The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAugust 1991L MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Third Floor Conference Room County /City Building 7:30 p.m. -- County Council Caucus Room (Room 411) August 19, 1991 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Members Present: Mr. John Oxian, Mrs. Joann Sporleder, Mr. Odell Newburn, Mrs. Jean Dennen, Mrs. Martha Choitz, Mr. Jed Eide, Mr. Herb Herendeen, Mrs. Lori Dixon - Director, Mr. James Pastor - Survey Manager. Members Absent: Mr.Bill Welsheimer, Mrs. Janeanne Petrass. Ms. Aladean DeRose - City Attorney. Others Present: Barbara Steele - Southhold Restorations, Cindy Pitts - Manier - City Attorney. III. Public Hearing A. Certificate of Appropriateness No report. IV. Regular Business A. Minutes - July 15, 1991 Mrs. Sporleder moved to appove the minutes as sent: Mr. Newburn seconded: motion approved. B. Treasurer's Report. Mrs. Dixon reported that the County has appropriated moneys to our account to cover the grant expenditures through December. At the beginning of 1992, the county budget will reflect enough money in the account to cover the federal grants, plus $4000 for office expenses. Mr. Newburn moved to approve the treasurer's report: Mrs. Sporleder seconded: motion approved. C. Correspondence Mrs. Dixon submitted the correspondence for review by the Commission. D. Committee Reports 1. Certificates of Appropriateness a. Committee Meeting, August 15, 1991 1) 1346 Lincolnway East - LHD. Mr. Pastor reported that application had been made to replace the two rear entry doors with metal doors. These were approved with the stipulation that the doors selected matched the profile of the existing doors. The second part of the application involved vinyl- siding the rear of the house; this was approved providing the contractor selected consulted a commission member to devise - - -- - -- -- -- - -- - - -- -ways_ to_ preserve -a- uniform -depth-ratio in the siding. Contractor must also leave window surrounds uncovered. The ensuing discussion concerned the facts that the rear doors and siding are indeed badly rotted and in need of replacement. 2) 1341 East Wayne Street. Mr. Pastor read the proposal and distributed drawings. Commission members, after some discussion, decided that the drawings were unclear. Mr. Eide urged postponing the decision. Mr. Oxian suggested establishing a committee to work with the owner toward clearer drawings and better plans. Mr. Newburn moved to approve: Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion. Motion approved. Mr. Oxian asked Mr. Eide, Mr. Herendeen, and Mrs. Sporleder to be on the committee, and asked Mr. Pastor to arrange a meeting with the owner. 3) 1712 East Wayne Street - LHD. Mr. Pastor reported that the owner wishes to replace casement leaves with operable leaves to resemble the original. The corresponding transom lights will be replaced with similar lights. All will be of double -pane argon core. This will constitute in -kind replacement, with the addition of energy- saving features. The second part of the application was to replace the sash - leaves in three 6/1 double hung sashes in the sunporch with double -pane argon core. "Ugly" aluminum storms and rotted windowsills will also be replaced. Mrs. Choitz moved to approve the C of A: Mr. Newburn seconded: motion approved. 4) 61191 US 31 South. Mr. Oxian described this property as a white Italianate house south of South Bend. This application concerns only landscaping and involves the removal of a large number of trees, to be replaced with dogwood, redbud, and rhododendrons. Mrs. Choitz pointed out that the current landscaping is not original. Mr. Oxian said that some of the trees are very close to the house and may be damaging the foundation. Herendeen moved to _ - -- -- - - - approve the application: Mr. Newburn seconded: motion approved. Mrs. Sporleder abstained. b. Staff Approvals. 1) 1150 Lincolnway East - LHD. 2) 1154 Lincolnway East - LHD. 3) 1134 Lincolnway East - LHD. 4) 902 Riverside Drive - LHD. 5) 944 Riverside Drive - LHD. 6) 1205 E. Wayne Street - LHD. Mr. Oxian stated that most of these repairs were to roofs. Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve all six applications: Mr. Newburn seconded: motion approved. C Enf_orcemen_t . 1) 1716 E. Wayne Street. Mr. Oxian reported that the violation "in question was the construction of a fence without prior approval of either the commission or the staff. Mrs. Choitz said she had seen the fence and found it to be in flagrant violation of district specifications. Mr.- Pastor reported that the fence had "just barely" passed city code. Mr. Oxian cited the district specification that any fencing be compatible with the general character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Boyd stated that the owners had filed the certificate of appropriateness after the fact. The commission, she said, had the right to review the alteration and request its removal if they deemed it unacceptable. Only after the alteration had been formally rejected would the issue become an enforcement problem. Mrs. Choitz questioned whether the fence constituted a sufficiently serious violation to justify such a drastic action as making the owners remove it. Mr. Eide said a precedent should be set for the neighborhood. He suggested moving the gate to the post nearest the back of the house, and fencing the back yard instead of the front. Mr. Herendeen moved to recommend this change to the owner: Mrs. Sporleder seconded: motion approved. Mr. Eide suggested that if any questions -- - _were raised after - - the recommendation had- - been made, they should be referred to an executive committee to expedite proceedings. Mrs. Choitz urged Mrs. Dixon to send the owners a letter raising the possibility of legal action, and explaining the Commission's position. 2. Budget and Finance a. Appropriation by county. Mrs. Dixon reported that the County Council had approved the application for an appropriation to cover the federal portion of the grant. This has been approved through the end of December. 3. Legal a. Mainte Ordinance. Mr _. Oxan reported that Mrs.DeRose had sent a letter urging him to change the maintenance standards (previously submitted to her) into an ordinance. She cited one particular statement which she felt should become a major part of that ordinance. Mr. Oxian said she would return to further discuss this issue. b. Disclaimer. Mrs. Dixon reported that she had sent Mrs. DeRose a letter describing her idea for a disclaimer to be appended to certificate of appropriateness forms. Mrs. DeRose had revised and returned the disclaimer for submittal to the HPC. This disclaimer would clarify the fact that IIPC standards are not a replacement for city code standards. She passed around a form giving the exact wording of the disclaimer. (See Appendix A). Mr.Herendeen moved to accept the disclaimer as written: Mr. Newburn seconded. Motion approved. 4. Historic District. a. Monroe Park - PLHD. Mr. Pastor said he was waiting for a response from the Monroe Park community, and had nothing at present to report. Research would, however, continue; Todd Zeiger, the resident who initiated proceedings, would try to gain more support from his neighbors in the district. Mr. Oxian said that, since Center City Associates and Area Plan were supporting the _ ____proposal, proc ( desi gnat ion of boundaries, etc.) should continue. The problem of absentee landlords was then briefly discussed. Mrs. Choitz commented that absentee landlords, of which this district would be largely composed, seldom show much interest in belonging to an historic district. Mr. Oxian said this problem could be countered by holding a public hearing at which residents could voice their concerns. Mr. Oxian asked Mr. Pastor to find out who were the property owners in the district, and to do further work toward establishing boundaries. Mrs. Sporleder requested a list, describing patterns of ownership, by next meeting • -- - - -- -- — -- - 5. Historic Landmarks a. Rohrer Cemetery. Mr. Oxian requested a first reading for this site. b. Colfax Theatre. Discussion on this matter involved whether or not the monies being used to demolish the theatre were federal funds or city funds. Mrs. Dixon reported that John Carr had advised her that, if the funds involved were not federal, nothing could be done to stop the demolition. Mrs. Sporleder suggested writing to congressmen. Mrs. Dixon commended Mrs. Steele for her help and support in tracking proceedings on Colfax theatre. c. Darden Bridge. Mrs. Dixon briefly reminded the commission that the bridge was, indeed, in a precarious situation. Mr. Eide suggested a meeting to determine why the county would not relinquish title to the bridge. 6. Public Relations and Community Education. No report. 7. Personnel. a. Current Contractual Employees of HPC. Mrs. Dixon reported that Suzanne Booker had decided not to renew her contract after she was informed of the restructuring of the staff that took place in July. Mr.Oxian interjected that he had decided to call a personnel meeting on this matter so that all the facts of the case could be discussed. Mr.Eide and Mrs. Dennen agreed to be on the committee. The meeting was set for 3:30 Friday, August 23. Mr. Oxian asked Mrs. Dixon to notify the HPC staff, and asked that Mr. Pastor and Mr. Holycross be present. 8. Staff Reports. a. Bi- monthly reports. No report. V. Old Business No report. VI. New Business a. Endangered Schools Mr. Oxian reported that he had consulted the landmark commission and had been advised to determine which schools were in danger of demolition, and which of these endangered schools qualified as landmarks. Mrs. Svorleder moved to approve this action: Mrs. Choitz seconded: motion approved. VII. Hearing of Visitors No report. VIII. Announcements and Miscellaneous Matters No Report. IX. Adjournment Mr. Oxian moved to adiourn: Mr. Herendeen seconded. Motion approved. CORRESPONDENCE A. Northern Indiana Historical Society note and Summer Quarter newsletter. B. Offer to subscribe to Archaeology and Historic Preservation Federal Affairs Notebook C. Notice from Nappanee Development Corporation that our Sculpture brochure is not the right size for their "standard" sized display case. D. "How to Solve Communication Problems" seminar ad. E. Brochure on Revitalizing Downtown Mainstreet Conference F. Preservation News, July /August 1991 G. PLR Advance, July 1991 H. Invitation to Michiana Builders Asroc. Annual Golf Outing I. Annual Financial Report, City of South Bend J. Preservation Law Update, 1991 -16, 1991 -17 K. Dept. of Economic Development newsletter L. Newsletter for COPAR (Library of Congress -Coop. Pres. of Architectural Records) M. Brochure on October O'Brien Conference on Historic Preservation N. Invitation to computer seminar by Information Decisions Inc. 0. Invitation to National Trust Local History Seminar in September P. Southhold Newsletter August /September 1991 Q. Brochure listing Indiana's 10 most endangered landmarks (by HLFI) R. CRM Supplement 1991 S. Maciaf Monitor, August 1991 T. Maciaf Plan Room, July 22, July 29, August 5, August 1'2 - A7? "" -4 - LEGAL DEPARTMENT = NTEROFF 2 CE MEMORANDUM TO = LORI DIXON DATE = JULY 22, 1991 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FROM = ALADEAN M. DEROSE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 1: APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS The note at the bottom of your Certificate of Appropriateness form is fairly good. However, I suggest you make the following changes in content and form: 1. The disclaimer which you have designated "Note to Applicant" should be printed in bold type to distinguish it from the remaining body of the application; 2. The language should be modified as follows: NOTICE TO APPLICANT: APPROVAL OF YOUR APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE OF A-CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN NO WAY SIGNIFIES COMPLIANCE WITH HEALTH, SAFETY OR G ENERAL BUILDING /ZONING STANDARDS. NEITHER DOES IT RELEAS OR RELIEVE YOU FROM COMPLIANCE WITH ALL -CODES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY SOUTH BEND, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, OR THE STATE OF INDIANA. THE - COMMISSION EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY LIABILITY RESULTING FROM SAFETY OR HEALTH DEFECTS IN ANY STRUCTURE FOR WHICH A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HAS BEEN ISSUED. M E M O R A N D U M TO: HPC Members FROM: Lori Dixon, Director RE: Meeting, Monday, August'19 DATE: August 15, 1991 My apologies for the delay in sending your packets this month. John would like to have a brief Landmark Committee meeting prior to the meeting. If Jean and Herb would be here at 7:00, I would appreciate it. To expedite the meeting a bit, let me give you a run -down of the various topics: C. of A.s - We will be hearing one C. of A. which the committee did not review at its meeting today. Reports - Jim has submitted a report on approved C. of A.s with this packet. Minutes - enclosed. Treasurer's Report - I will provide it to you at the meeting, but there are no expenditures outside of the standard payroll and supply expenses. Correspondence - available at meeting. Budget and Finance - The County Council approved the requested appropriation of $24,128 to cover federal funds through December. Monies for federal grants for 1992 come from our budget. Legal - enclosed is a copy of Ms. DeRose's suggested wording for the C. of A. application disclaimer. Historic Districts - Jim will report. .Historic Landmarks - Rohrer Cemetery is self - explanitory. The other two are there to remind you of their precarious situations. Economic Development enformed us that the Colfax Theatre project is not using federal funds. More at the meeting. Personnel - Just to keep everyone apprised of the situation. Suzanne Booker did not renew her contract upon return from vacation. We intend to go with our existing staff for now. Staff Reports - Bi- Monthly Report enclosed. Thanks for your attention. Again, I remind you that there is a Landmark Committee meeting at 7:00 p.m., immediately prior to the meeting at 7:30. Mark your calendars. AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Monthly Meeting 7:30 p.m. August 19, 1991 County Council Caucus Room, 411 County /City Building I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes - July 15, 1991 B. Treasurer's Report - July 1991 C. Correspondence D. Committee Reports 1. Certificates of Appropriateness (Report) a. Committee Meeting 8/15/91 1. 1346 Lincolnway East - LHD 2. 1341 East Wayne Street - LHD 3. 1712 East Wayne Street - LHD 4. 61191 U.S. 31 South - LL b. Staff Approvals 1. 1150 Lincolnway East - LHD 2. 1154 Lincolnway East - LHD - 3. 1134 Lincolnway East - LHD 4. 902 Riverside Drive - LHD 5. 944 Riverside Drive - LHD 6. 1205 E. Wayne Street - LHD c. Enforcement 1. 1716 E. Wayne Street - LHD 2. Budget & Finance a. Appropriation by County 3. Legal 4. Historic Districts a. Monroe Park - PLHD 5. Historic Landmarks a. Rohrer Cemetery - 1st Reading b. _Colfax Theatre c. Darden Bridge 6. Public Relations & Community Education 7. Personnel a. Current Contractual Employees of HPC 8. Staff Reports a. Bi- monthly Report V* Old Business VI. New Business VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. _ _ Announcements - &- Miscellaneous- Matters - -- - - - -- - - IX. Adjournment BANK #02 CHECK #125403 BANK #02 CHECK #125413 BANK #02 CHECK 1125413 BANK 402 CHECK #125413 BANK #02 CHECK #125421 BANK #02 CHECK, #125431 BANK #02 CHECK #125432 BANK 102 CHECK #125463 BANK 102 CHECK #125523 BANK 402 CHECK #125523 BANK 102 CHECK #125550 BANK. #02 CHECK #125563 BANK 102 CHECK #126912 BANK #02 CHECK #126338 BANK #02 CHECK #126344 SANK 102 CHECK #126347 BANK #02 CHECK #126348 BANK #02 CHECK #126384 BANK #02 CHECK #126384 BANK #02 CHECK #126423 BANK #02 CHECK #126430 BANK #02 CHECK #126457 AL APPROPRIATION ENCUMBRANCE EXPENDITURE UNEXPENDED SAL UNENCUMB SAL IN 0.00 0.00 4.578 49 y 0.00 0.00 0.00 39,686.10 1,809.78 33,457.90 6,228.20 4,418.42 1.i ------ •.••••• «•. * : :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 07/91 07/01/91 ENCUMB _ 10.50 PO #048922 VENDOR 1007716 C.B.I. /GRAPHICS 07191 07/01/91 ENCUMB - 39.78 PO #048927 VENDOR #000553 DILLS CAMERA SHOP 07/91 07/02/91 CLAIM 44.75 PO #000000 VENDOR 1007044 BOOKER SUZANNE 07/91 07/02/91 CLAIM - 119.50 PO #048432 VENDOR #007716 C.B.I. /GRAPHICS 07/91 07/02/91 CLAIM _ 11.00 PO #048433 VENDOR #007716 C.B.I. /GRAPHICS 07/91 07/02/91 CLAIM 28.00 PO #048457 VENDOR #007716 C.B.I. /GRAPHICS 07/91 07/02/91 CLAIM -- 390.00 PO #048601 VENDOR #000115 COMER TINA 07/91 07/02/91 CLAIM - 40.88 PO #048434 VENDOR #000553 DILLS CAMERA SHOP 07/91 07/02/91 CLAIM 77.50 PO #000000 VENDOR #006170 DIXON LORI 07191 07/02/91 CLAIM - 372.00 PO 1048602 VENDOR #007600 HOLYCROSS FRED 07/91 07/02/91 CLAIM 24.95 PO #000000 VENDOR #004741 PASTOR JAMES 07/91 07/02/91 CLAIM - 625.00 PO #048645 VENDOR #004741 PASTOR JAMES 07/91 07/02 /91 CLAIM - 34.71 PO #048435 VENDOR #001538 SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE 07/91 07/02191 CLAIM - _144.00 PO #048570 VENDOR #007702 STRICKLER RANDALL 07/91 07/12/91 CLAIM -- 83.15 PO #048934 VENDOR 1009539 BEAUMONT CONSTANCE E 07/91 07/16/91 CLAIM - - 437.50 PO #048925 VENDOR #007044 BOOKER SUZANNE 07/91 07/16/91 CLAIM 134.00 PO #048766 VENDOR #007716 C.B.I. /GRAPHICS 07/91 07/16/91 CLAIM -- 420.00 PO #048933 VENDOR #000115 COMER TINA 07191 07/16191 CLAIM ' '25.72 PO 40000OO'VENDOR #000507 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 07/91 07/16/91 CLAIM '33.00 PO #OOOOOQ VENDOR #007600 HOLYCROSS FRED 07/91 07/16/91 CLAIM 372.00 PO #048924 VENDOR #007600 HOLYCROSS FRED 07/91 07/16/91 CLAIM - 371.00 PO #048928 VENDOR #001246 NATIONAL TRUST FOR 07/91 07116/91 CLAIM 645.83 PO 9048923 VENDOR #004741 PASTOR JAMES l. (CONTINUED) 07/91 07/16/91 CLAIM - .144.00 PO #048929 VENDOR #007702 STRICKLER RANDALL 07191 07/17/91 ENCUMB - 360.00 PO #049310 VENDOR #000115 COMER TINA -47/91 07/17/91 ENCUMB 72.00 PO #049311.VENDOR #007702 STRICKLER RANDALL 07/91 07/17/91 ENCUMB - 375.00 PO #049336 VENDOR. #007600 HOLYCROSS FRED 07/91 07/17/91 ENCUMB 262.50 PO #049337 VENDOR #007044 BOOKER SUZANNE 07/91 07/17/91 ENCUMB 625.00 PO #049344 VENDOR #004741 PASTOR JAMES 07/91 07/26/91 ENCUMB - 4.00 PO #049597 VENDOR #007716 C.B.I. /GRAPHICS 001.39211.000.034 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONERS ESTIMATED REV RPCEIPTS UNRECV REV B BANK #02 CHECK #125403 BANK #02 CHECK #125413 BANK #02 CHECK 1125413 BANK 402 CHECK #125413 BANK #02 CHECK #125421 BANK #02 CHECK, #125431 BANK #02 CHECK #125432 BANK 102 CHECK #125463 BANK 102 CHECK #125523 BANK 402 CHECK #125523 BANK 102 CHECK #125550 BANK. #02 CHECK #125563 BANK 102 CHECK #126912 BANK #02 CHECK #126338 BANK #02 CHECK #126344 SANK 102 CHECK #126347 BANK #02 CHECK #126348 BANK #02 CHECK #126384 BANK #02 CHECK #126384 BANK #02 CHECK #126423 BANK #02 CHECK #126430 BANK #02 CHECK #126457 AL APPROPRIATION ENCUMBRANCE EXPENDITURE UNEXPENDED SAL UNENCUMB SAL IN 0.00 0.00 4.578 49 y 0.00 0.00 0.00 39,686.10 1,809.78 33,457.90 6,228.20 4,418.42 1.i ------ •.••••• «•. * : :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx MAINTENANCE STANDARDS -- from The Preservation Law Reporter Statement of Purpose Since the problem of demolition by neglect is a serious threat to the goals of historic preservation ordinances, anti - neglect provisions clearly are rationally related to the legitimate public purpose of historic preservation and these provisions constitute a reasonable means for protecting historic structures. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated in Maher v. City of New Orleans, "[o]nce it has been determined that the purpose of the ... [preservation] legislation is a proper one, upkeep of buildings appears reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of the goals of the ordinance." [1] Accordingly, minimum maintenance provisions are a valid exercises of the police power. Ordinance Defined This ordinance forbids deterioration which has a "detrimental effect upon the character of the district as a whole or the life and character of the landmark structure of property in question" and requires that repairs be made at an early stage in the deterioration process before serious structural defects occur. This provision governs defects or conditions including but not limited to: a) The deterioration of exterior walls or other vertical supports; b) The deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members; c) The deterioration of external chimneys; d) The deterioration or crumbling of exterior plasters or mortar; e) The ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roof and foundations, including broken windows or doors; f) The peeling of paint, rotting, holes and other forms of decay; g) The lack of maintenance of surrounding environment, e.g., fences, gates, sidewalks, steps, signs, accessory structures and landscaping; h) The deterioration of any feature so as to create or permit the creation of any hazardous or unsafe condition or conditions. [2] ---------------------- [1] 516 F.2d 1051, 1066 -67 (5th Cir.), cent. denied, 426U.S. 905 (1975). As taken from The Preservation Law Reporter, 1989 Vol.8, pp.2006 -7. [2] Charlottesville, Va, Code 31 -141 (1976, as amended 1986). As taken from The Preservation Law Reporter, 1989 Vol.8, p.2003. To clarify our funding sources for any and all of you who might be a bit confused or concerned, I have produced two pie charts; one for 1991 and one for 1992 (based on estimated grant receipts and expenditures). A note of explanation regarding the charts and their labels: "DHPA" is the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology ( "the State Office ") which administers our federal grants. "CDBG" is Community Development Block Grant, administered by South Bend's Redevelopment Commission - -this is the only money we receive from the City. The dollar amounts corresponding with these portions of the graphs are as follows: 1991 Budget 1992 Budget DHPA $35,168 total DHPA $25,800 estimated CDBG $13,650 CDBG $13,650 estimated County $ 4, County $ 4,000. estimated* Total $52,818 Total $43,450 estimated *The County budget actually shows $38,100 in our line item, but only $4,000 of that is for non -grant operating expenses (memberships, travel, office supplies, etc.). The remainder is to be used for grant expenditures until the reimbursement is received from the City or the State. —991 expenditures are as follows: That money which has already been expended (as of 6/30/91): DHPA 3rd Quarter $ 7,913 federal ($13,223 total) DHPA 4th Quarter $14,055 federal ($24,515 total)estimate CDBG $ 2,822 County $27,735* *of this amount, $1,198 was used for non -grant expenditures. The remaining $26,537 is for personnel and grant supplies which have been claimed or will be claimed before July 31, 1991. The HPC has returned to the County, since January 1,.1991, $14,651.19 in reimbursement checks from our grants. Of that, $11,828.71 was originally expended in 1990 and $2,822.48 is reimbursement for 1991 expenses. All of this money has been quietused into the County General Account, but not specifically into our line item. This is the manner in which I was instructed to make the quietus for reimbursement checks. Estimated expenses, July 1- December 31, 1991 DHPA $13,300 (half of federal grant for 1991- 1992 ) CDBG $10,828 (remainder of allocation for 1991 ) The County has agreed to appropriate an additional 26,600 to f ur account to cover the federal portion of our new grant until t is reimbursed (13,300 to be appropriated this year) Estimates for funding for t DHPA January -June, 1992 DHPA July- December 1992 possible $25,000, expended he 1992 budget. $13,300 (finish 1991 -92 grant) $12,500 (based on maximum federal allocation for 1992 -93 of assuming that half would be in the first six months.) CDBG $13,650 , based on conversation with Redevelopment. They estimate that the current funding level is likely and, if reduced, it would probably be no greater than a 3 % -5 % , reduction ($410 -$683) . County $38,100 Again, from this, $4,000 is expected to cover non -grant operating expenses. The remainder is to cover grant expenditures (with the CDBG funds serving as match for the DHPA funds) until we are reimbursed.- Reimbursement checks return to the County. H.PC BUDGET DHPA 1991 COUNTY 7.0% CDBG 32.0% 1992 COUNTY 9,0% 7 \10 \91 CORRESPONDENCE A. B. C. D . E. F . G. H. I. J. K. L. M . N. 0. P. Q. R. S. T. Northern Indiana Historical Society note and Summer Quarter newsletter. Offer to subscribe to Archaeology and Historic Preservation Federal Affairs Notebook Notice from Nappanee Development Corporation that our Sculpture brochure is not the right size for their "standard" sized display case. "How to Solve Communication Problems" seminar ad. Brochure on Revitalizing Downtown Mainstreet Conference Preservation News, July /August 1991 PLR Advance, July 1991 Invitation to Michiana Builders Asroc. Annual Golf Outing Annual Financial Report, City of South Bend Preservation Law Update, 1991 -16, 1991 -17 Dept. of Economic Development newsletter Newsletter for COPAR (Library.of Congress -Coop. Pres. of Architectural Records) Brochure on October O'Brien Conference on Historic Preservation Invitation to computer seminar by Information Decisions Inc. Invitation to National Trust Local History Seminar in September Southhold Newsletter August /September 1991 Brochure listing Indiana's 10 most endangered landmarks (by HLFI) CRM Supplement 1991 Maciaf Monitor, August 1991 Maciaf Plan Room, July 22, July 29, August 5, August 12 August 19, 1991 STAFF REPORT Susan L. Metzger 1716 E. Wayne South Bend, IN 46615 PROPOSAL Owner has installed fence along east and west lot lines. Fence is San Ferndando style (as per Schuell Fence brochure from HPC files) which consists of wood posts with a dual, braced rail and chain link underneath. The section along the eastern lot line runs from the detached garage to the front set back line of the house. A drive - through chain link gate runs across the driveway between the front most post and the east corner of the front facade. The section along the western lot line embraces the rear yard and meets the west corner of the rear facade with chain link entry gate. STANDARD . A S I.. Wi,ndows__a_nd__Doors 1) Required Major landscaping items, fencing, walkways, streetlights, signs, and benches shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood in size, scale, material, and color. RECOMMENDAT.I,ONS The Commission should determine whether the installed fence is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, i.e. compatibility with the historic and architectural elements of the district and more specifically, the traditional treatment of fences in the district. A drive - through gate appears to be an unusual element in the district. August 8, 1991 STAFF REPORT G. Robert Blakey 1341 E. Wayne N. South Bend, IN 46615 PROPOSAL Construct a rear enclosed porch off the rear gable addition (c.1970) of the main structure that will extend into the rear Yard and connect into the garage at the garage's side entry door. The window near the east side of the gable extension will be removed as will the rear cement steps. The deck of the proposed porch is level with the first floor of the main structure and will be built right over the existing brick patio. Material will be wood. Porch will have a gable roof. STANDARDS _ .. _.. _.. _... _..... ...... _ ...... III. New Construction A. Height and _Proportion 1 ) Requ_i_red Additions to existing buildings shall be related in height and proportion to the existing structure. 2 ) Recommended - Contemporary designs should be compatible in character and mood to the building or neighborhood. 3) Prohibited Additions that would add new height or change the existing facade of a building and change its scale and architectural character shall not be constructed. 4) Not Recommended .. ..... . .._._........_......... Any style or period of architecture that is incompatible with the existing should not be permitted in new additions. B. B q i._1 n a t e r i a 1_s 1) R e . qu_i r e d Exterior materials used on a new structure shall be compatible in scale, texture, and color with adjacent structures. Materials used on an addition to an existing structure shall relate to the existing or original materials of the structure. Also, as much of the original structure as possible shall be retained so that the addition could be removed without damage to the basic structure and appearance of the building. RECOMMENDATIONS The current scheme replaces one earlier submitted that called for a rear porch with a similar footprint constructed of aluminum Prefabricated panels. The owner's decision to change to a custom wood frame, wood sided addition with a gable roof line makes this A. proposal more viable. The interconnection of the garage and main structure, however, is inappropriate; the historic and aesthetic relationship of the garage and the main structure is compromised and the interconnection of the these two units is atypical in the East Wayne Historic District. An addition that would not interconnect these two units would be more appropriate. The addition would not be visible from the street. � - � � � - i. F - T" | | | �-L , GAAAGE -|_� - -- Woc)D OsCX | � | |_ -[ — | | � | | i7 ~� ~ HnasF- / / / / ^ � -- ! / »� co � � | ' / �� ------ _-__- ----- — \ - / — - | � . . � , ! ! \ / -- | i | + / | � -- ' / . | . ' �_- — L - �-- -- �- --� --- | � ` -- � ° ' � vvo �r CARAGE p o o 1: G4t� AGE \ 4/ ��o� \^~� . ' -- - _--' -_ | | � | L__ l - [--�-|'--/---|—/ ------ � � | � ' ---- ---'`- | + F _ �^ . | , -l---'---� --- ------------------�--- ---- ' | _____�___-|-_---'-----'--------- " ' �. ~^ - _ - - - -