Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 1990AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION CCMISSION Conference Room A, 3rd Floor County/City Building 7:30 p.m. Regular Monthly Meeting October 15, 1990 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness --(Review) IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes --September 17,1990 B. Treasurer's Report --September 1990 C. Correspondence D. Committee Reports 1. Certificates of Appropriateness --(Report) a. East Wayne Street Parkways -- UID b. Edgewater Drive Park Trees -- LRD c. C. of A. Procedure 2. Budget & Finance 3. Legal 4. Historic Districts 5. Historic Landmarks 8. Public Relations & Community Education 7. Personnel a. Promotion of two staff members 8. Staff Reports a. Main Street Conference V. Old Business VI. New Business VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment MINUTES Third Floor Conference Room County/City Building 7:30 p.m. --Regular Monthly Meeting September 17, 1990 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. II. Roll Call Members Present: Mr. John Oxian, Mrs. Janeanne Petrass, Mr. Odell Newburn, Mr. Jed Eide, Mr. Herb Herendeen, Mrs. Jean Dennen, Mrs. Lori Dixon - Director, Mr. James Pastor - Survey Manager, Ms. Aladeen DeRose - City Attorney. Members Absent: Mrs. Martha Choitz, Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, Mrs. Joan Sporleder. Others Present: Barbara Steele - Southhold Restorations; Mr. Jon Gochenaur - 63907 Bremen Highway; Mr. Kevin Boughal - South Bend Tribune. III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 1216 E. Wayne St. North --EW Mrs. Dixon reported that the owner proposed to install a picket fence of red cedar, 42" tall, in the back yard by the garage area. The fence would not come up to the setback of the house. After some discussion regarding the exact location of the fence, Mr. Newburn moved to approve the fence as indicated on the C. of A.; Mrs. Petrass seconded. Motion approved. 2. 63907 Bremen Highway --LL (Tabled from August meeting) Mrs. Dixon introduced Mr. Gochenaur (owner). Mr. Gochenaur submitted revised drawings indicating the details and dimensions of the new porch. The plan followed recommendations made by the commission (via drawings from Mr. Eide) with the exception of the post style. The posts are to be square at top and bottom with a turned section in the center. The railing was set at 30". Mr. Eide questioned the lack of opening in the railing at the front entrance. Mr. Gochenaur explained that the front door is not used for entry to the house, as most persons use the side door off of the driveway (where the entrance is located on the porch plan) . Mr. Gochenaur further stated that the original porch wrapped around the front to the south, but that remodeling done since that porch was removed placed a chimney on the south side, thus preventing the construction of such a porch now. Gochenaurs plan to install rectangular lattice below the porch floor in front of the foundation. Mr. Eide recommended that Gochenaurs seek roofing shingles made especially for flat or low-pitched roofs. Mr. Eide further stated that he would rather see the front opened to permit entry from that direction. Mrs. Dennen asked if there were steps leading up to the front door. Mr. Gochenaur stated that brick steps had been placed in front of the door by a previous owner, but that they had been replaced. Mrs. Dennen asked if the shutters would be hinged. Mr. Gochenaur replied that they would not. Mrs. Petrass stated that she would like to see an entry onto the porch in the front. Mr. Eide asked if the owners felt strongly about keeping the porch enclosed across the front, stating that the Commission was thinking of the appearance from the street and not the function of the front door as the main entry. Mr. Gochenaur stated that he did not feel that strongly about it. Mr. Eide stated that it would look better to have an opening in front. Mr. Eide moved that the plan be approved, recommending that the steps be retained in the front rather than putting the railing all way across. Mrs. Dennen seconded. Motion approved. IV. Regular Business A. Minutes - August 20, 1990 Mr. Oxian made two corrections to the minutes. Mr. Newburn moved to approve the minutes as corrected; Mr. Eide seconded. Motion approved. The proposal was tabled until the October meeting to allow further input from the Commission members. 2. Budget & Finance No Report. 3. Legal Ms. DeR.ose reported on a letter sent to Commission members regarding the Commission's liability for unsafe structures. She stated that the Commission is not liable for anything covered by another agency of the city government unless the Commission specifically makes safety factors a condition. She suggested that the Certificate of Appropriateness contain a disclaimer to back up this policy. If safety is made a condition of the Certificate, then the Commission is liable. The Commission must make its decisions based on historic authenticity, whether safety is a concern or not. Mr. Herendeen moved to add a disclaimer to the Certificates of Appropriateness stating that the decision of the Commission in no way indicates the project's compliance with safety and code standards; Mrs. Dennen seconded. Motion approved. 4. Historic Districts a) East Wayne Trees Mrs. Dennen and Mr. Eide stated that the district would be getting approximately forty trees through the city's neighborhood grant. The trees are to be planted in the treelawn. 5. Historic Landmarks a) 723 Park Avenue Mr. Oxian gave second reading on 723 Park Avenue. Mrs. Petrass moved to approve granting landmark status; Mr. Eide seconded. Motion approved. 6. Public Relations & Community Education No Report 7. Personnel a) Personnel Committee Meeting Mrs. Dixon announced that the Personnel B. Treasurer's Report - August 1990 Mrs. Petrass moved to file the treasurer's report for audit; Mrs. Dennen seconded; motion approved. C. Correspondence Mrs. Dixon submitted the correspondence for review by the Commission. D. Committee Reports 1. Certificates of Appropriateness a. Mrs. Dixon submitted a draft of a new Certificate of Appropriateness policy to the Commission for their review. The policy would be of greater detail than existing policy. Mr. Oxian stated that the adoption of this procedure would be as an amendment to the original procedure as stated in the preservation plan book. He further stated that we would want to look at court cases which have been won or lost because of a commission's adherence to set policies and procedures. He stated that he felt that this procedure was better because it was more detailed than the existing policy. Mr. Eide stated that he would put his comments in writing. Mrs. Dixon stated that the Commission should review the proposal and provide the staff with any comments they wish to make before the next meeting. Ms. DeRose requested a copy of the draft. Mrs. Dixon stated that she would provide her with such. Mrs. Petrass asked if the Commission had a time frame on the current policy. Mrs. Dixon stated that the Commission is required to act within thirty days from the application for a C. of A. but the applicant did not have a deadline for submitting an application in order to be included on the agenda of the next meeting. Mr. Eide asked if the proposed policy corresponded with the building permit requirements in any way. Mrs. Dixon stated that she believed the policy was similar, but would check to be certain. Committee would be meeting the next afternoon (9/18/90) and stated that she would welcome the attendance of any commission members. b) Computer Training Mrs. Dixon requested permission for Mr. Pastor and herself to attend a training session on the Q&A Database, which is the software system purchased by the Commission for its data filing system. The price of the training is $129.95 per person, which Mrs. Dixon stated was a bit steep, but worth the expense if it allowed the staff to get more use from the computer more quickly. Mr. Newburn reminded the staff that such an expenditure would be an in-line transfer. Mr. Herendeen moved that the staff be allowed to make that expenditure and to attend the conference; Mrs. Petrass seconded. Motion approved. 8. Staff Reports a. Permission to attend IU Conference Mrs. Dixon requested permission to send Mr. Pastor to the IU Preservation Conference in Porter County on October 12 and 13. Mr. Oxian stated that if approval was given, he wanted a written report of the conference from Mr. Pastor. Mr. Newburn moved to approve sending Mr. Pastor to the conference; Mr. Herendeen seconded. Motion approved. b. Magnetic Signs Mr. Pastor requested permission to purchase two sets of magnetic signs for use on staff cars when performing their duties for the Commission. He stated that ID cards do not help much because most people do not wish to ask the staff what they are doing, or do not believe the answer they get. Mrs. Dixon stated that the Commission should get two pairs of signs, to accommodate both sides of two cars. Mr. Pastor showed sample materials from the company with the low bid. He stated that the Commission name is too long for use. It was suggested that Historic Preservation Commission be used, along with the phone number. Mr. Herendeen recommended that the Commission go with silk screening, perhaps with the city and/or county seal. Mr. Oxian suggested that the staff check with the city sign department to see if they have a silk screen of the seal already on file. V. Old Business VI. New Business a) Photo Processing Mr. Pastor presented options on how the Commission might handle its photo processing in the future. He suggested that the Commission send the film to Dill's Camera Shop for the processing of the film to negatives, then contracting with Leigh Booker (separately contracted from her current contract as surveyor) to prepare the negatives and develop the contact prints. Mr. Herendeen asked about the archival stability of the photo processing. Mr. Pastor stated that it would be similar to those which have been processed in the past, but that none of these is up to the State standards, which recommend the use of fiber paper for developing archivally stable prints. Mr. Pastor stated that it would be more expensive to have the prints made on fiber paper due to the method of processing (roll drum). Mr. Newburn suggested that the records be placed on microfilm. Mr. Pastor stated that he could check with camera stores and other professionals to discern what difference exists between the archival stability of resin coated paper and that of fiber paper. If there is little difference, the savings of the proposed plan 3 (to have'dills develop the film and have Leigh Booker develop the prints from the negatives) would be significant. VII. Hearing of Visitors No Report VIII. Announcements No Report IX. Adjournment and Miscellaneous Matters The meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m. CORRESPONDENCE a.) Brochure from the National Historical Society b.) Preservation News September 1990 c.) Light Impressions Fall 1990 Catalogue d.) The Fidelity Graphic Arts Catalog e.) Solicitation from Instant Copy f.) Invitation to attend the dedication of the Leighton Gallery and Copshaholm g.) Recycl_ing Today_ Magazine h.) Southhold Newsletter August/September 1990 i.) Invitation to Southhold"s 30th Birthday, in Indianapolis. j.) Brochure for "Selling Michiana" conference k.) Copy of article "Rehab Takes a Fall" from Historic Preservation Magazine 1.) Second solicitation from Instant Copy m.) Common_Bond Summer 1990, Vol. 6, No. 3 n.) CRM Bulletin September 1990 o.) PreservationForum Newsletter September 1990 p.) Indiana Main Street Missive. July/August 1990 q.) Preservation Law Updates 1990-33, 1990-35 r.) PLR Advance September 1990 s.) MACIAF Monitor September 1990, October 1990 t.) MACIAF Plan Room September 10, 17, & 24; October 1, 1990 Certificate of Ap.pro. .ri.ateness_.Procedures . All Certificate of Appropriateness (C. of A.) applications require: 1. List of materials to be used. 2. Detailed written description of project, including dimensions of the item being constructed or the area being planted (include manufacturer's brochures, specs, etc. when applicable). 3. Photograph of site - available from Historic Preservation Commission. 4. $3.00 Certificate of Appropriateness permit fee. In addition, the following types of projects require further information: S. In-kind replacement requires a list of materials being replaced as well as a list of new materials to be used. 6. Landscape alterations require a site plan showing the dimensions of the project area and its relationship to the main structure(s). 7. All other projects, including reconstruction, new construction, and replacement which is not identical to the existing element of the structure or does not currently exist but is known to have existed in the past, require all items listed in 1 through 6 above, as well as drawings in plan and elevation, drawn to scale, with dimensions specified as appropriate. An application will be considered complete only when all pertinent information has been received in the Commission office. At that time, the application will be placed on the agenda of the next C. of A. Committee meeting or full Commission meeting, whichever comes first. The Commission will act within thirty (30) days after receipt of the COMPLETED application. All completed applications received before 4:00 p.m. the first Friday of the month will be placed on the agenda for that month. All applications received after that time will be placed on the agenda of the next committee or Commission meeting. Failure to comply with these procedures may cause significant delay in your project. To avoid costly delays, we recommend that Property owners not contract with workers until they have received all applicable approval. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS All Certificates of Appropriateness require the following: 1. Detailed written description of project, including dimensions of the item being constructed or the area being landscaped. Include manufacturer's brochures, specs, etc. when applicable. 2. List of materials to be used. 3. Photograph of the site - available from the HPC. 4. $3.00 Certificate of Appropriateness permit fee. In addition to the items listed above, larger projects which include additions or alterations to the structures must include the following: 5. Site Plan showing property lines, setbacks, the new work, existing buildings, porches, large trees, walks and paved areas, walls, fences, and any other significant feature of the site. Suggested scale: 1" = 20' 6. Plan of the proposed work with dimensions and materials noted. Recommended scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 7. Elevations of the building showing the existing building along with the proposed addition or modification. A minimum of two elevations are required for additions. Recommended scale:1/4" = 1'-0" Note: Drawings must be drawn to scale and are best prepared by someone with experience with this type of drawing. Optional SuuaortinLr Material: Any other material which helps describe the project. Examples include: Three-dimensional drawings or renderings Models Detailed drawings of building ornament Photographs of similar completed projects or historical examples Written specifications An application will be considered complete only when all pertinent information has been received in the Commission office. At that time, the application will be placed on the agenda of the next C. of A. Committee meeting or full Commission meeting. The Commission will act within thirty (30 days after receipt of the COMPLETED application. All completed applications received before 4:00 p.m. the first Friday of the month will be placed on the agenda for that month. All applications received after that time will be placed on the agenda of the next committee or Commission meeting. Failure to comply with these procedures may cause significant delay in your project. To avoid costly delays, we recommend that property owners not contract with workers until they have received all applicable approval.