The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJune 1993historicpreservation comm issi p on (6 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 June 21, 1993 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 1244 Lincolnway East -- Lincolnway East LHD 2. 1097 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD 3. 63049 Turkey Trail -- Local Landmark IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes -- May, 1993 B. Treasurers Report -- May, 1993 C. Correspondence D. Committee Reports 1. C of A (Staff Approvals) A. 230 E. Navarre -- River Bend LHD B. 1732 E. Wayne -- East Wayne Street LHD C. 520 River Ave. -- Edgewater Place LHD D. 507 Riverside Drive -- River Bend LHD E. 63049 Turkey Trail -- Local Landmark 2. Budget and Finance 3. Legal 4. Historic Districts 5. Historic Landmarks 6. Standards and Maintenance A. Staff Approval Policy 7. Personnel 8. Staff Reports V. Old Business VI. New Business VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT PROPERTY -- 1244 Lincolnway East South Bend, IN 46613 DOWNERS -- Dr. Ulrich Klopfer DESIGNATION -- Lincolnway East LHD STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HSTORIC CONTEXT_ 1244 Lincolnway East is a Contributing (C/10) structure in the Lincolnway East Local Historic District. The house was built in 1898 and is a Queen Anne -styled residence. The house has undergone major alterations but retains sufficient historic fabric overall to remain an important element of the historic district streetscape. PROPOSED CHANGE The South Bend Department of. Code Enforcement has proposed demolishing this structure. Code Enforcement has determined that, according to Indiana Law, the property is "unsafe." Code Enforcement has submitted photographs (enclosed) and an "Exterior Code Violations List," dated variously from 8-25-93 to 1-6-93, that lists maintenance problems cited by inspectors (this is a fairly large document; it will be available for HPC inspection at the hearing). STANDARDS HPC Demolition Standards disfavor demolition in historic districts and require the owner to prove that it is economically unfeasible to repair the property appropriately. S`ection:,21-113.2 _.(2) of -South Bend Cod.q (Article 6.5 Historic Preservation Commission) states that "[n]othing in this article shall be construed to prevent the demolition ... of any building ... which the Building Commissioner or other official having such power may certify as required by the public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition." This section continues: J w]here the Historic Preservation commission deems it necessary, the Commission may petition the Common Council for a temporary delay in the issuance of the required permit(s) for proposed ... demolition for -the purpose of preparing a preservation plan for said landmark. Such petition must be for a specified period of time. The Common Council shall grant the commissions petition when it finds,; a. That such action will not cause the owner of the subject property to suffer hardship; and b. That such a delay will not be injurious to the public health, safety or welfare; and c. That in keeping with the intent of this article, such action is necessary and appropriate. In no case may the delay granted by the Common Council. exceed one (1) year, but the Commission may petition the Common Council for a continuation of any delay granted by the Common Council in accordance with the same procedures set forth above for the initial appeal." 0 RECOMMENDATIONS It the staffs recommendation that the HPC deny this COA for demolition and 1 •petition the Common Council for a delay according to the above procedures in order to develop a preservation plan for this structure. The maintenance problems submitted by the Department of Code Violations, although numerous, are violations that do not threaten the structural tintegrity of this building. None of the aforementioned "problems" warrant he demolition of an otherwise viable structure. The building is in need of attention and repair; staff has begun seeking strategies to get around the problem of an owner who is, in essence, causing demolition by neglect. Code Enforcement Director Katherine Dempsey has suggested one possible way to begin such a process; perhaps the HPC can find an organization willing to participate in her departments "receivership program" (see attached article) whereby the owner can be bypassed until repairs are made. It would set an extremely bad precedent to allow demolition of such a structure in a Local Historic District. The owner has refused for many years to cooperate with the city or this commission in undertaking the necessary basic repairs to maintain this property. It is in the Commissions long-term interest, and the interest of the neighborhood, to save this structure and send a message to others that the HPC will not tolerate demolition by neglect. F. Holycross June 15, 1993 • 2 1244 L.W.E. 5-27-93: View of front (north) side. Ex. Sim 16 4 L.W.E., 5-27-93: View of rear uth) side. Ex. SJM 1244 L.W.E., 5-27-93: Vioew of west side. Ex. SJM 1244 L.W.E., 5-27-93: View of east side. Ex. SJM 1] 1244 L.W.E., 5-27-93: View of part of west side. Ex. Sim 1244 L.W.E., 5-27-93: View of cond. of roof overhang and roofing at bay window along part of east side. 1244 L.W.E., 5-27-93: View of part of west side showing cond. of main chimney & siding. Ex. SJM 1244 L.W.E., 5-27-93: View of cond. of roof overhang at part of east side. Ex. SJM Ex. SJM • • 1244 L.W.E., 5-27-93: of siding at part of E Ex. SJM view of cond. ast side. S� or S are 1 "•�•. D -z/-93: View of Gond. of siding & roof edge at bay window along part of east side. Ex. SJM ��-93 MaU. • re yrs . Code official believes receivership program led b charigo in` heart By DON PORTER Tribune Stall Writer SOUTH BEND — Threats of having their rental properties taken over temporarily by the city is forc- ing landlords to make required re- pairs, says Code Enforcement Di- rector Kathy Dempsey . new buildingreceivership pro- gram started last August has given the city the leverage it needs to convince owners to bring property in line with city codes, Dempsey told members of the Common Council recently. The receivership program can be invoked when a landlord fails to make repairs ordered by Code Enforcement Hearing Officer Larry Clifford, Dempsey said. It allows the city to seek a court order to appoint someone to take over the substandard property. Most often, the receiver would be a local non-profit housing agency, Dempsey said. The receiver then would make the required upgrades to the build- ing and collect rent from tenants until all repair costs are paid off. The repair expenses would become a fustit en against the property, su- perseding even a mortgage lien. That means the building owner could not sell it until the repairs were paid for and the lien ended. "In other words, the receivership program basically forces repairs, either by the owner or by the court- appointed receiver," Dempsey said. Her office has been advising landlords of the new program, and its details are listed in written re- pair orders sent to them prior to hearings before Clifford, Dempsey said. She also outlined the program last summer at a landlord associat- ing meeting before the procedure began. The code agency has opened 20 potential receivership cases since last August, Dempsey said. Of those, 13 have been closed because the properties were repaired, she added. Of the remainder, two buildings are now being repaired by 'their 'dard property had to endure the owners and action continues on the wait.' five others, Dempsey said. Only one. of the latter properties is likely to' The code agency now is bringing forfeiture cases directly to Clifford,' actually go into receivership, she added. .: instead of taking them to court, Dempsey said. The city's Legal De - Even though it's been in -opera- tion for less than a year, it's already ` partment determined that the hear - proving to be very successful, : .ing officer has the power to levy f.ines under the unsafe building act; Dempsey said. A change in another enforcement she added area also is helping the city crack down on substandard housing, It now takes only an average of 10 bays to levy the fines, Dempsey • Dempsey said Until February, Code Enforce- said. Thea has brow seven ment had to go through St. Joseph feiture cases since February, she County Small Claims Court to seek added ., .-... civil forfeiture penalties against ' � .. The beefed-up code enforcement landords who refused to repair grew out of urgings Iasi year by the their properties. That program. al-: Mayor's. Housing Forum, '. which lows a fine of up to $1,000 to, be • recommended ways - to improve levied against the owners. housing in city neighbohroods. "It was very successful in forcing "We' receivedone very strong repairs, but it was a long and cum- message: Owners are not main- bersome process," Dempsey said, taining their houses at acceptable adding that it could take as long as levels," Dempsey said "Our statis- nine months for a judgment and tics clearly indicate we're winning people living next to the substan- the war to change that" CERTIFICATE OF__APPROPRIATENESSSTAFF REPORT PROPERTY -- 1097 Riverside Drive South Bend, IN 46616 IONERS -- Michael Murphy DESIGNATION -- Riverside Drive LHD STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE1HISTORIC CONTEXT 109,7 Riverside Dr. is in the Riverside Drive Local Historic District. 1097 was rated as a non-contributing structure on the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory during a 1985 survey. This American Foursquare house was built in 1906. PROPOSED CHANGE Install a six foot: (6') wood, shadowbox -style fence at the rear of the property; to run from the southeast corner of the house west to edge of slope, south to within approximately four (4) feet of the alley, then turning at a 45 degree angle and running along the alley approximately another ten (10) feet then turning again at a 45 degree angle and continuing to the garage. The owner also wishes to remove a mature maple tree (approx. 2.5') in diameter at the west side of the garage. STANDARDS •strict standards (1,A,1) state the introduction of new site elements such as ".. fencing... shall be compatible in size, scale, material, and color." RECOMMENDATIONS It. is recommended that the HPC approve this proposal. The applicant's proposal meets the criteria for acceptability as defined in the district standards. Because the continuing growth of the tree jeopardizes the garage the staff favors its removal. C. Frederick June 15, 1993 �J Ilk -d .� � fir.,• , y, ;, '�� `' (L��"� Y � ,�_• y � H "� EW f�,y�t }i`J:<�• � ! ' i'` 6, t ! - .� ! \L�•.y , .' (�� iii i-�fi ti..: :. \1:��,. '��•,'�� Yf , � y Al v. . y 1 �..\: 11_r r! �•. �bE.-,x� ♦r� - .mad - • • • illustration of proposed fence from Wickes Lumber circular, April 1993 • • 40' 14' ALLEY 4 8.0' Pw p W. alt��s• 14.2' -Gar. N Lot ,N 29 14 2 Lot -28 o 00 PARCELI Q CV � 26.4' o 2 - Story From e N , 1.5 N w to ' 2 6.0 yr 16.0 14.8' ; mm 4,061 O , N 12: 3 44.6 3/4 PT. .7 P0. B. 4g 1/2"0.T. _K PARCELS curb w/elbow RIVERSIDE DR. 60 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT PROPERTY -- 63049 Turkey Trail • South Bend, IN 46614 OWNERS -- Jill and Dan Purkey DESIGNATION -- Local Landmark (County) STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This farmhouse is one of St. Joseph County's finest examples of unaltered Italianate architecture. The house was constructed in 1861 for the Francis Donaghue family. The house was rated as Outstanding (0-13) on the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory in 1975; it was designated as a Local Historic Landmark by the County Council in 1976. The farmstead's major significance lies in its embodiment of the Italianate mode of architecture locally popular during and after the Civil War. The exterior of the house is essentially unaltered except for several insignificant details; previous owners have restored the structure in an effort to maintain the numerous ornamental details. The farm also contains a Bank Barn from the same period and a collection of outbuildings representing the evolution of farming practices from the nineteenth to the twentieth centuries. PROPOSED CHANGE leThe owners wish to attach an addition to the rear of the main house (see plans); the addition would consist of a one-story gabled portion extending west, with a smaller gabled section running north, to be attached to a large, three -bay garage. A deck is proposed to be located on the south side of the addition. The proposal calls for the "removal" of a chicken coop and an outhouse that stand in the path of the proposed addition. STANDARDS Landmark standards (Group B; C) require that additions to landmarks "not detract from the original form and unity of the landmark and should not cover singular examples of architectural detail." Such additions "should be added in a manner that does not disrupt the visible unity or overall appearance of the site." RECOMMENDATIONS This proposal suggests the construction of a major addition that profoundly alters the farmstead's historical integrity, the overall appearance of the ,site, and the massing of the main structure. Staff conferred with the owners and made several suggestions: 1. construct an smaller addition that is located directly behind the house only (a proposal with historical precedent); 2. locate the garage elsewhere --near the site of the existing garage for example, and; 3. retain the outbuildings. The owners would not consider these suggestions. Staff then asked two commissioners --Mrs. isSporleder and Mr. Eide--to confer with the owners and provide design and construction suggestions. This proposal is in response to those suggestions. Attached are photocopies of elevations and a floorplan submitted by the except for the three garage doors; staff has asked that those specifications also be provided. The primary concern from a historical perspective --whatever addition is attached to this house --is that the historic fabric of the house not be •damaged so that in the future the addition might be removed without harming the historic portion of the structure. It is recommended that the HPC specifically require that the owners provide documentation for and approval of the techniques and materials that will be used to attach this addition to the Italianate block. It is also suggested that the HPC forewarn the owners and their contractors that the interior and exterior of the addition will be inspected after construction so that documentation of compliance with all agreements can be had. Staff recommends that all outbuildings be retained. These structures (two chicken coops and an outhouse) are important historical artifacts deserving of retention and maintenance. Staff has provided the owners with several articles that suggest adaptive reuse and maintenance strategies for such buildings. F. Holycross June 14, 1993 • • 0 COA #1993-0604: 63049 Turkey Trail I` • NORTH �km' L a4<f9 kn w r .r`�t3�.n`a' ov X '��ir�i •.,+:; d ,,, 2.4 4.ti t -n• c -Y r.; '�? t. ' � 0 • COA #1993-0604: 63049 Turkey Trail Road View of north side of house; includes outbuildings (building propoed for "removal" hidden by bushes Round -roofed Chicken Coop proposed for removal (from rear) W/ -1/- Q3 Chicken Coop and Outhouse i South facade, southwest corner shows location of windmill/out- buildings �7 • I � 0 I* 14 5 • I P. r > fp Z A T3).. 2s -%3t -TD -24-A& I P. r 0 41 mm ** ON M C 4- %D F-3 m k4 FJ - F, � 0 Z's, o" > fp 0 41 mm ** ON M C 4- %D F-3 m k4 FJ - F, � 0 Z's, o" n U 9 6 0 a w 0 0*10 ONLJ 0 rnF4 r- r_ crn 19 x FA- m rt kC rt N H CIA. n w cr w � N 0 m n 0 With Glasc Clear H107• H109• \cnliiating (from: Pease Door Systems catalog) COA #1993-0604: 63049 Turkey Trail Submitted by owner Without Glass' k l H101• H120♦ H168♦ H1700 The coding below represents the size possibilities of all door styles. • Single Door Units: 216,1 218,1 310" Double Door Units: 5'0,15'4." 6'011 ♦Single Door Units: 2'8,r 3'Orr Double Door Units: 5'4,r 6'0" Sidelights available in 12" and 14" Homestead designs without glass are available with a 20 -minute fire label. 30 Note I'ft ,n gca h ;n th:. braihure,h, s :::v,h l .t:ntr. San'> ilu,uar le.ar.urce ia,.>dnln; Ihw1,.11-C'111ppe.I \CIII7011e iglu of factor• tpplitd primer leo not apph another primer beh,rc hmAl p.ununL COA 41993-0604: 63049 Turkey Trail Submitted by owner (Pease Door Systems) E334A S33 E338RA S338 E389M S389 E390M E3940 S6L* S14L S16L 10 5382 E386M 5386 E3870 5387 E3960 • E374M S374 E3190 S344 E344A E3450 S345 E3660 S366 Without Glass E301 M E3180 For rough openings and handing diagrams. please see P. 35 & P. 36. I - -dities of door sn-les. represents the size possib Door Units: Single Door Units: 2'6' 2'8': 3'0': TO" c Door L'nits. Double Door Units: 5'0': 5'4': 6'0" ASingle Door Units. 8: 3'()'.' 3'6' Double Door Units: g i % a i la h I c i r. 1 n,J I o 60" 4nlic.,,arc tixed unless indicated withan I" U tollowing design number. COA 91993-0604: 63049 Turkey Trail WINDOW COMBINATIONS Clad and wood circleheads are built in standard frame widths to match those of popular Pella® windows and door sys- tems. Circleheads are typically installed over casements, dou- ble-hungs, sliding glass doors or'IYaditional French doors. Circleheads may also be used in other combinations to form unique Windowscaping— design composites. Submitted by owner I/4' t/a" ROUGH OPENING (6) ,�FR�A�E�� (6) 1/4I61 isl } FRAME 1/4" 161 161 �� L ❑ ❑�J over single a double-hungs _ SPRING v '= SPRING Z LINE Z _ LINE — o- (6) 1/4" (6) } 1/4" Circlehead over double -hung Circlehead over double casements Metric dimensions in ( ) are millimeters (mm) Ellipse and half -circle over doors DETAILS — Scale 11/2" = 1'0" (1:8) I 2x4 FRAME — BRICK VENEER VZAMITU U ^ 7 U C z CURVED HEAD o Half circle over single and double casements 2x4 FRAME — WOOD SIDING CURVED HEAD TYPICAL JOINING MULLIONS HORIZONTAL JOINING MULLION HORIZONTAL JOINING MULLION SILL llK T�1 I CLAD CIRCLEHEAD OVER SILL TRADITIONAL FRENCH DOORS Details shown here at one- eighth scale are informational only, intended to illustrate typi- cal installation methods. For additional information and trac- ing details at 3" = 1'0" (1:4) scale, see the Pella Architec- tural Design Manual. 53 a ❑ Half cir and over single a double-hungs Quarter circle over casement TYPICAL JOINING MULLIONS HORIZONTAL JOINING MULLION HORIZONTAL JOINING MULLION SILL llK T�1 I CLAD CIRCLEHEAD OVER SILL TRADITIONAL FRENCH DOORS Details shown here at one- eighth scale are informational only, intended to illustrate typi- cal installation methods. For additional information and trac- ing details at 3" = 1'0" (1:4) scale, see the Pella Architec- tural Design Manual. 53 CLAD DOUBLE- WINDOWS SIZES — Equal Sash & Tall Lower Sash HUNG COAT#1993-0604 Submitted by owner ROUGH OPENING(mm) 540 641 743 845 946 1048 1149 FRAME(mm) 527 629 730 832 933 1035 1137 IOPENING I'9'n" 2'1',t •2'5V 2'9'd 3'1'0" 3'5,, 3'9V LME 1'814" 2'014" 2114" 2'814" 3'014" 3114" 3'814" GLASS 16" 20" 24" 28" 32" 36" 40" ��❑��= 161616TD 2 D 211116TD 281616TD 311616TD 361111TD 411616TD E❑❑❑❑❑ o� N 16202OTD 02020 24202OTD 28202OTD 32202OTD 36202OTD 40202OTD ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N N E ED 162222TD D 242222TD 282222TD 322222TD 362222TD 402222TD N N a0 NII ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 162424TD 2024241 242424TD 282424TD 322424TD 362424TD 402424TD 162828TD 202828TD 242828TD 282828TD 322828TD 362828TD 402828TD 162436TD 202436TD 242436TD 282436TD 322436TD 362436TD 402436TD 163434TD 203434TD 243434TD 293434TD 323434TD 363434TD U "M MIN.My 3 FIXED SIZES ROUGH OPENINGImm) 1359 1 664 FRAME(mm) 1346 1651 ROUGH OPENING 4'5 V 5'5Y 4ME 47 57 48" 60" ❑ ❑❑ 4845TD 6045TD E 4849TD 6049TD 5/8 IC 4857TD 6057TD IG 4861TD 6061TD 5/8 5/8 IG IG ] 4869TD 6069TD 5/8 5/8 IG IG 163636TD 203636TD 243636TD 283636TO 323636TD 363636TD 4873TD 6073TD *Window head set at normal height. SASH STYLES Equal Sash Upper and lower sash have equal Tell Lower Sash Glass height of lower sash is Fixed Units Frame heights of clad double - Pella® Clad Double -Hung win- glass heights. Lower sash with greater than glass height of hung fixed units match frame glass heights over 28" (711 mm) upper sash (see Vent Units, heights for all three styles of with three different sash styles. have vertical travel restricted to above, with 5'6" 11676 mm] vent units. 24" (610 mm). Upper sash have frame height). Lower sash travel restricted to 8" (203 mm) travel is restricted to 24" or less, for pivoting. Half screens (610 mm). Upper sash travel is or full screens are available. restricted to 8" (203 mm) or less, for pivoting. Half screens or full screens are available. 36 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Monthly Meeting 7:30 p.m. June 21, 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 Ride, Ms. Catherine Hostetler, Mr. John Oiian, Mrs. Janeanae Petrass. Members Absent: Ms. Jewel Van Dalsen, Mrs. Joann Sporleder. Staff Present: Fred Holycross--Director; Chip Frederick --Administrative Assistant. Also Present: Aladean DeRose--Deputy City Attorney; Marsha Stevenson --Riverside Drive Liaison; B Talley --Riverside Drive Liaison; Aon Price --1049 Riverside Drive; Kathy Dempsey --Director, Code Enforcement; Susan Woolley --Shapiro and Unterberg; Dan and Jill Purkey 19645 Old Ridge Road; Jeanne Everett --19310 Edinburgh Drive; Kathy Sechowski--53401 Oakton Drive; Mike Murphy --1091 Riverside Drive; Kevin Boughal--South Bend Tribune. III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness. 1. 1244 Lincolaway East -- Lincoloway East -- LED Mr. Holycross read the staff report describing the proposed project: The South Bend Department of Code Enforcement has proposed demolishing this structure. Code Enforcement has determined that, according to Indiana law, the property is "unsafe". He added that HPC Demolition Standards disfavor demolition in historic districts and require the owner to prove that it is economically unfeasible to repair the property appropriately. The staff recommended that the BPC deny this COA for demolition and petition the Common Council for a delay in order to develop a preservation plan for this structure. The director of South Bend's Department of Code Enforcement, Katherine Dempsey, detailed the city's failed efforts to make the owner, whom she characterized as "unresponsive and irresponsible," comply with local ordinances. Commissioner Oaian asked about the possibilities of for-profit corporations as well as others in the receivership program. Mr. Oaian then asked about the jurisdictional authority over the property after the repair investment has been made. Ms. Dempsey replied that the repair investment acts as a first lien on the property and will supersede the mortgage. Mr. Holycross asked if the HPC must approach the Common Council in a formal manner regarding the property and the receivership program. Ms. Dempsey recommended that HPC petition the Common Council for the one year delay. Commissioner Bide asked if the house had a mortgage and Ms. Dempsey replied in the affirmative. Susan Woolley spoke to her client's financial interest in the property as well as the unlikelihood of her client's footing of the repair bills. Commissioner Hostetler asked what the fair market value for homes in that area was; Mr. Oaian replied that Jerry Hubner's property was valued at $125,000 plus. 1 r Mr Bide moved that the application for demolition be denied and that the NPC petition the Common Council for a one year delay in order to pursue the receivership program. The motion was seconded by • Mrs. Petrass. No further discission. The motion passed unanimousl 2. 1091 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive -LRD Mr. Nolycross read the staff report describing the proposed project: Install a sig foot wood, shadowbox -style fence at the rear of the property; to run from the southeast corner of the house west to the edge of slope, south to within approximately four feet of the alley, then turning at a 45 degree angle and running along the alley approximately another ten feet, then turning again at a 45 degree angle and continuing to the garage. The owner also wishes to remove a mature maple tree. The proposal was appropriate according to district standards and the staff recommended approval. Mr. Murphy, the owner, stated that the fence was for security as well as privacy. Mr. Nolycross stated that Mr. Murphy had received a zoning variance from the city for this project. Mr. Bide moved that the proposal be approved as submitted. Mrs. Choitz seconded the motion. No further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Nolycross stated that the staff's opinion was that the addition as originally proposed was historically and aesthetically inappropriate. The current proposal was reached after the owners refused the suggestions of the staff; subsequently Mr. Bide and Mrs. Sporleder met with the owners; this proposal represents that collaborative effort. Staff recommended that all construction techniques and results be inspected in order to secure compliance with the agreement. Furthermore staff recommends that all outbuildings be retained. Mrs. Purkey explained her rationale for the proposed addition. Mr. Oxian stated he "cannot go along with anything in which you're going to end up taking down a chicken coop or anything else." Conversation ensued concerning the chicken coops. Mr. Bolycross read the landmark ordinance documenting the amount of acreage. Mr. Bolycross stated the staff's counter claim regarding the condition of the chicken coop. Mr. Bide detailed the meetings with the owners and the various advice and counsel given by the BPC to them gratis. Mr. Bide characterized the proposal as a "true compromise" though the end result "would not be our first choice". Mr. Bide moved that the proposal be approved subject to approval of materials and techniques for attaching the addition and that all outbuildings with the sole exception of the chicken coop that interferes with construction be retained. Mrs. Choitz asked for a reread of the motion. Conversation ensued concerning the wording of the 3. 63049 Turkey Trail -- Local County Landmark Mr. Nolycross read the staff report describing the proposed project: The owners wish to attach an addition to the rear of the main house; the addition would consist of a one-story gabled portion extending west, with a smaller gabled section running north, to be attached to a large, three -bay . garage. A deck is the "removal" of proposed to be located on the south a chicken coop and an outhouse that side of the addition. The proposal calls for stand in the path of the proposed addition. Mr. Nolycross stated that the staff's opinion was that the addition as originally proposed was historically and aesthetically inappropriate. The current proposal was reached after the owners refused the suggestions of the staff; subsequently Mr. Bide and Mrs. Sporleder met with the owners; this proposal represents that collaborative effort. Staff recommended that all construction techniques and results be inspected in order to secure compliance with the agreement. Furthermore staff recommends that all outbuildings be retained. Mrs. Purkey explained her rationale for the proposed addition. Mr. Oxian stated he "cannot go along with anything in which you're going to end up taking down a chicken coop or anything else." Conversation ensued concerning the chicken coops. Mr. Bolycross read the landmark ordinance documenting the amount of acreage. Mr. Bolycross stated the staff's counter claim regarding the condition of the chicken coop. Mr. Bide detailed the meetings with the owners and the various advice and counsel given by the BPC to them gratis. Mr. Bide characterized the proposal as a "true compromise" though the end result "would not be our first choice". Mr. Bide moved that the proposal be approved subject to approval of materials and techniques for attaching the addition and that all outbuildings with the sole exception of the chicken coop that interferes with construction be retained. Mrs. Choitz asked for a reread of the motion. Conversation ensued concerning the wording of the • AD • motion, potential uses for chicken coop and potential listing on the National Register. Mrs. Purkey responded that she was unaware of the advantages of such listing as she was of her current local designation. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Petrass. No further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes -- May, 1993. Mr. Holycross asked that the May minutes be approved as submitted. Mrs. Choitz moved to approve the May, 1993 minutes as submitted. Ms. Hostetler seconded the motion. No discussion. Motion passed unanimously. B. Treasurer's Report Mr. Holycross asked that the May, 1993 Treasurer's Report be approved as submitted. Ms. Hostetler moved that the May, 1993 Treasurer's Report be approved as submitted. Mrs. Petrass seconded the motion. No discussion. Motion passed unanimously. C. Correspondence No discussion. D. Committee Reports 1. C of A (Staff Approvals) A. 230 East Navarre-- River Bend LAD B. 1732 East Rayne -- East Wayne Street LHD C. 520 River Ave. -- Edgewater Place LHD D. 507 Riverside Drive -- River Bend LBD E. 63049 Turkey Trail -- Local Landmark No discussion. 2. Budget and Finance No Report. 3. Legal No Report. 4. Historic Districts A. Mr. Holycross spoke about the final public meeting concerning the River Bend LHD and about the circulation of the final draft of the district standards. Ms. Hostetler raised the question of 3 residents buying property on land contract. Discussion ensued. Mr Oxian suggested that the procedures be amended to include a notification of those residents who may be buying hones on land contracts. Mr. Bide stated that "the commission ought to be wary of introducing districts this • way that is without standards in place. Discussion ensued. S. Historic Landmarks Mr. Holycross announced that 51381 Portage Road had been approved as a Local Landmark as of 6-8-93. Mr. Holycross stated that he had appeared before the Area Plan Commission concerning the word change to our county enabling legislation and that the change passed unanimously. 6. Standards and Maintenance Mr. Oxian spoke about the new staff approval policy and suggested a minor change in item 2-4., which was adopted. Mrs Choitz moved that the amended staff approval policy be accepted. Mr. Bide seconded the motion. No further discussion The motion passed unadimously. 1. Personnel Mr. Holycross publicly announced his resignation as director in order to pursue an opportunity with HLFI.He expressed his thanks to the commission. Mr. Bide expresses his gratitude to Mr. Holycross for his thoroughgoing professionalism. Ms. DeRose also expresses her thankfulness to Mr. Holycross for his exceptional capabilities in service to the county. 8. Staff Reports Mr. Holycross made several brief announcements. V. Old Business Mr. Oxian asked about the temporary sign on Lincolnway Bast. Mr. Holycross responded that he had contacted the owner. Mr. Oxian spoke about the letter sent to the state school superintendent concerning the "60% formula". VI. New Business No discussion VII. Hearing of Visitors Mr. Talley gave the street light report. VIII. Announcemeats/Miscellaneous Matters No discussion. IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. 4 TREASURER'S REPORT: June -- 1993 As can be seen below, during the month of June, 1993 HPC staff incurred no unusual expenses. This month's expenditures total $1636.57. The unencumbered account balance (4001.39211.000.034) was $29,656.25. In June the HPC quietesed (deposited) $1,416.66 into the St. Joseph County general fund from the May, 1993 CDBG grant claim. 06/93 5/27/93 PO#056781 06/93 6/15/93 CLAIM 06/93 6/14/93 CLAIM 06/93 6/211/93 CLAIM 06/93 7/06/93 CLAIM Amount Vendor 127.50 Gene's Camera Store 708.33 Charles R. Frederick, Jr. 74.41 St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners 18.00 Traditional Building 708.33 Charles R. Frederick, Jr. • Correspondence/Journals Received -- May 18, 1993 to June 16, 1993 -- COMO Signs and Supplies, Catalog #24, 1993-94. -- Newsletter Northern Indiana Historical Society, June/August 1993. -- Update Center City Associates, Inc. June/July 1993. -- Historic Preservation National Trust: May/June, 1993. -- Conference Announcement: "Amazing Space" HLFI, June 25-26. 1993 -- Center City Associates Invitation to Downtown Recognition Breakfast, Wednesday, June 30, 1993. -- CRM Magazine, 1993. -- Old -House Journal, July/August 1993. -- Indiana Preservationist, HLFI, May/June 1993, 0 • • ST, It 230 1732 Jun 16, 1993 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF APPROVALS: May 5, 1993 to June 16, 1993 STREET CATEGORY PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESIG East roofing Remove asphalt shingles LHD-RB Navarre from the front half of the house; replace in-kind with three -in -one tab asphalt shingles. East Wayne doors; outbuildings 520 River Avenue i 507 Riverside Drive 63049 Turkey Trail • Replacement of two garage doors in-kind: to consist of two "Wayne -Dalton" brand, wood doors to match existing in material and appearance; to consist of six panels in width and four panels in height with top rows of six lights (glass); doors of wood, overall 1-3/8" thickness hardboard panels, rails and stiles of hemlock or equal. roofing Replace asphalt roof shingles, entire house, in-kind: Surf Green "Classic Plus" brand shingles. roofing Remove old shingles, entire house: replace in kind with 30 lb. felt 20 year shingles; new metal drip edge and four vents. roofing Remove roof shingles and replace in-kind; replace deteriorated underlayment; install flashings around chimneys; install roof vent on west side. CASE# 1993-0610 LHD-EW 1993-0524 LHD-EP 1993-0525 LHD-RB 1993-0604-2 LL-Coun 1993-0604 ty 9 10 0 historic preservat I ion cornmiss I ion of south bend and st. joseph county • ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798 Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County Visitor Roll-- June 21, 1993 Please print your name, address and organization, if applicable, so your presence at tonight's meeting can be officially recorded. Thank you. 1 i (—�Ie,/fr 011"6cr 7 21 2 22 3 W"I", 23 4 24 5 Did R14 25 N(ve 4 6 26 7 27 8 28 9 29 ice 10 (09 30 1131 RbL14b I 12 32 13 33 14 10TI 34 Tr 4 (04 15 (�ov 35 16 36 17 37 0 18 38