The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFebruary 1992AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Monthly Meeting County Conference Room 7:30 p.m. 7th Floor, County/City Building February 17, 1992 1..` Call to Order 11. Roll Call III. Public Hearing A. -Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 68286 Miami Road -- LL 2. 1071 Riverside Dr. =- LHD 3. 1501 E. Wayne St. == LHD 6.. Proposed Local Historic-District -- -. Near Northwest Neighborhood IV. Regular Business A.Approval of Minutes -- January 20, 1992 B. Treasurer's Report -- January, 1992 C. Correspondence 1pD. Committee Reports 1. C of A (Enforcement) a. 805 Arch Ave. -- LHD b. 1716 E. Wayne St. -- LHD 2. Budget & Finance 3. Legal tea. Designating Local Historic Districts'-- Procedural Change 4. Historic Districts a. Lincolnway East LHD -- Update 5. Historic Landrarks 6. Public Relations & Community Education 7. Personnel 8. Staff Reports V. Old Business A. Committee Assignments V1. New Business A. Proposed Regulation: Moving Landmarks B. Proposed COA Review Process VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment COMMISSION MEETING VISITOR ROLL FEBRUARY 17, 1992 Visitors: Please fill in your name and organization (if applicable) so your presence can be officially recorded for the Commission's records. Thank you. 22 3 4-°_ 24 5 '^art' �.. 2 5 fa)k� �di tg 7 27 8 �� ct�. / 28 561,,�,� C/ �rvs 9 exee76,o 29 10 30'57 G�aeia"1G�c— ICY r ��.�a..� / 11, 31 ejw 12 b /A �ie(7' -- 32 11-C 14 - 34Z)i .�a,•� .15 r/ �is�� Xoap35 q� It 5 6,4 AcK 17 C/it -� `� "�rwt^ �`M'�-' 37 18 38 19 39 20 ��-�.t �-'' 40 �i cls .S w A-r—ro ki) rm 1 January 16, 1992 STAFF REPORT Mike Kahle 68286 Miami Road Bremen,.IN 46506 PROPOSAL 1. Remove 3 evergreen trees and various shrubs along west (front) and south facades of house. 2. Reroof main house with 3 in 1 tab asphalt shingle. 3. Remove a 1/1 double hung sash in rear kitchen wing. Replace. with clad swinging patio door (Wenco brand) 4. Removesealedstorm cellar entry located underneath said window and install wood deck. 5. Remove existing rolling metal door and adjacent metal entry door at south side of cinder block garage and replace with Clopay door as per submitted spec (to fit entire masonry opening). 6. Remove .wood .panel entry door with 1/3 multi -pane glazing at west side of cinder block garage and replace with new door., 7. -Demolish small wood, gable roofed outbuilding just east of cinderblock garage. 8. Remove corrugated metal siding on large storage barn and reside with contemporary counterpart. STANDARDS Group.B Standards: B. Treatment Treatment shall be defined as any change of surface materials that will not alter' the style or original form ... and may involve a change. that can potentially enhance or detract from the character of the landmark. The Commission should ,review -the proposed treatment for character.and style .consistency with. the. original ;surface. C.. Renovation.and Additions . 2—Construction and.Stvle - All work should be -done in the architectural style and in a technique compatible .with that of the original structure. 3. Materials - Additions and improvements involving any new material in the landmark should be of the same material as the original. It should the same size and texture. 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 he responsible for this documentation. RECOMMENDATIONS The site at 66206 1'11ami R()ad cunsisLr, 01 ;i l., LE, 1030': crorss gabled building wiLh a Queen Anne spindIeworlc veranda, a batik barn of the same period, and numerous supporting outbuildings It is a very intact example of a laLc, 19Lh century Midwest farmstead. Staff review of the proposed changes to this site are as follows: 1. The landscaping features to be removed, juniper family shrubs and trees, are not original; an HPC photo of the structure from the 1977 survey shows these features as significantly smaller, perhaps newly installed. The staff recommends that the owner be allowed to remove these plantings as they encroach upon the house. Removal would increase the visibility of the spindlework veranda from Miami Road. The owner has no current scheme for replacement but plans to submit a separate application when appropriate. 2. The existing roofing material is Copper Lok asphalt shingle. Reroofing as proposed is appropriate. 3. The rear kitchen wing appears to have been constructed within a few years of the main house as the foundation is similar to that of the house. Removing the existing 1/1 double hung sash in north face of the wing is not in keeping with standards B and C(2)(3) as sited above as it alters the window opening, introduces foreign materials, and therefore alters the character and style of this portion of the structure. The staff recommends against the alteration of this window opening. 4. The Existing storm cellar door is inoperable, having been blocked in from within all(] sealed from without. It still contributes to the structure visually, howe,.e.r. Removal of this element and installation of a deck would alter the historic context of the landmark. From this perspective, this part of the proposal is also not in keeping with standards B and C(1)(2). Construction of a deck, however, could perhaps be done in such a way as to retain the storm cellar door and to be removable at a later date. 5. The rough cut cinderblock garage dates to the early twentieth century and appears to have been originally- constructed as an automobile garage. The Existing metal door is not original, dating from approximately the 1950's, and is in fair condition. Removal of this door and the adjacent entry door of the same material is appropriate. The owner's proposal would not a1Lec the original masonry opening of the structure. The staff recommends, however, that a replacement door more compatible with the style and character of the structure be sought. 6. The existing wood panel door appears Lo be original and i•, ill fair condition. Installation of metal door is not, appcopriat.e from a materials standpoint, but may be appropriate from a form and style standpoint. The staff recommends that model # CS7007, SED30 (see attached spec:), which feat. -ores a conventional simulated wood panel detail., be chosen over the owner'.; proposal of model #CS7007, SED49, which features simulated crisscross st. ickwork. 7. The gabled outbuilding, used and bui1L as a storage shed, appears to have been constructed in the 1940's on the foundation of an earlier structure. The structure, in fair condition, consists of vertical wood board siding, asphalt shingled gable roof- with exposed rafters, contemporary or bearded over windows, and a foundation of hand hewn wood timber. The staff would encourage restoraLion and reuse (the building would probably need to be resided) over demolition; the structure is the least valuable of the historic elements, yet still contributes to the context of the farmstead. Should demolition be allowed, the staff recommends that the owner document Lhe structure as per standard D sited above. 8.-The'machine.shed is sided with contemporary corrugated metal in fair- condition.' Its structural system, a heavy timber framing system, appears older than its exterior appearance indicates. Replacement with new metal siding is appropriate. J. PasLor HPC Staff 6211vsc� . _T; _0 I jcl O c' y. 0 xra`.f+"Y M atio r =JX 7,i Swingin' PI7a'ars ;� a By lending the technology of aluminum cladding to its WENCO JX -7 Clad Swinging Patio Door, WENCO has developed an easy care, maintenance -free classic. This product is available in two models. They are the French model -where both panels are hinged from the side jamb and swing into the room and the single scaring model that is hinged on a structural mullion in the center of the door unit. Both units include chOice of glass, Lexan sill, compression foam weatherstrip, and many other high value features. And noxa, with 6'8" and 8 heights, transoms, decorative glass, elliptical tops, and side lights, you couldn't find a wider choice anywhere. Exterior colors are white, bronze, or beige to match any WENCO JX -7 clad window, (check for local availability). (See color samples o» page 6). FEATURES DoorFrame. Frameand mullionareextruded aluminum on the exterior %vith clear Ponderosa Pi tie on the interior. ' Door Panels. Wood panels are shielded from exterior exposure by roll formed aluminum cladding. Cladding is rolled over the end of each door panel rail member and seated with a PVC gasket. Doors come pre -bored kvith 2 1/8" bore and 2 3/8" backset to receive any standard passage set and deadbolt lock. Doors are veneered with ade of Ponderosa [line on the interior. the highest gr Weatherstrip. Both fixed and swinging doors are equipped tivith routed in, foam type, compression weatherstrip. Five finger bottom sweep with drip cap design stops air and water infiltration and leakage underneath both fixed and moving doors. 0 Sill. The sill itself is overlaid with theadvanced material called "Lexan" which is tough and scuff -resistant, as insulativeaswood, and never needs paIntrn,-, Laidunder this Lexan is long life, rot -resistant cedar Glazing. insulating glass is availablu in k_�itlwr clear High -Performance, (see page 7). Fitteei7 light trig insulating glass with beveled lights and bra„ detailing is available in the 3-0 and 6-0 sizes only, but not in the French door in -swing unit. OMullion. Full 1 3/4' extruded ,tinctura: mullion i, screwed down through the head lanib and up throu"i) the sill to give the strength no other patio d'), IF pro% ides. OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES 0 Lockset & Deadbolt. Two choice, ary avadable: (1) Lido, a stylish scroll shaped brass finished leer set with thatching deadbolt. (See photo on pad c o, (2) Eclipse set, brass finish, with integrated deadboltand sculptured escutcheon. (tier photos ori paXc 0) OGrilles. Profiled grilles give a true dividedh,,lit lool.and are available in either 5/8" wide unassembled or 1" wide assembled with full perimeter frame. (See pat e W. e Internal Muntins. Internal muntins between the glass are available at the same price as '8" wood grilles. ['refinished in white, bronze, or beige, thev stay dust free. 0Interior Extension Jambs. Interior extension jambs are available in three standard widths: 3 1/4", 6 9/ 16", and 75/16". Intermediate sizes are also available oil recltrest. 0 Trint Strips. Thiscustom fit system allows standard uni to be used in odd sized openings. (See page 8) O Screens. Heavy-duty screens in factory finished white, bronze, or beige are fully adjustable with nylon rollers for easy operation. Screens not available for French Doors. 45 t February 10, 1992 STAFF REPORT Ann Manion / Stephen Murphy 1071 Riverside Drive South Bend, IN 46617 PROPOSAL 1) Replace original front sconces with Catalina Lighting fixtures model #4015SB5VBB, polished brass color, 25" x 6 3/4" x 6 3/4" 2) Install Catalina Lighting fixture model #4013SB5VBB-12, polished brass color, at side (east) entry. Install dual flood light at south-east corner of house. 3) Replace deteriorated wood garage rolling door (7' x 8) with Clopay steel weather insulated door, no glazing, smooth profile. 4) Install wrought iron rail at front concrete steps/landing - to engage into east wall. STANDARDS II..Existing Structures A) Building MateriaAs 1) Required Original exterior building materials shall be retained. 2) Recommended Whenever possible, the original building materials ' ( ` should be restored. D) Entrances. Porches and Steps 1) Required j Existing or original porches and steps, including I handrails, balusters, columns, brackets, tiles, and. roof decorations shall be retained or replaced by replicas of, the same design and materials when deteriorated beyond repair. C) Windows and Doors 3) Prohibited New ... door openings that would alter the scale and proportion of the building may not be introduced. RECOMMENDATIONS 1 & 2) The original sconces, in keeping with the Prairie style of the structure, are in deteriorated condition. The HPC staff has sufficiently documented them in place should future owners desire to replace with replicas. There is nothing in the standards that is specific with regards to outdoor lighting not in the public right of way. The staff recommends that the owner be permitted t.o install all lighting as specified in the project description. 3) The existing rolling garage door is not: original; it is in deteriorated condition and needs replacing. The garage port faces onto a rear access alley.' The staff is in favor of the installation of a steel insulated door; however, a door %iLh a L, recessed paneling detail would be more appropriate than the smooth steel finish. The manufacturer, Clopay, makes such a door: model # 74. 4) No handrail currently exists. The existing stairs are of poured concrete and are not original. The staff is in favor of installation of the specified porch rail. historicpreservation commission of south bend and st. joseph county ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING y 13, 1 9 9 2 south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798 h .Y !, �Ahy •'ar I' -,tette 6outBend, !N 46617 the Historic Preservation Co�ilm—_ _. c i,::•n c _._—,uary 20, 1992 regarding your arp '. _.at ^. -.�' a ��rt .. .. a ar 1.' r,r i ateness dated Jan- uaf Tote cc;;lp feted oroJ=_? J^„e-if ica' 1, :�`� _t t F at Nindow instal led at t�;�reaz ria�'.^.7•`� o✓iens4',n 1f the main bu , 1d1nG at .07' 1 Rive -side Drive, introduces y a sty! . st i, ._ element not typ ? .:a ! of an ear t y twentieth cent-ury Prair1e style residence; s ch `erestrat;Dr is :-,.ore :haracter istic of Queen Anne style homes and :;ther ornate styles of the 1990's. According to the ;.,.,.3s,cr, chis replacement window adds an e __entri_ and out o* balance element to the exze for style of the home. Consequently, the Cc:rmission tabled the request for approval of the window, and asked that the, owners choose ane of three courses of.action: 1) Replace the e1 ptical w ndow w1th a rect ang'u1 a - window of similar size. The window chosen will he reviewed and approved by the HPC staff. ?) Completely side over the opening with wood 1-ap- board to match the existing siding. 3) Document econc.mic hardship that replacing the window would cause. You chose course of action #3'. A committee meeting was held February 12, 1992, at your request; the purpose of the committee meeting was to hear your case for economic hardship =s per the outlines of options stated above. The removal and replacement cost for complying with the Commission's determination as quoted by your partner, Ms. Manion, in her letter of February 12, 1992, a sum of "a minimum of $500", was agreed to be a reasonable estimate for the window's replacement based on similar figures gathered by the HPC staff and on the professional experience of the committee members. This figure was compared to the total cost of your renovation Project --,"over $12,000" --as cited in Ms. Manion's letter dated January 20, 1992. The committee determined that these costs did not represent an economic hardship. This dpr-icinn wac ( q nri n., nhipe-j'ivn historic reservation c®mmissi p ®n of south bend and st. joseph county ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798 criterion chosen by the committee, i.e. a reasonable case for hardship may be made by showing that the cost of compliance to District standards --in this case replacing a window that was changed without a Certificate of Appropriateness --would be twenty percent (20%) more than the total cost of a project. This criterion has precedent elsewhere in the construction field. The committee subsequently upheld the Commission's decision on January 20, 1992, requiring removal of the elliptical window and installation of a window more appropriate to the style of the building. In other words, the Committee concurred with the Historic Preservation Commission as a a whole and once again denied -your Certificate of Appropriateness application dated January 15, 1992. The committee also informed you that pursuant to Chapter 21, Art. 6.5, Sec. 21-117.2.(5) b. of the Municipal Code of the City of South Bend, "Upon [the] denial [of a Certificate of Appropriateness], the applicant may appeal said denial to the Common Council which shall make a final determination of the application." Thank you for your time in this matter. Sincerely, �red Holycross Director Z'��Vco (/ A, James V. Pastor Survey Manager, Historic Preservation cc: Ann Manion Co-owner, 1071 Riverside Drive Aladean Derose Deputy City Attorney John Oxian President, Historic Preservation October 25, 1991 STAFF REPORT Mr. John Axelberg 1501 East Wayne St. South Bend, IN 46615 (edited February 10, 1992) PROPOSAL 1) Front: door, main house: a) replace simple, non -historic wood trim with bed mold trim; b) remove aluminum storm door and replace with wood storm. 2) Garage doors: a) replace standard 1/3 glazed wood panel entry door in south side of garage with unglazed colonial style metal door; b) replace entry door jambs, frame with similar to original (molded wood). c) replace rolling garage door _stops with replicas in poplar. 3).t�Reara.por��bi a).-.r.e.pha`cb,.;to.ngue and:.groo;v:eceili.ng with beaded paneling and bed:.:molding to resemble, t.he, original; b) replace--.full:length tapered wood doric column in-kind; c) replace simple and -non -historic balcony rail with spindle rail to Uniform Building Code requirements, encasing intermittent posts with 1" pine and caps; d) repair original wood latticework. STANDARDS �. II. Existing Structures A) Building Materials 1) Requi'red Original exterior building materials shall be .retained. Det.er:ioration of wood 'materials shall be prevented through repair, cleaning, and painting, The existing or original architectural detail around windows, porches, doors., and eaves should be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design and materials when deteriorated beyond repair. C) Windows and Doors 1) Required Original windows and doors, including sash, lintels, sills, shutters,.decorative glass, pediments, hoods, and hardware shall be retained or when deteriorated beyond repair, replaced with units and trim, resembling the original. 2) Recommended If new sash and doors are used, the existing design and hardware should be used. 3) Prohibited Original windows, doors, and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and reused in place. New windows or door openings that would alter the scale and proportion of the building shall not be introduced. Inappropriate new window or door features such as metal insulating glass combinations that require the removal of original windows and doors shall not be installed. D) Entrances. Porches. and Stens 1) Required Porches and additions reflecting later architectural styles, and which are important to the building's historical integrity shall be retained. 3) Prohibited Front porches, stoops, patios, and steps that are important to the building's style and development shall not be altered or removed. CASE HISTORY A Certificate of Appropriateness was applied for in the last stages of this -renovation project, October 1991. The HPC staff documented �.the;i:; ;Previously existing elements and materialsthrough conversal _V.i:-th-�'.the'fbreman of Holm Construction-, who -also- presented some -samples of the removed materials, eg. the -original garage entry door; the original doric column support for the rear porch, and the previously existing balcony rail. After several correspondences with the owner via telephone and mail, a completed application was filed with the HPC office in early February, 1992. RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed porch balcony rail and the replacement of the side entry door at the garage are alterations not in keeping with the above standards. All other proposals are in-kind replacements or sympathetic restoration that qualify as staff approval items. The propo ' sed porch balcony rail alters the appearance, the proportion aiia. design of the rear porch (not in keeping with standard II.A(l) - see -also standards II.D(1,3)). Although the turned spindles -are a great improvement over the previously existing cedar^balusters, they are not typical of balcony or porch railing treatments on Tudor Revival style homes. Characteristic balustrade treatment, as seen throughout the East Wayne Historic District, is typically in wrought iron. Turned spindles are used occasionally in Tudor Revival style designs in front entry porch screens. A conversation with HPC legal council, Ms. Aladean DeRose (10/24/91), revealed that Building Code takes precedent over aesthetic and historic district standards. In keeping with this, the porch rail will necessarily be raised to a height of 39" high with spindles 6" on center. It is the opinion of this staff member that a spindle railing is an acceptable improvement over the non -historic railing. However, the increased sizing of the intermittent Posts detracts from the scale and design of the porch as well as the building on the whole. The proposed side entry door replacement for the south side of the detached garage is not in keeping with standards II.C(1-3). The owner has installed the unglazed metal door because of security concerns. t STAFF REPORT: NEAR NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD PROPOSED HISTORIC DISTRICT On November 25, 1991 a bill was introduced to the South Bend Common Council by Councilman Stephen Luecke seeking to establish a Local Historic Preservation District in an area northwest of downtown South Bend. The Historic Preservation Commission must make a recommendation concerning this bill within ninety days of its receipt (before 2-25-92). There will be Public Hearing at the HPC regular monthly meeting, February 17, 1992 in order to hear public comment on the matter and send a recommendation to the Common Council. The area proposed --sponsored and initiated by the Near Northwest Neighborhood Association --is roughly bounded by California Avenue on the north, Harrison Street on the west, Lincolnway West on the south and Portage Avenue on the east. The area contains 364 primary structures (houses, churches, commercial buildings) and an as yet undetermined number of ancillary structures (garages, sheds, etc.). Due to time constraints imposed by the HPC staff not being informed by either the neighborhood organization or the sponsor of the bill prior to the bill's introduction, we have been unable to fully complete HPC Implementation Procedures as outlined on page 22 and 54 of The-Preservati_on._ Plan for t_he_Ci_t.y.�ofSouth Bend. Instead, we have conducted an abbreviated analysis of the proposal; all recommendations contained in this report should be seen in that light. The staff has been analyzing the proposed area according to the responsibilities given to the,HPC by ordinance that state that the "designation of ... Historic Preservation Districts" should be "on the basis of historical and cultural significance, educational value and suitability for preservation."[1] In addition, HPC policy adds a fourth criteria, the evaluation of the proposal with respect to "its portrayal of the environment of a group of people in an historical era."[2] This abbreviated analysis has included an initial update of the numerical count of the Survey, specifically assessing the number of remaining contributing/noncontributing structures in the area. Initial research relevant to the historic development of the area has also been conducted. The staff has not had sufficient time to "update Survey cards, including photographs and histories" as suggested by HPC policy.[3] STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is the staff's opinion that this proposed area does not warrant designation as a local historic district at this time. It is recommended that the HPC send an unfavorable recommendation with respect to this bill to the Common Council, and instead suggest possible alternative proposals to the petitioning group. The rationale for this recommendation is based on the following conclusions: 1. The proposed area does not fulfill the four basic criteria relevant to the establishment of Local Historic Districts as mandated by city ordinance or previous HPC procedure as cited above; 2. The proposed area does not fulfill the generally accepted criteria for local historic designation used by this commission and other commissions or for designation to the National Register of Historic Places; 3. The proposed area does not retain a sufficient number of contributing structures --in sufficient concentration --to be considered as a local historic district; 4. The proposed area is of a size beyond the present capacity of the MPC staff to adequately administer. DISCUSSION Conclusion #1: In assessing the area's cultural and historical significance, it should be stressed that the proposed area is similar to many neighborhoods, both on the northwest side and in other sections of the city. It is primarily a mixture of working and middle-class residences built between the late nineteenth and mid -twentieth-century, interspersed with churches and an occasional business. The proposed area consists of two separate historical entities in relation to its development. The first, the structures surrounding Madison and Taylor Streets, and the row of houses on the north side of Marion Street, are actually the old "northwest neighborhood" of the original town of South Bend. This area was subdivided in 1837 as the "Northwest Addition" (later called Henricks and Grants Add.). This section of the original town contains a number of the South Bend's oldest remaining frame structures along with several fine examples of nineteenth-century working and middle-class houses. Just north of this neighborhood was the Kankakee Hydraulic Canal, begun in 1837 by John Henricks, John Rush and Alexis Coquillard, South Bend's cofounder. Evidence of the location of the canal can still be seen on maps --property lines north of Marion Street from Lincolnway West running northwest past Portage Ave. trace the original canal bed. The canal, or "race," remained in place until circa 1867 when it was filled in, as it had proven to be an unsuccessful venture. The second developmental section of this area, north of the canal (north of Marion Street), began to be developed after 1870. In 1871 the St. Joseph County Agricultural Society subdivided the old fair grounds, site of the "Camp Rose" Civil War encampment; other owners followed suit and by 1900 the entire area proposed as a historic district was platted and being developed. As a whole, the area proposed cannot be differentiated from many others in the city; it does not consist of structures materially different in age or construction from those found elsewhere in South Bend. While it is a good example of the city's fine middle and working-class housing stock, so are the immediately surrounding neighborhoods --and others elsewhere in the city. In addition, while the area fulfills the criteria of portraying "the environment of a group of people in an historical era," it does not provide an example of unusual or distinct merit. Similarly, the proposed district's educational value is of average potential. Conclusion #2: Standard criteria for historic districts suggest designating those groups of structures "that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association," and that are: associated with significant events, local or otherwise; associated with significant people, local or otherwise; comprised of distinctive or characteristic types of construction or readily distinguishable entities of unusual quality; areas likely to provide important historical or prehistorical information.[4] The.structures contained within the proposed area, while retaining "integrity of location," fail, as a whole, to meet the remaining criteria because of alterations, additions and the use of ahistorical materials such as synthetic siding. The retention of a concentration of "distinctive or characteristic types of construction" has been seriously compromised for the same reasons. In addition, the area is no more associated with persons or events of significance than any other section of the city. As discussed above, this area is in no way distinctive, or of such demonstrative importance, to justify its being singled out for designation. It could be argued that many other sections of the city are as --or more --significant. Similarly, it is unlikely that the area will provide "important historical or prehistorical information." Conclusion #3: The most recently published (1987) Indiana Sites and Structures Inventory counted 163 contributing structures within these proposed boundaries, approximately 450 of the total (this percentage is based on the 1992 figure of 364 structures; no total for 1987 is available as the Inventory does not enumerate the total number of structures in an area). Five structures were rated as outstanding at that time. A resurvey was conducted in late 1991 and early 1992 consisting of a "windshield survey." This resurvey showed fewer contributing structures remaining in the area. Primarily due to alterations, only 137 contributing structures remain in the area, representing 38% of the total. This is a 16% decline in less than five years. In other words, in 1992, 62% of the total area proposed is rated as noncontributing, ie: containing structures that do not contribute to the historic fabric of the neighborhood because of alterations to their original form or style. As„a whole, the proposed area does not contain a sufficient number of contributing structures, in close enough proximity, to warrant designation. There are, however, "pockets” of structures within these boundaries that might prove to be likely candidates for designation (discussed below). Conclusion #4: There are many neighborhoods, and collections of significant or interesting sites and structures, within the city and county worthy of the attention of the HPC. This proposal represents such a neighborhood. However, the Commission must base their evaluation of historic district proposals on their legally mandated responsibilities, from a comprehensive historical and preservationist perspective, and unfortunately, also -on the practicality of the proposal from an administrative viewpoint. This proposal is administratively impractical for the following reasons. The addition of 364 additional structures, at present staffing levels, would place a strain, on the ability to properly handle the Certificate of Appropriateness procedure. The largest present district, East Wayne Street LHD, has 155 structures.[5] In fact, in all local districts combined, there are 374 tota_1_ primary structures! This proposal would effectively double our historic district responsibility. It would also double the load of the Commission itself, in terms of providing sufficient Public Hearing time at regular monthly meetings for reasonable attention to all C. of A.'s. In addition, the Near Northwest Neighborhood group has not yet demonstrated sufficient owner support. Their petition, as attached to the proposal sent to the Common Council, shows sixty-three (63) signatures. According to Portage Township Assessor records there are three hundred and ninety owners (390) of parcels within this area (counting all lots, not just those with structures on them). The neighborhood group therefore has demonstrated initial support from 16% of the total. This is not enough to assure that we will have cooperation from owners in the responsibility of enforcing district standards. Due to time constraints, and the number of properties involved, we have been unable to assess the proposed area as to types of ownership, etc.. However, it is general knowledge that this area has a very high rate of absentee ownership, primarily landlords. In addition, the poor maintenance of structures in sections of the neighborhood demonstrate an inability, or unwillingness, on the part of a significant number of owners to attend to basic needed repairs. This can be readily demonstrated by the regularity that city Code Violation Hearing Dockets contain properties from within this geographical area. To enforce historic preservation standards in such an area would be difficult at best. CONCLUDING REMARKS In an address given by preservationist Paul E. Sprague in 1974, he cautioned that "[c]are should be exercised, whenever historic districts are contemplated to guard against the temptation to create districts primarily as an aid in stabilizing urban areas. Preservationists wanting to conserve historic sites and structures of cultural interest should ... avoid the temptation to fight for the preservation of urban areas that are without significant cultural resources."[6] This seems to be the case in this neighborhood; it is an area that is in dire need of stabilization but it is not an area containing a sufficient concentration of historic fabric to be designated at this time. It is difficult to stand in the way of people wishing to employ Preservation --and historic districting --for plausible reasons. However, the HPC must guard against employing designation, a far-reaching and long-term decision, to areas that do not obviously justify such protection based on objective criteria. Perhaps in this case there may be a compromise proposal that can be suggested in place of this one. From initial analysis, the staff has identified at least one, and possibly two, smaller areas within the bounds of the N.N.N. proposal that might be considered as smaller districts more closely falling within the criteria used in this report. The first (see map, #1) is a collection of structures surrounding Madison and Taylor Streets. This area, part of the northwest side of the original town as mentioned above, consists of twenty-nine structures; 550 of them are rated as contributing on the Survey. In addition, they consist of: two designated landmarks; several of the oldest frame houses left in the city, a fine collection of nineteenth-century workers cottages; and later examples of the neighborhood's architectural transformation over time. If the owners of these buildings supported the idea of districting, this area might make an excellent small district preserving one of South Bend's older neighborhoods. As for the area north of Marion Street, the staff has identified a collection of buildings (see map, #2) on Cushing Street that could serve as a small district representing this portion of the city. This area contains 23 residences consisting of a contributing structure density of 650. The remaining structures on this block, with restoration or the removal of ahistorical materials, could also contribute to the historic fabric of the neighborhood. As with the previous proposal, if the owners desired designation, this collection of structures would more readily fall within the criteria necessary for historic district designation. Fred M. Holycross Director 2-5-92 1. Municipal _Code of the City of South Bend Chapter 21, Sec. 21-117.2 (d), P.596. 2. Preservation Plan for the City of South Bend ( Hist. Pres.Comm: 1984) : 22. 3. Ibid. 22. 4. N_ationa,l Reg ister„Bul_let_i_n15: How to Apply the National .. Register Criteria for Evaluation (U.S. Dept. of the Interior):2; Criteria were developed to insure consistency with uniform, national standards for preservation activities,ie; "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation” in The Federal Register Vol.48, No.190 (Sept.29,1983). The HPC in South Bend incorporated these standards into historic district implementation procedures, see Preservation Plan: 22-23. 5. For comparison: Edgewater LHD has 95 structures; Lincolnway East LHD has 35; Riverview Drive LHD has 69; and West Northshore LHD has 20. 6. Historic�Distr.icts (Qakpark Landmarks Commission: 1974): 3. s BILL NO. 9.0- y t ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4990-68, AS AMENDED, BY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NEAR NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT. Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-7-11-7, proposed boundaries of historic preservation districts must be approved by an appropriate ordinance of the Common Council. Pursuant to Section 21-117.2 of the Municipal Code of the City of South Bend, a petition to designate on Historic Preservation District may be initiated by a petition signed by owners of fifty percent (50%) or more of the subject area. This Ordinance is filed along with a five-page Petition requesting that the Historic Preservation District be established. Pursuant to local regulations, the Ordinance would be sent first to the Historic Preservation Commission for proper public hearing and recommendation, then to the Area Plan Commission for review, public hearing, and recommendation, and then to the Common Council for final disposition. It is believed that by the establishment of the Near Northwest Neighborhood Historic Preservation District, that the historical, cultural and educational values of this area would be significant and suitable for preservation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, as follows: Section 1. Ordinance No. 4990-68, as amended, which Ordinance is commonly known as the Zoning Ordinance of the City of South Bend, Indiana, is amended in order that the zoning classification of the following described real estate in the City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, State of Indiana: Bounded on the west by the alley between Sherman Ave. and Harrison Street, on the north by California Ave., on the east by Portage Ave., and on the south by properties up to, but not including those situated on Lincolnway West. BE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY established as an Historic Preservation District with such uses as permitted in Section 21-36.1 of the Municipal Code of the City of South Bend, Indiana, and shall be designated as the Near Northwest Neighborhood Historic Preservation District." A copy of a petition in support of the designation is marked "Exhibit A", and is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section II. The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County shall adopt guidelines for the Near Northwest Neighborhood Historic Preservation District. Section III. The Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by the Common Council, approval by the Mayor, and legal publication. 1st READING I/- �� Membero ommonCouncil tleu in ferk'S Office PUDLIC HEARING 3 rd READING NOT APPROVED REFERRED PASSED NOV 2 0 1991 W1P&M1K~ City of South Bend Common Council County -City Building • South Bend, Indiana 46601 November 20, 1991 Donald Niezgodski Mr. Don Niezgodski, President President South Bend Common Council Ann Puzzello 441 County -City Building Vice -President South Bend, Indiana 46601 (219) 284-9321 Fax (219) 284-9173 Loretta Duda Chairman. Committee of the Whole Dear Don: I am filing today an ordinance which will desig- nate a portion of the Near Northwest Neighborhood Stephen Luecke as a Local Historic District. I am pleased to First District support the efforts of the neighborhood associa- Donald Niezgodski tion members and the property owners within the Second District area who desire this -designation. There are al- ready eight Local Landmarks designated here. William Soderberg Third District Proponents of the district believe that it will encourage restoration of architecturally signi- Ann Puzzello ficant properties, will enhance pride in the area,'. Fourth District will _encourage new investment, and will provide stricter maintenance standards for properties. Fifths inskas They have been gathering signatures of property st Fifth District owners who favor the historic designation, and Thomas Zakrzewski look forward to further discussion with the Coun- Sixth District cil and the Historic Preservation Commission about the historical significance of the area and the Sean Coleman benefits to be gained by designation of the local At Large district. Loretta Duda When this process began last June, the name for At Large the district was proposed to be Camp Rose. Since then, Kankakee Historic District has also been Eugene Ladewski considered. The bill temporarily refers to the At Large area as the Near Northwest Historic District until residents can formally choose the name. By any name, I support the designation of this district and look forward to further discussion with you and members of the Council. Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand Council Attorney Sincerely, Stephen Luecke First District • "EXHIBIT A" .CAMP ROSE HISTORIC DISTRICT We, the undersigned, are property owners within the designated Camp Rose Historic District and support the formation of'said historic district in the following geographic area: Bounded on the west by the alley between Sherman Ave. and Harrison St., on the north by California Ave., on the east by Portage Ave., and on the south by propoerties up to, but not including those situated on Lincoln Way West. Name (Printed) --------•------------ Name (Signature) --------------- ----- Address ------------------------ 7,91 CorTAGC 6/Zov#5 _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _____ _I_/NO ----------- _ _ __ __i��7 SEY - -- �_ _G ( (� 5 C 1.4=- ---- •7 f� . c, e r f/1 C -r - -_— --- ------ 7s3-- _ ' e - =-------t-----------_� ------ - ---- Ir X {----------------------- �� ---- -------- ---- c LL 4�a -------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -F ------------------- ----------------------------------------- ------------------------ *Please.indicate your willingness to help in the formation of the Camp Rose Historic District by placing a check by your name and adding a phone number where you can be reached. Thank you. CAMP ROSE HISTORIC DISTRICT We, the undersigned, are pvoperty owners within the designated Camp Rose Historic District and support the formation of said historic district in the following geographic area: Bounded on the west by the alley between Sherman Ave. and Harrison St., on the north by California Ave., on the east by Portage Ave., and on the south by propoerties up to, but not including.those situated on Lincoln Way West. Name (Printed) 7u I� L11_Tj-wn_-- ZPLCL- QAd� d-- /v^L�=N--d'1L� Ic _C-vCf-l1dlf �r-j- - Name (Sig,nature Address - �- --- ---- -�=w ---------- «� G sr .. --- -11 ----- -- ---- - ---- krl IQ _ _ - -- —--, -------------- — ------ ---------------------- ------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------------------ ------------------------ *Please indicate your willingness to help in the formation of the Camp Rose Historic District by placing a check by your name and adding a phone. number where you can be reached. Thank you. CAMP ROSE HISTORIC DISTRICT We, the undersigned, are property owners within the designated Camp Rose Historic District and support the formation of said historic district in the following geographic area; Bounded on the west by the alley between Sherman Ave. and Harrison St., on the north by California Ave., on the east by Portage Ave., and on the south by propoerties up to, but not including those situated on Lincoln Way West. Name (printed) •� .�il��i. WE�erO_a------- -1 .�6;.- A I I. � , „M%WIM... „ F M- 74 _ V�d-a- 'l-i � *Please indicate your willingness to help in the formation of the Camp Rose Historic District by placing a check by your name and adding a phone number where you can be reached. Thank you. CAMP ROSE HISTORIC DISTRICT We, the undersigned, are property owners within the designated Camp Rose Historic District and support the formation of said historic district in the following geographic area: Bounded on the west by the alley between Sherman Ave. and Harrison St., on the north by California Ave., on the east by Portage Ave., and on the south by propoerties up to, but not including those situated on Lincoln Way West. Name (Printed) 94 N (Signature) ------te=e -- -rn -- ------ Address i, ------ --_ ---- *Please indicate your willingness to help in the formation of the Camp Rose Historic District by placing a check by your name and adding a phone number where you can be reached. Thank you. CAMP ROSE HISTORIC DISTRICT We, the undersigned, are property owners within the designated Camp Rose Historic District and support the formation of said historic district in the following geographic area: Bounded on the west by the alley between Sherman Ave. and Harrison St., on the north by California Ave., on the east by Portage Ave., and on the south by propoerties up to, but not including those situated on Lincoln Way West. Name (Printed) Name (Signatur ------------------------------------------ Address -------------- ---------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *Please indicate your willingness to help in the formation of the Camp Rose Historic District by placing a check by your name. and adding a phone number where you can be reached. Thank you. e p .. • 0 0 historic reservation commission of south bend and st. joseph county ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798 February 11, 1992 Dave Fritz President, Near Northwest Neighborhood Assoc. 618 Leland Ave. South Bend IN 46616 Dear Mr. Fritz: By now you have received my staff report on your proposed Local Historic District; as I have written Ms. Brown, you will have ample time to rebut it at the Public Hearing scheduled for February 17, 1992. As you know, whatever the outcome of this proposal, your group as sponsor, has the responsibility to pay for the costs incurred by .this staff in connection fir with your proposal. The: costs include: I I Mailing 405 notices (390 property owners plus 15 remails) @ $.29/letter - $117.45 Photocopying 405 notices (see above) @ $.075/copy - 30.37 $147.82 Please remit .this amount'to the 1listoric Preservation Commission at your earliest convenience. Pood luck with the:. important work in your neighborhood. I look forward to working with your group in the future. Sincerely, Fred M..Holycross Director historic pre commission of south bend and st,^xvseph county ROOM 1133 COUNTY CITY BUILDING south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798 February 11, 1992 Day)e Brown 713 Cushing Street South Bend IN 46616 Dear Ms. Brown: Enclosed is a copy of the staff report ( sent to the Historic - Preservation Commission concerning your group's proposed Local Historic District in the near northwest neighborhood. | wanted you and Dave Fritz to be aware of my recommendation against your proposal, and to have my reasons for the negative recommendation, before the Public Hearing scheduled for February 17, Please understand that this is just one piece of the evidence that the HPC will consider when they make their recommendation to the Common Council concerning your bill' Your group and other interested parties will be Given the opportunity to rebut my report, and to make your own presentation, next Monday night. | will, of course, stand by whatever recommendation the HPO makes concerning this proposal and will work to implement that ll t� best in decision. Whatever the outooma, | wish your group a � your important revitalization activities and look forward to providing whatever support my staff may be able to give in your preservation efforts on the northwest side of the city. Sincerely, Fred M. Holyoross Director cc: Dave Fritz Stephen Luecke historic, preservation commission of south bend and st. Joseph county ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798 November 20, 1991 Stephen Luecke Common Council/ Ist District 441 County/City Bldg. South Bend IN 46601 Dear Mr. Luecke: I'appreciate your calls concerning the. proposed Historic Preservation District on the near northwest thwest side of the city. -We are qu#ez-enthulsed to help facilitate the- designation of a new district, especially when we have strong neighborhood support. The amount of preparation necessary for the implementation of a district is considerable*. Our staff is quite small, therefore we need both time to properly prepare to meet our responsibilities in the process and cooperation from those in the neighborhood who wish to see this process through. I strongly encourage the neighborhood group to.contact our staff as soon as possible --especially before you introduce an ordinance to the Common Council. The ninety day period required by the proposal of a district ordinance -is not enough time to do the preliminary work needed. The ultimate success of a district— both its designation and - administration --depends on cooperation 'between the public and the Commission. Possible problems can most easily be amended when the neighborhood ,group makes the staff and 'Commission part of the process early__ on. I have included materials outlining the initial designation process. We will be following these procedures and hope that the neighborhood group can see their utility. I would hope that the group especially understands their responsibilities in the process. John Oxian has asked me to inform you that we will holding a Public Hearing on the ordinance concerning 'the,-Lincolnway East Historic District at the Commission's regut-a-Ct meeting—December 16, 1991. Sincerely, Fred M.folycross Director 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 0 R A N D U M. TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FROM: FRED HOLYCROSS RE: NEAR NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT PROPOSAL Enclosed is a staff report addressing the upcoming HPC Public Hearing pertaining to the Near Northwest Neighborhood group's. proposal for a Local Historic District. I have sent it to YOU well in advance of theFebruary17th meeting to allow adequate time for assessment. it would also be helpful if each Commission member could make a "windshield survey" of the various proposals prior to the meeting in order to have a better familiarity with the neighborhood and the boundaries proposed. I would be glad to provide a "tour" (next Tues., Wed. or Thur.) for any Commission membdr that might want further explanation or who might be unfamiliar with, or uncomfortable in, the neighborhood.' Thank you! his.toricpreservation commission of south bend and st. joseph county ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798 7 M E M O R A N D U M TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FROM: FRED HOLYCROSS RE: NNN PROPOSED LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT John Oxian has asked me to provide Commission members with a description of other possible Local Historic District boundaries in the near northwest neighborhood. These boundary suggestions/possibilities are in addition to those suggested by staff that were included in the staff report. Mr. Oxian has suggested boundaries to roughly include the alley behind Harrison Street on the west, Van Buren Street on the north, the alley behind Scott Street on the east, and the southern boundary to roughly follow the NNN proposal boundaries from Harrison to Cushing Street. Others have suggested boundaries to include Harrison Street on the west, Van Buren on the north, Cushing Street on the east and Lindsey Street on the south. Regular Monthly Meeting (1) of the Historic Preservation Commission County Council Caucus Room #411 County -City Building 7:30 p.m. January 20, 1992 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. II. Roll Call Members Present: Mr. John Oxian, President; Mrs. Jean Dennen; Mr. Jed Eide; Mrs. Janeanne Petrass; Mr. Herb Herendeen; Mrs. Joanne Sporleder; Mr. Fred Holycross, Director; Mr. James Pastor, Administrative Assistant; Mrs. Aladean DeRose, City Attorney; Ms. Suzanne Booker, Surveyor. Members Absent: Mr. Odell Newburn, Mrs. Martha Choitz, Mr. William Welsheimer Sr. Also Present: Ms. Barbara Steele, Southold Restorations; Mr. Gregory M. Suth; Mr. Steve Murphy, 1071 Riverside; Mr. Kevin Boughal, South Bend Tribune. Iii. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 1071 Riverside --Local Historic District Mr. Pastor reported three exterior changes to this house. Certificates of appropriateness had been filed after the fact for each change. The changes were: --replacement of a 7 -foot -tall wire fence with a wood stockade fence --installation of aluminum gutters and downspouts --replacement of a large wood multipane casement pair, situated on a rear extension, with a smaller elliptical fixed sash, with wood infill to match the existing clapboard. Mr. Pastor distributed photographs illustrating these changes. Mr. Oxian directed the Commission to vote on each alteration separately: Mr. Steve Murphy, co-owner with Ms. Ann Manion of the house, then made a presentation defending the alterations. He distributed packets of information, and made the following points: --the house was badly deteriorated, almost irreparable, when they bought it. Their plan was to rehabilitate the house and resell it. --the window they replaced was beyond repair. Moreover, it was in the rear, out of sight. --neighbors had congratulated them on their rehabilitation work. Mr. Oxian then asked Mr. Murphy to present his case alteration -by -alteration, starting with the fence. Mr. Murphy said the stockade was intended to screen from view an unsightly neighboring property to the north. Mr. Pastor then read the staff recommendation. One objection to the project was that the HPC staff had not been able to document the previous fence, to determine its historical value. The new stockade, however, did not violate neighborhood standards, and had precedent elsewhere in the district. The staff therefore recommended approval. Mrs. Sporleder questioned Mr. Murphy and was assured that the fence was in the rear of the house, out of sight; and that it matched all fence requirements for the neighborhood. Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve the fence; Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. Gutters and downspouts were discussed next. Mr. Pastor again read the staff recommendation: since no gutters existed previously, and since standards recognize gutters and downspouts as a necessary adjunct to good maintenance, the staff recommended approval. Mr. Oxian asked whether the house had built-in gutters. Mr. Murphy said he had found no sign of any type of gutter system. Mr. Oxian said he believed the house originally had built-in gutters, which had probably been shingled over to halt deterioration of plaster. (2) Mr. Holycross mentioned that, again, the staff had not been given the opportunity to inspect the house to determine whether any kind of gutter system existed. This was because no Certificate of Appropriateness had been filed. Mr. Herendeen moved to approve the gutters and downspouts. Mr. Eide seconded the motion. Motion unanimouslv approved. Discussion of the new elliptical window then resumed. Mr. Murphy repeated that the windows were beyond repair, and distributed photographs illustrating their deteriorated condition. He said he and Ms. Manion had acted in good faith; they wished to improve the house; any breach of procedure was unwitting. Also, the window project was nearly complete, and it would be very costly to begin it over again. $12,000 had so far been spent on renovations; an estimated $12,000 more would be spent. The owners "simply could not afford" to replace this window. Mr. Murphy then cited the preservation guidelines, pointing out wording which implied that the guidelines apply only to the original windows. The casement pair he had replaced, he said, was not original. He based this conclusion on these points: --there was no basement under the rear vestibule; just a crawlspace. The basement extends under all other rooms in the house. --There was a break in the exterior wall clearly indicating a later addition. --The interior walls are likewise discontinuous. Mr. Holycross asked Mr. Murphy whether work on the window had continued after the stop work order had been issued. He said no. Prompted by Mr. Herendeen, he said clapboard infilling had continued after a January 14 conversation with Mr. Pastor, mostly to prevent weather damage. in conclusion, Mr. Murphy argued that since the rear extension added no architectural style to the house, standards were silent on the treatment of its windows. Also, he felt the improvements benefited the house and the entire neighborhood. Mr. Pastor stated that much of the rehabilitation, aside from the window change, was sympathetic to the house's architectural style, and would almost certainly have approved approval. Correct (3) procedure, however, had been violated; no C of A had been filed. The new window echoed the Queen Anne style, however, and clashed with the Prairie style of the house. Mr. Pastor said he had spoken with a representative of B and C Home Improvement on the site. According to this representative, the rear extension had originally been an open porch. Both roofline and foundation were original. This entry porch had been enclosed and the casement windows installed in the 1930's. Mr. Pastor further reported that, while the staff did not advise replacing the old windows in their original opening, they did urge the removal of the elliptical window, to be replaced by a rectangular window smaller than the original casements. A smaller window, they believed, would more clearly express the Prairie style of the house. He then read a case history, giving the chronology of communications between the HPC staff and the owners. He drew particular attention to a letter from Ms. Manion, dated January 2, 1992. In this letter, there was no mention of either gutter work or window replacement, and the owner specifically stated that no further exterior work "of any consequence" was planned. At this time, the staff knew only about the new fence. Also, he had advised Ms. Manion over the phone on January 13 that any window replacements of any kind require a C of A. He then stated that the owners had clearly continued their projects even though they had been advised that they needed C of A's before they could proceed. Mr. Holycross pointed out that the owners had also failed to get a building permit for the window replacement. Code Enforcement had put. a stop work order on the project. Mr. Murphy replied that the back window was in such bad shape that quick work was needed. Infilling had continued to prevent weather damage. Mrs. Sporleder objected that weather damage could easily be prevented by putting up a sheet of visquene. She also wondered why insulation had been put in the wall from the outside in; this was contrary, she believed, to the usual order of construction. (4) Mr. Herendeen pointed out that, if the owners had followed procedure, they would have been advised against an elliptical window. Mr. Oxian stated that Commission judgments were made based on the condition of the property on the day the district was established. Mr. Herendeen said that the owners could even, if they wished, construct a rear addition, provided they followed proper procedure. Such an addition would have to complement the architectural character of the house.. Mrs. Sporleder said the Commission's task was to decide whether or not to compel the owners to remove the elliptical window. Mr. Pastor, quoting from the standards, said that new window or door openings that alter the scale or proportion of the building may not be introduced." He said the Commission should decide whether or not the elliptical window altered the scale. Mrs.. Sporleder said that, had the owners followed procedure, they would have been advised to forego the elliptical window in favor of a more appropriate type. Now, since the window had already been installed, the Commission had to decide whether the owners must remove it. Had it been placed on the front of the house, she would certainly have insisted on its removal. Since the window was in back, she found the decision more difficult. Mr. Oxian said that nowhere in the standards is any one facade deemed more significant than the others. Mr. Herendeen asked Mr. Murphy how big an impact the cost of replacing the window would have on the total project cost. Mr. Murphy said the elliptical window had cost him $800 to date; a replacement would probably cost another $800. Mr. Herendeen advised Mr. Murphy that he must present exact documentation of these costs, if he wished to argue the hardship of replacing the window. Mrs. Dennen asked Mr. Murphy why they had put in the window after telling the staff that "no further exterior work of any consequence" was (5) planned. He said he had been adhering to a pre -established program which he and Ms. Manion had set up. He, Mr. Murphy, handled the actual construction; Ms. Manion had dealt with the HPC staff. The new window was part of the pre-set rehabilitation program; he had not been advised of any changes to that program. Mr. Oxian asked Mr. Murphy for documentation of costs. As matters stood, he said, the Commission could make a motion to require the window's removal. Mr. Herendeen asked how economic hardship was ascertained. Mrs. DeRose replied that, should the owner choose to argue economic hardship, the Commission must consider the evidence. Then, the Commission could judge whether or not a hardship existed. Mr. Oxian pointed out that the owner still must produce the evidence before any judgment could be made. Mrs. Sporleder said the commission should consider, when making this judgment, whether or not the owners were indeed ignorant of proper procedure when they installed the window. Mr. Herendeen moved to table the decision until the owner could present documentation of the costs of replacinq the elliptical window with a rectangular window. Mrs. Sgorleder seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimouslv. Mr. Oxian advised the staff and the owners to agree on the dimensions of a rectangular window before seeking bids. Mr. Pastor asked Mrs. DeRose whether hardship existed if, as his documentation suggested, the owners had deliberately disregarded C of A procedures. Mrs. DeRose replied that it was one factor which the Commission could consider when weighing the rest of the evidence of hardship. Discussion of the proper size and type of window followed. Mrs. Sporleder noted that, in order to meet code requirements, bathroom windows must open and close. Mr. Eide said exhaust fans could substitute for window ventilation. Mrs. Sporleder said that, in her opinion, the best replacement would be a small operable vertical window, similar to the adjacent window in the rear extension. (6) Mr. Murphy said he and Ms. Manion planned to put the house up for sale by the end of the month. Since any delay would be very costly, he would prefer, he said, do give the staff the power to approve a replacement window. Mr. Eide asked him if he was therefore willing to forego arguing economic hardship. Mrs. Sporleder said she would vote to give the staff the power to approve the replacement if Mr. Murphy chose not to argue economic hardship. Mr. Murphy asked for a list of options. Mrs. DeRose told him the owner could: --install a replacement window, to be approved by the staff --wait for the next monthly meeting, argue economic hardship, and try to gain concessions Mr. Oxian proposed a third option --to have a C of A committee meet before the end of the month to review the case. Committee members would be required to go out and view the window. Mr. Murphy said it would cost him more to delay putting the house on the market than it would to replace the window. Mrs. Petrass suggested that he simply board over the window opening instead of putting in a replacement window. Mrs. Sporleder said she would agree to such a proposal. Mr. Holvcross asked for clarification of the Commission's decision. Mr. Oxian told him Mr. Murphv was to contact the staff with alternate proposals. Should he choose to board over the openinq. or to install a rectangular window. the staff could approve the proposal. Should he choose to arque economic hardship. then a C of A committee would convene in approximatelv two weeks' time to review the case. Failinq that. Mr. Murphv would return to next month's meeting and Present documentation of economic hardship. 2. 1154 Lincolnway East Mr. Pastor reported that the owner, Mr. Bellina (who was not present) had renovated the rear vestibule of his house. He had made the following alterations: --replaced a single -leaf glazed wood panel door with a metal door of similar proportions, with (7) simulated panel detailing --replaced a fixed sash on the west side with a 1/1 double hung sash --replaced two adjacent fixed sashes on the south side with 1/1 double hung sashes --removed a fixed sash on the east side and infilled with clapboard. Mr. Pastor reported that the owner also planned to reside the entire vestibule with in-kind clapboard. These alterations, said Mr. Pastor, were done without a certificate of appropriateness. As in the previous case, the staff deemed some of the alterations historically appropriate, while others required modifications. The owner had claimed that the door was not original, and fit the opening only roughly. Also, he had said the soffit work had been started before he bought the house. The new door, reported Mr. Pastor, met neighborhood requirements, -and had precedent in a nearby property. The staff therefore recommended approval of the door. The second part of the proposal --replacement of windows --presented some problems. Mr. Pastor asked the Commission to consider the owner's claims that the windows were not historical, and were not sympathetic to the general character of the house. Also, the renovations were to the rear of the house, not visible from the street. Mr. Pastor reported that the staff affirmed the appropriateness of the west -side window, but believed that the south window should be moved, perhaps to the infilled opening on the east side. As to the third part of the proposal, not yet carried out, the staff had inspected the existing clapboard, found it to be sound, and recommended retaining it. Mr. Herendeen noted that removing lap siding generally destroyed it. Since it seemed that the owner wished to convert the vestibule into a warm space, it would be easier to leave the original siding intact and to insulate from within. Mr. Oxian recommended approving the door and the west window, but disapproving the south window and requiring the owner to move it to the infilled (8) window opening. He also recommended requiring a site inspection before insulation work could proceed. Mrs. Sporleder objected to the last part of this recommendation, pointing out that the owner, however impracticably, planned to reside using clapboard similar to the original. Mr. Oxian said the Commission owed the owner an opinion on economic factors; also, he saw no point in replacing the siding. He further argued that the owner had applied for neither a C of A nor a building permit, and had therefore violated many rules. He asked the Commission to decide on a course of action --table the proposal, reject it, have the staff instruct the owner on rules and regulations, etc. Mr. Pastor reiterated the staff recommendation to move the south window, which was inappropriately placed. Mrs. Sporleder said she found no compelling aesthetic problem with the south window, and no obvious reason for moving it. Mr. Herendeen agreed. Mrs. Sporleder moved to accept the entire proposal. as -is. Mrs. Petrass seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian voted against the motion. Mr. Herendeen suggested an added stipulation --to have the staff discuss rules and regulations with the owner. Mr. Holycross agreed to do so, but said the owner had already been informed repeatedly of proper procedure. Mrs. Sporleder noted that many owners had pleaded ignorance of C of A procedures. She asked Mrs. DeRose what might be done about this problem. Mrs. DeRose advised keeping track of changing ownership in historic districts. She urged finding a way to keep owners informed of C of A procedures. Mrs. Steele offered to print C of A information periodically in the Southhold Newsletter, and asked Mr. Holycross to organize informational packets to give to new homeowners in districts. Mr. Boughal offered to write a Tribune news story about C of A procedure. Mrs. DeRose advised the Commission not to allow (9) the fact that a project had already been carried out to color their judgment of its historical appropriateness. A proposal could not be rejected simply because C of A procedures had been violated. She pointed out the absence of any mechanism to censure those who violated procedure. Mrs. Sporleder said she would have voted as she did on this proposal in any case, on the proposal's own merit. She regretted, however, that the Commission had not been allowed any input on the project. Mrs. DeRose said the Commission could, if it wished, consider creating a fine to punish owners who applied for certificates of appropriateness after the fact. Mrs. Sporleder said that the Commission already had the power to make such owners rework a completed project; that, in itself, was punishment. V. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes 1. November, 1991 Mr. Oxian stated that the changes he had requested to the November minutes had been duly made. Mrs. Dennen noted that her name had been excluded from the roll of "members present" in the November minutes. Mrs. Petrass moved to approve the November minutes, as amended. Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimouslv. 2. December, 1991 Mr. Oxian requested a number of emendations: --on page 2, to add his statement that he did not own the property on Lincolnway West that Mr. N. Shafer had cited. --on page 3, to note that he had told Mr. R. Shafer that his questioning of the worth of tax credits and funding was opinion only. --on page 11, to change the word "ordinance" to "standards." Mrs. Dennen moved to accept the December minutes, as amended; Mr. Eide seconded the motion; motion approved unanimouslv. (10) B. Treasurer's Report The treasurer's report was approved as submitted. C. Correspondence No discussion. D. Committee Reports 1. Certificates of Appropriateness (staff approvals) a. 1154 Lincolnway East --Local Historic District Mr. Pastor passed around a report describing the project, which consisted on replacing in-kind a line of molding around the lip of the roof. There was no discussion. la. Certificates of Appropriateness --Enforcement a. 805 Arch Avenue --Local Historic District. Mr. Pastor reported that this case involved the removal of a rear entry canopy without a C of A. The staff approved a replacement proposal by the owner in May 1991, pending a review of plans before construction. At its June meeting, the Commission requested that the staff forward these plans to them for approval as well. No review was ever done, and the C of A has since expired. The owner obtained a building permit at the time of approval, which remains valid for another 4 months. The staff requested that the owner submit an application for a C of A renewal, reminding him that the porch's removal was in violation of district standards and procedures. The owner has since complied, having returned the renewal application with a signature and fee. Mr. Pastor requested an appropriate course of action: should.he issue the owner another approved certificate, or did the Commission wish to review plans before such issuance? Mrs. DeRose advised withholding a renewed certificate until the owner submitted plans to the Commission for review. She added that the current renewal application was valid as an application for Commission review. r'� b. 1501 E. Wayne --Local Historic District Mr. Pastor updated the Commission on the status of this property. The owner had begun construction of a back porch without first obtaining a C of A. construction had been halted by a stop work order; no work had been done since. The owner, however, had not yet applied for a C of A, nor responded to letters on this matter. C. 1716 E. Wayne Mr. Pastor reported that this case involved a fence and gate erected over the summer. The owner, Mrs. Metzger, had appeared before the Commission and been instructed to replace the gate. Since then, she had neither contacted the staff with alternate proposals for a gate, nor replaced the gate. 1b. Certificates of Appropriateness (update) a. 814 Arch Avenue --Local Historic District Mr. Pastor reported that the Commission had denied this proposal pending a letter of dissent from the owner. No such letter had been received, and the time limit had expired. 2. Budget and Finance a. 1991 annual Treasurer's Report Mrs. Sporleder moved the approve the treasurer's report as submitted; Mrs. Petrass seconded; report unanimouslv approved. b. Projected 1992 Staff Budget The staff budget was approved as submitted. Mr. Holycross mentioned that grant funding for 1992 was not yet confirmed. 3. Legal No report. 4. Historic Districts Mr. Holycross announced two tentative historic district hearings, both scheduled for February. (12) Because of the size of the Near Northwest proposed district, a mailing to every district occupant would be too expensive. Mr. Oxian said the Near Northwest Neighborhood Association would bear the cost of the mailing. 5. Historic Landmarks No report. 6. Public Relations and Community Education No report. 7. Personnel No report. 8. Staff Reports a. 1991 Annual Report Mr. Oxian asked Mr. Holycross to add several items to the report, namely: --the adoption of historical research guidelines --the adoption or architectural drawing standards --the adoption of maintenance standards --the adoption of new C of A procedures. Mr. Holycross said he would return amended report next month. b. 1992 Project Goals Mrs. Sporleder mentioned certain projects she hoped to see undertaken in the future. Specifically, she named rural preservation as a project needing attention. Grants might be sough to survey trees, landscapes, cemeteries, etc. A grant existed, she believed, for surveying urban trees. V. Old Business No report. VI. New Business A. Elections of Officers Mr. Herendeen moved to approve the currentiv-existing roster of officials; Mrs. Sporleder seconded; motion approved unanimously. (13) Mr. Oxian directed Commission members to decide which committees they wished to serve on, and to submit their requests at the March meeting. VII. Hearing of Visitors Mrs. Steele announced the annual meeting of Southhold Restorations, February 16. VIII. Announcements and Miscellaneous Matters Mrs. Sporleder reminded the Commission of Mr. Newburn's serious illness. Mr. Holycross agreed to send him a card. IX. Adjournment Mrs. Sporleder moved to adiourn; Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion; motion approved unanimouslv. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 (14) TREASURER'S REPORT - JANUARY, 1992 The County deposited our appropriation for 1992--$39,828.00--into our fund under the County Commissioners (#001.39211.000.034) at the beginning of the year (the extra amount shown as appropriated on the ledger reflects monies placed into our account to encumber funds up to receipt of our yearly appropriation). Staff incurred no unusual expenses in January; the County computer ledger shows our expenses for the first month of the year --$3,622.26 and $668.83 encumbered from 1991. At the end of January, our unencumbered balance was $38,260.43. rUNU: JU1 LVVN11 eet([r,AL PROCESS TRAN TRAM FUND.ACCT.OBJ.LOC MO1YR DATE TYPE 901.39211.000.034 HISTORIC PRESERVATION 01/92 10/10191 ENCUMB 01/92 11/18191 ENCUMB 01/92 12/03191 ENCUMB 01192 01/00/92 APPROP 01192 01/00/92 APPROP 01/92 01/00/92 APPROP 01/92 01/00192 APPROP 01192 01/00/92 APPROP 01/92 01/00/92 APPROP ?1/92 01/00/92 APPROP 01192 01/00/92 APPROP 01192 01100/92 APPP,OP 01192 01/00/92 APPROP 01192 01/00/92 AFPROP 01/92 01/01/92 APPROP 01192 01/21/92 CLAIM 01192 01/21/92 CLAIM 01192 01/21/92 CLAIM 01/92 01/21192 CLAIM 01192 01121192 CLAIM 01/92 01/21192 CLAIM 01192 01121/92 CLAIM 01192 01121192 CLAIM 01/92 01121/92 CLAIM 01192 01/21/92 CLAIM 01192 01/21/92 CLAIM 01192 01/21/92 CLAIM 01192 01/23/92 CLAIM 01/92 01/23/92 CLAIM 01/92 01123/92 CLAIM 001.39211.000.034 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STIMAIED REV RECEIPTS UNRECV REV SAL CUR 0.00 0.00 TOT 3.00 0.00 0.00 LC'J"11.. Ur,. ALL Ut:A1L AMOUNT OTHER DATA 8.00 15.00 645.83 8.D0 15.00 50.00 645.83 28.00 203.47 645.93 529.20 . 529.20 24.00 45.40 39,828.00 33.84 529.20 28.00 203.47 45.40 529.20 137.52 13.00 50.00 31.78 645.83 24.00 352.80 352.80 645.83 COMMISSIONERS PO #051071 VENDOR 1007716 C.B.I./GRAPHICS PO #051713 VENDOR 1001246 NATIONAL TRUST FOR PO #051924 VENDOR 1004741 PASTOR JAMES PO #000000 VENDOR #007'?44 BOOKER SUZANNE PO #051996 VENDOR 1007044 BOOKER SUZANNE PO #051947 VENDOR #007716 C.B.I.IGRAPHICS PO #051949 VENDOR 1000553 DILLS CAMERA ::HOP PO #052268 VENDOR #000553 DILLS CAMERA 5HOP P04051997 VENDOR 1000907 HODGES, SUSHMITA "r0 #000000 VENDOR 1007600 HOLYCROSS FRED PO 1052531 VENDOR 1007600 HOLYCROSS FRED PO #051715 VENDOR 9001246 NATIONAL TRUST FOR PO #000000 VENDOR #004741 PASTOR JAMES PO #051995 VENDOR #004741 PASTOR JAMES PO #052015 VENDOR #001528 SOUTH BEND DRAFTING PO #000000 VENDOR #007044 BOOKER SUZANNE PO #000000 VENDOR #000907 HODGES, SUSHMITA PO 1000000 VENDOR 9004741 PASTOR JAMES COMMISSIONERS APPROPRIATION ENCUMBRANCE EXPENDITURE U 42,551.93 3,622.67 42,551.93 668.83 3,622.67 BANK 902 CHECK, #139049 BANK #02 CHECK 1139049 BANK 302 CHECK #139060 BANK #02 CHECK 3139092 BANK 302 CHECK #139092 BANK 302 CHECK 9139145 BANK #02 CHECK #139149 BANK 102 CHECK #139149 BANK 102 CHECK 4139227 BANK 102 CHECK 1139244 BANK 402 CHECK #139244 BANK 302 CHECK 313930: BANK 102 CHECK #139926 BANK 102 CHECK #139932 BANK 302 CHECK #139'937 NEXPENDED SAL UNENCUMB SAL 38,929.26 38,260.4,3 CORRESPONDENCE --announcement of -an ICLEF conference re. construction law; Indianapolis, Feb. 26. --announcement-of two,MACIAF seminars, Feb. 19 and 20 at the Century Center.' Seminars concern construction project reporting and construction leadership/ communications, respectively. --announcement and complimentary ticket for "Expo '92, to take place Feb. 19-20 at,the Century Center. It is designed to showcase new construction products and services. --Jan/Feb issue of "The Mortar Board," published by the St. Joseph Valley Masonry contractors. --announcement/registration forms for the YWCA's annual "Tribute to Women" program, scheduled for March 16. --registration forms for a trial advocacy skills workshop, scheduled for March 15-21, Indianapolis. --announcement of a February 27 workshop re. building codes and environmental impact. Sponsored by the National Association of Women in Construction; to be held at the South Bend Ramada Inn. --enrollment forms for first aid classes, to be held February 10 and 17. --catalogue of courses -from the GSA Interagency Training Center (i.e., courses for government employees) --brochure from United Way, describing future plans. --MACIAF schedule of plans for January 27, 1992. --offer from the University of Illinois Press to sell a newly -published book at a 20% discount. --first-quarter calendar of events from NIHS. --invitation to an NIHS valentine -making party, Feb. 9.. --announcement of "Victorian Afternoon" program (tour of Copsaholm, followed by tea at the Queen Anne) sponsored by NIHS. --winter 1992 issue of the NIHS calendar of events. --invitation to the grand opening of "Heartland" on February 4 at 222 S. Michigan St. --Jan./Feb. issue of "Common Ground," the Conservation Fund newsletter. --calendar of events from the Morris/Butler House, an Indianapolis museum. --February 3 plans from MACIAF. --1992 furniture catalogue from.Smith & Hawken. --announcement of the February 16 general membership meeting of Southhold Restorations, Inc. , --news release from United Way. --the January/February "Southhold Newsletter." --list of publications on general preservation issues from the National Trust for Historic Preservation.' --HLFI 1992 call for entries for the Servaas Memorial Award. --membership application for the "Preservation Forum." --registration materials for an Indianapolis ICLEF conference entitled "Revisiting Housing Production for Low Income Persons." To be held March 13. . --registration materials for a March 11 ICLEF conference entitled "Petroleum Contamination in Indiana." --flyer from ARM computing, offering bargains. --announcement from NIHS of "Preservation Week," to take place May 10-16, plus a list of ideas re. how to observe it. --registration materials for a March 20 ICLEF conference entitled "Negotiations and Settlements." Indianapolis. --registration materials for a March 27 ICLEF conference entitled "Foreclosure Law and Practice." Indianapolis. --registration materials for an April 13-15 conference in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Concerns downtown revitalization issues. (2) --"Preservation Tech Notes," a newsletter from the National Park Service. --January issue of "CRM," published by the National Park Service. --February 10 plans from MACIAF. DESIGNATING LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS - PROCEDURAL CHANGE On November 21, 1991, Dick Johnson, Director of the Area Plan Commission sent a memo concerning Zoning Map Amendments to the South Bend Common Council, the -St. Joseph County Council and other relevant bodies. The memo advised them that a review of Indiana State Planning legislation had revealed that procedures for amending a zoning map --and by implication including the designation of Local Historic districts --had changed. There is now some question of how the HPC can introduce a District proposal to local legislative bodies; since this matter is still being discussed by the various -lawyers involved, no final agreement had been made as to new --or old --procedures to be used. I do, however, want to ask the HPC to postpone the matter of the Monroe Park proposed LHD until there is a resolution of these procedural questions. LINCOLNWAY EAST LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT - UPDATE The matter of the proposed bill to change the boundaries of.the LWE LHD has been resolved. The South Bend Common Council voted on February 10,' 1992 to deny the request by the owners east of Leer Street to be removed from the District.. In my discussion with the Council's Zoning Committee that afternoon, it became apparent that they were satisfied that we had demonstrated that Local Historic District owners had the power to change standards when so desired by a majority. This flexibility is an attractive feature of District standards to Council members; it may help us persuade them i,n the future that Districts can preserve significant groups -of structures "into perpetuity" while providing for changing property owner needs. It also is an additional warning against adding in any way to the perception that the HPC is "imposing" historic districts on the community or regulating undemocratically. historic reser vation commission of south bend and st. joseph county ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798 M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATIOWCOMMISSION FROM: FRED HOLYCROSS RE: REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING As you can see from the agenda, we are again meeting on the 7th Floor in the County Conference Room on Monday, February 17th at 7:30 p.m.; we will be meeting there until further notice. In addition to the standard business for your appraisal, you will be asked to give your recommendation on the proposed Local Historic District on the northwest side of town. My staff report has been given both to Councilman Luecke and to officers of the 'Near Northwest Neighborhood group at the request of Mr. Luecke. I expect that you will be provided with diverse opinions concerning this proposal in addition to mine. I will also be giving two (brief!) reports --one concerning legislative changes affecting historic district designations and another bringing you up to date on the Common Council's decision concerning Lincolnway East LHD and the move to change its boundaries. The two final items in this month's packet are proposals --for-. discussion and possible implementati6n.-Thanks! historicp reservation 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: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FROM: FRED HOLYCROSS RE: COMMISSIONER ODELL "DUKE" NEWBURN I am sure that you are all aware by this time of the death of our esteemed colleague, Odell "Duke" Newburn, on January 23 of this year. I have sent flowers on behalf of the HPC and Jim and I "-I attended Mr.;'Newburn's memorial service. At this time it would not be possible for the HPC to make a donation in Mr. Newburn's name from the staff budget, however, individual contributions are being accepted for the Newburn Memorial'Scholarship fund, through Richard Rice, president of Teachers Credit union. Please let me know if there is anything else that I should do in this regard. Certified. - Local Government regulations stipulate that empty Commission positions be filled within thirty days. I will be drafting a letter to his appointing body, the County Council, within the next few days. _ l� Term 8-18-89.to 8-18-92 3-19-90 to 3-19-93 3-10-92 to 3-10-95 1-10-90 to 1-10-93 1-4-91 to 1-4-94 1-23-90 to 1-23-93 3-10-92 to 3-10-95 8-18-89 to 8-18-92 1-10-91 to 1-10-94 1992 HPC Members Appointing Body Martha Choitz County Commissioners Jean,.Dennen .Mayor Jed Eide County Council Herb Herendeen Common Council John Oxian County Commissioners Janeanne,P.etrass- Common Council. Dennis Schafer - County 'Council :, Joann SporIeder Hist.=Pres. Comm. William Welsheimer Mayor Term 8-18-89.to 8-18-92 3-19-90 to 3-19-93 3-10-92 to 3-10-95 1-10-90 to 1-10-93 1-4-91 to 1-4-94 1-23-90 to 1-23-93 3-10-92 to 3-10-95 8-18-89 to 8-18-92 1-10-91 to 1-10-94 Perhaps you sent a lovely card, Or sat quietly in a chair. Perhaps you sent a floral piece, , If so we saw it there. Perhaps you spoke the kindest words, As any friend could say; Perhaps you were not there at all, Just thought of us that day. Whatever you did to console our hearts,y ` We thank you so much whatever the part. 1 -}?S The family of '00' Historic Preservation Commission 1992 Committee Assignments Executive Committee Chair - John Oxian Membe_rs.- Jed Eide Jean':Dennen William Welsheimer Historic Districts Chair - Martha Choitz Members - Jed Eide Jean Dennen ADDENDUM TO LANDMARK STANDARDS: MOVING STRUCTURES Movinq (a) An historic landmark or a significant building in a Historic District may be moved to another site only if it is shown that continued location on its current site is inconsistent with preservation of the historical and architectural character of the landmark considering (1) the purpose of historic preservation, (2) the landmark's architectural and/or historical value and significance, (3) continued preservation and protection of original structure, its material and important details, (4) the relationship of the landmark to other buildings in the historic district, and (5) the position of the landmark in relation to the street, right of way, and to other buildings and structures. (b) The moving of landmarks is discouraged but is preferable to demolition. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required to move a landmark or structure in a historic district, and the owner must establish satisfactorily the criteria for moving as set forth in subsection (a) of this Section. Adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County, February 17, 1992. MISC/HISTORIC Z — Residents lose,2nd request to leave historical district By DON PORTER Tribune Staff Writer SOUTH BEND — To use a. re- cently popular phrase, it was deja vu all over again this week for members of the Common Council. In addition to having to deal with resurrected requests for a medical. clinic near Michiana Community Hospital and for the city to buy the Opelika Building in the East Race area, the legislators again were asked to aid secession efforts by. some residents of the Lincoln Way East Historic District. However, on an 8-1 vote, the council rejected the request of 17 of the 18 property owners between Leer and Vernon Streets to be al- lowed to opt out of the historical area. Only, Ann Puzzello, DAth, sup- ported the request. . The denial follows a similar un- successful secession effort in 1988 by property owners in the eastern- most end of the district. They said they never wanted to be a part of it in the first place. This week's rejection came after representatives of the Area Plan Commission of St. Joseph County and the city's Historic Preserva- tion Commission urged that the dis- trict be kept intact. Letting some residents along Lincoln Way out of their district could have serious repercussions for the other historical districts in the city, cautioned John Byorni, senior planner with the APC. The 17 properties represent half the homes in the district, which was established in 1984. The Lincoln Way district is the only one in the city currently eligi- ble for inclusion on the National Register :of Historic Sites, said Fred Holycross, the HPC director. If the district boundaries were changed, the remaining property owners would lose possible federal tax credits for renovating their buildings, he said. A new request would have to be submitted to have the revised district recertified, he added. . The homes in the Lincoln Way district, which runs along the south side of the highway from Miami Street to Vernon Street, were built between 1890 and 1925 and are a significant example of middle-class houses .of that period, Holycross said. "It would seriously compromise things if districts can be changed at the whim of the moment," Holy - cross said. "It would be a disser- vice to the remaining property owners." Instead of seceding, the disaf- fected property owners should seek to have guidelines for homes in the district modified, Holycross said. Each district can establish its own guidelines for remodeling and other improvements, he added. It also may be possible to set up differing standards for different portions of the district, added Council President Stephen J. Luecke, D -1st. "The residents obviously don't want to be part of the district," - Puzzello said. Puzzello cast the lone vote to let them leave it. None of the residents attended this week's council meeting to elab- orate on why they want to secede. Voting against letting them go were Luecke; Cleophus Washing- ton, D -2nd; Roland Kelly; D -3rd; Lincs "Lee", Slavinskas, R -5th; Thomas Zakrzewski, D -6th; and Sean Coleman, Loretta Duda and Eugene Ladewski, all D -at large. De Cu: von opl Cof tIR the 5 C f the cis rec Fit Pal the fes vel hog not Th( tior PC S T ti F Z