observe the other provisions of Ind. Code 36-7-11. Section 3.02. Joint Board; HPCAuthority Preserved. Pursuant to Section 3(a)(5)(b) of the Act, the, Parties agree that the HPC will continue to operate as a joint board composed of representatives ofthe Parties (as provided herein) and that both Parties will be represented on the joint board. Neither the adoption of this Agreement nor any alteration of the City Ordinance or the.County Ordinance attendant with the adoption of this Agreement will undermine, invalidate, or otherwise affect in any way the HPC's actions, determinations, contracts, or exercises of. authority occurring or commencing before the Effective Date ofthis Agreement. Section 3.03. HPC Powers. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Parties mutually acknowledge that the HPC has only the powers delegated to itby this Agreement. Specifically, the Parties delegate to the HPC the power to conduct the functions and execute the processes set forth in the City Ordinance and the County Ordinance, respectively, as each may be amended from time to time. The County agrees, however, that it will not amend the County Ordinance in any respect that would enlarge the powers or responsibilities of the HPC without the prior consent of the City, as expressed by a written acknowledgment ofthe Mayor of the City. Section 3.04. Bylaws and Rules; Public Access Laws. The Parties agree that the HPC shall adopt such bylaws and rules as are appropriate and necessary for holding meetings, taking official action, and otherwise conducting the HPC's business. The HPC will conduct its business in accordance with the Indiana Open Door Law, Ind. Code 5-14-1.5, and the Indiana Access to Public Records Act, Ind. Code 5-14-3. Section 3.05. HPCMembership. The HPC will continue to be a board of nine (9) appointed members, each of whom will be interested and knowledgeable in matters of local historic preservation. The membership shall be appointed as follows: a) The Board of Commissioners of the County, the County Council, the Mayor of the City, and the Common Council of the City shall each appoint two (2) at-large members, designating not more than one member from any major political parry and giving consideration to persons residing in areas having historic significance. b) The eight (8) members appointed as provided in Section 3.04(a) above shall in turn appoint the ninth member,who shall be an architectural historian. Each member of the HPC shall serve without compensation for a term of three (3) years, which terms will continue to be staggered with respect to one another in accordance with the provisions 3 of Section 154.249 of the County Ordinance, as such Section was in effect prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. If a vacancy on the HPC occurs by resignation or otherwise, the unexpired term shall be filled within thirty (30) days of the vacancy by the appropriate appointing body. Whenever a member fails to attend four (4) consecutive, regularly scheduled meetings, the HPC may determine the position to be vacant and certify to the appropriate appointing body that the position is vacant. Within a reasonable time after receiving such certification, the appropriate appointing body shall appoint another and different member for the remainder of the unexpired term. In addition to the foregoing, the Parties agree that each member of the HPC will serve at the pleasure of his or her appointing body and may be removed at any time for any reason or no reason. Section 3.06. Mutual Cooperation. Each Party will ensure that its respective appointees to the HPC will cooperate in good faith with all other members ofthe HPC in holding meetings, taking officials actions, and otherwiseconducting the business of the HPC. Each member appointed by the City will act in the best interests of the County on matters pertaining to properties or issues outside the corporate boundaries of the City, and each member appointed by the County will act in the best interests ofthe City on matters pertaining to properties or issues within the corporate boundaries ofthe City. Section 3.07. Property Handling. Pursuant to Section 3(a)(6) of the Act, the Parties agree that all real and personal property acquired, held, or disposed of in connection with the operations of the HPC upon and after the Effective Date of this Agreement will be acquired, held, or disposed, as the case may be, in the name ofthe City and subject to the legal procedures and requirements for acquisition, holding, and disposal of real and personal property that apply to the City's Board of Public Works. Section 3.08. Staffing. Pursuant to Section 3(a)(3) of the Act, the Parties agree that the City will be solely responsible for providing adequate support staffto the HPC. Notwithstanding the City's acceptance of the Transferred Employees (as defined below), the City will have no obligation to continue the same support staff structure used by the County prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement or to employ the same number of persons in support staff roles as the number of such persons employed by the County prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. In its sole discretion, the City may increase or decrease the number of and alter the duties of all HPC-related support staff members employed by the City. Article IV. Transition of Staff Positions; Assets; Storage Section 4.01. Existing Staff. The Parties mutually acknowledge that as of the time of the Parties' execution of this Agreement, the County employs individuals in two (2) full-time staff positions and one (1) part-time staff position, which positions support the day-to-day operations of HPC-related business(collectively,the"County StaffPositions"). 4 Section 4.02. Transition Planning. The Parties agree to use reasonable efforts to develop a written transition plan and to cooperate in all aspects of the City's assumption of responsibility for day-to-day management of historic preservation matters related to or that may come before the HPC, including the City's creation of positions within the City's administration analogous to the County Staff Positions to support the HPC on and after the Effective Date of this Agreement(the "City StaffPositions"). Section 4.03. Transfer of Employees to the City. a) Upon establishing the City Staff Positions, the City will fill the City Staff Positions by accepting the transfer of and hiring each County employee holding a County Staff Position as of the time of the Parties' execution of this Agreement (each a "Transferred Employee"). Each Transferred Employee's employment by the County will terminate upon the commencement of his or her employment by the City. The Parties will make good faith efforts to facilitate the integration ofthe Transferred Employees into City employment, and the City will afford each Transferred Employee the following treatment: 1) Each Transferred Employee will be, for all purposes, an at-will employee of the City, and the Parties mutually acknowledge and agree that this Agreement does not and will not constitute an employment contract in any respect. Subject to the terms of this Section 4.03, all of the City's personnel and employment policies, including the Employee Handbook, the City of South Bend Ethics Code, and the departmental policies of the City's Department of Community Investment ("DCI"), will apply to each Transferred Employee. 2) Each full-time Transferred Employee will be eligible to receive all benefits the City offers to full-time employees in accordance with and subject to the limitations stated in its policies and practices, as the same may be established and altered from time to time. The City will not offer benefits to any part-time Transferred Employee. 3) The City will credit each Transferred Employee with all vacation time and sick time accrued by such person as a County employee through and including the day on which his or her employment by the County terminates. The City will not credit a Transferred Employee any amount of other personal time or paid time-off, irrespective of the amount accrued during the period of such person's employment by the County. 4) The City will credit each Transferred Employee with the number of years of service in a County Staff Position for the limited purpose of determining vacation time accrual during the period of such person's employment by the City. 5 Section 4.04. Reporting Relationship; No HPC Employees. The Parties acknowledge and agree that each employee holding a City Staff Position, whether such employee is a Transferred Employee or was otherwise hired by the City, will adhere to any internal reporting structure determinedby the Executive Director of DCI. While employees holding City Staff Positions and other employees of the City will be expected to communicate and cooperate with members of the HPC, as appropriate and as permitted by law, no employee of the City will have a reporting relationship withany member of the HPC or with the HPC at large. The Parties mutually acknowledge that the HPC may not and will not have employees ofits own. Section 4.05. Transfer of Assets. The County will transfer to the City, and will direct the HPC to transfer to the City, for the use of the HPC and City employees in connection with the HPC's operations, ownership of all equipment, office furniture, vehicles, and other items collectively, the "Assets") used for the HPC's operations as of the time of the Parties' execution of this Agreement held in the name of the County or in the name of the HPC, respectively. The County agrees that the Assets will be transferred free of any liens, encumbrances, or other liabilities. The Parties will coordinate in good faith to accomplish said transfer of ownership and will deliver to one another such instruments as may be required therefor. Section 4.06. Temporary Storage. Pursuant to Section 11 of the Act, the Parties are authorized'to provide facilities to carry out this Agreement. Following the Effective Date ofthis Agreement, the County will provide easily accessible and convenient storage facilities for any and all HPC-related materials, documents, supplies, and the like that cannot be accommodated in the City's office space at the time the City assumes management responsibility for HPC matters. Within three (3) years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the City will accept and take possession of any and all HPC-related materials, documents, supplies, and the like remaining in the County's possession. At all reasonable times during the period that the County retains possession of such items,the County will provide the City access to and use ofthe same. Section 4. 07. Transition Update. In addition to providing monthly reports in 2018, as agreed under Section 5.02(a)(3) of this Agreement,the City will provide to the County an oral or written update on the transition of the Transferred Employees to City employment no earlier than two (2)months after but no later than four(4)months after the Effective Date ofthis Agreement. Article V. Funding Section 5.01. Accounting. With reference to Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, the Parties mutually delegate to the Controller of the City the duty to receive, disburse, and account for all monies of the HPC in accordance with applicable laws. Section 5.02. Financing, City Budget. Pursuant to section 3(a)(3) of the Act, the Parties agree that the City and the County will jointly finance the operations of the HPC in the manner set forth in this Agreement. 6 a) For calendar year 2018, subject to approval by the South Bend Common Council, the City will provide a budget of One Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand Two Hundred Thirteen Dollars ($ 158,213.00) for the HPC's operations, from which the City will pay, among other costs and expenses, the costs of employees hired by the City to fill the City Staff Positions. The County will reimburse the City for the portion of costs incurred by the City in employing persons in the City Staff Positions to serve the HPC in its operations associated with historic preservation matters outside the corporate boundaries of the City, which portion will be determined and paid as follows: 1) Each employee of the City serving as a support staff member for the HPC shall accurately track and record, in minimum increments of thirty (30) minutes, his or her time spent on HPC-related matters outside the corporate boundaries of the City and, separately, HPC-related matters within the corporate boundaries ofthe City. 2) Upon monthly invoicing from the City, the County will promptly pay the City a sum equal to Thirty-Seven and 501100 Dollars ($ 37.50) multiplied by the number of hours spent by City employees within the invoiced period working on matters outside the corporate boundaries of the City, in addition to the sum of out-of-pocket expenses for office supplies, photocopying, travel, and the like attributable to such work on matters outside the corporate boundaries of the City. 3) Unless approved by the County in advance, through the appropriation of sufficient funds for reimbursement of the City's costs, the City will not expend more than three hundred (300) hours working on matters outside the corporate boundaries of theCity. The County agrees to work in good faith with the City to accommodate any request by the City that the County approve additional hours of work in excess of the limited stated in the foregoing sentence. For calendar year 2018 only, the City will provide to the County monthly reports summarizing the Transferred Employees' activities and time spent on matters outside the corporate boundaries of the City. 4) From time to time, the Parties may agree for the City (through its employees filling the City Staff Positions) to provide to the County certain services constituting a qualified Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 in exchange for fees paid by the County pursuant to the terms of a contract separate and apart from this Agreement (each a "Section 106 Engagement"). No time spent by the City in performing its obligations under a Section 106 Engagement will be deducted from or otherwise affect the allotment of hours established under Section 5.02(a)(3)of this Agreement. b) For each calendar year after calendar year 2018, the City will present to the County an annual report and provide a budget for the HPC's operations. The Parties will 7 negotiate in good faith to determine, based on past experience, the appropriate commitment of time by City employees to HPC-related matters outside the corporate boundaries of the City and reimbursement by the County therefor, provided, however, that said reimbursement will remain at a rate not less than Thirty-Seven and 501100 Dollars ($37.50)per hour. Section 5.03. HPC Revenues. The Parties anticipate that the HPC will generate certain revenues in its ordinary operations, including, without limitation, fees collected from applicants for certificates of appropriateness (collectively, the "HPC Revenues"). The City will commit, through appropriate budgeting mechanisms, all HPC Revenues solely to activities and/or functions associated with historic preservation, including the City's costs in supporting and managing the HPC's operations, provided, however, that the City will identify and select such activities and/or functions in its sole discretion. Article VI. Miscellaneous Section 6.01. Legal Counsel. In light of the City's assumption of responsibility under this Agreement for managing historic preservation matters related to or that may come before the HPC, the Parties mutually acknowledge and agree that, strictly for purposes of Ind. Code § 36-4- 9-12, the HPC constitutes a board of the City. Accordingly, the HPC may not employ any attorney without the authorization of the City's Corporation Counsel. The City's Corporation Counsel, in a manner determined in her sole discretion,will provide for legal counsel to serve the HPC by counseling the City staff on historic preservation matters, attending meetings of the HPC, preparing necessary legal documents, and otherwise assisting the HPC in conducting its business. In the event the City's costs in providing for such legal counsel to the HPC are or become substantial, as determined by the City in its discretion, the County agrees to negotiate in good faith with the City concerning the County's payment of the costs attributable to the work performed by such legal counsel with respect to historic preservation matters outside the corporate boundaries of the City. Section 6.02. Grants. Both Parties shall cooperate and use reasonable efforts to ensure the HPC maintains eligibility for available grants in the future, as well as for those grants already awarded to HPC for fiscal year 2018, including, but not limited to, executing amendments to the Certification Agreements with the State Certified Local Government Coordinator for continuation of Certified Local Government status for both the City and the County, and to take any other actions reasonably required to maintain grant eligibility. Section 6.03. Recordation and Filing. In accordance with Section 6 of the Act, the Parties agree (a)to record this Agreement in the Office of the Recorder of St. Joseph County not later than three (3) business days after its execution by the Parties, and(b) within sixty(60) days after recordation,to file this Agreement with the State Board ofAccounts of Indiana. Section 6.04. Copies. Following recordation, an executed copy of this Agreement and any amendments hereto shall be given each to the Executive Director of the HPC, the 8 Administrative Assistant to the St. Joseph County Council, the Administrative Assistant to the St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners, the Administrative Assistant to the Mayor of the City of South Bend, and the Administrative Assistant to the South Bend Common Council, as well as to the County Attorney and the City's Corporation Counsel. Article VII. General Provisions Section 7.01. Amendment. The Parties, by mutual agreement in writing, may amend, modify and supplement this Agreement. The failure of any Party to enforce at any time any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver of such provision, nor in any way to affect the validity of this Agreement or any part hereof or the right of such party thereafter to enforce each and every such provision. No waiver of any breach of this Agreement shall be held to constitute a waiver of any other or subsequent breach. Section 7.02. Assignment. No Party may assign this Agreement or any of its rights, interests, obligations, or duties hereunder, whether by operation of law or otherwise, without the express written consent ofthe other Party. Section 7.03. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, as it may be amended from time to time, encompasses the entire agreement of the Parties concerning its subject matter, and no understanding, discussion,negotiation, or agreement will be binding on the Parties unless it is set forth herein. Without limiting the generality ofthe foregoing sentence,the Parties agree that this Agreement supersedes and replaces any and all pre-existing interlocal agreement(s) between them regarding the HPC. Section 7.04. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or against public policy, said offending section shall be void and of no effect, and shall not render any other section herein, nor this Agreement as a whole, invalid. Those rights, interests, obligations, and duties hereunder, which by their nature should survive, shall remain in effect after termination, suspension, or expiration hereof. Section 7.05. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which when executed shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts, together, shall constitute but one and the same Agreement. Section 7.06. Governing Law and Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Indiana, and any dispute relating to the subject of or arising out of this Agreement shall be subject to the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Circuit and Superior Courts of St. Joseph County, Indiana. Signature page follows.] 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first above written. ST. JOSEPH COUNTY,INDIANA CITY OF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA Andrew T. Kostielney,President of the Pete Buttigieg,Mayor Board of Commissioners ATTEST: Deborah Fleming, D.M.D.,Vice President of the Board of Commissioners Kareemah Fowler, City Clerk Dave Thomas,Member of the Board of Commissioners ATTEST: Michael J. Hamann, St. Joseph County Auditor APPROVED pursuant to St. JosephCounty APPROVED pursuant to South Bend Common Council No. Council No. Rafael Morton, President of the Tim Scott, President of the South Bend St. Joseph County Council Common Council 4000.0000016 69134869.008 10 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA, APPROVING A PETITION OF THE AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT WHEREAS, Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.6,requires the Common Council to give notice pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, of its intention to consider Petitions from the Board ofZoning Appeals for approval or disapproval; and WHEREAS,the Common Council must take action within sixty(60)days after the Board of Zoning Appeals makes its recommendation to the Council; and WHEREAS,the Common Council is required to make a determination in writing on such requests pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.4, and WHEREAS,the Area Board ofZoning Appeals has made a recommendation,pursuant to applicable state law. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA as follows: SECTION I. The Common Council has provided notice of the hearing on the Petition from the Area Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5,requesting that a Special Exception be granted for the property located at: 926 S Erskine Plaza South Bend IN 46614 in order to permit A special exception for adding microblading/semi-permanent tattoo services to an existing beauty salon. SECTION H.Following a presentation by the Petitioner,and after proper public hearing,the Common Council hereby approves the petition ofthe Area Board of Zoning Appeals,a copy of which is on file in the Office ofthe City Clerk. SECTION III.The Common Council ofthe City of South Bend,Indiana, hereby finds that: 1. The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare; 2. The.proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein; 3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein; 4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive plan; SECTION IV.Approval is subject to the Petitioner complying with the reasonable conditions established by the Area Board of Zoning Appeals which are on file in the office ofthe City Clerk. SECTION V. The Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. Member ofthe Common Council Filed in Clerk's Offloe NOV 0 8 2017 PRESENTED REEM— 'IMI WY CLERK,, SOUTH 1D,IN INOT APPROF° A PTF;, 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthis 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 accuratecopy 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 islong 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 ofjudgment 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 accuratecopy 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 accuratecopy 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 ofhearing 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 resjudicata 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 ofzoning appeals. Therefore, appeals of HPC decisions should be treated in the same manner as ifthey were appeals from a zoning decision. The concept of resjudicata applies to administrative proceedings, such as those before a zoning board or the HPC. Porter County Bd. ofZoning 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. ofZoning 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 roofonly 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 ofCOA Application 2017-0602A are spurious and irrelevant, and 8 are inappropriate basesfor any reversal ofHPC'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 ofplacing 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 ofHPC. 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 ofthe 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 ifa statute is unambiguous, then . . . [the court] mustapply its plain and clearmeaning."' 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 ofCOA 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 roofwould"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 ifthe 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 publiccomment 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 ifhe 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, andmakes 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 roofdescribed in the COA, which has been built, destroys the historical value ofthe 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 ofthe City ofSouth Bend,Indiana September27, 19 99 Attest: City Clerk Attest: President ofCommon Council Presented by me to the Mayor ofthe City ofSouth 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 ABILL 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 l i 12 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 i Li:slM ivr''':f M ri a ru.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`d i S.' s'J:.'1' ir]'f`•.:tSG;t, ' i!•.= i.::':' .r r.'s i!.,;' I^^•r..,,a,- crrc r;1 '(4i'+ v......._..,-. M1by r.i. ,i; es' :I;ry. Ie_ :..: C, ' e{. o.• ..'. r.'• '!t.'`1•<' i r 1.t°' y ll' . r r;-:- •'`. i r..-,r J,.,•-S r_ `.'i.., ,t.fs tf{w Jr',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" I Y S• L 4lile I•; tef hr ft'':•r. SY : rj,r» j'I:.i;tn[^y' y. I;.\, tt„_..Y,: R r2 _: Sr;ir i`;=:: '' '' e•..•• - a.,,•2!; l\ 'gip `•r'`:.,:.- ti(S,'t,\.!°}„'` Lt+,y+.."r G:.' r i..r" r ;'' Ii•..:U..'.l.` l Y k\ rrs.rr , • . i r r-r) rFI.revA:.r! ir 1.M 1_.'°'.T,;',1 Tt,.'S,'.;+..W'.'L'1 .t';..: .1it'..v'.• c:C;' N k \'. . °t ip"'S a'.:•i,.i•`/'y.-! f I w Yy f3?aily:'r.:j••:`,' r[c.rR'I i3.c,''(rTi::3 y t'i'•`: iiilY•`5' r I^ J CURRENT PHOTOG. RAPH LO>SiAJ;.Dl, cT{'f CLEW',ti 0. BEItl,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#3by 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"Sr`i•Siv hw.S FIL•L llG 2 3 1999 cr:,of c-nl:,30.8fllu,VA. EXHIBIT B W CERTIFICATE1 / 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 ofSt.Joseph;State ofIndiana;which is: SOUTH BENDLocated in a Local Historic AND A.Local Historic Landmark and found this application to be appropriate according to theS11'. 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 NOTin 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)255-979 8 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.s t- joseph.i n.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 SA c ATAME OFAPPLICAN r: Eric Boyd fbo 124o Thomas o DATE PEALITT 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 2b13 . :. POST IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE ON THE STRE• SLTIDE Director Or THE PROJECT UNTIL COMPLETION OF TALL WORK. Q.?\tip+; .::>•• . EXHIBIT C 450HT 8 Applicatic o ssiakF f FOR- Cet fieate ofAppropriatenessREA CB 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 NoTCOMPLETE A11TY iR CONTAIIVED IN 1HE5 BOX«««OFFTC USE ONLY DaR ved: 7j©7 Application Number: ' 7 i l — w s: YES (DvenftasrRnien) I LI I ,1 L (/ El NO oval auth or ize d by: Title• ese rvatio n Commission ReviewDater® LocalLandmark ElLocal HistoricDistrict(N=e) El National Landmark National Register District(Name) of Appropriateness: Denied 11 Tablgd F1 SentToCommittee Approved and issued: Please Print) Address of Property for proposed work: Street Number-Street Nmne-Cui --Zip Code) Name ofProperty Owner(s):r- eir- Phone 7o y- 3 Address of Property Owner(s): _at Street Number-Street Name, -Qty-Zip Code) Name o f 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) CurrentUse of Building: <L"a /ham W-ej'?, ( Single FwW4-Multi-Famt4-Commercial--Government-Indus&wl-Vacant-etc.) Type ofBuilding Construction: WoodFrame-Brick-alone-Steel--Concrete-Other) Proposed Work: In-Kind Landscape Fj New Replacement(n ot in- kind) Demolitionmore than one bax may be checked fDescriptionyf Prop ed Work: 4/l3` ) h w", G GS' F F P il r<n, So::j1 b,Jr i/'t i-*&• L( if yc..! in a te+ fy" -,-f` t+—i.t" C"r7-\i t,KJ Owner/Contractor Fax#:e-mail: `j a// Staff willcorrespond withonly on e designee) S 7`?p' /.5 S/ lX l f1 and/or X Signature of Owner Signature ofContractor AD D T Tt'A WnM DVC%T TM V hX %P V4-'+ AD TP T T C'PL i t&-%AT DQ TTrTDO C oy"V z z OWNS= 0, ., c tit u o t^'a if v l mow _ F Z=Y r.0 NOWN F frS.'ema ^i,i- r.w tir p `„" ` ',;Ffr 1,9 3 "K:+3•- Z S S 1""r'. r FM ,j x'L.a^ I.A S•a.- a r G_,t .,k s d-''7 - y,y!;' s iY i A'.+°i b3'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 — I41•°J'.y r lr • ic 'O-S r Cr r\rrr 1 t r r° ; T.*' y a m t t 1 I 301r i i . l U LEI f ;D 1'f Ilr it, f o'jf t VC 0 2 M Q O O V1 wi siNIM) YIO O 8 U t o-t t-i l _ N f-l l-l 1 N O O t 0 QOZ N N g 00 f•f Sa $040 C Z F V 0 O yyL n t I 8 h rn 3O Ot1 V_ W v J O Nwtr N t- t L O i a} fuN c CQ) N lQ1v; m 2 O U o CJ C„ In F ..t" d 7 fi m O . Q s CA INt L U rrV r _ t t spa O n Omac •. 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, limitingjoist span to 14'.Assuming a 6'opening,the header should be(2)2x10. 2. Steel beams at courtyard—south face at 2"d floorlevel&(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 wallsneed 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 thatthe1 5` 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 COLORADO15635 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 EMBERSDRIVE, 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 ofAppropriateness HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 00 1865 "o f SOUTHBEND&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.stjoseph.in.us OFFIICE USE ONLYy»»>DO NOTCOMPLETE ANYrg!TRIES CONTAiYED!N THIS IIOX<<<<«OFFICE USEOXI.Y Date Received: —1 0 Application'Number: A V$ O Past Reviews: VES. (D n fc.fLasf Rcv1m) NO Staff Approval authorized by: Title: Historic Preservation Commission RevicW Date: 10\ScInA 1Q dLocal LandmmarkLocal 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 o f Contractor(§): r v,y Phone 9: ContractCompany 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-Faririly—Coiri»rercial—Governureut—Inditsirial—Vacant—etc.) Type of Building Construction: 1", K_ Wood Frar)ie—Brick—Sione--S7ee1—Concrete—Othet) ProposedWorla In-Kind Landscape New MReplacemcut(not in-kind) Demolition more than one box may be chec k ed) , J_ Description of Proposed Work: " ZJ i tt i '+oc • c. ./, / (.— c y 1::.—` S i"da;r 1v,tn/i.•_ e,i r.--+/- ;r le +.._ / 7a ' t Owner/Contractor fax It:a-ma i l:t/"l„ro c_a,a Staff Ivill correspond)vilh0111ygite designee) X C a nd/o r 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, ' i J p o;: y q,.: /mac IV vv t.vc J I r t(t to c r.. .,,.:: ;a i r k ' 2AJ U, X'''0 y tit , ,:' sl rCe• 1 30 i s4-0 7' 1 30 N` J /(f5 G+ mr r. ta z 1.1 s-Lu, a a 1 l R^ T Ni I A L' i i ik9 L 3r y A R R ' 1t r ' , ^s t# "' -"- J 4"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 y g s M , yx t,vp y,$• a :te I It s 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 t 7': I rF S 1 ,t, I} ti t (( k i I a r1 d 3 I r. '• ' 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!9ij l. I I,(['. t• f f {I fll lllll II(rlPllill(q t l l r(fIlirf' I l l li i I II; krl LIf t I III t, J 1 jr1 1 1 11r 1l 4!„i! 11 11,i1i tl fiy'Efi t f r r 11'' fritE j`'ftEll jFlEjil(`il!'. I •" ,9 J, I ,..'.,. 1111 I. rEE ; IN'm'Ir f1 f I1t FI 1 f r r 1 r 11 t. .r')t I( trr rl r ll ft; t tike ., ,s Eu4t , `! , , ; ( _. . . f; r,fll!11 11alijl 11r1 1a ),,1 i j 1( 111rtl t Etl t t 1 l EtEEEiE. f t t " lift 1I,E; t E t I I E t ) frltt '11'!, [f ( t I' 1 t11 ! t • (t,,• , ,. I,f(:r`[I( r I { , t 1)1t1t;)! {1 rr{I r p w 1;61'tt'd"+`F,}•1!i i 'si' I;w I`c I i it tll,' r' .1 iif •,t } ,. r ` klltlt` E PIk If 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!1t I I f i' 1 1{ il;:tlllt; ',,,, jk,` , ., i ttt!tlltif k tif`Ikkt 1 I;ttl ittl l i0tlll Ilt('! 1• I,t(? IfY . il tti l If , 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.• ') a s 1? r 1 t i f5v"'J d/ •//Y',ylayJe,.i' ry i r 'ti ! i r'? Ge. d,.:.... -r.Yi-.< r.;:•;1f,r i£:. !, s C i•11I 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 isa 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 ofthe windows in this former firehouse have been boarded tip prior to a 2007 fire. RME 2011-1110 approved replacement ofmetal roofto 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 halfofthe 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 roof4/12 pitch, rise west to east ending at center ofbuilding 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 ofCity Ordinance. Not in compliance with the Violation Remedy Requirements as ordered to be completed by March 13, 2017. Owner has constructed a4/12 single sloping roof surface over part of, roughly one half, ofthe main building, from the west exterior wall 30' east to a 10'1-1 wall built on existing brick interior wall, with a I' overhang at west wall. Concrete floor ofopen 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 ofstructural inspection by Siqueira, LLC, submitted with this application. In summary, the inspection reveals inadequatejoists 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 roofat North West, and 2x4 joists spanning 10' that are insufficient. PRESERVATION SPECIALIST REPORT: n/a STANDARDS ANDGUIDELINES: Group 13 A. Maintenance The maintenance ofany historical structure or site shall in no way involve any direct physical change except for the general cleaning and upkeep ofthe 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 ofthe landmark. A treatment change ofany surface whether on the landmark or in its environment may require a Certificate ofAppropriateness ifit significantly alters the appearance ofthe 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 ofa 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 ofthe 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 ofthe landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the landmark shall be responsible for this documentation. E. Moving The moving oflandmarks is discouraged, however, moving is preferred to demolition. When moving is necessary, the owner ofthe 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 ofthe site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way. 2. Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge ofthe past appearance ofthe 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 bemade to the appearance ofthe 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 parkinglots nor paved nor blacktopped. The installation ofunsightly 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 ofsuch property fromdefects or conditions which in the judgment ofthe Commission produce a detrimental effect on the character ofthe district as a whole or thelife andcharacter of the landmark, structure or property in question." In particular, this property exhibitsthe following from the itemized (but not exclusive) list ofdetrimental 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 ofexterior walls, roofand foundations, includingbroken windows or doors; h. The deterioration of any feature so as to create or permit the creation ofany hazardous or unsafe condition or conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: After careful review ofthis application, it appears to a large degree to be similar as applied for in COA application 2016-0809that was denied by HPC and is a pendingViolation of City Ordinance with the Building Department. As in COA 2016-0809, Staff does not recommend approval ofthe roofdeviation 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 ofthe Building Commissioner and that all work is remanded to the discretion ofthe Building Department prior to installation. Staffrecommends that the owner be in compliance with Code Enforcement as there are noted violations ofMinimum 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 EastWayne 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 roofwith 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 repl ac ement with light`shake wo od brown'color asphal t architectu ral shingles onro of and garag e." 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 ofthe 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 appl ication 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 roofwith 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 ofproperty,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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe properties have trees and most have trimmed shrubbery and/or hedges.Most ofthe 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 ofthe house.The installation ofunsightly 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 ofthe property,and is similar to other retaining walls in the Riverside Drive historic district,Staff recommends ap pro val. 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- 0526ALocal 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 ofhouse 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 roofand 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 ofall 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 ofa 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 ofphotographs,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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 wou ld indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in character with the buildings style, mat erials,and scale. 3.Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance ofthe 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 ofWhitcomb 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 roofis 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 wi th 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 ofnew 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 thejamb 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 acco unt. 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 ofthe 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 mate rial. 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 re commends app roval Elicia Feasel,Executive Director Deb Parcell,Deputy Director Commission Discussion: Evidence supports that only a storm window exists to cover the currentopening—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 ofonly 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,asteep 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 ofthe 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 ofRomanesque 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 ofthe 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 ofnorth 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 pictur es att ached. 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 ofthe 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 ofthe site. The proportions,materials and ratios ofthe 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 ofthe landmark shall be responsible for this documentation. E.Moving The moving oflandmarks 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 ofthe 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 w ou ld indicate s u ch fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in character with the buildings style, materia ls,a nd s cale. 3.Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance ofthe 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 ofunsightly 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 ofmaterials should be consistent with the character and style of the structure. Renovations,Section C1,state"Necessary structural improvements,where safety demands should be accomplished in such a way as to c aus e mi nimal vi sual change to the ori ginal style a n d cons truction." 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 halfof 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 ofthe 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 ofthe landmark. A treatment change of any surface whether on the landmark or in its environment may require a Certificate of Appropriateness ifit 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 ofthe site. The proportions,materials and ratios ofthe 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 ofphotographs,measured drawings,or other descriptive methods should be wade ofboth 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 s u ch 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 ofthe 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 ofunsightly 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,stru ct ure orproperty 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 con dition or condi ti on s. 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.Staffrecommends 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 ofthe 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 ofwindows 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 ofEric. 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 n eighborhood. 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. PresidentKlusezinski stated for the record this is a 1920s struct ure. 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 roofto 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 ofthe 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 ofbuilding,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 ofbuilding 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 exterio r w all 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 ofsnow and drain rain in"courtyard",multiple deficiencies in the framed mono-sloped roofat 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 forthe 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 ofany 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 orproperty 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 condit ion o r 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 roofon 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 ofthe 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 hasdone 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 isjust 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. CommissionerBucceilato(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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 withfiat roof and limestone parapet coping. Long term preservation of the structure and safety ofits 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 COA42017-0602A 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 ofseveral 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 ofAccess 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 roofof 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 ofthe 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 ofthe garages have been on the property for some time,the current arrangement of connected garage structures does not contribute to the historic character ofthe 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 ofthe 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 CommissionerGordon moved to a pprove appli ca tio n a ssubmit ted. 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 ofproperty;(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 mate rial. 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 u sed. 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe building as viewedfrom the street,and will not alter important architectural features; therefore,staffrecommends 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 ofrepresentation 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 LaSalleCOA#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 ofAppropriateness 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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.MaterialAdditions 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 or iginal. 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 oflandmarks 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, m ateria ls,and sca le. 3.Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance ofthe 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 cor rect,the house sho uld have wood shi ngl es." 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 roofresting 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 todeny 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 ofroof plus, we are lacking information on the materi- als to be usedfor completion ofthe roof. Commissioner Buccellato(AYE): The design simply does not meet the existing character ofthe structure. Commissioner Anderson (AYE): It would alter the faVade, architectural integrity, and its style, which are some ofthe most important things we have to make a decision on as a Commission. Commissioner Gordon (AYE): It is not in keeping with the guidelinesfor this building, does not keep the his- torical character or look ofthe building, and we are missing some information ofhow that roofwould be cov- ered. Commissioner Klusczinski (AYE): Ordinance 9037-99 designating 1240 West Thomas Street as a Local Landmark details a number ofstylistic features, specifically two-story Period Revival Fire Station withflat roof and limestone pa rape t 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 staffrecom- mendation forflat roofand the noted remedies for violations ofMinimum Maintenance Standards and seek the support ofthis 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 roofbeingproposed is not in keeping with the Standards and Guidelines that the Commission must use in review ofall the local historic landmarks under its jurisdiction. I believe that other more appropriate remedies exist and should be explored instead ofgranting this particular application. HISTORIC COMMISSIONERS STAFF PRESERVATION Thomas Gordon(Vice President)Deb Parcell,Deputy Director COMMISSIONMike Voll(Treasurer) Brett Hummer,Legal Counsel Jennifer Parker(Architectural Historian) Steve Szaday,Preservation Specialist O F SOUTH BEND&ST.JOSEPH COUNTY Elizabeth Hertel(Secretary) E ST KevinBuccellato S O U TH South Bend and St. JosephCounty c oMMI S S 1oN ey o I<<' HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2, ` I'/ S0 227 WEST JEFFERSON BLVD otv SOUTH BEND, IN 46601-1830 o bPF ACF www.stjosephcountyindiana.com/sjchp/index.html M 8165 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 infavor oflooking at something with a lower pitch, not necessarily aflat 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 COMMISSIONERSSTAFF Thomas Gordon(VicePresident)Deb Parcell,Deputy Director HISTORIC Mike Voll(Treasurer) Brett Hummer,Legal Counsel Jennifer Parker(Architectural Historian) SteveSzaday,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 DistrictDesignation: 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 ofany 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 ofa 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 ofthe past appearance of the property foundin photographs,drawings,and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in closeproximity 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 halfof 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 ExecutiveDirector 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 BLVDtv o SOUTH BEND, fN46601-1830 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 LocalGovernment 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 ofvinyl siding isbrown". Following is the record from the meeting concerning your project which states the reasons why your application was denied: Commissioner Gordon moved to deny applic atio n as sub mitted. 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. CommissionerHertel(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 ofother op- tions/quotations Commissioner Anderson(AYE): lack ofconforming to architectural integrity ofhistoric building Commissioner Gordon(AYE): not in keeping with the integrity ofthe landmark status CommissionerKlusczinski(AYE): work is not in keeping with Landmark standards and guidelines, work was performed withoutprior 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 applicantfor 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, ifit 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 shouldnot detractfrom the originalform. This roof, as proposed, will detractfrom the orig- inal form. Wouldlike to see the building saved, and recommended that ifa slopedroofis necessaryfinancially, the owner would come back with aproposal that does not detractfrom theform ofthe structure. Commissioner Gelfman (AYE): architectural integrity, lack ofother quotes on aflat roof, changingfrom flat roofto gabled roof, losing the structural integrity ofthe building as-is historically, andmaterials being used COMMISSIONERS STAFF ThomasGordon(Vice President)DebParcell,Deputy Director HISTORICVoll(Treasurer) Brett Hummer,Legal Counsel Jennifer Parker(Architectural Historian) SteveSzaday,Preservation Specialist FARES ERVA`TIC31Elizabeth Hertel(Secretary) KevinBuccellato COMMISSIONBrandon Anderson Michele Gellman OF SOUTH BEND&ST.JOSEPH COUNTY Es r.197 s Joseph Molnar TeSouthBend and St. Joseph County oM,ssroNF9st; It;y,''o HISTORIC PRESERVATION. COMMISSION 227WEST JEFFERSON BLVD a E^.C,% SOUTH BEND, W 46601-1830 m www.stjosephcountyindiana.com/sjchp/index.html 6 S 1865Phone:574-235-9798 Fax:574-235-9578 e-mail:SBSJCHPC@co.st-joseph.in.us Timothy S. Klusczinski,President ACertified Local Government Elicia Feasel,Executive Director Commissioner Molnar (AYE): echoes Commissioner V011'sstatements that thisis a tough c hoice. Suggests checking with Community Investment to see ifthey have anyprograms that could assist in thisproject.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 ThomasGordon(Vice President)Deb Parcell, Deputy Director HISTORICMike Voll(Treasurer) Brett Hurnmer,Legal Counsel Jennifer Parker(Architectural Historian) Steve Szaday,Preservation Specialist PRESERVATIONHertel(Secretary) Kevinl COMMISSIONBrandonn AndAndersrson MicheleGelfinan OF SOUTH BEND&Sr.JOSEPH COUNTY Joseph Molnar E ST.197; EXHIBIT K z?^ - ::,iii- aLa`r'r.'-+i'i•_. :ji:;:r3s::!> t:,;r:;;;,:^ i4 fir f i t f T f'< it r n PR "7S.ER VA.TIZON STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS Y IN SO UTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY xc 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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. Dominantland 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 ofthe 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 ofAppropriateness, 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 ofSouth Bend and St. Joseph County Mailing Address: Office Location: County-CityBuilding 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.stjoseph.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 Zoning Quick Fixes Reform to MU Mixed Use District Standards Last updated November 6, 2017 Ordinance Section (all in Section 21-03.02)Item Current Standard Proposed Standard Notes (a)(1), (a)(2)Primary Uses Manufacturing Retailers, Banquet Hall, Fraternal Organization, Lodge, Private Club, Social Club are special exception uses Manufacturing Retailers, Banquet Hall, Fraternal Organization, Lodge, Private Club, Social Club are primary uses Allows common and desired uses without requiring special exception (b)(1)Minimum Lot Width 30'25'Reduces minimum lot width to promote urban character and small-scale development (b)(2)(A)Maximum Front Setback 20'12'Reduces maximum setback to promote urban character (b)(2)(A)(i), (ii)Building Placement Minimum of 50% of façade length between minimum and maximum setbacks Minimum of 75% of façade length between minimum and maximum setbacks Promotes urban character of buildings lining street (b)(2)(A)(iii)Parking Area Placement Parking areas shall not be located in front of maximum setback (20') Parking areas shall be located at least 20' behind front building line (25' minimum setback if no primary structure) Reduces visual impact of parking areas (b)(2)(B)(ii)Minimum Side Residential Bufferyard 15'5'Allows fuller use of site consistent with traditional urban development (b)(2)(C)(i)Minimum Rear Yard 10'5'Allows fuller use of site consistent with traditional urban development (b)(2)(C)(ii)Minimum Rear Residential Bufferyard 15'15' when not separated from residential uses by an alley; no bufferyard when separated from residential uses by an alley (minimum rear yard applies) Allows fuller use of site consistent with traditional urban development (b)(2)(D)Minimum Yards for Out Lots Provides standards for out lots None (subsection eliminated)Use of out lots is inconsistent with intent for MU District (b)(3)(A)(ii)Plaza Requirements Requires plaza development in front yards not used for structures None (plaza requirement eliminated)Language ineffective in practice and largely redundant to existing landscaping standards (b)(3)(B)Minimum Front Residential Bufferyards Provides standards for minimum front residential bufferyards None (subsection eliminated)Ordinance has no provision that creates minimum front residential bufferyard (b)(3)(D)Minimum Side and Rear Residential Bufferyards Does not allow driveways Allow driveways that connect to neighboring properties Allows for private connection to neighboring residential lots (b)(4)(A)Minimum Front Façade Building Height 22'18'Allows for tall one-story buildings (two-story buildings or one-story buildings with excessive extensions no longer required) (b)(5)Maximum Gross Floor Area Sets maximum floor area for particular uses None (subsection eliminated)Common variance request granted. Allows for larger developments in MU District (b)(9)Off-Street Parking Allows on-street parking to be counted toward minimum parking requirement Eliminates provision that allows on-street parking to be counted toward minimum parking requirement Provision unnecessary as MU District has no minimum parking requirement (b)(12)(A)(i), (ii)Outdoor Seating Location Outdoor seating shall not be located in any street right-of- way and shall only be along the storefront façade Outdoor seating may be permitted in street right-of-way with permission of Board of Public Works; can be located anywhere along property frontage not occupied by another business Clarifies provision to match intent for location of outdoor seating (b)(12)(B)Outdoor Display or Sales of Merchandise Outdoor display or sales of merchandise shall not be located in any street right-of-way Outdoor display or sales of merchandise may be permitted in street right-of-way with permission of Board of Public Works Clarifies provision to match intent for location of outdoor display or sales of merchandise (b)(13)(C)Building Material Regulations Applies to each façade visible from a public street Applies to each front façade Clarifies provision to match intent (b)(13)(C)(ii)Building Materials Revises permitted building materials Provides more flexibility with higher building quality Ordinance Section (all in Section 21-03.02)Item Current Standard Proposed Standard Notes New Building Materials None Building materials used on front façade shall extend a minimum of 16" along side facades Provides higher level of building quality New Building Orientation None Primary facades shall be oriented to the front lot line. When on a corner lot, the primary façade shall be oriented to the primary street and the primary façade treatment shall extend a minimum of 10' along the secondary street Provides for safer and more attractive street environment New Building Entry Location None The primary entrance shall be located on the front façade Provides for safer and more attractive street environment New Windows None Windows and doors shall have clear glass and shall open to the interior (not be faux) Provides for safer and more attractive street environment New Building Articulation None Facades longer than 120' should be designed to look like more than one building. For buildings that are 120' or longer, no section of building longer than 60' may look like one building Provides for more attractive street environment New Mechanical Equipment Location None Mechanical equipment should not be visible from the street Provides for more attractive street environment New Glazing None For commercial and mixed use buildings, a minimum of 70% of the ground floor front façade surface along a primary street shall be glazed (window and door surface area). A minimum of 12.5% of upper floor front facade surface and ground floor front facade surface along a secondary street shall be glazed (window and door surface area). The ground floor front façade glazing is calculated based on the total facade area between two and eight feet above grade. The upper floor front facade surface area is calculated based on the total surface area located between the elevation of any floor to the elevation of the floor above it or the roof. Provides for safer and more attractive street environment New Sidewalk Connection None A sidewalk shall connect from the public sidewalk to the primary entrance Provides for safer and more attractive street environment