HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 1986historic reservation commissi
p on
of south bend and st. joseph county
• ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MONTHLY
MEETING OF THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Third Floor Conference Roam
:30 p.m.
RoGIT, 323 County/City Building
September 15, 1�.;8
I. Cal l to Order
^. Roll. Call
• 3. Approval of Minutes - August 18, 1986
4. Treasurer's Report
5. Correspondence
6. Committee Reports
Z4.. Environmental Impact Statement
1) 1422 Leer Street
2) 2119 Portage
3) 1035 Riverside Drive
b. Budget & Finance
C. Historic Di'=tr i Cts
d. Historic Landmarks
e. Leu_a.l
1) Commi ttee Meeting Report
f . Publ i C Relations & Community Education
g. Staff Report
1) Main 'street: National Toxin Meeting
2) Marketing for Development of Historic Properties Wori'•'.•_.hop
7. Old Business
a. Protection of Trees -Letter to Indiana Dept. o ,
f H i �� i•,ax tj•.
b. Carl Stevens, Park Department
8. New eusines-
�9. Hearing of 'w!i_itor_.
10. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters
historic preservation commission
of south bend and st. joseph county
• ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: HPC Members
FROM: Karen L. Kiemnec '1&i -
DATE: . August 28, 19£36
SUBJECT: HLFI !Workshop on Working with Developers
Enclosed please find my report on the recent H'LFI workshop I attended, and
an update on the status of the tax credits.
HLFI will sponsor a workshop entitled, "Finding New Uses for Historic Schools
and Theaters", on September 13 in Terre Haute and one on nominating properties
•
to the National Register on September 20,in Portland, Indiana. If you want
more information on these, call me.
historic preservation commission;
•
M I N U T E S
ReguIar t'ieet;rig
=:epternber 15,
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING'
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
Third Floor, {Conference F:c rn
Rc+'•m �_= Noun+.:r; 1_ I t>- c'u I 1 d+ r1
1 .
Call to Order
The meet ing t,,ta.=_ ca.l l ed to :.order at 7:=C' P.M.
�.
t
RoII a.;.
t•1EtIBER'=: r'E'_1EP•aT. t -Ir=. ?o.anr _p car,e -oer; "ir _'r:n LlXian; t1r•_. t'Ia :r -:a
Choi t ; t1r. F. ,_it.imtz; t1r_.. =a.ne.anne Petr•.a.•__.; M; }
Chane_. Ha.;•e=•; ^1r. Herbert Her -endeen; t -Ir. G.�..: id
r=ha.p 1 ea.0 . Deplu t,,. _: I t; Attorney; ME,. '::a.ren K i emnec
D i r e c for :. and Mr. Brian Poland., Adm i n i =•tr-a.t i v
•
H .=-i =.tA.nt
t-1 Et"18ER'S H ''=:Et- t 1r _.. 3 i n.a. DpLarue 1 l e acid Mr . Ode I l Nevjburrt
�
ALSO PRESENT: Elaine Fountain, Commission =e_reta.r;.; JeanneDerbe�,K,
South Bend Tr i bune;' Karl Stevens, Ass i stint
Parti; :superintendent; ',aiolet Rohrer, 1059 Riverside
Dr i ve
Z .
Approval o+ Minutes
Mr.. Hayes made a motion that the Augus:t 16, 1'?86 minutes be approved
as sent; Mrs. Choitz seconded; motion passed.
)
4.
Tr.e,.surer's Report
Mrs. Choitz made a. motion to approve the treasurer's report as sent; �
Mr. Ox i •a.n seconded; motion passed.
5.
Correspondence
a. In+orma.tion on the Sunda::• Strol 1 ar-ound the 5 'star '=;i tes, Northern
Indiana Historical Societ>•, October 5, 1 to 4 p.m., Dot.,.Intovin South
Bend.
•
b. -Old-House Journal. September, 1'786.
e.
C. information
on National Design
Competition,
VISION, !NC , The
•Center
for
Environmental Design
& Education.
Cambridge, MA.
g.
d, Entry form
for Design Competition
Registry,
Hawley, MA.
e.
Preservation t•'•lews. dated
September 1986 fr%m the National Trust for
H i •_•tc or' i s Preservation.
+.
I g•h n c o y X & Con =_. e r v a i__ _ _�__i c� n , Vol.
9 , N o . 2, Summer 19_,5a
g.
Registration form for National
Register Workshop, Historic
L_a.ndma.r•k•_. Foundation of
Indiana,
Fiortla.nd, India.na., September 2::,
1986.
h.
Newsletter from the Park
Avenue
Ne i GhbcoriiioE:od Association, Int_ . ,
Vol. 14, No. L,, August,
1986.
6. Committee Repitrts•
a.. Environmental Impact :statement
1 ? 1422 S. Leer Street
Ms. i' iemnec reported to the Commission that she approved the
oj!•,.1ner.._• request to remove present garage roof and replace with
• a. i I bergl as• shingle roof to match the old asphalt shingle
roof. She also approved replacement .of the enclosed porch to
duplicate the fiormer, porch hioi.'.in in photos.
2) 2119 Portage
Ms. K i emnec reported that the diner• • s request i �f a 14' ..
addition to the west side of an existing garage w.y.': approved.
3. 1035 Riverside Drive
Ms. . K i emnec and Mrs. Sp or• l oder reported they had approved f
the replacement of the porch floor and removal of the wrought
ironor posts and d irecti rof new porch
o V-colutra. However, after
an inspection 11 the home, the
porch y{iSr
was found fund ttri be
extended beyond the original plan. They had also added a.
balustrade which had not been approved. Mr. Ox: i a.n made a
miot i on to approve the extension to the floor and the
balustrade but to remind the owners that a. Certificate of
Appropriateness must be obtained before beginning ial1.J1'k in the
future; Mr. Hayes seconded; Mrs. i_,hiti tz voted nay; Mr.
Herendeen and Mrs. Sp or l oder abstained; Motion passed. Mrs.
Choitz ioho_er•veoi that she felt the Commission should be more
responsible to the neighborhoods in enforcing the standards.
4) 710 Park Ave.
SEPTEMBER 15, 19S6 PAGE 2
Ms. Ki emnec approved the ov.in F:r•'s request to remove a. di sea .1'd
locust tree in the center of thie rear, -yard. A large section
of the tree had split and fa.l 1 en on the carriage house.
y. Budget & Finance
No report
HistoricC. Districts
1) I:°:(.ayne Street
Mr----... Choi tzp Chairperson of the Historic District Committee,
indicated that Ms. r., i emnec i •: currently r•ev i et..! i ng the l:ci.yyne
Street standards. A meeting of the Historic District
Clorfmi ttee vji 1 1 be set up to discuss the standards.
2) Street Lights
Mr. Ox i anElectric
reported to the Commission that the, I nc1 i a.na. andMichigan G 1 e to t r i[ Company I: ;1ould soon be replacing t i,!.f o street
1 i ght=_• i n the R vers i de Di _'.tr• i t and one i n the North f'I: ore
a s they 4 I r ameeting tai 1
District _ h _ . had indicated i ! n h�1:.v 13, 1 ' L: = .
:'1 Liaison Committee
•
Mrs. Violet Rohrer o f the i?: i 1•? e r s i d e Drive Hi e• t I r i to Di '=tri 1-
L i a, i e•on Committee announced the continued planning of the
a.r7naa0 district meeting for some time in October..
Mrs. i-:hioi ti made a. motion that the order of business be changed to
accommodate the visitors. Mr . Herendeen seconded. Motion passed,
d. Historic Landmarks
No report
e . Legal
1) Committee Meeting Report --Osceola R.epr•e=•entat i on
The Legal Committee met to discuss option= -hi:r• O•=.ceo1 to corr'is:
under the jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation
Comm i ss i on . Mr . C''•! i m t z read ' a. tetter' to -the C lolmm i 'c = i ton on
options thati:.ier•e discussed (see A'ppen2di •. A:1. Ms. Kiemnec
_.'_• i'•. C d i'• (r' . !� I_I l a 1 f d to present ! f i •� idea • o T the p r- o x .- •.,.• ,Y:._. t o rn {, S Ms Y
Appendix B) . Mr. made the suggestion that pe{'haps _.
tenth member i.Aiho sits in only when h! i •a or herdistrict I a
p i•:ti o 1 i : F,-°, e solution. a 1'•.I .1- �,•1
involved u � � t the t�'1 •�• . �: i e rri r! e .� r• e n�i i r; �� � .:
Commission that this v.ia• loris i ::. a presentation to the Os.celol•i ':-zk
Town Board. David i_ hf 'p 1 „+ .a, i_i p Deputy i-: i t ;i A t t Ioi r• n e y a
r CIT} i n de d t hi e Comm m i ss i =1 n t h a t an - -add i t i on on d e 1e t i: on i1 •f -:k
member i i f .a to lolrrfm i ss i on r e q u i red the a p i-1 ro v al of tine i_. orro-ion _an,':
County Clolunc i i Mr. I_ix i an ma,iiw .a. mi;t i cjn that l•)e acci-:pL tht::
SEPTEMBER
15p 1986 PAGE :,•','i
Legal Committee Report. Mr. Her•endeen seconded. Motion
•passed.
f P{Jh+l i c Relations & Community Education
No report
g. Staff Report
1) Main Street: National Town Meeting
Ms. Ki emnec reported that the Main Street Conference held in
t''•1orthl Carolina was very informative. She indicated th!•a.t
outlines from each of the talks are available in the office i;•
anyone is interested.
Marketing for Developmentf Historic Properties Workshop
M'_.. K i emnec reported that h?e and Mr. Ox i a.n attended this
workshop in Indianapolis. A report of the highlights of this
meeting I:;!.as sent to the each Commission member.
Old7. Business
a. Protection of trees
M . K i emnec reported that Mr. . i_x i an sent .a. letter to the Hearing
rt+_a
•
Examiner
of the Indiana Llep•yrtmer!t of Highways re%..ia•rdiri+_i the U . S .
0 Bypass +. =• e e Appendix i_• .S .
b. Karl Stevens, Park Depa.r•tment
Ms. Ki emnec asked Mr. Stevens of the Park: Department to give a.
report of the potential damage of salt to trees in the tree lawns
of local historic di•_.tr•ict_•. Mr. Stevens reported that most
historic districts are along side streets which do not get heavily
salted during the winter and that the death of tress is most
probably caused by some ;_+th'ier• means. Mr. Stevens also stated that
certain trees •_.!Jch .as the Sugar and h''•iorteda.y maples are more
susceptible to root strangulation. He suggested that the White
lsusceptible ti 1 a. t. [response t o a question.,
H •� h i 'W t P{ e least •a. t l I r.
Mr. Stevens indicated th t some of the probable causes for _.
decline in maple trees are: lack of water, poor plantings, root
advice on tree
zone, fungus disease, etc. h"l 's• . i~�. 1 e iT? r! e +� requested t] U � ' '�ted
being taken down in new developments. Mr. Stevens advised the
Commission that the Park. Department does require •a. permit to
remove, trim or plant tree• in the tree lawn area.
Mr. Nimtz made •a. motion that we return to the regular order of business.
Mrs. Pe tr•a•a•'=_• seconded. Motion passed.
_. t''•1 e w Business
• a.. The Reappointment of Gina i'eL a.r'!Jel le-'i_ommi'asi!+n Member.
Ms. Kiemnec reported that Mrs. DeLa.r!Jel le has been reappointed to
the Commission by the Mayor. It was recommended that Mrs.
DeL.a,ruel le` s attendance recordreviewed.J ► It ; a_suggested that
SEPTEMBER 15, 19S6 PAGE 4
perhaps Mrs. Sponledec could give MPs. DeLaruel e a phone call, tc
, find out if there is a conflict with her Job.
Hearing of Visitors
No Report
10. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters
The meeting was adjourned at 2;12 p.m.
SEPTEMBER !S, 1986 RAGE 5
} pY �4g''��. ^i 4 �,. .1' o q ...'(v�'YF•rin-%"+'��"r�'}x.-��+ y j��iY a ��8�!.R- '.�T2Y � .�, ,,,,_ x�P�
y
y-+.�.tf- :: :` < -,.x t ]'jy ��6R'�+�'S.:'s .as'Gk �� �.",i„� ^ud.� s< "a,� f rrr .hd�Ta• rst
s
r s
MEETING REPORT: -
• Legal Committee
Historic Preservation Commission of
South Bend and St. Joseph County
is
September 3, 1986
RE: Options for _t•_.r_eola to rime under the jurisdiction of
the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) .
Attending: Joann Spor l eder
F. Jay Nimtz
Kevin Butler
Karen hiemnec
Brian Poland
The 'Legal Committee filet to discuss options for Osceola.:
Options discussed included:
1? Representation on the Commission through the addition
of a member.
2; Contractural arrangement with Osceoia. to provide
preservation services.
Concerns of Option rn 1
a. Increased membership on the Commission could lead to
an unmanageable size if other communities exercised
the same option.
b. Time and effort expected from a full-time Osceola
Commission member would be disproportionate with the
small number of historic properties in Osceola. The
staff t i,me required to monitor these properties would
be minimal after the initial set-up time under such an
arrangement.
C. Precedent Jor other communities to come under HPC .
jurisdiction.
Concerns of Option 2
a. Term, form, and compensation provisions of a contact.
b. Requirement that Osceola have representation.
Other Concerns
a AnY changes require amendment to curreint ordinances
t a k:
}...w...u. „s,
Sr ;.
e. staf
PP f' s
Y agreements• 1 .
noir t StIo�'s fee
Ms. Ki emnec was di rec ted to present options to Osceola Town
Board;
A. First option for a renewable l imi ted term contractual
arrangement, outlining to the beard the time
requirements and any costs. No specific costs or
ether compensation were determined.
b. Second option for representation on HPC as based on
local Alcohol and Beverage Commission (ABC). A
separate (sub-) Commission for the small towns would
be set up to deal with matters relating to the small
town (Oseol a) . The small town commission would have
mutual members with the current HPC: the four county
members plus the arch i tec tual historian. The small
town representative would be only a. member of th i s
separate small town commission. Quorum would be based
on the majority of the = small town members being
present and would meet prior to the full commission
meeting to discuss matters pertaining to that small
town. The small town commission would then adjourn in
order for the full commission to conduct its business,
Any ordinances for Osceola should be prepared by Steve
•
Esl i nger , Osceola' s• lawyer, and reviewed by Kevin Butler.
-tax Fc
rnh.'�'.'. r..i':e`de.. ..:4.i.�. .a
C]
Appendix C
• • f •
histor Icp
reservation commission
of south bend rind st, Joseph ..county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 2849798
September 3, 1986
Hearing Examiner
Room 1204, Indiana State Office Bldg.
100 N. Senate Ave.
Indianapolis, IPJ 46204
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend
and St. Joseph County, concerning the U.S. 20 bypass from U.S. 31 to .the eastern
boundary of St. Joseph County. The Commission strongly urges the highway depart-
ment to follow a route for the bypass which destroys the least number of trees
and natural foliage. A bypass of scenic views from its cloverleafs, rights of
way, and the road itself would be a significant asset for the county as well as
a credit to the Indiana Department of Highway and Cole Associates.
• The Historic Preservation Commission, as one of its concerns, attempts to
preserve as much of the area's cultural landscape as possible including natural
habitats, forests, and full grown individual trees. Based on this mandate, we
strongly suggest your favorable consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
C/—�W P
John H. Oxian
Vice President
JHO/EJF
Historic Buildings - Assets:
- location - usually close to downtown or neighborhood centers
- imagery - historic buildings have a special physical presence and ar�e part
the urban fabric. They have a "memory of market" for locar citizens', that
�
residents of the area remember shopping or using the buildings and have a
}oyalty to them '
- superb visual qua}ities which have a financia} and a marketing value
� �`�'� reuse �' resources �` '� � ' `
of
��'
- *,'vw r�u�� or resources - zne mu//o/ng itself walls, design, some mechanical
sYstems, etc. can all be reused in addition to public utilities
L i ab i l i t i es :
- Inefficient - historic buildings are sometimes inefficient in terms .f gross
|pasab}e.area, they often have large halls and public areas
- unknown elements - there are often rehabilitation costs which are unknown
until actua} work begins
- wariness of financial institutions - banks often feel restoration projects
too risky because of unknown costs, this is. also true of appraisors,
particularj,�-' when they have no experience with historic buildings
- most developers feel that it is more trouble to develop historic buildings,
real estate brokers are often reluctant to handle historic buildings
Information to be gathered to market historic
square footage, total and by floor
floor plans or at least a rough sketch
buildings:
,:;. list of structural problems, real and perceived
4. code problems
5. zoning and if it isn't what is needed, process for changing
6. ballpark stabilization costs
7. ballpark rehab costs, on a square footage basis
8. appraised value and status of taxes
9. spec/al elements or, features of the building
Information to be gathered on the local market:
>. rent levels in the area
2. sales figures for the area (they can
county from Indianapolis)
3. list -of local businesses that
want to
I. vacancy rate and reasons for 'vacancy
5, consumer base and their buying habits
6. prospective projects in the area that
7. rental and sales prices, other units
'
rental or owner occupied
8. number of units rented or sold
9. rent levels in existing office space
This information can be gathered on your
are
be obtained from sales tax figures by
expand or move
(5 to 10% is normal)
will compete with yours
being rehabbed and whether they are
own or by a hired consultant.
Developer's Priorities and Limitations
- the most difficult projects to find developers for seem to be the ones between
UO,OOO and l million _
developers want as little regulatory constraints or government intervention
t�l' `
p����-`make *�
�t��m���r����f- �r�w�
��w �nc|wvmxr� with �h�m^'.as�'ear�'A,m''a �
proJectas possible.projec��,de�a�� cost them money!
,
Mark,e t i ng
for Development of
Historic Properties Workshop
August 27, 1986
fe
Developer"s Role
Tom
Moriarity, Senior
Associate, Halcyon
Ltd., Washington, D.C.
Historic Buildings - Assets:
- location - usually close to downtown or neighborhood centers
- imagery - historic buildings have a special physical presence and ar�e part
the urban fabric. They have a "memory of market" for locar citizens', that
�
residents of the area remember shopping or using the buildings and have a
}oyalty to them '
- superb visual qua}ities which have a financia} and a marketing value
� �`�'� reuse �' resources �` '� � ' `
of
��'
- *,'vw r�u�� or resources - zne mu//o/ng itself walls, design, some mechanical
sYstems, etc. can all be reused in addition to public utilities
L i ab i l i t i es :
- Inefficient - historic buildings are sometimes inefficient in terms .f gross
|pasab}e.area, they often have large halls and public areas
- unknown elements - there are often rehabilitation costs which are unknown
until actua} work begins
- wariness of financial institutions - banks often feel restoration projects
too risky because of unknown costs, this is. also true of appraisors,
particularj,�-' when they have no experience with historic buildings
- most developers feel that it is more trouble to develop historic buildings,
real estate brokers are often reluctant to handle historic buildings
Information to be gathered to market historic
square footage, total and by floor
floor plans or at least a rough sketch
buildings:
,:;. list of structural problems, real and perceived
4. code problems
5. zoning and if it isn't what is needed, process for changing
6. ballpark stabilization costs
7. ballpark rehab costs, on a square footage basis
8. appraised value and status of taxes
9. spec/al elements or, features of the building
Information to be gathered on the local market:
>. rent levels in the area
2. sales figures for the area (they can
county from Indianapolis)
3. list -of local businesses that
want to
I. vacancy rate and reasons for 'vacancy
5, consumer base and their buying habits
6. prospective projects in the area that
7. rental and sales prices, other units
'
rental or owner occupied
8. number of units rented or sold
9. rent levels in existing office space
This information can be gathered on your
are
be obtained from sales tax figures by
expand or move
(5 to 10% is normal)
will compete with yours
being rehabbed and whether they are
own or by a hired consultant.
Developer's Priorities and Limitations
- the most difficult projects to find developers for seem to be the ones between
UO,OOO and l million _
developers want as little regulatory constraints or government intervention
t�l' `
p����-`make *�
�t��m���r����f- �r�w�
��w �nc|wvmxr� with �h�m^'.as�'ear�'A,m''a �
proJectas possible.projec��,de�a�� cost them money!
,
Marketing Tools
- local incentives which take the co•_t down for the developer
- having an understanding of the market
- the Investment Tax Credit
- the fact that the prime interest rate is down
- having a fact sheet with a photogr•a.ph on each building you want to market
- for larger projects, a four color brochure or an audio/visual presentation to
give a visual sen.•e of !ghat is possible
What makes a succe_•sful project
- preserving the bu i 1 di ng vji th an appropriate restoration and raising
consciousness about preservation .
- making a profit and filling a niche in the community
- having a project that a developer can be proud of
The Role of the Pion -Profit Organization in Development
Jeff Gibney
Roles a non-profit can play:
- assisting in marketing other people's properties
keep a file on what's available in the community •
keep a file on who is looking for property in the community
- keep a list of what buildings were appraised for, to use as comparables
- introduce current and future investors to each other• and to lenders
- be familiar with local incentives
File:
TREAS REP SEPT
LINE ITEM
REV BUDGET 1986
CURRENT BILLS
YEAR TO DATE
QUIETUS
(212)
POSTAGE
$150
$150.00
$0.00
$134.39
$0.110
(213)
TRAVEL
$200
$217.45
$68,88
$217.45
$0.00
r� (214)
MILEAGE
$200$204,
428
$0.00
$204.28
$0.00
(215)
ROOKS
$100
$82.55
$8.00
$36,00
$0.00
(22D)
CONF EXP
$200
�195.72
$0,00
$195.22
$0.00
~` (241)
PRINTING
$ 30
$48.08
$5.70
$46.10
$0.00
(242)
LNDMK AD
$308
$282.80
$29.52
$294.43
$56.00
(243)
PHOTOG
$250
$250.00
$36.20
$190.04
$8.00
(252)
EQUIPMENT
$ 70
$70.00
$0.00
$67.15
$8.00
(261)
LEGAL SERV
$900
$900.00
$0.80
$170.23
$0.00
(263)
TECH ASST
$500
$5U8/00
$8.00
$0.00
$0.00
(265)
LEGAL NOTE
$ 58
$50.00
$0100'
$0,00
$0.00
(360)
OFFICE SUP
$45U
$474 18
^
^.
$50 51
$474.18
$8 8O
(570)
DUES
$ 50
$50.00
$0.88
$50.00
.:,PO.UO
(571)
SUBSCR]P
$ 50
$25.82
$0.00
$8.00
$O.00
TOTAL
$3`500.08
$190.81
$2/079.47
$56.00
HISTORIC PRES FUND
$20`600.00
$2,692,64
$12,972.01
$0.00
CLG FUND
$16,850.80
$2`092.84
$15,925.65
$0,00
TOTAL
$37,450.00
$4/785.48
$28,897.66
$8.80
°
GRAND
TOTAL
$40,950.00
$4`?76.29
$30`977.13
$56,00
'-
SMALL
TOWN SURVEY
$10.00
$148.88
$540.94
$84.94
n
/�