Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 1992AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Monthly Meeting County Conference Roan 7:30 p.m. 7th Floor, County/City Building March 16, 1992 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 1315 East Wayne N.- East Wayne Street LHD 2. 621 Lincolnway East - Edgewater LHD 3. 12670 SR 23 - Historic Landmark IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes -- February, 1992 B. Treasurer's Report -- February, 1992 C. Correspondence D. Committee Reports 1. C of A (Staff Approvals) a. 1346 Lincolnway East - LWE LHD b. 1021 Riverside Dr. - Riverside LHD 2. Budget & Finance a. Data Entry Clerk 3. Legal 4. Historic Districts 5. Historic Landmarks a. 635 S. Main (Studebaker Administration Building) - First Reading b. Darden Road Bridge - Update 6. Public Relations & Community Education 7. Personnel 8. Staff Reports V. Old Business A. Ccmmittee Assignments B. Proposed COA Review Procedures VI. New Business A. Proposed Demolition Standards VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment COMMISSION MEETING VISITOR ROLL MARCH 16, 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. 1 XoE K) 4a+4 -p 21 2 ��—� >� 22 3 Al 23 4 T, �e-(Sd 1/ 1. Z'4 70 ���/`4�Z �� 24 5 % I�,.,� �o..� ��( 'few 25 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 March 10, 1992 STAFF REPORT 1Mr. E. Robbins Wellddy o'UhEBenad, I�NNor46b15 PROPOSAL Attach four canvas awnings to front facade (south side); Dome awnings, canvas on welded metal frame. To be installed over front entry, two front sets of windows, entry door on west wing. STANDARDS II. Existinq Structures C) Windows and Doors 2) Recommended When awnings are used, they should be of canvas material. 3) Not Recommended Metal, vinyl, or fiberglass awnings, hoods, or - shutters that would detract from the existing character or appearance of the building should not be used. -1 RECOMMENDATIONS The project is -in keeping.with the applicable standards as sited above. However, the staff recommendation is to discourage installation of the proposed awnings; they are not historically appropriate, and it is the opinion of the staff that they are not the best aesthetic solution. An historically accurate and aesthetically viable awning would have a rectangular frame. A dark colored ,canvas would be more appropriate, eg. forest green. - James V. Pastor Staff, HPC Fl j. .r 1. , . I 777 - This is an original draving created by the E.H. Awning i Tent Corporation. It to submitted for your personal use. in connection with a project being prepared for you b7 the B.B. Awning G Tent Corporation. This design and engineering 1s to remain the exclusive property of the 2.E. Awing i Tent Corporation under the agr-t that the use of this design in its entirety or any part will not be reproduced. copied. lent. or uasd for any purpose without written consent from the I.K. Awning i Tent Design Corporation." Cost eeee�a 'K�t i = I -4. l.' , ir l"i I'-.. JOB TITLE: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN By: SMCCE 7922 .KLt1Y.EP� ^1 2275 S. U-139 a BENTON HARBOR. A11 49072 (616) 925.2157 raz: wo m -zip, CUSTOMER APPROVAL SICIUrM: B.H. KWNING & ENI i k Page No. Pro w3al - BENT®N HARBOR ;AWNING & TENT CO., INC. 2275 M-139 BENTON HARBOR. Nllr i!GA'•< ?722 5' (616) 925-2187 Kalamazoo (616) 345-:131 ?OSAL SUBMITTED TO Gob _k We\rpt, STREET r \3\ is CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE So o4 VA e w V - 14 li,, ARCHITECT I DATE OF PLANS Weherebysubmit specifications and estimates for: I PHONE 7-12- —1152-15 l lt�t*�C'.I DATE 2155-5x75 wqr 2 -9Z JOB NAME JOB LOCATION [JOB PHONE �:kJQQVSE% 4 S tjs-, l\l.L. W e.\&(%A 1Y 6-,,, c Smarr c o v -e ir -� •1 r-% 5-b- t\ CkA t o r- .J Cc,rrgr gue Cover b5"i� oa G,�78 89.r�o 2)32G (P— Pages ALL YinAT�'Qt�:L, LhuoC2 t *-%s1f\LLAZlof,4S }li-,cF9 Fnt2 oi,3E q,:7nk f QoM OPTS. 01�- Iw -1 f\11t-N'"t%0W . Pii1}1IISp hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: dollars ($ Z Z`� • (� U 1: Payment to be made as follows: ` Service charge Of 1%% per month will be added on any past due hatanco All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike (�� p (� `/ � manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifica- Authorized /�,>L. �'lt.v� \.1� X tions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders. and will become an Signature V extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes• accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire• tornado and other necessary insurance. Note: This proposal may be Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. withdrawn by us if not.accepted i-th— t) 2 f 91 q Z II II Araptatirr of Fropiu Ml —The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Signature Date of Acceptance: days. March 10, 1992 STAFF REPORT Mr. Joseph MacHatton, JMA Properties 621 Lincolnway East South Bend, IN 46601 PROPOSAL The owner wishes to convert the building into office space on the first level while retaining rental units on the second level. The proposals in this application are aimed at making the building marketable for these purposes. Proposal 1: Reduce size of one window on south-east side. Install wood 1/1 double hung sash. Proposal 4: Install aluminum combination storm windows and doors. STANDARDS II. Existinq Structures A) Buildinq Materials 1) Required Existing exterior building materials shall be retained. ... 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. 2) Recommended Whenever possible, the original building materials should be restored. Aluminum or vinyl siding may be used when it is the only feasible alternative to maintainina the original surface material. When used on wood surfaces this siding should be the same size and style as the oriainal wood. However, it must be noted that such material can contribute to the deterioration of the structure from moisture and Proposal 2a: Extend front porch, -build new.steps; build full length wood posts, untapered. Proposal 2b: Add two entry doors in place of existing windows (width of eyistir_g will be retained). Doors will be steel core doors with no glazing. A Proposal 3: Install vinvl siding, soffit, and fascia. Proposal 4: Install aluminum combination storm windows and doors. STANDARDS II. Existinq Structures A) Buildinq Materials 1) Required Existing exterior building materials shall be retained. ... 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. 2) Recommended Whenever possible, the original building materials should be restored. Aluminum or vinyl siding may be used when it is the only feasible alternative to maintainina the original surface material. When used on wood surfaces this siding should be the same size and style as the oriainal wood. However, it must be noted that such material can contribute to the deterioration of the structure from moisture and .4) Not Recommended Original porch details should not be replaced with materials representing a different period or style from, the original. insects. u 3) Prohibited Wood siding shall_ not be resurfaced with new material_ which is inappropriate or was unavailable when the buildina was constructed, such as artificial stone, brick veneer, asbestos or asphalt shinales. 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 original. 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, design and hardware should be used. When metal storm windows and doors are used they should be painted, 'anodized or coated to match the existing. 3) Prohibited Existing or 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 may not be introduced. Inappropriate new window or door features ... that reauire the removal of original windows and doors may not be installed. D) Entrances. Porches, and Steps 1) Required Existing or original porches and ste_rs shall be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design and materials when deteriorated beyond repair. Porches and additions reflectina later architectural steles, and which are important to the building'_ historic integrity shall be retained. 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. ?_ i 1d4na }hK:`t"t?ti-i .'�Tl t_Y .mit __.i T_ini�eln• .!a. _v--_ _c• Cl assi c 2ueen Anne -ori ni na i ' 1� 1L 1 t af: a sing -le fami 1 P _27 e rr: and later altered to accommodate several- t e,:ants _ A't erat_o :s are major: the building is covered with asbestos shingle siding, with the criminal wood clapboard underneath; alum-inum storms have been installed. The Sites and Structures inventory has the rating recorded as "R" or "Reference". g} gitPl�ron"text; the building originally stood between single family residences of a similar era and style. These have since been demolished, moved, or altered beyond recognition. Buildings of similar volume, style, and appearance exist several lots to the south within the district boundaries and also on the other side of Lincolnway East. RECOMMENDATIONS The staff asserts: that the majority of proposals in this application are not appropriate as they are -not in keep'na with the Edgewater Place Local Historic District standards and compromise what remains of the b i'cing's hiStoric fakir, r. Proposal 1: This proposal is not in keening with the standard ( TT staff recolTLnends against the window alteration. -- - <� Proposal 2a: The general form and design of the proposed porch is in keeping with the standards (II.D) and with the character and style of the building. The proposed full length front porch is as characteristic of the style as the existing truncated version. The staff recommends that any approved alteration scheme for the porch include the retention of the clapboard wall/balustrade and half-length tapered box columns as they are important characteristics of both the porch and building on the whole. Proposal 2b: This proposal is not in keeping with the standards as sited above (II.C). Alteration of the existing window openings and introduction of two more entries to the front facade would greatly alter the building's character, style, and scale; it would also make for an awkward facade composition despite being partially concealed by the extended front porch. The staff recommends that the additional entries be placed at the rear facade. The commission approved a certificate for this property in December of 1991 that called for the demolition of a large rear vestibule/porch; the commission required that the facade be secured until the owner had the funds to rehabilitate the newly exposed rear wall. Placing the additional_ entries along this facade would not only be appropriate in the context of this review, but in light of the previous case. Placing the entries at the rear would make more design sense since parking for the patrons and employees of prospective enterprises can only be accommodated at the rear of the lot due to the nature of the site. Proposal 3: This proposal is not in keeping with the applicable standards (II.A). The staff recommends that any approved proposal regarding siding require that the existing roof and window trim be retained and restored. Fitting the building with vinyl siding, given the building's altered character and context, is in keeping with the staff's interpretation of the Edgewater Place Historic District standards. However, the optimum preservation plan for the building would be to remove the existing synthetic siding and restore the original clapboard. Proposal 4: This proposal is in keeping with the applicable standards (II.C). - James V. Pastor Staff, HPC t . .. . ... ...... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cz/ E. ,fr ;oq M, February 21, 1992 STAFF REPORT Thomas Selsor, 12670 SR 23 Berkeley Corp. Granger, IN 46530 PROPOSAL Rehabilitate English Barn (c. 1845) into commercial space: A. SIDING Replace existing wood siding (c. 1919) in-kind. B. WINDOWS & DOORS 1. Build doors to match 1875 elevation. Doors will be fixed in place, non -opening. Install glass in doors as shown in 1875 sketch. 2. Replace two existing medallions on front facade with round lights of same size to allow light in upper loft space. 3. Replace existing openings on sides with same or similar size windows. 4. Add windows and build air lock entry at rear elevation as shown in submitted plans. Entry doors to barn to be built around existing support post as shown. C. SITE Open area at rear to be paved for parking as shown. 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 Style - 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. RECOMMENDATIONS This adaptive reuse proposal retains the form and material types of the' .barn as it was built in c. 1845 and renovated in c. 1919. The context of the landmark has been significantly altered over the last decade; the character and setting provided by an intact farmstead has been lost. The proposed rehabilitation project, both the treatment of the building and site, is in keeping with the interpretation of landmark standards since the declaration of landmark status. James V. Pastor; Staff, HPC �b V) fi -7 TTT'[ n r i- i 10: iI.1 I A; 14 i , Tij . ; , I I ! , : : a LP Ail 4 :Ltv�j, I tOUV �LFVATIO�l 9? Co tA C�l 2-z TREASURER'S REPORT: FEBRUARY -1992 As can be seen from the St. Joseph County computer ledger (account #001.39211.000.034) for February, 1992, we have incurred no unusual expenses. This month's expenditures came to $2,981.23. Our unencumbered account balance is $35,204.70 with $752.33 encumbered but not yet expended. 02192 10/10/91 ENCUMB 8.00 PO #051071 VENDOR #007716 C.B.I./GRAPHICS . 02192 11/18/91 ENCUMB 15.00 PO #051713 VENDOR #001246 NATIONAL TRUST FOR 02/92 12/03/91 ENCUMB 645.83 PO #051924 VENDOR #004741 PASTOR JAMES 02/92 02/04/92 APPROP 9.00 02/92 02/04/92 CLAIM 220.50 PO #000000 VENDOR #007044 BOOKER SUZANNE BANK #02 CHECK 1140223 02/92 02/04/92 CLAIM 97.00 PO #000000 VENDOR #007716 C.B.I./GRAPHICS BANK 102 CHECK 1140230 02/92 02/04/92 CLAIM 220.50 I.PO 1000000 VENDOR #000907.HODGES, SUSHMITA BANK #02 CHECK 1140272; 02/92'02/04/92,CLAIM 645:83 PO #000000-VENDOR1004741 PASTOR JAMES BANK X02 CHECK #160334; 02/92 02/18/92 CLAIM 454.00 PO_#OOOOOO'VENDOR 4007044 BOOKER SUZANNE BANK #02 CHECK #140840; 02/92 02/18/92 CLAIM 115.50 .PO 1000000 VENDOR #007716 C.B.I./GRAPHICS BANK #02 CHECK #140845: 02/92 02/18192 CLAIM 441.00. 'PO"#000000 VENDOR 1000907 HODGES, SUSHMITA BANK #02 CHECK #140886' 02/92 02/18/92 CLAIM 141.07 PO #000000 VENDOR #001154 MICHIANA AREA COUNCIL OF BANK 102 CHECK #140930 02/92 02/18/92 CLAIM 645.83 PO #000000 VENDOR #004741 PASTOR JAMES BANK #02 CHECK 1140953 02/92 02/26/92 ENCUMB 83.50 PO #053287 VENDOR #000553 DILLS CAMERA SHOP 00 —1.000.034 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONERS ESTIMATED REV RECEIPTS UNRECV REV BAL APPROPRIATION ENCUMBRANCE EXPENDITURE UNEXPENDED BAL UNENCUMB BAL CUR 0.00 0.00 9.00 2,981.23 TOT 0.00 0.00 0.00 42,560.93. 752.33 6,603.90 35,957.03 35,204.7Q page 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 17, 1992 County Conference Room 7:30 p.m. 7th Floor, County/City Building I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. II. Roll Call Members Present: Mr. Bill Welsheimer, Mr. Herb Herendeen, Mr. Jed Eide, Mrs. Jean Dennen, Mrs. Joanne Sporleder, Mr. John Oxian--President, Mr. Fred Holycross--Director, Mr. James Pastor --Administrative Assistant, Mrs. Aladean DeRose--City Attorney, Sushmita Hodges --Research Assistant, Suzanne Booker --Surveyor. Members Absent: Mrs. Janeanne Petrass, Mrs. Martha Choitz. Also Present: Mr. Steve Luecke--President, South Bend Common Council, Mr. Michael Kahle --68286 Miami, Mr. John Axelburg--1501 E. Wayne, Mr. Paul Rohleder, Ms. Kathy Barnett, Ms. Karen Moss, Mr. Jeff Moss, Mr. Max Moore, Ms. Jann Perkins, G. Kourkas, Ms. Wana Knight, Mr. Bob Edgerton, Ms. Linda Edgerton, Ms. Vicki Fritz, Ms. Dayle Brown, Ms. Marilyn Adams, Mr. Gene Moody, Mr. David Warner, Mr. Mark Hodges, Mr. Rick Heisfrieb, Ms. Evelyn Kovac Leusch, Ms. Judy Swafford, Mr. Dale Swafford, Ms. Oli Swafford, Mr. Gary Stephenson, Ms. Patricia Birky, Ms. Andrea Kilbase, Mr. Richard Kilbase, Mr. Edward Gonzales Sr., Mr. Stephen Brademas, Ms. Susan Visser, Ms. Karen McKibbon, Mr. Scott McKibbon, Ms. Janet Holdren, R. Finnegan, Mr. Ed Gagzicki, D. Brown, Ms. Karen Holdsworth, Mr. Sam McKinsey, Brauslaus Sauulis, Mr. Joe Menning, J. Hasadreus, Mr. Kevin Boughal--South Bend Tribune. III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 68286 Miami Road --Local Landmark. Mr. Pastor reported that the C of A Committee had met the previous week to review this and other applications. He summarized both the committee and staff reviews of the project: an 8 -part proposal for alterations to the landmark farmstead, as submitted by the owner, Mr. Mike Kahle. page 2 The proposed alterations were as follows. a. Remove three evergreen trees and various shrubs along west and south facades of main house. Mr. Pastor reported that, based on survey photos from 1976, the trees/shrubs were not original; also, they appeared to be encroaching on the house. Mr. Eide moved to approve the removal; Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion; motion approved unanimously. b. Reroof main*house with 3 -in -1 tab asphalt shingles. Mr. Pastor reported that the existing roofing was copper lock asphalt shingle; the reroofing project was deemed appropriate. Mr. Eide moved to approve the reroofing; Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion; motion approved unanimously. c. Remove a 1/1 double hung sash in the rear kitchen wing and replace with clad swinging patio door d. Remove sealed storm cellar entry under this window and install wood deck. Mr. Pastor asked that proposals c. and d. be considered -together. He -reported -that -the -staff recommended against replacement of the window because it would alter the opening and introduce new building materials. Based on examination of the foundation, the kitchen wing appeared to be of nearly the same age as the rest of the house. The storm cellar door, he said, was inoperable. Nevertheless, its removal and the installation of a wood deck would alter the landmark's historic character. The C of A committee recommended a modified proposal; replace the 1/1 double hung sash with a fully -glazed 1 -leaf door instead of a 2 -leaf patio door. This would preserve the width of the original opening. Also, the deck should be freestanding, removable, and should have spindlework mirroring the spindiework in front of the house. The cellar door should remain; the deck would be built over it. Mr. Kahle pointed out that the proposed deck was behind the house, not visible from the street. Mr. Oxian said that all facades of a structure page 3 were equally significant. Nowhere in landmark or district standards is the front of a structure deemed more important than the sides and back. Mr. Eide said the committee recommendation was an attempted compromise between the owner's wishes and and the landmark standards. A glazed 1 -leaf door would preserve the original opening. Mr. Kahle said he wanted to let more light into the kitchen wing. A single -leaf door did not suit his intentions_ He pointed out that the house already had five doors. He felt a double door would look better than the door the committee recommended. Mr. Herendeen said a double -door would change the basic design of the house. The committee's recommendations were intended to preserve the stylistic integrity of the house_ Mr. Kahle rejected the committee's recommendations and indicated that he would rather forego the project altogether. Mr. Oxian advised him that he had two choices; to forego the project or to appear before the County Council to argue his case. Mr. Herendeen moved to approve the committee recommendations for parts c. and d. of the proposal --.—Mr . Eide--secondedthemotion --Mrs Sporleder abstained, saying she did not yet adequately__,qrasp the Problem. Mr. Welshe_imer also abstained. Motion approved. e. Remove rolling metal door and adjacent metal entry door at south side of cinderblock garage; replace with Clopay brand door to fit entire masonry opening. Mr. Pastor reported that the Committee deemed this appropriate, but recommended a slightly different style of door --one with recessed panels --which would be more compatible with the style of the structure. There was no price difference. Mr. Kahle said he didn't care which style of garage door was chosen. Mrs. Sporleder moved to allow the owner to decide which of the two styles of door to install; Mr. E_ide..,. seconded the motion. Approved unanimously_. f. Remove wood panel entry door with 1/3 page 4 .multiparae glazing at west side of garage. Replace with a metal insulated door. g. Demolished gabled wood outbuilding east of garage. h. Remove corrugated metal siding on matching shed and re -side with contemporary counterpart_ Mr. Pastor summarized the staff recommendations for parts f, g and h. They were as follows: --substitute a different model of entry door for the garage. The owner proposed to install a metal door with simulated criss-cross stickwork; the committee recommended on with simulated wood panel detailing. --restoration and re -use of the gabled outbuilding, which dated from c. 1940 and was in fair condition. Should demolition be allowed, Mr. Kahle should be required to document the structure with photographs, measured drawings, or other descriptive methods (Group B standards, part D). --unqualified approval of part h. Mr. Herendeen asked Mr. Kahle about the gabled outbuilding's condition. Mr. Kahle said it was badly deteriorated, "an eyesore." Mrs. Sporleder asked._what__ty_P_e__of internal structure the outbuilding had. Mr. Holycross said -it balloon frame, set on an older hand-hewn foundation. Mr. Herendeen said that, because the outbuilding was deteriorated, and not particularly old, the committee had decided to permit its demolition. It should, however, be formally documented for the benefit of future owners, who might wish to replace it. Mrs. Dennen questioned Mr. Kahle and ascertained that the outbuilding lay about 20 ' from the main building. Mr. Herendeen moved to accept the committee report on the last three parts of the proposal. Mrs. Sporleder seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian abstained. Motion approved. Mr. Oxian directed Mr. Kahle to consult Mr. Holycross regarding the approved parts of the proposal. page S 2. 1501 E. Wayne --Local Historic District Mr. Pastor described this as another lengthy proposal, most parts of which had received staff approval. Only two alterations required the commission's attention, he said. These were: a. Replace 2/3 glazed wood panel garage entry door with an unglazed Colonial -style metal door. b. Replace rear porch balcony railing with spindle railing, and encase intermittent posts with 1" pine boards. Mr. Pastor reported that these projects were begun without a C of A. A formal C of A application had been received in early February, 1992. All parts of the proposal, except the balcony rail, were already complete. Mr. Oxian asked Mr. Axelburg to describe the garage door he'd replaced. Mr. Axelburg replied that the original door was 1/2 glazed wood panel, and had been broken by thieves who had then robbed the garage. In the interests of security, he needed an unglazed door. Mr. Axelburg presented samples of the replacement balcony spindles and rail. He said the balustrade he was replacing appeared to date from the 1960's. Mr. Pastor said the staff's only real objection to the new balustrade was the out -of -scale sizing of the intermittent posts. Mr. Axelburg said that, due to water seepage problems, he had decided to replace the old posts altogether with smaller posts. Mr. Eide moved to approve the balcony railing, based on the downsizing of the posts. Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion. Approved unanimously. B. Proposed Local Historic District -- Near Northwest Neighborhood. Mr. Oxian, using a map, described the boundaries of three proposed historic districts within the Near Northwest Neighborhood. The largest, introduced as ordinance by Steve Luecke, was bounded by the alley between Sherman Avenue and Harrison Street, California Avenue, Portage Avenue, and properties up to, but not including, Lincoln West. page 6 A second proposal, put forward by Mr. Oxian himself, was bounded by the alley behind Harrison Street, Van Buren Street, the alley behind Scott Street, and the Near Northwest boundaries from Harrison to Cushing street. A third proposal, suggested by the HPC staff, consisted of two much smaller areas within the ordinance -proposed district. A fourth proposal, taken from the original 1976 survey book, included the entire Near Northwest neighborhood. Mr. Oxian then outlined the purpose of the hearing, and its format. The HPC, he said, had a variety of choices --approve the ordinance district, reject this district, propose alternate boundaries, etc. He asked for presentations from the floor, to be followed by a question -and -answer session. He asked Mr. Luecke to make the first presentation. Mr. Luecke requested a summary of the staff's recommendation. Mr. Holycross presented this summary, first pointing out that the purpose of the hearing was to directly address the proposed ordinance. There wasn't adequate time, he said, to consider or to formulate any alternate proposals. Mr. Luecke had introduced the ordinance NOv. 23, 1991; a decision must be reached before the 90 -day review period expired Feb. 23. Should no decision be reached, the ordinance would automatically receive a favorable recommendation from the HPC. Mr. Oxian said that other recommendations could be sent to the Common Council. Mr. Holycross then said that the staff recommendation was based on an abbreviated analysis. The 90 -day review period imposed by the ordinance did not permit an adequate study of the neighborhood_ He asked that the staff's conclusions be considered in this light. Mr. Holycross reported that the proposed district contained apx. 362 primary structures. He summarized the four criteria which qualify an neighborhood to become a historic district. These are: --historical and cultural significance --education value --suitability for preservation --portrayal of a group of people in a historic area The staff recommendation was to send an unfavorable recommendation for the proposed district to the Common Council, and to suggest possible alternative page 7 boundaries to the petitioning group. This decision was based on these four conclusions: --the proposed district failed to meet the four criteria for the establishment of a historic district, as mandated by city ordinance and by HPC procedure --the proposed district did not meet the generally accepted criteria for local historic district designation --an insufficient number of historically contributing structures existed within the proposed boundaries. Only 38 % of the primary buildings were historically contributing --the proposed district was too large for the current HPC staff to administer. Mr. Holycross then summarized the basis of these four conclusions. The neighborhood, he said, is primarily a working-class district not markedly different from others of its kind in the city. While the area did portray a group of people within a historic area, it was not a particularly distinctive example. Further, the area was of only average education value. Many alterations, additions, and ahistorical building materials existed, all of which detracted from the area's historical context. In the past five years, according to a recent windshield survey, the number of contributing structures had declined 16%. Thus, while pockets of structures which might qualify as historic districts existed within the area's boundaries, the area as a whole lacked an adequate concentration of historic structures to warrant designation as a historic district. Mr. Holycross pointed out that to add the entire district would approximately double the HPC staff's workload. Also, the Near Northwest Neighborhood Association had yet to demonstrate sufficient owner support for the district. He cited the petition sent to the Common Council, which had only 63 signatures --approximately 16% of the area's homeowners. Finally, Mr_ Holycross said that the staff's proposed alternate districts were, at this stage, mere suggestions. At least 6 month's preparation time was needed, he felt, before any alternate proposals could be formally advanced. He asked the HPC to grant these six months. Mr. Luecke then made his presentation. First, he apologized for the shortness of the 90 -day review page 8 period. Since this limit was specified by the ordinance, he said, perhaps the ordinance should be amended to provide more preparation time. He pointed out, however, that the NNW neighborhood group had worked with the MPC staff before the ordinance was introduced. The introduction was, in fact, delayed to allow more preparation time, and would have been delayed still longer had Mr. Holycross not indicated that it was all right to begin formal proceedings. He conceded that the staff report held many accurate and appropriate observations; some of these, however, actually pointed up the reasons for creating a district. Certainly the area had lost some historic structures since the first 1976 survey had named it a potential historic district; creating a district, it was hoped, would halt this loss and preserve the neighborhood's distinctive historic fabric. True, the area had many structures with ahistoric alterations. As the HPC staff had argued in the December, 1991 Lincolnway East secession hearing, however, these alterations could be reversed and the structures restored to historically contributing status. The issue of support, he said, was indeed critical. He had been given a petition with 123 signatures since the ordinance had been introduced. Members of the steering committee had been working to garner more support. He said that, over the past few years, perceptions of historic districts had been changing; historic district designation was no longer just for elite neighborhoods, but for working-class areas as well. Nine local landmarks existed within the proposed boundaries. He said the issue of the HPC's administrative capacity should not be the deciding factor. If the staff was too small, it might be increased. The benefits of creating this historic district, he said, included the preservation of good housing stock, the upgrading of deteriorated structures, and increased investment in the neighborhood. Also, to belong to a historic district would honor the residents and make people proud to live in this area. Finally, in the, event that the proposed district received an unfavorable recommendation, he asked the HPC for alternate proposals to send to the Common Council. page 9 Mr. Oxian then further clarified the format of the hearing. He imposed a 2-3 minute time limit on each speaker, and reserved the right to call on a few selected individuals first. He then called on Mr. David Fritz, president of the NNWNA and owner of two landmark properties within the proposed district. Mr. Fritz distributed pamphlets to the commission members describing the historic merits of the NNW neighborhood. He asked why a way had not been found to grant the MPC staff more review time. Next, he objected to parts of the staff report. The contention that the proposed district lacked "unusual of distinct merit," he said, was elitist. A middle - and working-class neighborhood such as the proposed district might not be unusual or distinct, but the people living there were the ones who "made" South Bend. The neighborhood had developed between 1880 and 1930, South Bend's industrial boom, and still housed the same class of people who built it. The contributions of such people should be recognized and preserved. He said that, while many of the buildings did indeed have ahistorical alterations, imposing a district would help reverse these alterations. He urged the commission members to read through the pamphlet and learn about the significant local families (Muessel, Cushing) associated with the area. Mr. Oxian then opened the floor to all other speeches in favor of the proposal. An unidentified man listed several prominent local families associated with the neighborhood_ The area was, he said, among the oldest communities in South Bend. Failing to preserve it would be "sinful." The owner of 718 Cottage Grove then spoke. He said' his house dated from the late 1800's, and he was fully aware of the restrictions a district might bring. He believed, however, that to declare a district was the only way to save his neighborhood's fast -disappearing historical character. To him, the area represented an important and ongoing middle-class working family tradition. this and other characteristics, made it distinct. Next, Ms. Vicki Fritz voiced her concern that many homeowners in the district misunderstood the petitioners' intentions. The petitioners had no vision, she said, of suddenly and drastically restoring the area to its original state. Rather, page 10 they he gradual Mr. Jeff Moss of 701 Cottage Grove then spoke of the need to maintain property values in the area, and to take positive action to halt the loss of its historic character. To oppose the proposal was a negative act which would reinforce the area's decline. Mr. Oxian interjected that, at this time, the HPC could only approve or disapprove the boundaries of the proposed district. Standards, to be written by the neighborhood association, would be adopted much later, after boundaries were set. C of A procedures do not go into effect until both boundaries and standards were officially in place. This method of establishing districts differed, he said, from the method used to establish South Bend's other local historic districts. Previously, boundaries and standards had been drawn up together, and approved as a package by at least a 51% majority vote within the district. Presentations resumed. The owner of 627 Leland said that owners already were required to meet a variety of city standards when they undertook construction projects. Broad and flexible district standards were possible, and would halt deterioration and, perhaps, bring about zoning changes forbidding multifamily occupancy. An unidentified woman again raised the issue of why the HPC staff couldn't get more time to study the proposal. Mr. Oxian said that more delay would have been possible using the older method of establishing districts. The method being used in this particular case --creation of a district by ordinance --entailed a 90 -day review period. The 90 days had expired. The owner of 744 Cottage Grove spoke briefly; she pointed out that the proposed district was within walking distance of downtown South Bend. Ms. Linda Edgerton of 520 Leland then stated that the neighborhood's historic character had been steadily fading during her 16 years of residence. She affirmed the neighborhood's importance, tracing its origins to the 1820's and claiming that many of the homes were built around clapboard cabins dating from the pioneering era. Further, to designate a historic district here would justly honor the working class. Ms. Dayle Brown of 713 Cushing said she'd moved into page 11 the district because she loved its historic character --its brick streets and beautiful old homes. She had brought letters of support from people unable to attend the hearing. A resident of 420 W. Madison said her house was very close to three fine churches. If the neighborhood was good enough for these churches, it was good enough to be a historic district. The owner of 608 Cushing said his house was old and beautiful, and he was trying to preserve it. Many of the houses near him, however --houses of similar character --were deteriorating. The owner of 428 W. Monroe said that the neighborhood was in a critical state, balanced between decline and improvement. Standards, she felt, would make a crucial difference in this balance. Mr. Richard Kilbase of 733 N. Scott said one of the city's goals was to foster a vital inner-city neighborhood. Considerable money had already been invested in the area to revive the inner city; standards would protect the improvements, and encourage further investment. The owner of 428 W. Navarre said that, 10 years before, the house opposite his had been the finest on the street. Now, it was a wreck. Such decay should be stopped. Ms. Andrea Kilbase of 743 N. Scott said the proposed district area had great potential for improvement. Admittedly, there were problems; but it was better to confront these problems than to abandon the neighborhood. She hoped a district would help save the neighborhood. The owner of 627 Leland said she and her husband had worked hard to maintain their 1910 home, but were dismayed by the rapid deterioration on all sides. Mr. Dave Warner of 624 Leland said he lived in a fine old home, near houses of similar character. At present, his neighbors were trying to maintain their houses; but he feared that, without a district, more and more of these houses would undergo alterations, and become nondescript. Mr. Paul Rohleder of 722 Harrison, a life -lona resident, said he had invested heavily in his own home. He had seen many of his neighbors fall prey to vandalism, arson, burglary etc. He hoped a district page 12 would help cut down on crime. Presentations opposing the district then commenced. Mr. Max Moore of 602 Harrison spoke first. He said he had submitted a petition, with 50 signatures, opposing the district. He said the city could not manage so large a district. The majority of properties within the boundaries were rental properties. The petitioners had told him a historic district would rid the neighborhood of landlords; also, they had implied that funds for home repair would become available if a district were declared. He now knew there were no such funds. Further, he thought it destructive to oppose the landlords, and advocated working with them, not against them. If the landlords moved out, their properties would simply fall into ruin_ Mr. Oxian said the district was in no way anti -landlord. Mr. Moore said every businessman on the stretch of Lincolnway West bordering the district had signed his opposing petition. Mr. Oxian pointed out that Lincoln West lay outside the district boundaries. Mr. Moore declared that a district would not help the neighborhood. It was so crime -ridden, he said, that residents were afraid to go out at night. It needed sidewalks, curbs, and street signs. These basic needs should be met before any talk of a historic district began. Further, the area was not middle-income; it was low-income. Few residents could afford district standards. Thus, while he was not opposed in principle to historic districts, he felt his own area was a poor candidate. The owner of 620 Harrison said he owned, and was remodeling, three properties within the proposed district. He agreed that there were prime historic areas within the boundaries, and said he had witnessed the neighborhood's decline over the last 17 years. This decay, however, he ascribed to a lack of investment capital for homeowners. Landlords proliferated there because they generally invested very little in their properties. Because these landlords were unwilling to invest, they would simply abandon their properties if standards were imposed. What the neighborhood really needed, he concluded, was financing, not a historic district. Mr. Oxian said that, in other districts, landlords had so far complied with standards. page 13 Mr. Moore's daughter, owner of 602 Harrison, argued that the district's original occupants were middle-class people who did as they liked with their homes. The present occupants should have that same right. If standards were imposed, everyone in the district would be subject to standards, and might only later discover what a nuisance standards were. Mr. Oxian replied that district standards were devised by the residents of a district themselves; the HPC did not mandate them. Landmarks were created by owner consent. Mr. Glenn Moody of 418 W. Madison asked whether the HPC had received his letter of opposition. He declared he still meant everything he'd said in the letter, and left. The owner of 602 Harrison resumed, saying that, while she did not advocate abandoning the neighborhood to decay, she viewed the prospect of district standards with trepidation. She wanted to know what kind of standards they would be; she feared that standards would keep residents from making such repairs as were within their reach. The owner of 510 Lindsey then asked what benefits a historic district offered him; he was not aware of any. Mr. Oxian repeated that neighborhood residents themselves wrote district standards. The HPC offered advice, made model standards available, etc. Decks and vinyl siding were not automatically prohibited, and the HPC always considered owners' individual needs and circumstances when ruling on C of A's. The purpose of this hearing, he said, was simply to establish boundaries; standards were still far in the future. Also, since the issues of standards and of absentee landlords were irrelevant, he wanted no more discussion of them. Ms. Jann Perkins of 602 Harrison said standards would keep homeowners from maintaining their houses in practical, economical, up-to-date ways. She sympathized with Mr. Kahle, the evening's first C of A petitioner, and wondered why he couldn't build a deck if he wanted to. The proposed district, she went on, was a low-income area, and its residents could only afford modest repairs. They were maintaining their homes as best they could, and the burden of standards might make them simply move out. Finally, she questioned why, page 14 if historic districts were such a good thing, the residents of Nappanee and Lincolnway East wanted out of theirs. Mr. Oxian said the Nappanee HPC had been unreasonably strict. Next, he pointed out that standards were not imposed retroactively; residents weren't required to return their homes to their pristine state. Mr. Kahle, he said, knew his home was a landmark when he bought it, and was aware of the attendant responsibilities. Also, although Mr. Kahle's farmstead was virtually unaltered, the HPC had compromised with him, and approved most parts of his proposal. Standards were imposed even more flexibly on heavily -altered structures. Ms. Judy Swafford, landlord of 710 and 736 Harrison, said she had bought these houses because, originally, she thought the neighborhood was quiet. Now, she struggled to find respectable tenants. She wrote strict leases, visited regularly, and made sure the houses were maintained. While the area did indeed have fine houses and historic character, it was "a war zone." She decried the many dilapidated rental properties in the area and suggested the landlords work together to rid the area of this problem. She didn't think a district would be any help, however. Ms. Swafford's daughter, Oli Swafford, spoke next. She said she did all her mother's repair work, free of charge. There wasn't much money for repair, so she did her best with the money she had. She lacked the expertise and the financial resources to follow historic standards. Mr. Ron Murray of 707 N. Cushing then asked Mr. Luecke if the proposal could be shelved, and resubmitted later. Mr. Luecke said shelving the bill would mean a 1 --year delay before it could be reintroduced. Mr. Murray said, at present, he did not favor the bill, partly because he couldn't afford standards.. He'd bought his home with money borrowed from NHS. NNS had since moved out, precipitating a serious decline in the neighborhood. He described some of his own financial struggles, and said many of his neighbors were in similar circumstances. He said the area had many old homes meriting preservation, but the neighborhood as a whole had much more pressing problems. A historic district might be considered later, when other problems had abated. Next, he said he didn't think the area's total page 15 population had been fairly represented. If the bill were shelved, there would be more time to properly inform all area residents about the proposal, and to gauge their support. Ms. Karen Holtzworth of 911 Cottage Grove said she had gone to the meeting simply to learn more about the proposed district. Though at first she had been neutral about the proposal, she now felt the standards could be administered flexibly. She noted that the neighborhood had become so dangerous that she was ready to leave it, simply to protect her family. Many of her neighbors felt the same. She now hoped, however, that a historic district --or some other mechanism --might save the neighborhood. Mr. Oxian then asked each commission member for a statement. Mr. Herendeen spoke first. He said that he advocated preservation of all significant buildings, but felt the petitioners greatly overestimated the HPC's powers. There were so many structures within the proposed district that the HPC could not possibly administer it. It was a struggle to obtain funding for the existing HPC staff; the notion of increased funding was unrealistic. Before he could consider approving such a large district, he continued, he would have to see evidence of a large and committed group of homeowners, willing to support the district and to do the intensive preparation work a district required. The 123 signatures on the petition did not constitute such evidence. Even when a district was created with majority vote, as the Lincolnway East historic district had been, serious conflicts arose. The HPC, he said, had no power to change existing structures. It could do nothing about abandoned or neglected houses, such as the Potpourri on Lincolnway East. It did not administer the district; this difficult task was left to the neighborhood associations. Creating a historic district would not change the zoning, or have any effect on the interiors of houses. Only city departments could take action to correct unsafe conditions, install curbs, and fight crime. In conclusion, he urged__the_peti_tio_ners_to_mai_ntain their good intentions, but to seek more support for their district. Mr. Eide sympathized with the petitioners' concerns page 16 and goals, but agreed that their -expectations were unrealistic. A historic district would not cut down on arson or on the number of rental properties. To administer any district was difficult; to administer a district without majority support would be impossible. The true test of support, person signed a petition, voted for a proposal. He to imposing a district by proof of support. he said, was not whether a but whether he actually objected, for this reason, ordinance, without proper For all these reasons, he said he would vote against the proposed boundaries. Mrs. Sporleder praised the presentations from the floor, saying they showed real concern for the community. Historic districts, however, could not directly address these concerns. What a district did was to let residents decide what they valued about their neighborhood, what they hoped to accomplish, and how they might reach their goals. She advocated the older method of establishing historic districts. Though long and tedious, this method assured a solid core of well-informed neighborhood support. The only way to enforce standards was through neighborhood support; the HPC did not run a security force. She urged tabling the ordinance to give the petitioners more time for preliminary work. Mr. Welsheimer, identifying himself as a lifelong Near Northwest resident, then spoke. He cited several examples of deteriorated local neighborhoods that had been dramatically revived, despite serious problems. The Park Avenue and West Washington Historic Districts were cases in point. He believed the petitioners had worthy goals, and that the neighborhood had much potential. He thought it would be wrong to abandon the proposal, and suggested giving the residents more.time to talk, set goals, and reach agreements. Mrs. Dennen emphasized the lack of support evidenced by the small number of signatures on the petition. She warned that writing standards for such a large neighborhood would be a long and difficult task. She urged more of the petitioners to attend neighborhood -committee -meet-ings--so they cool -d - bet ter--- understand---and help shape --a historic district. She had personal experience, she said, of the Page 17 problems peculiar to the creating of a historic district. She had helped establish the East Wayne Historic District. She noted that, although 800 of E. Wayne residents initially supported the district, many had later turned against it; it had, in fact, barely passed_ Mr. Fritz stated that the petition had only been circulated to resident homeowners; it was means of gauging, for Mr. Luecke's benefit, the approximate level of resident homeowner support. Secondly, administering the district should be viewed as a separate issue from the setting of its boundaries. Worrying prematurely about administrative difficulties would bias the commission members' judgment. Mr. Herendeen asked how these two issues could possibly be separated. Mr. Fritz suggested that the HPC was simply underfunded; increased funding would increase its administrative capacity. Mr. Murray objected to the deliberate exclusion of all but resident homeowners from the petitioning process. Mr. Oxian explained that the petitioning was part of a new, and still unfamiliar, method of creating historic districts by ordinance. The thing to remember, he said, was that the 90 -day review period had been established to let the HPC hold a hearing before sending the proposal to the Common Council. Had this review period been left out of the ordinance, the proposal would have entirely by passed the HPC and gone straight to the Common Council. Mr_ Murray again urged shelving the proposal to prevent its defeat. Mr. Oxian said that, if the proposal were shelved, it would not come back to the HPC; it would simply go to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. If it were defeated, the entire process would have to begin all over again. Mr. Murray asked whether, if the bill were shelved, the residents could then gather more support and reintroduce the bill at a later date_ Mr. Oxian said again that imposing districts by ordinance was a new, unfamiliar method; also, the commission members believed it necessary to demonstrate majority support for the district, before giving their approval. Mr. Moore asked why Harrison street had been chosen as the western district boundary. Mr. Oxian said Harrison -street was the boundary of a proposal made five years earlier. Other residents further east had then become interested in belonging to the district. Mr. Moore suggested that William street had a heavier page 18 concentration of historic buildings. Mr. Oxian said many parts of the Near Northwest Neighborhood merited preservation. Mr. Moore asked why Lincolnway West had been omitted from the district. Mr. Fritz said Lincolnway West was left out to allow the LWW Business group, represented by Mr. Rohleder, to determine the character of the business strip independently. The owner of 602 Harrison said a historic district was no "quick fix" for problems such as declining property values and high crime rates. The neighborhood's best hope was for its residents to get to know one another and to support one another. Those who despised their neighbors too much to get to know them, perhaps, were the ones who did not belong in the neighborhood. Mrs. Sporleder agreed that a district was not a cure-all for a neighborhood's besetting ills. A district could, however, communicate a sense of pride, of identity, and of commitment. The city respected such commitment. While the district was not a "quick fix," it was a tool for establishing neighborhood goals. The owner of 602 Harrison replied that there were other ways to do the same thing. Mr. Moore, for example, planned to attend the "Mayor's Night Out" to try to get sidewalks and curbs for the neighborhood. The neighborhood needed more basic improvements before it could become a historic district. Mrs. Sporleder explained that every part of a neighborhood --streets, sidewalks, trees, streetlights --were part of a historic district. The district helped residents make clear what level of maintenance they expected from the City. The district, in other words, drew attention to the residents' clearly --stated goals. Belonging to the district also brought another benefit; the knowledge, expertise, and information resources of the HPC. Mrs. Fritz made a plea for neighborhood solidarity. A single resident attending the mayor's night out was hardly an adequate means of representing the neighborhood. Mr. Oxian, in response to a question from the floor, outlined the entire procedure being followed for the proposal. Afterthe HPC hearing_,_ thE_proposa.l_Uiould_ receive another _ hearing_from Area Plan. Next, it would go before the City Council. if it were then approved, the HPC would administer the proposal. page 19 The HPC was responsible for surveying the city and county and identifying potential historic districts. In the 1976 survey, the entire Near Northwest neighborhood was designated a potential district. Next, the HPC approached residents of these potential districts to gauge their interest in establishing a historic district. Unfortunately, the HPC had only one permanent employee; the rest of the staff was paid through a precarious grant funding system. This limited the number of districts that could be administered. In reply to another question, Mr. Oxian said residents would be informed by mail of the date and time of the Area Plan hearing. The City would post a public notice of the third hearing. Mrs. Sporleder asked Mr. Luecke whether everyone in the neighborhood had seen a copy of the ordinance. Many of the assembled residents then said they had never seen the ordinance. Mr. Oxian then asked for proposals. Mr. Luecke reminded the HPC that, while it was possible to make alternate proposals, failure to make a recommendation on the ordinance would be interpreted as a favorable recommendation. The HPC had no responsibilities beyond the making of a recommendation; however, the commission members could,if they wished, make an alternate proposal. He could then introduce that proposal as a substitute ordinance. Also, the HPC could recommend tabling the ordinance. Mrs. Sporleder moved to ask the Common Council to table the ordinance until the neighborhood residents could be properly informed of the procedures and implications of a historic district. She added that she did not advocate redrawing the district's boundaries; she wished to table Mr. Luecke's ordinance as it stood. By this motion, she hoped to express the HPC's support for the district, but to make sure, at the same time, that the petitioners did the proper groundwork. Mr. Welsheimer seconded the motion. Mr. Herendeen, Mr. Eide, and Mrs. Dennen voted against the motion. Mr. Oxian abstained. The motion was defeated. Mr. Herendeen moved to re.iect the boundaries and to send the proposal to the Common Council with an unfavorable recommendation. Mrs. Dennen seconded the motion, ---fair. Herenden said another year should be spent preparing the area to become a historic district, and refining the boundaries. To approve the ordinance as it stood would "create a monster." page 20 Mr. Eide voted for the motion; Mr. Oxian, Mrs. Sporleder, and MR. Welsheimer opposed. Motion deadlocked. Mr. Oxian called for a new motion. Mrs. Sporleder asked Mr. Herendeen to restate his motion. Mr. Herendeen said it was to send an unfavorable recommendation for the boundaries of the district to the Common Council. Discussion followed which established that the HPC could include the issue of boundaries when formulating a recommendation. Mrs. Sporleder reintroduced Mr. Herendeen's motion. Mrs. Dennen seconded the motion. Mr. Welsheimer asked for clarification; did this motion defeat the proposed ordinance, yet still express the HPC's interest in establishing a historic district in the area, with different boundaries? Mrs. Sporleder asked Mr. Herendeen to introduce another motion to request a differently -defined historic district in the same area. Mr. Herendeen agreed to do so. The motion was approved by Mr. Eide, Mrs. Sporleder, Mr. Herendeen, and Mr. Welsheimer. Mr. Oxian abstained. Mr. Herendeen then advised the HPC to help the petitioners lay groundwork for a new district proposal, at the same time making sure they understood the sort of help the HPC could offer. He said he did want to see the community's heritage preserved, and advocated sending down a recommendation for a smaller, more manageable district. All owners and residents, even absentee landlords, should be informed; a majority should be in support. He called for suggestions as to how to refine the HPC's recommendation. Mr. Oxian advocated the district boundaries described on page 6, paragraph 1 --the boundaries he'd originally proposed himself. This area represented a core, a starting point; it contained housing typical of housing in the whole neighborhood. If standards failed in this small area, they could never succeed in a larger area. Mr. Herendeen agreed that a historic district needed a core. He expressed himself willing to make a motion of Mr. Oxian's proposal, but first asked Mr. Luecke for comments. Mr. L_uecke said most of the - ---- pet -i -toners were scattered throughout £h larger - area, not concentrated within Mr. Oxian's proposed district. He said it was necessary to establish boundaries of which the HPC approved, and to work page 21 within those boundaries. However, even if new boundaries could be agreed upon, support for the district had,,as before, not yet been fully ascertained. Mr. Herendeen replied that a smaller area would serve as a testing ground; it would show the residents the implications of a historic district, and also establish the nucleus of a potentially larger district. Mr. Oxian seconded the motion. Mr. Moore asked how he might keep himself and his fellow petitioners informed of the progress of the ordinance. Mr. Oxian advised him to get the information from Mr. Luecke or Mr. Holycross. Mr. Murray pointed out that most of the petitioners, both for and against the district, had already left. To recommend a smaller district at this point would hardly be fair. Mr. Herendeen said the HPC had no power to impose this smaller district; also, a commission officer could attend the Common Council meeting and make clear the full range of the HPC's position. Mrs. Sporleder said she had no objection to the larger district proposed by Mr. Luecke; administrative burdens could be cut by simply making standards more general. The ordinance came with a constituency which should be respected. Mr. Moore again asked why Harrison street had been chosen as the western boundary. Mr. Oxian replied that it was necessary to choose some starting point. Changes were always possible; also, many district supporters came from this street. Mrs. Dennen said she disapproved of recommending any district boundaries without further analysis. Mr. Oxian replied that he, Mr. Holycross, and Mr. Luecke had met to discuss the ordinance boundaries. MR. Holycross was fully aware of the boundaries he, Mr. Oxian, had proposed --even though he had chosen not to include an analysis of it in his staff report. While he could not himself make a staff report, he said, he emphasized that he'd made his proposal years ago, and that the HPC had already discussed it. At that time, the proposal had been dropped because_so_many other clistriets were being formed. Mrs. Sporleder again advised a return to the older, more tested method of establishing districts. Mr. page 22 Oxian replied that her earlier motion already carried with it a partial return to this older method. Mr. Eide, Mrs. Dennen, and Mrs. Sporleder voted against the motion. Motion defeated. Mr. Welsheimer abstained. Mrs. Sporleder moved to ask the Council to let the HPC follow the formerly -established procedure to establish a district in the Near Northwest Neighborhood. This involved having the district committee meet with the neighborhood association to establish standards and boundaries. Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian objected that the law in this case excluded reverting to the older method. Essentially, Mrs. Sporleder was making an irrelevant motion. Mr. Welsheimer moved to approve the motion. Mr. Eide, Mrs. Dennen, and Mr. Oxian voted against it.. Motion defeated. Mr. Luecke pointed out that, due to a change in state law, council members were no longer allowed to propose, independently, a rezoning of this type. He would therefore be unable to bring the proposal before them a second time. Next time, it would have to be proposed by a full council vote, or by a 51% vote within the district. According to the City's legal counsel, the HPC could not introduce a district proposal either. Another implication of this change in law was that landmark designation would become a more cumbersome procedure. Mrs. Sporleder said that one reason the hearing had been so complicated was that the whole procedure was entirely new to the HPC. She herself had not seen the ordinance until that evening. Mr. Luecke was advised to make his recommendation to the Council based on his understanding of the HPC's position. Mr. Herendeen said that, since the HPC had voted against proposing alternate boundaries, Mr. Luecke could choose which alternate proposal to make to the Council. Mr. Luecke pointed out that, even with 80% support within the larger district, the HPC would still face the task of administering the district. Mr. Herendeen re-emphasized the need for community support within-a.historic district_. This ended the hearing III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness page 23 2. 1071 Riverside Drive --Local Historic District Mr. Pastor reported four proposals. The first involved lighting; replacing two lanterns flanking the front entry with catalina lighting fixtures, and replacing the light over the side door. The third proposal was to replace the garage door with a flat -profile door; the fourth was to install a wrought -iron handrail on the front steps. The staff and committee approved all these proposals,. but did suggest a profiled garage door instead of a flat one. Mr. Herendeen moved to approve the staff report; Mr. Eide seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously. Mr. Herendeen commented that the light fixtures being replaced were beautiful, but no criteria existed to prevent their removal. One of the old fixtures, admittedly, was badly deteriorated; but no criteria existed for recommending alternate fixtures as replacements. Mr. Holycross reported that the.0 of A committee had met with Mr. Murphy regarding the oval window on the rear extension of the house. The committee determined that Mr. Murphy could not represent an adequate case for economic hardship, and upheld the HPC's January decision requiring the window's replacement with one more appropriate. Mr. Murphy had been informed of his options, one of which was to appear before the Common Council. On February 17, Mr. Murphy had submitted a stack of papers --letters of support, primarily --to the staff. These he distributed to the commission members, advising them that these documents had not been received until after the committee meeting. Mr. Holycross further reported that Ms. Manion and Mr_ Murphy had declared their intention to appear before the Common Council. He was not sure they were in earnest. Mr. Oxian moved to deny the case for economic hardship. Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion. Motion ..__ap�roved__unanimously_ IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes .Mr ._......._H l e_n.d.e_.e n....._moved _to_approve the minutes as page 24 submitted; Mr. Eide seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously. B. Treasurer's Report Mr. Holycross reported that grant funding for the next grant period had been duly received. C. Correspondence No report D. Committee Reports 1. Certificates of Appropriateness (Enforcement) a. 805 Arch Avenue --Local Historic District. This concerned construction of a back porch without a C of A. Mr. Pastor reported sending a letter to the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Beers, advising them they were in violation of standards, and that the HPC wanted a chance to review the project. This letter reiterated a conversation he'd had earlier with Mrs. Beers. So far, he had received no reply. b. 1716 E. Wayne Mr. Pastor reported that this property was placed on the docket to remind the commission members that the case wasn't yet closed. 2. Budget and Finance No report 3. Legal a. Designating local districts -- Procedural Change Tabled 4. Historic Districts a. Lincolnway.East Local-Historic--District-- update Mr. Holycross reported that the Common Council had voted February 10 to deny the petition for secession. There had been a good discussion, lie said, with the zoninry page 25 committee, concerning the flexibility of district standards; the committee had been assured that districts could change their standards. The vote had been 8-1. 5. Historic Landmarks Mr. Herendeen asked whether anything more could be done about a deteriorated porch on 1028 E. Wayne. Mr. Pastor said the owners had reapplied for a C of A ( the first one had expired) and said they would replace the porch in the spring. The new C of A expired in May 1992. Mr. Oxian mentioned that an aluminum -sided house within the Lincolnway East historic district had been sold to owners who supported the district. These new owners might very well remove the siding. b. Public Relations/Community Education No report 7. Personnel No report. S. Staff Reports No report. V. Old Business A. Committee Assignments Mr. Oxian made a motion to abolish the Public relations committee, and to establish instead a maintenance committee. This replacement committee would address problems raised by the new maintenance standards. Public relations could be handled in other ways. Mr. Herendeen moved. to approve; Mrs. Dennen seconded; motion approved unanimously. Mr. Oxian said that, since he had received no requests for committee assignments from the commissioners, he would table the making of assignments. He then read the existing committee assignments, and asked the commissioners to submit their requests by next meeting. page 26 Mr. Holycross pointed out that, since Mr. Newburn had died, the HPC needed a new treasurer. VI. New Business A. Proposed Regulation= Moving Landmarks Mr. Oxian briefly outlined this proposal (see addendum). Mr. Herendeen moved to accent the proposal; Mrs. Sporleder seconded. Proposal approved unanimously. B. Proposed C of A Review Process Tabled VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements/Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment Mrs. Dennen moved to ad.iourn; Mr. Herendeen seconded. Motion approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. CORRESPONDENCE --Membership renewal information from Center City Associates --brochure for a 1 -day seminar April 21 re. land use issues --HLFI "Amazing Space" conference, March 27-28, re. uses of religious buildings --United Way newsletter --MACIAF list of plans for February 17, 1992 --brochure for an Orlando, Florida conference May 17-20 entitiled "The Renewable American Community." --MACIAF list of plans dated February 24 --Call for nominations for 1992 National Preservation Honor Awards (Nat'l Trust for Historic Preservation) --Brochure for an April 13 ICLEF Conference --February Department of Commerce newsletter, "Team Tourism." --brochure for Audubon institute conference March 4-6; "Wild Kingdoms in the City." --Brochure fora publication entitled Getting Funded: A Complete Guide to Proposal Writing. --Announcement of a March 12 lecture by Phillip Morrris and an April 9 lecture by J. Reid Williamson (pres. HLFI). Both in Elkhart. --Brochure for an April 2-4 Des Moines conference re. rural development. --Registration forms for Center City Associates "Adopt -a -Block" cleanup program. --March/April issue of St. Joseph Valley Masonry Contractors' "The Mortar Board." --Brochure for a Baltimore conference May 6-9 re. religious property stewardship. --Invitation from National Assoc. of Women in Construction to attend a wine and cheese party --MACIAF list of plans for March 2 --Announcement of a March 22 general meeting of Southold Restorations; Heptagon building,, 2 p.m. --Brochure for an April 22 ICLEF conference titled "Legal issues for Incapacitated Persons." =-The February/March issue of CCA's "Center City Update." --Brochure for an April 23 ICLEF Conference re. family.law issues. --March 9 MACIAF plans --March issue of the YWCA's "Y -Line." --Brochure for an April 15 ICLEF conference re. summary judgements. --March issue of MACIAF's "Monitor." --registration forms from the Michigan Department of State for inclusion on their list of historian/architectural historian consultants. Mar 11, 1992 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION -- STAFF APPROVALS ST,# STREET NAME CATEGORIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------ 1346 Lincolnway East driveway; landscaping Replace gravel and dirt parking area at rear of property with slag and/or gravel. 1021 Riverside Drive siding Renewal of Certificates dated 11/9/90 and 5/16/91: Remove insul.brick asphalt siding from house to reveal original clapboards. Remove layers of paint from clapboard, replacing boards as necessary with standard & milled -to -match boards,& staining the original wood. ADDENDUM: Remove synthetic stone siding on 1st level, front facade to expose original. Approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, 3-16-92. DEMOLITION STANDARDS: LANDMARKS/HISTORIC DISTRICTS Demolition. Demolition of a historic landmark or significant building in a historic district is disfavored and requires a certificate of appropriateness. Such a certificate of appropriateness shall be granted only if the owner demonstrates by submission of substantial, competent evidence that: a) The property in its current condition is uneconomical or in a substantial state of disrepair, deterioration, or structural instability not created by the owner; b) Historically appropriate renovation or rehabilitation is either technically or economically impractical; and c) The owner has investigated and considered all reasonable alternatives to demolition, not simply the least expensive alternatives, and that all such alternatives such as sale, rental, or lease of the property have failed or with reasonable likelihood will fail or will not earn a fair economic return on value.