Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 1993*historicpreservation commission of south bend and st. joseph county ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798 AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Monthly Meeting County Commissioners' 7:30 p.m. Conference Room 7th Floor, County/City Building April 19, 1993 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 123 West Northshore -- West Northshore LHD 2. 938 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD 3. 1081 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD 1121 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD 4. Riverside Dr. Streetlights -- Riverside Drive LHD 5. 1315 East Wayne -- East Wayne Street LHD B. Local Historic Landmarks 1. 51387 Portage -- Second Reading IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes -- March, 1993 - B. Treasurer's Report -- March, 1993 C. Correspondence D. Committee Reports 1. C of A (Staff Approvals) A. 1025 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD B. 1067 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD 2. Budget and Finance 3. Legal A. COA Time Limit Waiver B. 557 River Avenue -- Edgewater LHD 4. Historic Districts A. Procedures: Implementing/Revising District Standards 5. Historic Landmarks 6. Standards and Maintenance 7. Personnel A. Administrative Assistant Replacement 8. Staff Reports V. Old Business VI. New Business VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment CJ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Monthly Meeting 7:30 p.m. April 19, 1993 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. 7th Floor, County Commissioner's Conference Room, County -City Building II. Roll Call Members Present: Mrs. Martha Choitz, Mr. Jed Eide, Mr. John Oxian, Ms. Jewel Van Dalsen, Mrs, Joann Sporleder, Janeanne Petrass (left due to illness). Members Absent; none. Staff Present: Fred Holycross--Director Also Present: Aladean DeRose--Deputy City Attorney, Marsha Stevenson --Riverside Drive Liaison, Ed Talley --Riverside Drive Liaison, Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Holewicki (109 E. Peashway); Jay Tidmarsh (938 • Riverside Drive); Marty and Jane Murphy (1121 Riverside Drive); Carl Littrell --City Engineer; Jean Crumlish (1021 Riverside Drive); Aaron Williams (557 River Ave.); Barbara Steel--Southhold Restorations; Pat Glithero (Marion, IN). III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness. 1. 123 West Northshore Drive -- West Northshore LHD Mr. Holycross read the staff report describing the proposed project: replace house and garage roof in-kind (asphalt shingles); 2. remove aluminum siding from entire house; 3, replace gutters and downspouts with half -round, heavy -gauge galvanized gutters and downspouts; 4. replace previously removed drip -caps over doors and windows. Staff recommended that the HPC approve the application as submitted; the proposal is in keeping with district standards and proposes a renovation that would remove inappropriate materials and replace them with appropriate materials; the project would also return materials removed by previous owners. Mr. Eide moved that the proposal be approved as submitted. Mrs. Choitz seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian asked that the property be reassessed and "rerated" after the project is completed; the HPC should then be informed and allowed to approve the new rating. Mrs. Sporleder asked about the rerating process. Mr. Oxian explained that staff would make an recommendation and the HPC would approve or disapprove the recommendation. Motion approved unanimously. • 2. 938 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD Mr. Holycross read the staff report describing the proposed project: 1. remove aluminum siding from entire house; 2. repair and replace (in-kind) clapboard as necessary; 3. repair and replace (in-kind) molding as necessary. Staff recommended that the HPC approve the proposal as submitted; the proposal fulfills district standards that suggest the replacement of original materials and proposes the removal of nonhistoric, inappropriate siding. • Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve the proposal as submitted. Mrs. Choitt seconded the motion. Mr. Eide asked the owner, Jay Tidmarsh, whether he intended to remove the shutters. Mr. Tidmarsh replied that the shutters would be removed as they were not original to the structure. Mr. Oxian asked that the structure be "rerated" when the project was complete. Motion passed unanimously. 6. 1081 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD 1121 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD Mr. Holycross read the staff report concerning the proposal: the installation of streetlights in the front yards of two properties (1081 RSD and 1121 RSD), the lights to consist of twelve foot (12') "Hollowspun" concrete poles and thirty inch (30") "Octagonal Junior" fixtures with 100 watt metal halide lamps, or replicas of these features. The staff recommended that the HPC disapprove the proposal as submitted for the following reasons: 1. the plan would disrupt the historic placement of streetlights along this section of Riverside Drive; as reported in Ed Talley's report, the lights are historically incorrect due to the original intention of those who installed them: to have lights only on the south side of the street along this stretch of Riverside Drive; 2. introducing two randomly placed streetlights would disrupt the intended rhythm of the lights as originally conceived and installed; 3. the introduction of large streetlights in shallow front yard lawns would be inappropriate in scale with the houses. The staff recommended that owners retain yard lights to allay safety concerns. Mr. Eide stated that he was most concerned with the placement of only two lights on the street; he asked Mr. Talley whether there was a plan to install others in the future. Mr. Talley stated that there was also a third pole in his possession and that "due to an unfortunate happenstance there were no more poles available." He had been "literally inundated" with offers from people who had such poles and who were willing to donate them. He also had been in contact with a company that could "remould" replacement poles. Mr. Eide asked for the "master pian" for lighting on the street; he remained concern that installing poles at random would be inappropriate. Mr. Talley said the proposal was to "do a staggered installation in the... entire district ... and [to] install..." appropriate poles elsewhere. "The neighborhood" as polled had shown interest in such a plan and also wanted cast-iron poles. He questioned the historic argument against such a plan as the neighborhood wanted them. He then explained the original intentions of the designers as he understood them. Marty Murphy (1121 RSD) stated that his position was that the neighborhood needed more lighting and that it would be most appropriate that some sort of historic lighting was employed. Mr. Eide stated that the proposal did not accomplish that goal. Mr. Talley replied that they "had ...many roadblocks" and then discussed at length the previous plans to install new lighting in the district. Marsha Stephenson (RSD Liaison) stated that there was some difference of opinion in the neighborhood as to an appropriate solution to the lighting problem. Mr. Oxian stated that the original motion in March was tabled to allow Mr. Talley to find an appropriate poles for his yard; the COA submitted went beyond the original COA; the HPC should • decide whether to approve Mr. Talley's pole or not. Mr. Hoiycross stated that his understanding in March was that the COA submitted by Mr. Talley was disapproved; this COA was separate from it. Mrs. Sporleder asked Mr. Murphy if he had an idea of the neighborhood's opinion as to how to obtain additional light. He responded that the neighborhood in general simply wanted more fixtures. Mrs. Sporleder stated that she had researched the matter and found that the areas of lawn in question were actually public right-of-way under the jurisdiction of the city; lights installed in that area by private individuals would therefore not be possible. It would be inappropriate for the HPC to give permission for the plan as submitted. Ms. DeRose suggested that the HPC make a determination whether or not the plan was historically appropriate and leave such questions to the "peril and risk" of the homeowner who might be required to remove the poles by another agency. Mrs. Murphy asked the HPC for advice as to an appropriate manner in which to use and save the poles in their possession and how the matter might be resolved with the city and I&M. Mr. Oxian stated that he had met with the Carl Littrell, John Lyszynzski and Steve Luecke about streetlights; it was decided that Mr. Oxian would serve as the intermediary between the historic district and city to make decisions about streetlights in general. He said that the HPC had been involved in trying to find a solution and a means to preserve the lights for ten years; for the time being, the two lights in question should remain as the topic of conversation. • Mr. Littrell (city engineer) stated that the city would require that they be indemnified against any responsibility if these lights were allowed to be erected in the public right of way. The neighborhood or property owners would also have to carry insurance against losses in case of accident. The poles in question have been declared unfit for use in the public right of way. The Board of Public Works would probably not object to the poles if the city's legal responsibilities were transferred to the property owners. The city would object to anything other than incandescent lighting fixtures. He stated that the poles are a precious resource; the city was doing its best to save them but IN was "out every day taking them down around the city" making it difficult to trace every historic pole. The poles could not be repaired for use at any reasonable cost; there is a limited supply of poles that are available and usable. There is not much hope of additional poles becoming available. Mr. Littrell concluded by saying that the additional lights could not be introduced into the neighborhood because of federal regulations beyond the city's control. The city had offered "full-scale replacement" to address the safety concerns in the neighborhood. Ms. Crumlish stated that "the neighborhood agreed that it needed more light" and to pay for additional lights out of its pocket; "why was [the city] kicking [sic] a gift horse in the mouth?" Mrs. Sporleder asked Mr. Littrell how the city would address the safety issue in other than a historic district. Mr. Littrell replied that they would install the standard overhead sodium lights on wood poles with overhead wiring. Discussion ensued as to the possible cost differentials between different types of fixtures, and the tariff system mandated by the regulatory commission. F_ I LJ Mr. Oxian suggested that concerned citizens should approach the regulatory commission at its public meetings in order to address tariff concerns. He then explained that various proposals had been made in the past wherein the lights would be turned over to the responsibility of the neighborhood. • Discussion ensued as to metering systems and costs. Mrs. Choitz stated that the lighting issue had not changed since the late 1980s; the regulations demanded that some accommodation needed to be made by the residents of the district if they wanted light; the end result would be that either they owned and maintained responsibilities and costs for the lights or the city and I&M would install and maintain lights at their discretion. The HPC could not control the issue but could only recommend appropriate lights; that had been done in district standards. "The city is caught in the middle ... no matter what they do, no one will be satisfied... there are no pat answers; this is beyond HPC control." Mr. Oxian stated that the city and HPC had agreed to appropriate replacements; agreements had been signed between the HPC, the city and I&M to save historic poles, otherwise none would exist. The main obstacle was I&M; the company would not change its stance. He then asked that a decision be made about the two poles in question. Discussion ensued as to streetlights elsewhere in the city and possible means to apply for CDBG monies to save them. Mr. Talley repeated his experience in trying to save the poles. He stated that the neighborhood was being "penalized" and that the crime rate was bringing down property values. "if we can"t resolve the streetlight thing..) don't want any part of the historic district..." Mrs. Sporleder stated that the NPC was interested in addressing the light and safety problem; the question remains as how best to accomplish that; an appropriate solution had not been found. Because of the specifics of the COA in question, she was inclined to disallow it because it does not solve the problem; it makes the lighting "erratic" and there is no guarantee that additional lights will • be erected in the future. Mr. Talley stated that he "would not remove the light... in his yard." Mr. Murphy asked if he might pull his application to make Mr. Talley's more appropriate. Mr. Talley again stated that he "had a problem if he had to remove the light." Mrs. Sporleder asked Mr. Littrell if he had suggestions. Mr. Littrell replied that in the future salvageable poles would be made available to historic districts. Mrs. Holewicki stated that she would "chain herself to her pole if anyone tried to take it out." Mr. Eide moved to approve the COA as submitted. Mrs. Sporleder seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian called for a vote. Mr. Eide, Ms. Van Dalsen and Mr. Oxian voted ave. Mrs. Sporleder and Mrs. Choitz voted nay. Mrs. Sporleder explained that she was voting no because of the location of the lights in an area over which the property owners have no jurisdiction. Ms. DeRose stated that Mrs. Sporleder did not need to concern herself with that question. Mr. Oxian stated that the question was about the historical appropriateness of the light; whether its on city property is not at question. 4 Mrs. Sporleder asked that her vote be changed to ave. 4. Riverside Drive Streetlights -- Riverside Drive LHD (City of South Bend) • Mr. Holycross read the staff report concerning the proposal: replace five streetlights (fiberglass poles and nonhistoric fixtures) with historic "Hollowspun" poles and "Octagonal Junior" fixtures at five locations on the north side of Riverside Drive (RSD): four poles surrounding the intersection of RSD and Leland and one pole east of Park on RSD, Staff recommended that the HPC approve the proposal as submitted: the proposal meets district standards for the replacement of streetlights that are similar to the historic streetlights of the neighborhood Mrs. Sporleder asked Carl Littrell whether or not the city had the replacement poles in their possession and when they planned to accomplish the installation. He replied that the city had the poles and were "just waiting for a COA." Mr. Oxian explained that the fiberglass poles had been given temporary COAs: if the HPC approved, the temporary COAs would be withdrawn. Mr. Eide moved to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Van Daisen seconded the motion. No further discussion. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Oxian stated that at least three of the concrete poles in question were previously cast-iron poles; "when [we] talk about what's original and what is not ... you had all cast-iron there ... you are now replacing them with concrete... if we're going to go historical on anything... this is somewhat right and somewhat wrong... it still looks better when they are all concrete..." . Mrs, Sporleder thanked everyone for the time and research they had invested in the matter; "the matter has been begun to be resolved... without too many cross purposes..." Mr. Talley then spoke at length about "ordinance 1701," and funding. Ms. DeRose promised to look into the matter. 5. 1315 East Wayne North -- East Wayne Street Mr. Holycross read the staff report concerning the proposal: install four foot (4') aluminum fence (Jerith-brand, style #202); to run from west side of house (near northwest corner) thirteen feet (13') to west, then six feet (6') to north to connect with neighbor's fence. Staff recommned that the HPC approve the COA as submitted; the proposal fulfills district standards and would introduce fencing that is appropriate to the architectural detailing of the house. Mrs. Choitz moved to accept the proposal as submitted. Mr. Eide seconded the motion. No further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Local Historic Landmarks 1. 51387 Portage -- Second Reading 5 • Mr. Holycross explained that this proposed landmark had been considered in March; there was question as to the size of the property; staff had determined that the correct acreage was 47 acres, not .47 acres. Mrs. Sporleder asked whether the proposal was to designate the entire 47 acres and whether documentation of the legal description was being obtained. Mr. Oxian answered that past practice was to determine everything that existed on the property including woods. etc. Mrs. Sporleder suggested that documenting of landscape features, including an aerial map be obtained. Mr. Holycross replied that he would be glad to obtain that information in the future when staff was available. Mr. Oxian suggested the necessity of obtaining a grant to document such features throughout the county. Mr. Holycross replied that staff had received notification of the Urban Forestry grant to document landscape features in the city; staff intends to make such things a standard part of landmark documentation as soon as possible. The motion passed unanimous. IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes -- March, 1993. Mr. Holycross asked that the March minutes be approved as submitted. Mr. Oxian asked for several changes. Mrs. Choitz moved to approve the March, 1993 minutes as corrected. Mr. Eide seconded the motion. No discussion. Motion passed unanimously. • Mrs. Sporleder asked about the Parry Street local landmark dealt with in March. Mr. Holycross explained that he had been in contact with Code Enforcement and City Engineering to investigate the problems described by the owner of the property. These city departments were investigating the complaints; the owner must also be more involved in alleviating the various concerns in partnership with the HPC. Mrs. Choitz asked about the property's zoning. Mr. Holycross described the zoning. B. Treasurer's Report Mr. Holycross asked that the March Treasurer's Report be approved as submitted. Mrs. Sporleder moved that the March. 1993 Treasurer's Report be approved as submitted. Mrs. Choitz seconded the motion, No discussion. Motion passed unanimously, C. Correspondence No discussion. D. Committee Reports 1. C of A (Staff Approvals) 6 • A. 1025 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD B. 1067 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD No discussion. • 2. Budget and Finance No Report. 3. Legal A. 557 River Avenue -- Edgewater Place LHD Mr. Holycross explained that the owner of the property, Mr. Aaron Williams, was denied a COA for rehabilitation of his garage that had been partially completed without a COA or a building permit; staff had been directed by the NPC in February to contact him and ask for further documentation; the matter was sent to legal counsel after the owner did not reply. Mr. Williams sent the HPC a letter describing the project. Mrs. Sporleder asked if the document submitted by the owner could be attached to the previously submitted COA. Mr. Oxian replied that the original COA could be reconsidered. Mrs. Sporleder asked if the project was complete. Mr. Holycross replied that it was not; it was currently in the state as depicted in the photographs in HPC monthly packets. Ms. DeRose explained that, if the owner wished to reactivate the original COA, the HPC could do so in light of additional information since the original COA was denied due to insufficient information. Mrs. Sporleder asked the owner if he intended to install siding and what type it would be. He replied that it would be as proposed: 1 x 8 horizontal cedar siding. Mrs. Sporleder moved to reconsider and approve the COA application for 557 River Avenue originally denied in light of the additional information supplied by the owner. Mrs_Choitz seconded the • motion. No further discussion. Motion Dassed unanimousl Mr. Oxian stated that he was concerned that this property owner and others in the Edgewater District were unwilling to comply with the COA process; future projects completed without a COA would dealt with by all available legal means; such behavior set a bad precedent. Mrs. Sporleder suggested that perhaps the COA procedure was not well understood in the district. Ms. DeRose stated that the owner had complied with the HPC after a letter was sent by the legal department. Mrs. Sporleder asked the owner if he was doing the project on his own; he replied that he was, he was employed as a carpenter and cabinetmaker. Mr. Williams stated further that the garage was in extremely poor condition and was not structurally sound. Mr. Eide asked for clarification of the siding being used on the garage. Mr. Williams explained that the siding would indeed match the house. 8. COA Time Limit Waiver Ms. DeRose explained to the commission that the HPC regulations required thirty days in which 7 • to act on a COA; if no decision was made after forty-five days, the COA was considered approved. Often the applicant had not provided sufficient information in which to act. Therefore counsel and staff had prepared a waiver form that would be signed by an owner that has not submitted enough information, and a form to be used when an owner request a delay. Ms. DeRose explained that no decision was necessary by the commission; this was a legal matter that did not change policy or is procedure, it merely provided a means to continue past practice more efficiently. Mrs Sporleder moved to approve the use of the two Waiver of Statutory Time Period forms by the HPC. Mrs. Choitz seconded the motion. No further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Historic Districts A. Procedures; Implementing/Revising District Standards The Historic District Committee submitted a draft of proposed procedures to be used for implementing and revising historic district standards. Mr. Oxian announced that these procedures were important because there was at present no policy for changing district standards or implementing standards under the new historic district implementation procedure. Discussion ensued concerning item #7 --the question of the number of votes per property owner. Mr. Holycross explained that these procedures were intended to be used when districts were implemented according to the new procedure, ie. when a district was designated by the Common Council before standards were agreed upon. The previous procedures, as used in all districts prior to River Bend LHD, were still valid and could still be used. • Ms. DeRose suggested that the commission might consider giving a vote to property owners of improved parcels only. Discussion ensued concerning the utility of this language. Ms. Van Dalsen asked about co-owners and the voting procedures. Ms. DeRose answered that co-owners would represent one vote. Discussion ensued as to this policy and the use of the term "owner." Mrs Sporleder moved to accept the procedures for Implementation and Revision of Historic District Preservation Standards. Mr. Eide seconded the motion. No further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Historic Landmarks Mr. Holycross announced that the proposed Local Landmark recommendation for 710 N. Cushing had reached the Area Plan Commission for recommendation. 6. Standards and Maintenance Mr. Holycross announced that the matter of 805 Arch Avenue --the removal of a rear entry canopy without a COA--had come to a conclusion. The owner had complied and returned the canopy according to HPC direction. Ms. DeRose announced that the matter of 1071 Riverside Drive --the elliptical window installed without a COA--was resolved. The owners had complied with their agreement to install a rectangular 0 8 fame around the window; the front handrail had also been replaced with a wrought -iron rail according to HPC direction. • 1. Personnel A. Administrative Assistant Replacement Mr. Holycross distributed the resume of his choice for the vacant Administrative Assistant position, Mr. Charles Frederick Jr., and asked that the HPC approve his hiring. He explained that the HPC Personnel Committee had met the previous week to discuss the matter, as Mr. Frederick's spouse was an NPC Commissioner --Ms. Cynthia Brubaker. Ms. Brubaker had given the HPC her resignation as of April 19, 1993, opening the way for the hiring of Mr. Frederick. Mr. Oxian explained that Ms. Brubaker could not serve as a commissioner if her husband was hired by the HPC. He stated that Ms. Brubaker was the third recent HPC member to resign --Mr. William Welsheimer and Mrs. Jean Dennan had also recently resigned their positions. Mr. Oxian read Mr. Welsheimer's letter of resignation to the HPC. Mrs. Choitz moved to offer Mr. Frederick the _position of Administrative Assistant. Mrs. Sporieder seconded the motion. No further discussion. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Staff Reports Mr. Holycross announced that the HPC had received a grant from the state Division of Urban Forestry to survey the landscape features in the city's historic districts. Mr. Holycross and Mrs. Sporleder intend to meet in late May to begin implementing the project --several possible consultants had already been spoken with. • Mr. Holycross explained that most of the commission's match for the grant would come from the Directors time (salary); there might be future monies available to continue this type of project --this could be a pilot project with the county being targeted next. V. Old Business Mr. Holycross announced his vacation schedule --May 6 to May 16 --and that he had agreed to take on an intern for the summer from Western Michigan University. VI. New Business Mr. Oxian distributed committee assignments for the year and asked that each commissioner approve the assignments given to them. VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements/Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment Mr. Oxian called for adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m. • 9 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT PROPERTY -- 123 West Northshore Drive South Bend, IN 46617 OWNERS -- Michael and Doreen Sculati DESIGNATION -- West Northshore LHD STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT The residence at 123 West Northshore Drive was built in 1903 for Ward L. Mack, an insurance agent. The structure has been rated as Contributing (C/9) on the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory. The house is a Prairie -influenced American Foursquare that should be reevaluated and rerated after this project is completed. PROPOSED CHANGE •1. Replace house and garage roof in-kind (asphalt shingles; Staggar-brand: "Shake -style, 30 year"); 2. remove aluminum siding from entire house; 3. replace gutters and downspouts with half -round, heavy -gauge (26) galvanized gutters and downspouts; 4. replace previously -removed drip -caps over doors and windows. STANDARDS District standards (D-1) require that roofs be maintained in original "shape" and material. Standard D-3 permits replacement of window trim that "match[es] the original as closely as possible." Standard D-2 suggests the retention of the "original exterior building material." RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the HPC approve this proposal as submitted. The proposal is in keeping with district standards and proposes a renovation that would remove inappropriate materials (siding, gutters). The proposal also would return materials (drip -caps, gutters) removed in the past; the owner and contarctor intend to reconstruct the original window details by duplicating the dimensions evidenced by remaining paint -lines (see elevation and photos). F. Holycross 4-12-93 n U • • COA 41993-0406; 123 W. Northshore Front Facade Front porch window: showing paint shadow (drip cap) and original clapboard .......... i .... ........'..............�............. ..... ._...l ........�............ ;.... . �............. "LD2PPC�9 ... .......... I............. ............. vvC, I • CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT PROPERTY -- 938 Riverside Drive South Bend, IN 46616 OWNER -- Jay Tidmarsh DESIGNATION -- Riverside Drive LHD STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT The residence at 938 Riverside Drive was constructed in circa 1903 and is an American Foursquare in form. It was rated as Contributing (C/9) on the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory. The house should be reevaluated and rerated if this project is completed. PROPOSED CHANGE • Remove aluminum siding from entire house; repair and replace (in-kind) clapboard as necessary. Repair and replace (in-kind) molding as necessary. STANDARDS District standards recommend (II -A-2) that "original building materials should be restored." RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the HPC approve this proposal as submitted. The proposal fulfills district standards that suggest the replacement of original materials and proposes the removal of nonhistoric, inappropriate siding. F. Holycross 4-12-93 • CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT PROPERTY -- 1081, 1093, 1121 Riverside Drive South Bend, IN 46616 OWNERS -- Edward Talley/ James Geisel (1081) Marsha Stevenson (1093) Jane and Martin Murphy (1121) DESIGNATION -- Riverside Drive LHD STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT Decorative streetlights were erected on Riverside Drive in 1915. Streetlights were erected on the north side of the street along this stretch of Riverside Drive between Hudson and Leland. Since that time lights have been replaced due to damage or deterioration; there are now several types of streetlights of differing materials interspersed along this street. • PROPOSED CHANGE Install streetlights in the front yards of three properties on the south side of Riverside Drive: 1081 Riverside, 1093 Riverside and 1121 Riverside. The lights are to consist of twelve foot (12') "Hollowspun" concrete poles and either thirty inch (30") "Octagonal Junior" fixtures with 100 watt metal halide lamps, or replicas of these fixtures. STANDARDS District standards (I -A-1) state that "New... streetlights ... shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood in size, scale, material and color ... lamp fixtures and supporting posts must be similar in proportion, scale, and detail to the existing historic lamps... Streetlights should be placed so that adequate illumination is afforded all sections of public sidewalks." Standard I -A-3 adds that "[S]treelights... which are out of scale or inappropriate to the neighborhood may not be used." RECOMMENDATIONS It is the staff's recommendation that this proposal be denied for the following reasons: 1. This plan would disrupt the historic placement of streetlights along this section of the street. Despite that fact that there are streetlights on both sides of the street east of Leland, those lights are located either IN in tree lawns or on corners. There are no tree lawns on the south side of Riverside Drive from Hudson to Leland and, according to research submitted by Ed Talley, streetlights were intentionally omitted from this section of the street because when a "roadway was narrow and contained...curves... the 1 standard practice of the day was install street lighting only on one side of the street." (see J, Edward Talley, "River Parkway and the Boulevard System":3). Talley adds that if future traffic required increased illumination, the system would be upgraded by increasing the wattage of the lamps in the fixtures (Talley: 3-4). This evidence shows that introducing streetlights on the south side of Riverside Drive would be contrary to the intentions of those who designed the system and would therefore be historically incorrect and inappropriate. 2. There are ten (10) streetlights on this stretch of Riverside Drive; introducing just three lights on the south side would disrupt the intended rhythm of the placement of lights on the street: there would be a gap between the light at 1121 and Vassar Street; there would also be no southerly lights from Golden east to Leland. The proposal would result in a uneven, out -of -rhythm arrangement of lights. In addition, the proposed placement of the light in front of 1121 Riverside would not be of equal distance from the existing lights on the north side of the street (the other two would be approximately equidistant from existing lights on the north side). 3. The introduction of such a large streetlight in these shallow front yard areas is inappropriate in scale with the houses. From the street these streetlights would "loom" over the houses (see the light at 1081). It is recommended that the property owners retain their yard lights for additional security if needed. Yard lights are the historically correct form of lighting in front yards on Riverside Drive; brighter yard lights on all of the properties might enhance safety in the neighborhood. F. Holycross 404-13-93 0 2 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT PROPERTY -- Streetlights: North side of Riverside Drive South Bend, IN 46616 OWNERS -- City of South Bend DESIGNATION -- Riverside Drive LHD STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT The streetlights proposed for replacement in this application are fiber -glass supporting post and fixtures that were installed to replace damaged streetlights sometime in the 1970s, 80s, or 90s. They have no historic value except that they are located on the historic locations of the streetlights they replaced. PROPOSED CHANGE Replace five streetlights (fiberglass poles and non -historic fixtures) with historic Hollow -spun concrete poles and Octagonal fixtures at five locations on the north side of Riverside Drive: four poles surrounding the intersection of Leland and Riverside Drive; and the fourth pole east of Park on Riverside Drive. STANDARDS District standards (appendix A, p.32) state that "lamp fixtures and supporting posts must be similar in proportion, scale and detail to the existing historic lamps." RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the HPC approve this proposal. The proposal meets the above requirement for replacement of streetlights that are similar to the historic streetlights of the neighborhood. F. Holycross 4-7-93 • 4. ..y'��.,,.,Ey;, ,r.. COA 4� 1993-0315-2 ;:wa:; ..;; :_ IWlR `P.0L ? FIBERGLASS. POLE (TO BE REPLACED) 1• LEGEND r�.... rs SyG4[ W IV • CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT PROPERTY -- 1315 East Wayne North South Bend, IN 46628 OWNER -- Nancy and George Denusis DESIGNATION -- East Wayne Street LHD STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT The residence at 1315 East Wayne Street was constructed in 1926 and is a good example of Renaissance Revival architecture. It was rated as Contributing (C/9) on the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory. PROPOSED CHANGE Install four foot (4') aluminum fence (Jerith-brand, style 4202); to run •from west side of house (near northwest corner) thirteen feet (13') to west, then six feet (6') to north to connect with neighbor's fence. STANDARDS District standards require (I -A-1) that "...fencing... be compatible with the character of the neighborhood in size, scale, material and color." RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the HPC approve this proposal as submitted. The proposal fulfills district standards and would introduce fencing that is appropriate to the architectural detailing of the house. F. Holycross 4-12-93 • COA #1993-0407; submitted by owners 11 id iaGo�is2. l'a wG. �.s / 3j s 0 • Aluminum Fences of Distinction by Jerith The Aluminum Ornamental Fences displayed in this brochure have a distinctive appearance that will complement any home. Jerith fences offer the attractiveness and protection of traditional wrought iron fencing without the maintenance. They are available in a wide variety of styles, colors and heights that will add prestige and value to any prop- erty. No other fence will do so much to enhance the beauty of your home, pool or yard. All Jerith fences are constructed of an exclusive high-strength aluminum alloy that will never rust or corrode, even in areas where moisture is a problem. Plus, the durable powder -coated finish is guaran- teed not to crack, chip or peel for 15 years. Our polyester powder coating, called FencCoat," is an environmentally safe, high quality alternative to painting. When applied to a Jerith fence, FencCoat is twice the thickness and hardness of a typical bake enamel finish. Consequently, it is more durable, fad( resistant. and scratch -resistant than other coatings. A Jerith fence is the best choice wherever you want elegant, long-lasting protection. Quality has made Jerith an industry leader for over 40 years. But beware of cheap imitations! Every Jerith section, post cap and latch has our logo on it to assure you that you are receiving the finest fence available. Insist on Aluminum Fences of Distinction by Jerith—the fences backed by a 15 year written warranty. Style #101 Style #200 • TREASURER'S REPORT: MARCH - 1993 As can be seen below, during the month of March, 1993 HPC staff incurred no unusual expenses. This month's expenditures total $711.25. The unencumbered account balance (#001.39211.000.034) was $34,408.46. In February the HPC quiatesed (deposited) $2,275.00 into the St. Joseph County general fund. The entire amount consisted of the Community Development Block Grant claim for January and February, 1993. 0 Amount Vendor 03/93 3/01/93 CLAIM 25.00 Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana 03/93 3/02/93 CLAIM 354.17 Amy Kotzbauer 03/93 3/02/93 CLAIM 122.50 Sushmita Hodges 03/93 3/11/93 CLAIM 7.02 South Bend Tribune 3/17/93 CLAIM 9.00 CBI\Graphics .03/93 03/93 3/17/93 CLAIM 56.36 St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners 03/93 3/30/93 CLAIM 137.20 CBI\Graphics 0 Correspondence Received -- March 9, to April 12, 1993 -- Michiana Area Construction Industry Advancement Fund: "Plans on File," March 15, 22, 29, April 5, 12, 1993. -- Update Center City Associates, Inc. April/May 1993. -- News and Notes Indian Humanities Council, March/April, 1993. -- Workshop Announcemnt: "Strategic Planning," S.B.C. School Corp., May 4. -- National Trust: National Preservation Week calendar. -- Copar Library of Congress, March 1993. -- Southhold Newsletter March/April 1993. -- Salvage One Architectural Artifacts: Spring Garden Sale. -- Conference announcement: "Accessibility and Historic Preservation," National Park Service etc., May 6-7 and June 24-25. -- Annual Meeting: Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, April 19. • • Apr 12, 1993 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF APPROVALS: FEBRUARY 10, 1993 -- April 10, 1993 ST,# STREET CATEGORY -------------------------- PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESIG CASE# --------------------------- 1025 Riverside electrical ------------------ 1. upgrade electrical LHD-RD 1993-0315 Drive service; replace meter box/base at southwest corner of house (rear); 2. install air -conditioner disconnect at rear of house under window at southeast corner; 3. install one -inch (1") grade Schedule 40 pipe (for electrical service) on rear, southwest corner, from first to second floor. 1067 Riverside electrical Install (replace) new LHD-RD 1993-0323 Drive electrical meter box on southeast corner of house (24" wide, 12" high); install new electrical feeder pipe (2") from meter box to top of first floor (to to run garage). • ... • preservation • • historic commission • of south bend and st. joseph county ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798 M E M O R A N D U M TO: HPC FROM: F. Holycross DATE: 4-12-93 RE: Waiver of Statutory Time Period Attached are drafts of two waiver forms intended to be used when there is insufficient time for the commission to act on a COA within the thirty day period required by city and county ordinance. One form is intended for use when the applicant makes a request for a delay; the other is when the HPC wishes to delay its decision due to insufficient information, etc. . Mrs. DeRose has suggested that this waiver form be used in all applicable cases to ensure that the commission is not challenged when it is necessary to delay a decision. 0 WAIVER OF STATUTORY TIME PERIOD FOR ACTION BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY WHEREAS, county and city ordinances require the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County to act on my application for a certificate of appropriateness within thirty (30) days after its filing; WHEREAS, I have requested that the commission delay its decison on my application; 'the applicant for a certificate of appropriateness for certain property located at Indiana, do hereby consent to an extension of the time to act on my application to and including Date: STATE OF INDIANA ) SS: • COUNTY OF ST. JOSEPH ) 40 APPLICANT Personally appeared before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, , the above-named Applicant and acknowledged the execution of the above and foregoing as her/his voluntary act and deed, on this day of , 19 My Commission Expires: Resident of County, Indiana. Notary Public Received: Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County this day of , 19 Historic Preservation Commission 4 1 t WAIVER OF STATUTORY TIME PERIOD FOR ACTION BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY WHEREAS, county and city ordinances require the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County to act on my application for a certificate of appropriateness within thirty (30) days after its filing; WHEREAS, I have been informed that additional time is needed to review my application because of insufficient, or incomplete, information; , the applicant for a certificate of appropriateness for certain property located at Indiana, do hereby consent to an extension of the time to act on my application to and including Date: APPLICANT STATE OF INDIANA ) SS: COUNTY OF ST. JOSEPH ) Personally appeared before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, , the above-named Applicant and acknowledged the execution of the above and foregoing as her/his voluntary act and deed, on this day of , 19 Notary Public My Commission Expires: Resident of County, Indiana. Received: Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County this day of , 19 Historic Preservation Commission • historicpreservation commission of south bend and st. joseph county M E M O R A N D U M TO: HPC FROM: Fred Holycross DATE: 4-12-93 RE: 557 River Avenue ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798 Attached is a copy of a letter from the owner of 557 River Avenue. You will recall that this owner was denied a COA for the rehabilitation of his garage that was partially completed without a COA or a building permit. In February, staff was directed to contact Mr. Williams and ask for • documentation of his project; staff did so but was not contacted by the owner. In March, staff was directed to turn the matter over to counsel. Ms. DeRose sent a letter to the owner again asking for documentation as per commission direction. This letter is the result of those communications. Staff will contact the owner and ask him to present his case at this month's meeting. • 71 o rn Dn C3 r 7-) �� D �� rn (Ao �� y) M rn t^ rn -C� C C c 0 6 -M* -a o -n S ro rn 'i_ +�E?t?i?'�"i 2=£=ii!?£'s£t1#3�43i?i2i3titSt's3t}13f?sS3fli. -- . ri S z71 1 Z r^ � rn r4 rl) Ll A A D oa r rn O C5 C4 ci LA ell rn r— • 05 70 2 2LA Z z r 7) M D 70 W C5 ri LAr n r^ L4 Tj >Ll O n , o z e Cry l M ..........., C M U 2 M CI 0 r Z) --b o � G, — C D � N- p �• e en W, - prese historicrvation commission of south bend and st. joseph county M E M O R A N D U M T0: HPC FROM: F. Holycross DATE: 4-12-93 ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798 RE: District Standards: Implementation/Revision Attached are drafts of procedures for implementing and revising historic district standards as drafted by the Historic District Committee, staff and Ms. Aladean DerOse. • These procedures will voted upon at this month's meeting. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLII MTATION AND REVISION `A t OF HISTORIC DISTRICT PRESERVATION STANDARDS."t These procedures are intended to govern the initial creation and implementation of preservation standards in local historic districts so designated by the South.Bend Common Council under Ordinance No. 8002-89, and they apply to any historic district which has not adopted preservation standards prior to the effective date of these procedures. These procedures also apply to the revision of existing preservation standards by any local historic district. The effective date of these procedures shall be the date on which they are adopted by the Hi.storic.Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County as a whole. 1. The HPC Historic District Committee (HDC), HPC staff, Neighborhood Steering Committee (NSC), or Liaison Committee (for revisions), will draft or revise standards based on neighborhood recommendations, HDC findings, and one of three models found in the HPC Historic Districts Model Preservation Guidelines. 2. The NSC will provide all property owners within proposed district boundaries with a preliminary draft of the standards. 3. The NSC and HDC will schedule a public meeting to allow a final opportunity for neighborhood discussion of the proposed standards. 4. The HDC, HPC staff, and.NSC will write final standards based on the outcome of the public meeting. 5. Final standards will be presentedto the HDC and NSC .for approval. 6. The NSC will be responsible for distributing the final standards, and a ballot prepared by the.HPC with which to cast a vote on the standards, to all property owners within the district. 7. The standards.wi.l.l.be voted -upon by owners of property within the boundaries of the district. Each owner (or co-owners) shall have one vote regardless of the number of parcels owned. 8. Ballots will be opened in the presence of at.least two HPC members, HPC staff and at least two representatives of the NSC. 9. The ballots must be returned (mai.led or hand -delivered) to the HPC office within ten (10) business days frau the date the ballot is distributed to the owner. 10. The standards will be considered by the HPC at a Public Hearing and voted upon. The HPC will weigh and consider the vote of the neighborhood, but because the HPC is legally responsible for.the administration of the district, the HPC retains the right to approve or disapprove the final standards. If approved and adopted, a final standards booklet will be compiled by the staff. 11. The NSC will be responsible for distributing the final standards booklet to all current owners within the district. 12. The HPC will explain to the neighborhood the procedure for electing a Liaison CommitteeandLiaison Committee responsibilities. 13. A. The process of drafting district standards (step #1) shall not exceed nine (9) months. B. The process of revising standards (step #1) shall not.exceed six (6) months. C. The process of drafting -and approving final standards (steps #2 to #10) shall not exceed ninety (90) days. Cynthia J. Brubaker 540 River Avenue South Bend, Indiana. 46601 April 19, 1993 Mr. John Oxian President Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph Co. 1123 County -City Building South Bend, IN 46601 Dear Mr. Oxian: It is with sincere regret that I must resign from the Commissionapologize at this a time for personal reasons. I have enjoyed my short tenure inconvenience my resignation may create. Sincerely, Cynthia J. Brubaker • 0 Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County Visitor Roll-- April 19, 1993 Please print your name, address and organization, if applicable, so your presence at tonight's meeting can be officially recorded. Thank you. 22 3 �:��-� ►� u 2 3 4 24 5 4 0 C D 2, /275 C Al 7j 25 t 0 93 K, �r j, p ! ` 6 27 8 (A"� '� �- 28 10 30 11 31 12 32 13 33 14 34 15 35 16 36 17 37 18 38 �19 39 20 40