Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 1992AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Monthly,Meeting 7:30 p.m., July,20, 1992 County Conference Room 7th Floor, County/City Building I. Call to Order II. Roll Call ill. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 1352 Lincolnway East -- LWE LHD IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes -- June, 1992 B. Treasurer's Report -- June, 1992 C. Correspondence D. Committee Reports 1. C of A (Staff Approvals) 1. 705 Lincolnway East -- LWE LHD 2. 1306 Lincolnway East -- LWE LHD 3. 929 East Milton -- Local Landmark 4. 553 River -- Edgewater LHD 5. 1059 Riverside -- Riverside Drive LHD .6. 1077 Riverside -- Riverside Drive LHD 2. Budget and Finance 3. Legal 4. Historic Districts 5. Historic Landmarks 1. 514 East Indiana -- First Reading 6. Standards and Maintenance 7. Personnel 8. Staff Reports 1. Grant Update V. Old Business VI. New Business VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII.. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County Visitor Roll-- July 20, 1992 Please print your name, address and organization, if applicable, so your presence at tonight's meeting can be officially recorded. Thank you. T � 21 2 22 / ✓ 4 24 5 25 6 26 7 27 8 28 9 29 10 30 11 31 12 32 13 33 14 34 15 35 16 36 17 37 18 38 19 39 20 40 July 9, 1992 STAFF REPORT Vicki Treat of GranDesign 1352 Lincolnway East South Bend, IN 46613 STATEMENT OFSIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC_ CONTEXT The Free Classic.Queen Anne style building at 1352 Lincolnway East, located within the Lincolnway East Local Historic District boundaries, was built as a speculative real estate venture by Harvey M. Kinzie in 1910. Kinzie sold the property to Daniel and Emma Smith in 1916; the Smiths resided there until 1940. The original city survey has the building rated as an S/11. The buildina has been significantly altered since then, and subsequently, the rating suggested in the recently completed city resurvey is NC (Non -Contributing). PROPOSED CHANGE 1) Reroof flat sections of rear addition in-kind (asphalt shingles). 2) Replace existing front door, a wood door with small top lights. Replace with wood door with 3/4 light, leaded stain glass design. 3a) Install solid brass lamp on east side of front entry to replace existing. 3b) Remove existing lamp on west side of front entry and install louvered wood door. 4) Install stairway along rear facade to access existing_ second story entry. 5) Replace missing front porch support with similar to existing. Enclose all supports with 1" thick board -- to be hand routed and fluted. Add molded caps and simple wood plinths. Install false pilasters, fluted to match columns, to run from ton rail of balustrade to entablature along wall. Pilasters will be flush with existing wall anchors of balustrade. 6) Enclose existing metal column at rear corner porch in the same fashion as indicated in item #4. 7) Signage: to be located in front yard. Uprights will be fluted. 8) Replace side/basement door with solid core door, no glazing. 9) Replace deteriorated fascia board, crown moldings, and soffit in-kind where needed on front and rear porches and at primary roof line (between second and attic stories). I- 10) Trellis screen: shield side/basement entry door and A.C. unit on west side of house with wood trellis screen. Trellis to be free standing, will start at chimney and will be stepped to reveal windows. An access door will be located at the screen's south end. 11) Install shadow box fencing, similar to that found at 1228 Lincolnway East (and as approved in the summer of 1991 by the Historic Preservation Commission). Fence will run on east property line from front set back line to the rear corner of the lot. STANDARDS I. Environment B) Buildina Site and Lar_dscapina 2 ) Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings and newspapers. New site work should also be appropriate to existina surrounding site elements it scale, type and appearance. 3) Prohibited Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots, paved, blacktopped. or fenced. II. Existing_ Structures B) Roofs an_d_Roof_ina 1) Required The existing shape and materials of the roof shall be retained. All architectural features which a_ive the roof its essential character ., shall be retained. 2 ) Recommended Whenever possible, the original shape and materials of the roof should be restored. Particular effort should be made to retain unique materials not commonly found in new construction. Roof covering which is deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced with new material that matches as closely as possible the existing or original in composition, size, shape, color and texture. 3) Prohibited The roof shall not be stripped of architectural features important to its character. C) Windows and Doors 1) Required Existing or original windows and doors ... shall be retained or when deteriorated beyond repair, replaced with duplicates of the existing or oriainal. 2) Recommended Wood frame storm windows and doors, painted to match the existing or original should be used but should not damage existing frames and should be removable in the future. If new sash and doors are used, the existing or original materials, desia_n and hardware should be used. 3) Prohibited Existing or original windows, doors and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and reused in place. D.) Entrances, Porches, and Steps 1) Required Existing or original porches and steps, including handrails, balusters, columns ... shall be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design and materials when deteriorated beyond repair. 3) Prohibited Porches and steps that are important to the building's style and development may not be altered or removed. 4) Not Recommended Original porch details should not be replaced with materials representing a different period or style .from the original. III. New Construction A. Height and Proportion 3) Prohibited Additions that would add new height or change the existing facade of a building and change its scale and architectural character may not be constructed. V. General C. Any rehabilitation work shall not be such as to chana_e a style previous to its original style. RECOMMENDATIONS 1) The reroofing as proposed is a typical in-kind replacement and staff approval item. The replacement as proposed is in keeping with the.pertinent standards (II.B.) and will have no detrimental impact on the historic fabric of the building. Therefore, I recommend approval of this item. 2) The existing front entry door is not original and is not in keeping with the overall style and character of the house. The proportions and glazing of the proposed replacement are similar in nature to many of the original elaborate doors found in high style late 19th century "Victorian Era" homes. The replacement of the door as proposed is in keeping with the pertinent standards (II.C.) and will compliment the historic fabric of the building. Therefore, I recommend approval of this item. 3a) The existing lights flanking the front entry are not original and are not in keeping with the style and character of the building. There are no specific standards addressing outdoor lighting fixtures on individual buildings. However, the proposed replacement lamp is in keeping with the pertinent standards requiring that alterations be in keeping with the style and character of the building (V.C.). The proposed replacement lighting will have no detrimental impact on the historic fabric of the building. Therefore, I recommend approval. 3b) The existing front entry has no screen/storm door at present. A screen/storm door is typical of buildings of this era and style. In that no screen/storm door currently exists, the proposed louvered door is not in violation of any standards under "Windows and Doors" (II.C.). However, the proposed louvered door would act and appear more like a shutter than a screen/storm door, which would not be fitting for the style and character of this building: therefore the proposal is not in lteepirg with standard V.C. Also, front entries typically had light fixtures flanking the front entry on either side; removal of one these would be inappropriate. I recommend denial or modification of this provosal as submitted. a) The stairway, as proposed, will be at the rear of the building_ and will not be seen from the major thoroughfare, Lincolnway East. The stairway will access an existing second story door located in the wall of the rear gable intersect, above a flat roofed, one story projection. No standards specifically address the addition of stairways to the exterior. Applicable standards, however, can be found under "New Construction", specifically III.A.(3), which prohibits any addition "that would ... change the existing facade of a building and change its scale and architectural character". In light of the above, I recommend that the Commission send this item to committee and work with the owner on alternative solutions. 5) Fluted posts on porches of Free Classic Queen Anne style buildings exist, but no known examples exist in South Bend, according to an analysis done of the city resurvey. However, fluted columns (round) are not an uncommon detail on front verandas of the Free Classic style. A Shingle style dwelling at 719 W. Colfax has fluted brick piers. The existing front porch columns at 1352 Lincolr_way East are not original and are void of the character inherent in Queen Anne style porches. The proposed porch renovation would re -introduce some of this character, although it is not known specifically what the original supports looked like. I would recommend, however, that fluting be at the top half or top third of the posts, as full length fluting, on posts or columns, occurs only in ionic order porches, such as those found at 519 S. St. Joseph Street and 420 W. Washington Avenue. Most Free Classic style porches in South Bend utilize the tuscan and doric orders. Restoration work done recently at Dunbar Corner in the West Washington N.R. Historic District utilized partial fluting in porch restorations. The proposed engaged pilasters will visually blend with a wood wall anchor introduced when the balustrade was replaced in 1988. Although there is no evidence that engaged pilasters were ever an element in the porch, the proposed addition of pilasters will give visual purpose to the otherwise awkward appearance of the wall- anchors. The porch renovation, as proposed is in keeping with the pertinent standards. I recommend approval of this item with the stipulation that the posts be partially fluted. 6) Enclosure of the metal column at the rear entry porch as indicated would be compatible with the character and style of the building as analyzed in review of item #5. The proposal is in keeping with the pertinent standards. I recommend approval of this item as per item #5. 7) There -are no standards specifically addressing signage in the Lincolnway East Local Historic District guidelines. However, the general guideline governing compatibility with existing character and style (V.C.) applies. The proposed sign heavily emphasizes the classical tradition. and is thus incompatible with the more subtle use of classical elements in the turn of the century Queen Anne style. I recommend modification of -this proposal as submitted. 8) The side/basement entry door is not original and is in fair condition. Its removal would not compromise the character or style of the building. Steel doors with embossed panel patterns were approved at 1346 L.W.E. and 1322 L.W.E. within the past year (Aug. 1991 and May 1992 respectively). Therefore, I recommend approval of this item with the stipulation that the steel door replacement have an embossed panel pattern. 9) Crown moldings, fascia boards, and soffit boards are deteriorating in several areas and need replacement. The owner proposes to replace these in-kind. I recommend approval of this item as submitted. 10) This proposal as submitted is not in keeping with standard I.B.(2), which recommends that "[n]ew site work should ... be appropriate to existing surrounding site elements in scale, type and appearance." Addition of this screen will be more unsightly than the A.C. unit and side entry that it is attempting to conceal. The owner has taken care of security concerns with the side entry by replacing the door with a solid, unlit door. The screen can be seen as a non -permanent change as it is free standing. The Commission may consider permitting it from this point of view. My recommendation, however, is to deny this portion of the C of A. 11) The proposal as submitted is in keeping with the pertinent standards (I.B.) and is similar to fences approved by the commission within the last few years, e.g. June 1991 at 1224 L.W.E. Therefore, I recommend approval of this item as submitted. -- James V. Pastor Staff, Historic Preservation f -T- fi �J4 f owel't "'Ice/ed P-1 ��,� �:a •. rte— . c. n••;,�..y,t:'•: .. ;;����,���+tt�• t 'jr. skd 11j r� yY�+ '.� �. ^ r. + i •T • � ''!•' . 1. � r ...... �• ., �' �... ': ` , j • r ! . ■ �.Z' � � -�:�,. yrs; v� '•Y'�:•s.:.;;..i.i 'i`'a �>•., `!.' ": lAf; ..R�kr ,��: y,j.,, • 'r�''" tit � L - /352 L Lvr .,,: .. ::. .�{%p' A�, •.,�• • .+�i.••''9U':4�,ii,,•yi�"�F.i'Y��!{'�•7,,lifl�y m.d,?K,ci* y sA.G9arw.+,i:,: a �..F , • rr. ., . . . #,' .. n MT L -J N v I 4. Ic, ;o 10 152 L 291 TION SITS, ,-INN nwaV Seek, 13621- col 4 W C�f TA I c _j 0 0 a Z _j orch Chi rwie*y it zj 3.4 3 cTnpy I JI « j BLDG.\ ;0 cn C14 F. 6\-'- cy- on Walk a. W LOT -#1m C6 C3 93 - _j r4c- 21.2• m C'I Z \2 Car C14 Gara 0 F. 6 25.6 5'. 21.8* PROPOSE6.jw GRAVEL AV -2— -to PARKMGQ Q2 AREA '0 j --LOT ch c'j 6' WOOD SCREEy!NG FENCE LOTI..# 3 Delbert & Me 1412 Lincol'r South Bend, O,V, .- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Monthly Meeting 4th Floor, Council Chambers 7:30 p.m. County -City Building June 15, 1992 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. II. Roll Call Members Present: Mr. William Wel.sheimer Sr., Mrs. Janeanne Petrass, Mr. John Oxian, Mr. Herb Herendeen, Mrs. Martha Choitz, Mrs. Jean Dennen, Mrs. Joann Sporleder, Mr. Fred Holycross--Director, Mr. James Pastor --Administrative Assistant, Suzanne Booker --Surveyor, Ms. Sushmita Hodges --Research Assistant, Ms. Aladean DeRose--City Attorney. Members Absent: Mr. Jed Eide. Also Present: Mr. John Pine, Mr. Dennis White, Ms. Charlotte Wentland, Ms. Dorothy Schohl, Ms. Sandi Schohl, Ms. Larry Schohl, Ms. Donna Simmons, Ms. Marilyn Cook, Mr. William Klim, Ms. Eunice Miller, Ms. Evangeline Siomos, Ms. Beverly Lawson, Mr. Bruce Wood, Ms. Edna Henningfeld, Mr. Francis Henningfeld, Ms. Adeline Macalhn, Mr. Walter Macalhn, Ms. Emilia Kargensh, Ms. Josephine Ieraci, B. Hardy, Mr. Kenyon Tweedell, Ms. Linda Fritschner, Ms. Mimi Kintney, Ms. Nina Burrell -Thomas, Mr. Mark Sylvester, Mr. Howard Taylor, Ms. Gloria Wolvos, Ms. Donna Niemann, Mr. Chuck Watson, Mr. Chris Simons, Mr. Monty Sriver--Superintendent of'Schools, Mr. Gene Forsyth. III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness. Mr. Oxian proposed that hearings for the C of A's be postponed until later in the meeting. Mr. Herendeen so moved; Mrs. Dennen seconded the motion. Ar)oroved unanimously. B. Riley High School --Second Reading Mr. Oxian began by establishing rules. All speakers were to limit their remarks to 3 minutes; those . supporting the proposal were to speak first, followed by those opposing. One person from each side would then be allowed a rebuttal speech. Mr. Holycross presented the staff report. He recommended landmarking the building and applying standards which preserved the facade but did not prohibit renovation or enlargement. in addition, he e suggested a comprehensive assessment of all South Bend's historically significant school buildings. This study would enable the HPC to make an objective plan for landmarking these structures. Ms. Barbara Steele was the first to speak in favor of the proposal. She pledged the support of her organization, Southhold Restorations, for the preservation of Riley High School. Mrs. Pat Schafer of 19218 Orchard Heights spoke next. She described the school as a crucial component of the Riley neighborhood, and a magnificent building. The School Board, she said, planned to demolish the building. She submitted to the board a petition, bearing apx. 100 signatures supporting landmark status. Mr. George Tezich of 736 E. Woodside spoke of the building's importance both as a historical monument and as a part of the community. Mr. Monty Sriver, Superintendent of Schools, then voiced the School Board's formal opposition to the proposal. Landmark standards, he said, would add to the costs of maintaining/renovating the building. Mr. Jim Allen of 2528 Sampson, speaking in favor of the proposal, pointed out that most of Riley'.s students lived very near the school; bussing the students to a remote location would be as costly as maintaining the existing building in its current location. - Mr. Tezich, refuting Mr. Sriver's remarks, said that the residents of the Riley neighborhood were angry about the large sums of money being spent state-wide on new school buildings. The money would be better spent on programs and education. Mrs. Sporleder asked Mr. Sriver whether the School Board had actually analyzed the costs of maintaining the school under landmark standards. Mr. Sriver said no such analysis had been made. Mrs. Choitz cited the standards applied to Central High School as an example of the moderation of landmark standards. Mrs. Sporleder moved to send the proposal to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. Mrs. Dennen seconded the motion. Approved unanimouslv. C. River Bend PLHD--Second Reading Mr. Holycross presented the staff report. The proposal, he said, was sponsored by the River Bend Neighborhood Association. The owners of 46 of the 88 parcels involved--52%--had signed a petition supporting the proposed district. The HPC staff had analyzed the proposal and found the area eligible for district status under all basic criteria mandated by ordinance and by HPC policy. He recommended in favor of the proposed district. Mr. Mark Sylvester of 701 Riverside Drive, speaking in favor of the proposal, said he hoped historic district status would help protect the neighborhood from the increasing threat of commercial encroachment. Ms. Katherine Hostetler of 708 N. St. Joseph St. spoke next. She described the area as a cohesive collection of middle-class homes. Several months before, a house had been demolished --the first demolition in that neighborhood in 90 years. The purpose of the district was to preserve the way -of -life of those that dwelt within its boundaries. Mrs. Sporleder asked Ms. Hostetler why the house cited above had been demolished. Ms. Hostetler replied that Memorial Hospital had bought the house, neglected it for two years, then demolished it on the grounds that repairing it would be too costly. Mr. Steve Luecke, president of the South Bend Common Council also spoke in favor of the district. He compared the proposed district to Edgewater Place in situation and general character. Mr. Chris Simons, owner and landlord of 528 N. St. Joseph Street, spoke against the petition. He said he feared that a historic district would decrease the resale value of his property. Mr. Kenyon Tweedell, a 30 -year resident of 210 E. Bartlett, then outlined a 4 -point case in support of the district: --The area in question had historic merit. --The mayor's housing forum had recommended the preservation of downtown neighborhoods contiguous to the downtown area. --The River Bend area was a stable neighborhood, a good place to settle and raise children. --The neighborhood acted as a buffer between commercial/professional establishments and South Bend's green belt (Leeper Park, specifically). Ms. Adeline Macahln, owner of 218 E. Navarre, next voiced her confusion over the district designation procedures. She said she could not take a position on the proposal until she knew more about it. She said v she wanted to know what new responsibilities the district would create for landlords. Mr. Chuck Watson of 511 Riverside Drive said he was also confused. He said he had received a letter from an attorney warning him that a district would mean severe restrictions on all exterior home repair, including painting. He wanted to know the true scope of these restrictions; he also wanted to know the probable impact on property values. Ms. Linda Fritschner of 621 E. Riverside Drive spoke of the neighborhood's importance to the vitality of downtown South Bend. Mr. Bruce Wood of 225 E. Navarre said he had spent the last 20 years working to preserve inner-city neighborhoods. He said that, recently, 6-8 homes in the area east of Michigan Street had been destroyed. Apx. 18 months before, the zoning had been changed to "commercial" in the block immediately east of Michigan Street. Commercial encroachment was therefore a real and long-established threat. Establishing the River Bend district would be a significant effort to preserve South Bend's inner city neighborhoods. Ms. Sandi Schohl of 527 Riverside Drive said that River Bend was a good neighborhood; it was conveniently close to downtown and was a good place to raise children. However, erosion was becoming increasingly evident; and the more the area ran down, the greater the danger of acquisition by Memorial Hospital. Mr. Tony,Zappia, an attorney hired by neighborhood resident Gene Forsyth, then presented a case against the proposal. Mr. Forsyth, he said, owned 15 properties in the River Bend neighborhood. He claimed that, should a vote be taken allowing one vote for each property in the area (instead of one vote for each owner) the majority would oppose the district. He then said that the area did not qualify historically/culturally. He said most of the residents did not know what level of standards would be applied to the district. He believed that the more stringent "rehabilitative" standards would be applied. Most of those supporting the district, he claimed, did not know the significance of the "rehabilitative" designation. It was his understanding that rehabilitation standards were very strict. He then read excerpts from the comprehensive standards booklet. He said the River Bend area was stagnant; imposing a historic district would further stifle property values. He lauded the residents' wish to maintain the neighborhood, but pointed out that the city already had a Code Enforcement department. He said that Memorial Hospital, which many of the petitioners had portrayed as a villain, was in fact one of the area's larger employers. He asked the HPC to take a vote from all the property owners within the proposed district. Mr. Gene Forsyth of 216 E. Navarre then said he had initially signed in favor of the petition. He had now changed his mind because he felt a district would be too restrictive. Mr. Chris Simons spoke again. He said he feared at least a short-term drop in property values would result from district designation. Renters would no longer be able to afford to live there. Mr. Francis Henningfeld of 222 E. Navarre St. questioned how a historic district could save the area from Memorial Hospital. He said existing mechanisms (police, code enforcement) were adequate to protect the neighborhood. Ms. Georgia Shaw of the E. Wayne LHD then briefly described some of the benefits of historic districts. The crucial reason for the district, she said, was to forestall commercial encroachment. Mr. Sylvester spoke in rebuttal. He said the district committee had attempted to make clear the distinction between "rehabilitative" and "conservation" districts clear. District standards had not yet been written. Also, he felt district support should be measured chiefly in terms of the percentage of owner/occupant support. While the area did not have the obvious historic stature of an area such as West Washington, it did contain many old homes, and was worth preserving. Mr. Oxian said history was only a small factor in the designation of a district; there were also matters such as culture, architecture etc. to consider. Secondly, district standards varied from district to district; set standards applied only to landmarks. River Bend would write its own standards; once they were passed, the HPC would enforce them. Mrs. Sporleder affirmed the district's eligibility to become a historic district. It had long been recognized as a candidate, because of its cohesiveness, its integrity, and the age of its houses. She asked Mr. Zappia whether he had read the guideline standards before or after he had written his letter. The letter, she thought, demonstrated ignorance of the standards and of HPC procedures. She proceeded to explain some of these procedures. She said the -district could not keep Memorial Hospital' out of the neighborhood. It would, however, establish a further line of defense. A woman asked how existing "discrepancies" (ie, neglect) could be dealt with under district standards. Mrs. Sporleder said the HPC could only help if these discrepancies were also code violations. Mr. Oxian said the HPC had jurisdiction only over alterations made after the district was established. A woman asked whether rental properties within the district could be sold and re -sold as rental properties, or whether they would have to revert to owner -occupancy. Mr. Oxian said the HPC did not deal with zoning issues; Mr. Luecke affirmed this statement. The woman then asked how district committees were appointed. Mr. Oxian said committee organization and appointments were the district's responsibility. A man asked how the HPC enforced standards. Mr. Oxian said that, when unauthorized alterations were observed, the HPC got the Building Department to issue a stop work order. He briefly explained the procedures for filing for a COA. Mr. Herendeen added that legal recourse was available to the HPC for enforcing district standards. So far, the HPC had never had to resort to legal action. Mr. Herendeen, using the West Washington neighborhood as an example, described some of the benefits of historic districts. He that said property values had increased because district status had stabilized the neighborhood, and halted gross commercial encroachments. Mr. Oxian cited the marked increase in property values in both the E. Wayne and the Riverside Drive districts. The same increase in value had been noted in historic districts all over the country. Mr. Welsheimer described the dramatic turnaround in the quality of the W. Washington neighborhood; property values had more than doubled. Historic Preservation was a crucial factor in this turnaround. Mr. Watson then said that, because of what he had heard that evening, he had now decided to support the district. He liked the neighborhood, and wanted it to ' be maintained. Mr. Henningfeld asked the HPC to postpone their recommendation until next month. Mrs. DeRose reminded him that the HPC's recommendation was not final, nor was it based on a head -count. Ms. Fritschner commented that the neighborhood had been meeting at least once a month for over a year to discuss the possibility of a district. The meetings had been well-publicized, but Mr. Henningfeld had attended none of them. She therefore questioned his right to request a postponement. Mr. Schohl-supported her statement. Mr. Oxian said he did not think a delay was justified. Mr. Herendeen moved to send the proposal to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. Mrs. Choitz seconded. Mr. Welsheimer abstained; all others voted to approve the motion. Motion approved. Mrs. Sporleder further recommended that the district committee continue to meet. Ms. Hostetler said the committee met regularly every second Tuesday of the month, from 7 to 9 p.m. Mr. Holycross said the staff would attend all these meetings. D. Tutt -Stuckey Cemetery --Second Reading E. Ullery Cemetery --Second Reading Mr. Holycross said he had a letter from Clay Twp. Trustee Otis Romine approving the landmarking of these two cemeteries. Mrs. Choitz moved to recommend the landmarkinq of both cemeteries. Mrs. Petrass seconded the motion. Mrs. Sporleder asked whether there were any established maintenance criteria for cemeteries. She wondered whether the vacant plots could be sold. Mr. Oxian said the HPC must soon write specific guidelines for cemetery maintenance. Mr. Holycross suggested calling a meeting in the near future of the standards committee; Mr. Oxian approved this suggestion. The motion was approved unanimously. A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 1021 Riverside Drive --Riverside Drive LHD Mr. Pastor described the house as a c. 1907 Queen Anne style residence. The owner, Ms. Crumlish, wished to carry out a two-part project: --replace two evergreen shrubs in the front yard with three spireas and three burning bushes (more traditional foliage) --remove fragmented, deteriorated fencing on the property line b/t 1021 and 1025, and replace with a 41" picket fence to match the original gate. He distributed photos of the site, and invited Ms. Crumlish to make a statement. She said that, according to her neighbor, Mr. Shanafelt, a life-long resident, the existing picket fence was apx. 20 years old. He had also said that a fence had been on that property line for at least 50 years. The existing fence was deteriorated and unsightly, and no longer functional. She wished to restore its original usefulness and appearance. She listed the addresses of four other properties within the district which had similar fences. At this point, Mr. Oxian pointed out that the staff had recommended in favor of the fence. Mr. Herendeen moved to approve the staff recommendation. Mr. Welsheimer seconded the motion. Approved unanimouslv. 2. 1071 Riverside Drive--LHD Mr. Holycross summarized the staff report and distributed photographs. He reported that the house had a new owner, Mr. Moran. Mr. Moran was not present. The project was to replace the existing sidewalk with a sidewalk of larger dimensions, and to add a concrete patio to the rear of the house. The patio was to be linked to the house. Mr. Holycross recommended exactly replacing the existing sidewalk in materials and dimensions. He recommended approving the patio, but stipulated that it should not extend past the rear corners of the house in length, nor should it be more than 15' wide. He said he had given these recommendations to the owner's representative, Mr. Murphy, but had not seen or spoken with the new owner. Mr. Oxian suggested sending the staff recommendations to the new owner, and advising him that, if he did not contest these recommendations at next month's meeting, they would become legally binding. Mrs. DeRose said it was not necessary to make that condition, since it was already part of the official procedure. S Mr. Holycross said he had followed Ms. DeRoseIs advise and sent the new owner a letter, asking him to replace the oval window in the rear vestibule. He had as yet not received a reply. Mrs. Choitz moved to approve Mr. Oxian's recommendation. Mrs. Dennen seconded the motion. Approved unanimouslv. 3. 1215 Riverside Drive--LHD. Mr. Pastor described this as a c. 1902 American Foursquare house, rated c/10. Mr. Terry Oberly, representing the owner, proposed to add a balustrade to the front porch. This new balustrade would have simple square balusters of wolmanized lumber, with milled upper and lower -pieces. Total height would be 36". Wood screen tracks around the posts and porch entablature would be removed. He distributed photos of the site, and invited Mr. Oberly to speak. Mr. Oberly said the deterioration of the porch screens had become a subject of concern some time ago. He had called the HPC office and been advised that removing the screens was permissible, so long as the porch was not structurally changed. The screens had been removed. He now wished to enhance the property by adding an attractive porch balustrade to the house. Mr. Herendeen said 36" sounded rather tall for a porch balustrade. He feared that the balustrade might look out -of -scale. Mrs. Sporleder asked what historical guidelines applied to this project. Mr. Holycross said the pertinent standards made no mention of height. Mrs. Sporleder said the building code had specific height requirements for balustrades. Mr. Pastor said building code stipulated a 36" -high balustrade. Mrs. Sporleder suggested looking through the neighborhood to find a similar house with a balustraded porch, so that scaling could be compared. Mr. Oberly said the house next-door to 1215 had a 36" balustrade. Mrs. Sporleder then suggested consulting the building code for height specifications. Mr. Holycross agreed to do so. Mrs. DeRose said that, generally, district standards should be adapted to accommodate Building Code requirements. The HPC, then, should approve the style/context/appropriateness of the balustrade; the dimensions should be those specified by the Building Department. Mr. Herendeen said the balustrade simply sounded excessively tall. He recommended that, if the Building Code did not stipulate a 36" minimum height, the balustrade should be shortened. Mr. Oxian said his house, a landmark foursquare, still had its original balustrade. He suggested Mr. Oberly come see it, and gave him the address. Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve the balustrade. stioulatinq that the staff work out the most appropriate dimensions under building code reauirements. and .give recommendation to the owner. Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion. Mr. Herendeen said the 6" space between bottom rail and porch floor sounded excessive. if Building Code requirements did not supervene, he suggested that this space be narrowed. Mrs. Choitz pointed out that a 36" balustrade might block the view from the living room window. Mr. Oberly said he would be happy to work with the staff. The motion was approved unanimouslv. IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes Mr. Herendeen moved to approve the minutes. as submitted; Mrs. Sporleder seconded the motion. Approved unanimouslv. B. Treasurers Report C. Correspondence D. Committee Report 1. C of A (staff approvals) a. 1138 E. Wayne b. 1215 E. Wayne c. 1614 E. Wayne Mr. Holycross briefly summarized the projects approved for these three sites. Mr. Oxian asked whether Mr. Bamber (1323 E. Wayne) had requested approval for any more projects. Mr. Pastor said he had not. Mr. Oxian suggested checking up on this property. . 2. Budget and Finance 3. Legal 4. Historic Districts 5. Historic Landmarks 6. Standards and Maintenance 7. Personnel Mr. Holycross submitted two contracts for Mr. Oxian's signature. 8. Staff Reports. V. Old Business VI. New Business A. Proposed Ordinance; Temporary Delays Mr. Oxian submitted a proposed ordinance for HPC review. VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements/Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment Mr. Welsheimer moved to adlourn: Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion. Approved unanimouslv. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. TREASURERS REPORT: JUNE - 1992 As can be seen from the St. Joseph County computer ledger (account ##001.39211.000.034) for the month of June, 1992, we have incurred no unusual expenses. This month's expenditures total $3,806.75. Total expenses for 1992 come to $22,563.63. Our unencumbered account balance is $19,997.30. In June we quiatesed (deposited) $1,192.83 into the St. Joseph County general account. This money consisted of $6.00 in COA fees, $100.00 from the Near Northwest Neighborhood Association for postage expenses incurred from their historic district proposal and $1,086.83 from our Community. Development Block Grant claim for May, 1992. We also received $7.00 in cash for COA applications and photocopying fees; this money goes into our "Petty Cash" account. 901.39211.000.034 HISTORIC PRESERVATION 06/92 06/02/92 CLAIM 5 06/92 06/02/92 CLAIM 1 06192 06/02/92 CLAIM 06/92 06102192.CLAIN 4 06/92 06/02/92.CLAIM I 06/92 06/02/92 CLAIM 6 06/9206/16/92 CLAIM 4 06/92 06/16/92 CLAIM 06/92 06/16/92 CLAIM 06/92 06116/92 CLAIM 4 06/92 06/16/92 CLAIM 2 06192 06/16/92 CLAIM 06192 06/16/92 CLAIM 6 06192 06116/92 CLAIM 06/92 06/16/92 CLAIM 001.39211.000.034 HISTORIC PRESERVATION , ESTIMATED REV RECEIPTS UNRECV REV BAL CUR 0.00 0.00 TOT 0.00 0.00 0.00 20. 59. 19. 41. 23. 45. 53. 6. 25. 41. 00. 90. 45. 14. 10. COMMISSIONERS 58 PO.#000000 VENDOR.#001044 BOOKER SUZANNE 63 PO 1000000 VENDOR#000507 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 80 PO 1000000 VENDOR 1000553 DILLS CAMERA SHOP 00 PO #000000 VENDOR 1000907 HODGES, SUSHNITA 16, P0.#000000 VENDOR 1001617 KELLY SERVICES, INC. 83 PO 1000000 VENDOR #004741 PASTOR JAMES 60 PO #000000 VENDOR 1007044 BOOKER SUZANNE 00 PO 1000000 VENDOR #007716 C.B.I./GRAPHICS 00 PO #000000 VENDOR 1000790 HISTORIC LANDMARKS 00 PO #000000 VENDOR #000907 HODGES, SUSHMITA 40 PO #000000 VENDOR #001617 KELLY SERVICES, INC. 00 PO #000000 VENDOR 1001246 NATIONAL TRUST FOR 83 PO 1000000 VENDOR 1004741 PASTOR JAMES 00 PO #053951 VENDOR 4001528 SOUTH BEND DRAFTING 92 PO 1000000 VENDOR #001538 SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE COMMISSIONERS APPROPRIATION ENCUMBRANCE EXPENDITURE UN 0.00 3,806.75 42,560.93 0.00 22,563.63 BANK #02 CHECK #149239 BANK 402 CHECK #149254 BANK #02 CHECK #149258 BANK #02 CHECK 1149284 BANK 1102 CHECK 49299 BANK 102 CHECK -1149335. BANK 102 CHECK:115002ij BANK #02 CHECK 1150024: BANK'1102 CHECK 1150060: BANK 102 CHECK #150061. BANK 102 CHECK 1150079 BANK #02 CHECK 4150101: BANK 102 CHECK 1150109' BANK 102 CHECK #150129 BANK #02 CHECK #150131. EXPENDED BAL UNENCUMB BAL 19,997.30 119,997.30 Correspondence Received -- June 10 to July 13, 1992 -- The Preservationist July/August, 1992 (Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN). -- Old House Journal July/August, 1992. -- Historic Preservation May/June, 1992. -- Conference Announcement: United Way; "Understanding your Community's Future," August 11, 1992. -- Center Citv Update July, 1992, Center City Associates. -- Michiana Area.Construction Industry Advancement Fund: "Plans on File," July 6, 1992. -- Subscription Form: Kovels on Antiaues and Collectibles. -- Salvage One (Chicago, ILL) Anniversary Sale Advertisement. -- Michiana Area Construction Industry Advancement Fund: Safety Seminar Announcement, July 22, 1992, $20.00/person. -- Face of the Citv July, 1992, Newsletter, Goshen IN. -- Team Tourism May/June 1992, Indiana Department of Commerce Newsletter. -- The Mortar Board July/August 1992, Saint Joseph Valley Masonry Contractors newsletter. -- Michiana Area Construction Industry Advancement Fund: "Plans on File," June 29, 1992. Tour Announcement: "Meridian in Bloom: A Home and Garden Tour," July 11 & 12 1992, Indianapolis, IN (H.L.F.I.) -- CRM 15:4.1992. Cultural Resource Management journal, Washington, D.C. -- Preservation Tech Notes No. 1. "Restoring Vine Coverage to Historic Buildings." -- CRM Supplement Cultural Resource Management, Washington, D.C. -- Common Bond Spring 1992. Center for Historic Preservation, Middle Tennessee State University. -- Catalog Order Form: Historical Arts and Castings, Salt Lake City , Utah. -- ARM Computing advertisement. -- Subscription Form: Garba4e (Journal). -- Michiana Area Construction Industry Advancement Fund: "Plans on File," June 22, 1992. -- Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana 1991 Annual Report. -- Thank You letter: H.L.F.I., for membership dues, 1992. -- Conference Announcement: National Trust Annual Conf., Miami, FLA, Oct. 7-11, 1992. -- Michiana Area Construction Industry Advancement Fund: "Plans on File," June 8, 1992. -- Conference Announcement: "Effective Teambuilding," Colfax Cultural Center, June 23, 1992. -- Y -Line June 1992. News of the YWCA of St. Joseph County. -- Michiana Area Construction Industry Advancement Fund: "Plans on File," June 15, 1992. -- Computerland Solutions newsletter/advertisement, May/June 1992. -- National Trust advertisement: members' long-distance service.. -- Subscription Form: Proaressive Architecture. -- Announcement of Programs: "Summer in the City" June -August 1992, Northern Indian Historical Society Jul 14, 1992 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION -- STAFF APPROVALS rl-,# STREET NAME CATEGORIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------------ - 1306 ----------------- ------------ Lincolnway East porches; Repair damaged front porch roofing roof: replace deteriorated rafters and asphalt shingle roofing. 705 Lincolnway East porches; 1)Replace existing asphalt roof trim; shingle in-kind. 2 & 3), roofing Replace missing, damaged soffit, fascia, and crown moldings in-kind. 4) Add simple balustrade to lower deck of rear exterior entry stair/porch to match balustrade found on 2nd level of structure. Three sections to be erected: Two'flanking stair.wall and one on the porch's north side. 929 Milton Street (E) roofing replace asphalt shingle roof in-kind. 533 River Ave. porch; porch 1. Replace asphalt shingles on roof front porch roof with 3 in 1 tab; 2. replace missing trim pieces in-kind on porch, balustrade. 1059 Riverside Drive fence Replace deteriorated fence posts in-kind; rear fence; material to be wolmanized posts to be stained at later date. 1077 Riverside Drive trees Remove maple tree located in tree lawn along Golden Avenue and plant new tree. Remove dead pine located on property facing Riverside Drive and plant new tree. Replace maple with 4" ash. Replace spruce with 4" river birch. Grant Update: Department of the Interior Grants, 1991-1993 1991 to 1992: South Bend Resurvey On June 30, 1992 the staff brought to a completion the South Bend Historic Sites and Structures Resurvey. This project, initiated in 1986, was completed in six "phases," each lasting one year. Phase Six was begun July 1,-1991 and consisted of resurveying the outlying sections of South Bend -- the far northwest and southeast sides of the city. At the same time historic research was conducted, focusing primarily on the Outstanding (0-13) and Significant (5-11 & 12) sites. The project also consisted of data -entry of both the original survey and resurvey materials. At the end of the project, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was given the following materials as part of the terms of the grant agreement: copies of all State Survey forms for outstanding and Significant properties; proofs (photographs) and negatives for these same properties; two maps of each square -mile quadrant showing sites and structures; computer lists of all remaining sites and structures and; two sets of slides depicting forty (40) of South Bend's most significant structures. I have also agreed to supply the SHPO with computer floppy disks containing the Survey Data -base when it is complete. When the data -base is complete for the city survey (sometime this year) we will be able to easily access all sites and structures identified by the original survey and the resurvey. In addition, we now have all hard copies of state survey forms for both surveys and have also organized a separate research file to store all useful information that has-been gathered for individual sites including photographs, family histories, research notes etc. 1992 to 1993: South Bend Summary Resort On June 10, 1992 we were informed that the Indiana State Review Board allocated $24,850.00 in Department of the Interior matching grant funds to the HPC to assist in the publication of the results of the South Bend Reurvey. This money, along with Community Development Block Grant monies ($13,650.00 for• 1992; 1 am currently applying for funds for 1993), will provide the funds to compile and publish the South Bend Historic Sites and, Structures Summary Reaort, essentially the results of the resurvey. Two -hundred and fifty copies of this report will be produced; half will go to the SHPO, the remainder will be distributed at no charge to local schools, libraries, governmental agencies, etc. The report will be similar to those currently being compiled by Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana for various counties around the state of Indiana. The final product will consist of: the catalog (listing all sites and structures on the survey with relevant data); photographs of many of the structures including historic photographs; maps of all quadrants; a section explaining the survey and its methodology; an account of the city's history, architectural development and important architects; and a guide to historic resources in the city.•We are looking forward to the project and expect to produce a useful and interesting publication. F. Holycross July, 1992