HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 1995f�-
4/5/95
Commissioners Please Note:
The minutes from the January Regularly Scheduled Meeting have not yet been
approved. Please review them for corrections as well as the February and
Special Hearing minutes. If you did not retain the January minutes, please
contact me for another copy.
CA
b
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING
of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular monthly meeting County Commissioner's
7:30 p.m. Conference Room
Monday, April 17, 1995 7th Floor County City Bldg
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
A. New Commission members- Edward Talley and Adrian Fine
III. Public Hearing
A. Certificates of Appropriateness
1. 1077 Riverside Drive - RSD -LHD; landscaping
2. 521 River Avenue - EP -LHD; vinyl siding
3. 221 Navarre - RB -LHD; garage
4. 1093 Riverside Drive - RSD -LHD; deck
5. 944 Riverside Drive - RSD -LHD; tree removal
6. 723 Park Avenue - LL, CP -NRHD; tree removal
7. 1142 Lincolnway East - LWE -LHD; window replacement
8. 113 West North Shore Drive - NSD -LHD; roofing
9. 803 N Notre Dame Ave. - LL; window & door replacement
10. 1235 East Wayne South - EW -LHD; fencing
11. 300 -1200 blks. Riverside Drive - RSD -LHD; streetlights
12. 221 Hammond Place - RB -LHD; fencing
IV. Regular Business
A. Approval of Minutes - January 16 1995, February 27 1995, March 7 1995
B. Treasurers Report
C. Correspondence
D. Committee Reports
1. Budget & Finance
2. Legal
a. Historic Preservation Plan
3. Historic Districts
a. Lincolnway West
4. Historic Landmarks
a. First reading on landmark status for the following properties:
1. 511 West Colfax
b. Second reading on landmark status for the following properties:
none
c. Status of recommendations to Common Council - Unchanged
310 West Monroe (Olivet AME Zion Church, Zion Hill Baptist)
534 LaPorte Avenue (Starzynski Texaco Gasoline Station)
221 North Michigan (Roma)
5. Standards & Maintenance
6. Personnel
7. Staff Reports
a. C of A Staff Approvals
1. 528 River Avenue - EP -LHD; Porch repairs
2. 226 Hammond - RB -LHD; Re -roof in -kind
b. East Race Tourism Project
c. 507 -509 South Michigan. Street
V. Old Business
A. 1077 Riverside Drive - RSD -LHD; landscaping
VI. New Business
A. Pay phones in Historic Districts
VII. Hearing of Visitors
VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters
IX. Adjournment
historic preservatio"commission
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNVf CITY BUILDING
south bend. indiana 46601 (219) 235 -9798
2.)
3.)
4.)
6.)
7.)
8.)
9.)
10.)
11.)
12.)
13.)
14.)
15.)
16.)
17.)
18.)
19.)
20.)
21.)
22.)
23.)
24.)
25.)
SIGN -IN
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
PROPERTY -- 1077 Riverside Drive
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Mary Hendriksen & Dwight King
DESIGNATION -- RSD - LHD
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT
The house at 1077 Riverside Drive was built c. 1925 for Hariette E. and Dora
I. Keller, sisters of Fred Keller. partner in the prominent real estate
company of Whitcomb and Keller. This Colonial Revival style house is rated
S 111 in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Survey and is considered in
excellent condition.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The owner proposes to plant a Dogwood bush or bush of similar size and type at
the Southeast corner of the house and to plant an Anthony Waterer Spirea or
shrub of similar size and type in front of the screened porch.
STANDARDS
New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of
the property found in photographs, drawings, and newspapers. New site work
should be appropriate to existing surrounding site elements in scale, type and
appearance.
RECOMMENDATION
These proposed changes are minor site amenities which meet the criteria set
forth in the standards. Staff recommends approval.
4/5/95
CAA
ALTERATIONS
Additions
Other
24. SITE PLAN
D E
<
� � � t
files
cutout
N
27. Ed irooment
idential fa Gol den
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
PROPERTY -- 521 River Avenue
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Ernest Hursey, Sr.
DESIGNATION -- EP -LHD
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT
This American Four - Square was built c. 1920 by Whitcomb and Keller. The house
has been altered by the addition of asbestos shingle siding, aluminum storm
door and windows, and replacement concrete porch steps. It is rated C/9 in the
Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Survey.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The owner proposes to install vinyl siding on the house.
STANDARDS
II.A.l: 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.
II.A.2: Whenever possible, the original building materials should be restored.
Aluminum or vinyl siding may be used when it is the only feasible alternative
to maintaining the original surface material.
RECOMMENDATION
The standards do not specifically address the issue of vinyl siding over an
unoriginal building material. The vinyl siding, if done in an appropriate size
and style, would be less obtrusive than the extant asbestos shingles. The
staff does have some concerns regarding the window and door trim being lost in
the additional layer of wall covering. If the owner addresses these concerns,
staff recommends approval.
CAA
3/28/95
E
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
PROPERTY -- 221 East Navarre
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Peter Hauser
DESIGNATION -- RB -LHD
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT
The Bungalow style residence at 221 Navarre was constructed c. 1911. The 1 1/2
story house has a cast concrete foundation, clapboard and wood shingle siding,
and flared extension of the roof over the porch. It was purchased by William
Schindler in 1912 and used as a rental property until 1921. The property is
rated S 111 by the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Survey and is
unaltered. The property has a hipped roof garage with a gable front addition
on the North side.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The owner proposes to:
1. Remove the North side gable front garage addition
2. Remove the masonry chimney from the West side of the garage
3. Re -frame the roof to its original hip type
4. Re -roof the garage to match the house
5. Reframe the North elevation for two 8ft wood overhead type garage doors.
6. Use salvaged siding from addition to replace damaged /missing siding.
STANDARDS
I.B.3. No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by
removing... outbuildings ... before evaluating there importance to the properties
history and development.
RECOMMENDATION
The gable front section is attached to the hipped roof section by a sloped
roof area of questionable quality. The owners proposal would include the
removal of the gable front section and the odd shaped connecting area. At one
point in the property's history, the garage was an electrical supply warehouse
and it is assumed the additions were made at that time. This property also
shared driveway with the house to the West which explains the garage doors on
the South side in the West corner. This driveway no longer exists rendering
the doors useless as an auto entry. There is a second set of garage doors on
the East side in the area that has been added on to connect the two
structures. These doors are situated at an angle that also renders them
useless as an auto entry for more than one car.
The garage is in poor condition and the owner's proposal would certainly
enhance the rear of the property. The additions do not seem to be a historical
asset as much as a detriment to the viability of the property. Staff
recommends approval.
CAA
4/7/95
S
WA
v
lip I
- 71
-C I lk
SY
Z 4
Ni
E I
tol
rn
r 4
•
7Y#109
h - � K r ;.fit ''• � x�'a • �� /'
liw'l
rC ii II }I II 1. � 11 }} ►1 11 1 -
- "�/� � � \>, tt �►11 1 1 1 1 - I 111) )- �/
...............
s l s
� 4
S(O
<2J I MNGY
6
I
I
V6
221
xzAbC
-N aiEwr(o,
OlRi6I NFL L- 4,^aA6C-
I
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
PROPERTY -- 1093 Riverside Drive
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Marsha Stevenson
DESIGNATION -- RSD -LHD
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT
This Prarie influenced American 4- square house was built c. 1910 probably by
Ernest Young. Its walls are a combination of stucco, wood shingle, and wide
clapboard. This house is rated S /12 on the Indiana Historic Sites and
Structures Survey and is in excellent condition.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The owner proposes to remove the wood deck at the rear of the house which was
added in the late 1980's. The owner proposes to plant a magnolia tree where
one was removed to construct the deck and replant grass. The owner also
proposes to plant two lilac bushes near the kitchen windows along the back of
the house.
STANDARDS
I.B.2. Recommended: New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the
past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings, and
newspapers. New site work should also be appropriate to existing surrounding
site elements in scale, type and appearance.
RECOMMENDATION
The removal of the non - historic deck, planting of a magnolia tree where one
was known to have been, and the planting of two lilac bushes at the rear of
the property meets the criteria set forth in the standards. Staff recommends
approval.
CAA
3/28/95
R
0 , j
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
PROPERTY -- 944 Riverside Drive
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- David Betson & Jennifer Warlick
DESIGNATION -- RSD -LHD, CP -NRHD
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT
This Dutch Colonial Revival house was built in 1903 for Charles P. Drummond
and was designed by W.W. Schneider. Mr. Drummond was an attorney and served on
the Board of Education between 1916 -1920. The house has undergone alterations
including the addition of aluminum siding. The rear of the structure overlooks
the St. Joseph river and the property possesses several significantly large
oak trees.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The owner proposes to remove two dying oak trees, one from the rear of the
house that has been encircled by a patio, and one on the East side of the
house.
STANDARDS
I.B.2. Recommended - Plant materials and trees in close proximity to buildings
that are causing deterioration to the building's historic fabric should be
removed. However, tree and landscaping elements that must be removed shall be
immediately replaced by suitable flora.
RECOMMENDATION
The two trees in question are part of the Riverside Drive Oak stand as
identified in the Historic Trees Pilot Survey for South Bend's Local Historic
Districts. This configuration of Oak trees pre -dates the oldest construction
in the district. The recommendation in the Survey was for the protection and
preservation of this historic landscape feature.
The tree on the East side of the house has lost approximately 50% of its crown
on the east side. The tree encircled by the patio has been damaged by the
construction of the house and patio. According to Custom & Moore Tree Experts
Inc. and Plum Creek Tree Care, the failure to remove these trees would likely
cause property damage to the other trees, landscape or the house. With such an
unwelcome prognosis, staff recommends approval.
According to standards, when trees are removed, they should be immediately
replaced with suitable flora. The replanting of a tree in the patio seems
undesirable since it would likely suffer the same fate as the current tree.
According to David Duncan of Custom & Moore, replacement of the tree on the
East side of the house with the same species is inappropriate due to lack of
canopy space. He suggested if a replacement tree is desired, a compatible
species such as dogwood or hawthorn would be appropriate.
CAA
4/11/95
RIVERSIDE DRIVE LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT
LEGEND
Riverside Drive Oak Stand (32 Trees Total)
r --I
L- Shetterley Park
Connection to Brownfield Park and Leeper Park (Leading to River Bend
Local Historic District)
Views Across the St. Joseph River - Connection to West North' Shore
Drive Local Historic District
Individual Specimen Trees
Brownfield
Park A
Figure 6
-Sugar Naple
-- Silver Naple
Blue Spruce
r-- Europaan Beech
C �
--Red Haple
White Oaks —'•
v v •
(� � -0fi V P..
I � `1 1 V2f5 &
�;1 le d •; h Cif � �� -I— re_ez
Ia.Q
To Leeper Park 6
River
Bend
J' N.
Not to Scale
C..�.
a
.�
. _ r s��
�� �'
� r
�� ^�
i
�`
. , �
'r /
��V�.r S� � � � t �( Q
�� II■
CUSTOM & TREE E1 D ERTS, INC.
JOHN M. DUNCAN - President 2 9 A
NATIONAL ARBORIST ..F. CAN WOE,, C.
ASSOCIATION. INC. 12945 STATE ROAD 23 / GRANGER, INDIANA 46530 / TEL (219) 272 -1900 / FAX: (219) 272 -1793 C NM 111w...O.WS
December 2, 1994
Re: Removal of 2 Oak tree's
Site: 944 Riverside Dr
South Bend, In 46616
To Whom It May Concern:
The two Oak tree's I have proposed removal on at 944 Riverside Dr.,
need to be removed.
The first tree is a Black Oak on the East side of the house. This
tree has lived it's entire life subordinated on all sides by more
dominant tree's. Furthermore, approximately 50% of this trees crown
has broken away on the east side, leaving the rest of the crown over
the house weakly attached to a fractured, hollow trunk. Failure is
inevitable and damage,to the home can be assumed.
The second tree is in the back patio, also in close proximity to the
house. This tree was sentenced to a shortened life when the house
and patio was constructed. The natural terrene was altered. The
grade was raised dramtically on the trunk of the tree, then encircled
by cement, thus slowing the trees ability to function, and causing a
long slow death. This irreversible decline is now extremely apparent.
The hollowing has surpassed the trunk, and is now throughout the main
supporting limb. Property damage can be expected with each limb
failure, or massive destruction to the other trees, landscape and /or
home, should the whole tree fail at once.
The removal of these two trees is a unwelcome loss to all concerned,
but to neglect the need of removal will only cause greater losses.
Sincerely,
Z
David A. Duncan, G
I. S. A.
Certified Arborist
Vice President, Custom & Moore Tree Experts Inc.
C= ;rSTATEMEN,T; 24066
Date
TO........ ------- __.._.
- IN•ACCOUNT�VVITH � s • _
i b
- 1 -
�:��
<� Cr
I
��u � ��� � � �� II "� mil •
it • . I �I - - I I
f
i e , too!
Stock Farm 25812
I
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
PROPERTY -- 723 Park Avenue
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Patti Tarbet
DESIGNATION -- CP -NRHD, LL
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT
The Hodson House at 723 Park Avenue was constructed in 1889 for George &
Fannie Hodson. The Queen Anne style house is clad with narrow clapboard and
diamond shaped shingles. It has an extremely elaborate cross plan with a
hipped roof, gable dormers, a tower, and bay with a mansard roof wrapping
around the corner. It has had minor alterations and is rated 0/13 on the
Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Survey.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The owner proposes to remove an evergreen tree from the front yard.
STANDARDS
Group B Standards - Treatment
Treatment shall be defined as any change of surface materials that will not
alter the style or original form. Such improvements include... landscaping and
may involve a change that can potentially enhance or detract from the
character of the landmark.
RECOMMENDATION
The tree is a short needled evergreen planted approximately 40 -50 years ago at
the northeast corner of the house. The trunk is very close to the house (4ft)
and as a result the tree has grown angling away from the house. According to
Barncord Landscape Design, the tree has a 8 -10 year life expectancy because of
its inappropriate planting site.
Staff recommends approval for the removal of the tree and notes if replacement
is desired, an ornamental tree planted behind the corner of the house with
some low bushes at the corner would be appropriate.
CAA
4/1/95
L_ '
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
PROPERTY -- 1142 Lincolnway East
South Bend, Indiana
OWNER -- Daniel Bernth
DESIGNATION -- LWE -LHD
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT
This two story frame dwelling was constructed in the Queen Anne style circa
1894. It is essentially a cross gable plan with jerkin -heads at the transverse
gables and an unusual enclosed cubicle over the entry porch. The surface
articulations are modest for the Queen Anne style, consisting of some
additional facia to break up wall surfaces and shingle gables. The building is
rated as a Significant /11 in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Survey.
The home was built for George Brown, a cigar maker and his wife Pearl. They
resided here from the mid - Eighteen - nineties until the mid - Forties. The second
owners, Arthur and Edith Feller occupied the house until the mid - Sixties.
Since that time, the house was only sporadically occupied until its purchase
by the present ownership the late Eighties.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The proposal is to remove 13 double hung windows at the first floor and
replace them with new double hung vinyl replacement windows with combination
storm /screen windows. The historical windows were one over one wood sash with
simple frame facing articulated only with a small crown mould head. In
addition, the proposed work includes facing the window trim with aluminum.
STANDARDS
The Preservation Guidelines for Lincolnway East Local Historic District state
that:
II.A Building Materials
1) Required - Existing exterior building materials shall be retained.... The
existing or original architectural detail around windows and doors ... should
be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design when deteriorated
beyond repair.
2) Recommended - Whenever possible, the original building material should be
restored.
Aluminum or vinyl siding may be used when it is the only feasible alternative
to maintaining the original surface. ...However, it must be noted that such
material can contribute to the deterioration of the structure from moisture
and insects.
II.0 Widows and Doors
1) Required - Existing or original windows and doors, including sash,lintels,
sills, shutters, decorative glass, pediments, hoods, and hardware shall be
retained or when deteriorated beyond repair, replaced with duplicates of the
existing or original.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
2) Recommended - ... If new sash ... are used, the existing or original
materials, design, and hardware should be used. When metal (and by inference
vinyl) storm windows ... 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 re -used in place. New windows and
door openings that would alter the scale and proportion of the building should
not be introduced.
RECOMMENDATION
HPC Staff first became aware of this proposal when contacted by the contractor
following the issuance of a stop work order by the Department of Buildings
(DOB) for work without permits. At the time of our visit to the site all first
floor windows had been removed, and replacement windows installed. Work
remaining to be completed at that time included installation of trim aluminum
and sealing by caulking. In the interest of the Owners, Staff discussed with
DOB allowance of the completion of caulking. DOB allowed that this would be
permissible as caulk application does not require permit.
Due to the circumstances of this application HPC staff had no opportunity to
inspect the original windows in place, but the removed sashes were available
for inspection and did appear to be in generally poor condition. Similar
widows remain at the second story where no work has been performed. Had Staff
had the opportunity to inspect the windows before this work was performed, we
might well have given some guidance at variance from the work performed.
However, window repair was clearly in order and the installation of some
replacement sash and storm windows would clearly have been called for. The new
work though different in material does meet the bare minimum of character
required as the new work reflects the original window sizes, 1/1 glass layout,
and mode of operation, thereby maintaining the historic character to the
casual observer.
The application of aluminum over window trim facings is possibly detrimental
to the wood to be covered as noted in the standards and its installation to a
proper and permanent watertight condition would be further problematic without
removal of the crown mould hoods.
It is Staff's understanding that the Owners notified the Contractor of the
Historic District and were assured that the Contractor was familiar with the
permit requirements for such work and that this permit was included in the
proposed work.
Staff recommends approval of the replacement windows with the condition that
the proper permits be purchased by the contractor. Staff recommends denial of
the aluminum wrapping of the window trim facings.
Staff further recommends that in this case the actual COA permit card riot be
physically issued until the actual purchase of the building permit is verified
and that the matter be referred to HPC legal counsel should the permit riot be
purchased within 30 days of approval by the HPC.
David B. Duvall
4/10/95
1 • _y
Why U riiF�ame Makes the l
U niFmme's all-vinyl
construction,
"forever" fusion -
.welded corners, and unique
features combine to create
the custom replacement
double -hung window that
leads the industry.
Fbr instance, each window
sash tilts in for safe, easy
cleaning all year round.
Ventilation limit locks *are
standard, so you can leave
your windows slightly open
and still feel secure from
break -ins. Plus all sills are
sloped for better water
drainage.
Once you compare all the
benefits of the UnTrame
double -hung window, you'll
agree they are the best!
• All corners are fusion-
welded for extra strength
and weather tightness.
• Double weatherstripping
-= - practically eliminates air
infiltration.
• Frames have "R" Core
insulation for an R- factor of
20 ... four times higher than
average wood windows.
• Ventilation limit locks for
added security are standard
on every window.*
■ Both top and bottom sashes
`- -tilt in for easy cleaning.
■Available with HiR +Plus
Low -E glass - with Argon Gas
for maximum energy
efficiency.
*Not available on woodgain
windows.
Double -hung with brass Colonial grid and round top accented with Natural Oakfinish.
V CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
PROPERTY -- 113 West North Shore Drive
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Gerald Kline
DESIGNATION -- LL, WNSD -LHD
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT
This house was built in 1888 for Samuel Leeper, Jr. as a wedding gift from his
father. The land was part of his father's farm which comprised much land north
of the river. In 1903, 80 acres of the Leeper farm was purchased and platted
into the Navarre Place Addition to South Bend. This Gable Front house of
Vernacular style has common bond brick walls with a continuous porch on the
south and east sides. The structure is rated 0/13 in the Indiana Historic
Sites and Structures Survey and is unaltered.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The owner proposes to remove the present cedar shakes and install Forest Green
Grand Manor fiberglass shingles on the gable front section of the house. The
owner also proposes to remove two turbine vents and a metal chimney and
install three pod vents on the west side.
STANDARDS
Group B Standards; Treatment: Treatment shall be defined as any change of
surface materials that will not alter the style or original form. Such
improvements include reroofing... 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 surfaces.
RECOMMENDATION
The existing roof is deteriorated and the owner in discussing cedar shake
replacements has determined the fiberglass shingle is a higher quality, longer
lasting roofing material. There are also some fire safety issues involved in
wood shakes verses fiberglass shingles. The shingle chosen is a laminated
shingle that has a dimensional appearance which will enhance the effort to
make the character consistent with the original materials.
Staff recommends approval for this application.
CAA -
4/7/95
_ ---------
_--_----__'___-___-- .�
� � . .
�
� �� �. ~ ��
'
�
�
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
PROPERTY -- 803 Notre Dame Avenue
South Bend, Indiana
OWNER -- City of South Bend - Neighborhood Housing Services
DESIGNATION -- LL
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT
This two story fire station built 1903 WAS designed by South Bend architect
Charles Brehmer who lived across the street. It features a brick first floor
with frame second story finished in wood shingle and a slate roof. The facade
is ornamented with a free classic dormer featuring oriel windows and a window
bay clad with pressed metal containing a pair of arched windows. The
structure is rates Significant /12 in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures
Survey.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The proposal is to remove 20 double hung windows and 2 windows which have been
previously altered to casement operation and replace them with new double hung
wood replacement windows. An additional 2 fixed casement windows are to be
replaced. The typical historical windows were one over one wood sash including
2 windows with arched head conditions at the front facade. A few windows have
mullion divisions. In addition, the proposed work include's replacement of 2
existing flush metal doors and their metal frames which are to accommodate
transom lites above.
the existing windows with regard to operation and energy conservation. The
existing windows are in varied states of deterioration. The proposed
replacement windows are custom windows as manufactured by Marvin who will
fabricate the special features such as arched upper sash and divided lit
mullions to duplicate the windows being replaced. The exterior of the wi
sashes will be factory clad. Since the proposed new windows are to be ar,
gas filled insulated low- emissivity glass, the need for storm windows wi
eliminated.
STANDARDS
The Preservation Guidelines for Group B Local Landmarks state that:
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.
Change that alters removes or covers existing significant stylistic detail
shall not be permitted...
3) Materials - Additions and improvements involving any new material in the
landmark should be the same as the original. It should be the same size and
texture. An alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the original
RECOMMENDATION
The window replacement proposal is put forward as a solution to problems with
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
The proposed door alteration will rectify previous remodeling which has
haphazardly combined new steel frames with existing wood transom frames. Both
existing wood and metal frames are to be removed and replaced with new single
unit frames. Existing or reproduction wood moulding will then be installed to
create the presumed appearance of the original frames. The existing insulated
flush metal doors will also be replaced with new insulated flush metal doors.
The front door shall have a full view glass panel.
These proposed alterations though introducing new materials are carefully
considered and will retain and in some cases restore the original character of
these features. Staff recommends approval of the replacement windows and doors
with transoms as described.
David B. Duvall
4/10/95
i
. I
. .......... r--
WHAT'S YOUR STYLE?
These basic styles can dramatically
influence how your home looks and feels,
inside and out
The Casemaster (1) 0
features a sash
that's hinged on
the side, so it
cranks open for
maximum ventila-
tion. The French
Casemaster (2) ha
two hinged sash
that swing out fron
the center for a
wide -open view. TI
Double Hung (3) 1
two sash that slide
and down for vent
tion at both top and
bottom. Or they'll tilt
`into the room for
cleaning. For a tall,
elegant window
opening and superior
ventilation, there's the
Triple Hung (4). And,
as shown on page
three, the E -Z Tilt Pac
sash replacement kit
(5) saves time and
money upgrading old
double hungs. Glider
windows (6) have two
sash side by side. One
sash slides sideways 0
for ventilation. On
Awnings (7)
the sash is
hinged at the
top, so it
cranks open at
the bottom for
ventilation.
t.
'W',
V
0
i ..
!1
0
ELw041WiMmiiiiiiuAMAii
Masonry, wood or metal stud walls Series SF and CF
In hundreds of stock and made -to -order
profiles and dimensions. K.D. or factory -.
set -up and welded.
Ceco steel frames can be specified in a vast array of profiles
and configurations. Frames are 16 gage steel for 1 thick
doors; 18 gage steel for 1 doors. Three piece Ceco frames
have precise die -cut mitered corners with positive lock tabs
to assure rigid connections. They can be specked knocked -
down to save on shipping costs and storage space. Or frames
can be specified completely set up and welded.
• Install either to cap or butt
wall.
• Hinge preparations are
ANSI A156.7 either
4 /z" or 3 /z"
SF Series
— .Itrz•� In -Stock
T Profiles I f
s 7/16" backbend for
5.314" depth only
T sre-
T 1-tih6 -
(13�1 1
- 3/ 4'.5- 314 .6 -3(4 7 -7Y4 s-L4'
® Strike preparations: ANSI
4 %s" universal A115.1 and 2,
or ANSI 2 %" cylindrical
A115.2.
SF and CF
Made- to- Ilyder _44—
'T Profiles
T i
r j « 4 t
ys . —
1 �- 1- 15h6 � t.gr16-
p- Y�•oaop 1 n-an'000n
Single rabbet
3"to6'
Double rabbet
- -4.1/2" to 12- 314"(1.3/4" door)
x-3.3/4 "to 12. 3/4'11 -3/6" door
WMA MS WS EO FFA
0 A 4 -M 4 E f4 Q
Wire masonry anchor Metal stud anchor Wood stud anchor Existing opening anchor Fixed floor anchor
ED MT MSZ1 WSs SFA SLFA
Masonry "T' anchor Metal stud "Z" strap anchor Wood stud strap anchor Special size floor anchor Sideliteite floor anchor
Popular components for
sidelites, borrowed lites,
transom frames.
Series SF and CF frame sticks
offer unlimited design possi-
bilities. Pre - engineered steel
components can be fabricated
�cally into sidelites, borrowed
des, transom frames, window
walls, or partitions and fur-
nished as complete, welded
assemblies. Consult your Ceco
distributor or local sales office
for special profiles, wall con-
ditions, and configurations.
Ceco Series SF, CF, DC frames can be provided
with a full range of fire labels. However, unlike
fire doors, the hourly rating is not shown on
frame labels. For more on labeled frames, see
pages 14, 15 and 17.
Arched transom -entry craftt`d frnm stirks
Wall anchors
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
PROPERTY -- 1235 East Wayne South
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Lisa Williams
DESIGNATION -- EWS -LHD
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT
This Tudor Revival style house was constructed in 1927 as part of Whitcomb &
Keller's Sunnymede Addition. The house is in good condition and was rated C/9
in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Survey.
PROPOSED CHANGE -
The owner proposes to remove the chain link fence in the rear yard from the NE
corner of the garage to the east property line. It is to be replaced with a
Michigan Pine split rail fence to match the existing feature. The fence is to
have a top rail height of 26" and a.40" height to the top of the posts. The
fence will include a 36 "X35" wood gate with arced top.
STANDARDS
I.B.1. Recommended - New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of
the past appearance of the property as found in photographs, drawings, and
newspapers. New site work should also be appropriate to existing surrounding
site elements in scale, type, and appearance.
Prohibited - No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by
removing... fencing... before evaluating its importance to the property's
history and development.
RECOMMENDATION
The owner's proposed fencing is appropriate to the existing site elements and
the extant chain link fencing has no significant importance to the property's
history and development. Staff recommends approval.
CAA
4/10/95
41POO' L;AK
-
F, fiAlm � A XrsT. r-Y rwAe-r
E
`.. � }% . •�
L-1 Pi Ilk
S ��TEP I IV----- �
rF- E XttT -CIAAIOJ LIJ
" 16, T 1,16 i
106 N EN
:�f
:�f
�4
- _ + CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
PROPERTY -- 300 -1200 blocks of Riverside Drive
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- I & M
DESIGNATION -- RSD -LHD
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE HISTORIC CONTEXT
Park View streetlight posts were installed on Riverside Drive in 1915. The
Park View Posts by the George Cutter Company were used in parks and
residential areas because of their short (loft) height. These cast iron posts
were topped by the Octagonal Junior Luminaire. Depending on the construction
date, the Octagonal Junior could be constructed of cast iron, aluminum, or a
combination of both materials. The original model (1911 -1920) had spurs at the
top only and a single octagonal globe. Later versions (1920 - 1925) had no
spurs. Eventually, customers could choose between no spurs, top spurs only, or
spurs at both the top and bottom. By 1926 the single globe had been replaced
with eight individual glass panes. All fixtures were painted green to help the
fixtures blend into the environment.
The Hollowspun Post was manufactured by Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing
Company between 1920 and 1929. The composition of the post is a mixture of
ground quartz, feldspar and cement.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The City of South Bend Department of Public Works proposes to remove and
replace light poles and light fixtures on Riverside Drive with rebuilt light
- fixtures to match existing (see Wilmette Luminaires with Edgewater Ballast
Assembly from the Spring City Electrical Mfg. Co.) and Hollowspun poles. The
work will include removal and replacement of light poles, installation of
conduit, a service foundation, a meter base, sidewalk removal and installation
and other appurtenant work. The City will store all removed poles and
luminaires for use as replacements in other areas of South Bend.
STANDARDS
I.A.1. Required Distinctive features such as ... streetlights...shall be
retained. New... streetlights ... shall be compatible with the character of the
neighborhood in size, scale, material, and color. Street lighting illumination
should be maintained at levels recommended by the Illuminating Engineering
Society. Light sources must have spectral distribution in all color ranges.
Sources and lamp posts should be uniform throughout the district. Lamp
fixtures and supporting posts must be similar in proportion, scale, and detail
to the existing historic lamps, as depicted by models A,C and D in Appendix A
or a suitable replacement which closely duplicates the standard in size,
shape, style and appearance, i.e., Herwig Lighting Company standard or
similar. Streetlights should be placed so that adequate illumination is
afforded all sections of public sidewalks.
I.A.3. Prohibited Streetlights ... which are out of scale or inappropriate to
the neighborhood may not be used.
RECOMMENDATION
E
a It % CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
The proposal includes the rebuilding of 12 luminaires by the city at the
points indicated on the map. These repairs are to be in -kind.
The lamping is to be 100 watt, 120 volt high pressure sodium lamps. This
lamping does have spectral distribution in all color ranges, although it
results in a yellow cast to all it illuminates. In June 1990, the Mayor's
Historic Streetlight Committee was polled on their preference of lamp type.
The high pressure sodium lamp was preferred over a metal halide lamp. The
Mayor's Committee recommended the high pressure sodium lamp as acceptable for
lighting on Riverside Drive.
The proposed plan calls for the replacement of 10 poles, 9 of which are
"toothpick" concrete poles of a fairly modern design, with more appropriate
Hollowspun poles. It is staff's understanding that the new poles are to be
topped by rebuilt luminaires matching the original. The one other pole in
question is a cast iron pole in front of 916 Riverside Drive, the George
Cutter House. This pole is believed to be the only original streetlight post
in Riverside Drive District. Though it will cause an inconsistency in the
streetlighting, staff recommends denial for its removal and replacement due to
it's historic value on the streetscape and it's relationship with the George
Cutter Home.
Staff recommends approval for the other aspects of the proposal including the
replacement of 9 poles, rebuilding 12 existing fixtures, installing 9 rebuilt -
fixtures, and the high pressure sodium lamping.
CAA
'x/12/95
HUDSON AVEJ use -N 1 ( .�
1
� N
tr`
(A)
P P \
Z-
\` rse
� \ 5\
J P �
\� rree
Xj�/ \\ rru-X \
Q 4 \ 8 (B)
v
V \ \
\ rrsr9x(a)
\
,e
fj LEGEND
(A) Ramave f'bltnp Pol. and /or Iound.lion and inslall pole Supplied by City
and pi<it up br Canvact., at water Works. located al 915 S. 016e Si. In
junction toe. wiring to bs connected by Contractor (10 poles).
l
(e) Rebuilt 11. install.d b Cit tor— (u 11.1-1)
(C) Insloli new service foundollOA and inslall meter base and main dise. —O
spliced into existing wiring. Arrangements xilh Indiana and Michigan Power
Co. for servi.e by Conlro.lor (XI -X2)
(D) Install conduit and .iring la reach from main po.. source X2 to Pole 21
to include function box of pole 21. All splices included.
(C) Install conduit and
rIring aired to into gr
food tar pole 13.
(F) (F) Contracor to make arrangements wilh Indiana and Michigon Power Co. to
remove er abandon existing pole.
Note: Conduit pit by pole 21 will require approximalely 10 SYS of c.nettle
side.alk removal and repiocemem.
Well e
12 (8)
1 S ( 8 )
Y
K
CL
a
d
15 (A) (
on 16 B)
r ee -r
w
F- 17 (A)
.
f x (F)
D- R
nrr -x nii -r
19 (B) 18 (A)
I L
a .
a
d
lsc, ,ri, cv
(1) .316'0. Q'llloAPAUH
+, 6 1 1 �
I ..a' Jam•
—i
F- -1 va• � I
r i
I
I
i
rFRb CLIP AMA
za. 1'_ 1'
I y.
10.
I 13
14,
20
21.
11.
23
�— 1. C41T N-A,, FINIAL
\ (SO MYE)
r
1 24.
I
I
I L�
L4JI J1W.' rLAlt U6JJ
I d KtL
Aff M ZP
I
I wYPAUS
g'E
I CAJT F17U (MJF)
I I M,
I L/4' cqX //1' fF;1CCED'
/EYJZfFETJt7J7MT
14 ,E
PANE 5IPJ'
1 15 RL
I JV°21 /-zll. Jam•
r> o� Ltzy
15 RL
AV ,".I/W LZIP
! ?&
zu
Tani
- - -_= EEAJEZEE
_ _
I1 REb
�OSTBZUST Mau I 1Rs ,
I i L
LNIOX. ZU
(Z RB
I m J ET
( IRS
IP..NmuT
I1 RE
BALLAJT
i 1 RED
3 HINGE JUF/
I % J
11 1 1
III �
11 I I
II 1 I
II 1 I
III I
III I
III I
II 1 1
II 1 I
pym.[//V jvaf u I I
.rocrET u I I
II I 1
11 I 1
11 1 i
Z.? JPLNALl6'1. u I I -
0A1�JT 06� 11 I I
II I I
11 41
Il I I
II I I
28 OEM= u I I
3ALLATI AMEY I� I
IIII
lJ� FO PANA50 JCRF/
24 0T7BWTr,06XET
4 OST L/FPT ,PL�1G
S. JlHIT 64TEEP
LIJMTRIAE
Sm"',
ENT.
YIO7Y.
MUM:
PANEJ:•
FININ
LAVING•
l'zME
91FRIM711av
JZMT
YIRE TYPE.•
w
.tr
10. 7) FE III (Asm!r7,lv2
'-- - -,
- - - - - -J 7)ffY(,r4vfRIC) PAitEZJ'
r- - -
- - -_= EEAJEZEE
_ _
I i L
11. PANE IZIP FAJ75G
I
20. PANE LZIPJ' (JQ F 'PARE
(_ - - - - _ RETAINING IZIP OETAIL'J
S. JlHIT 64TEEP
LIJMTRIAE
Sm"',
ENT.
YIO7Y.
MUM:
PANEJ:•
FININ
LAVING•
l'zME
91FRIM711av
JZMT
YIRE TYPE.•
w
.tr
FtF�—' '___�
y
I i L
I
S. JlHIT 64TEEP
LIJMTRIAE
Sm"',
ENT.
YIO7Y.
MUM:
PANEJ:•
FININ
LAVING•
l'zME
91FRIM711av
JZMT
YIRE TYPE.•
w
.tr
Tk!%T FAJ`T61/�'
�— 10, TYPE III (ASYMME7UD 5'
TYPE Y (SYMME71c) PANELS
PLEASE 49YI
— 21. PANEL 12 XI - EEL'
— 20, PANE QIPS (SEE 'PANEZ
,PE7AINING QIP DETAIL')
LL/MINA1PE SPECIFICATIO�VY
" 9, CAS SI 217
STYLE,'
HEIGHT.
EDTH"
MATRIAL:
PANES;
FINISH,
LAMPING,
__ ._YDLTAGE,
DISIPIBUTIDN.
SOCKET'
WILE TYPE,'
Y'ILME7TE WITH ED6EYATF BALLAST AMR
311/2'f/-
15 ,54'f/- ATES R,4TS
CAST ALUMINUM
P Ef �'A C T I YE P DL YCA, P B DNA T E
P,PIMEPAINT, SHE�'IN'ILLIAMS Z PA,PT L'ELDATABLE EPDXY
PRIMP (961715 - PRT G AND 8675 - PAPT H)
1001�ATT HIGH RPESSME SODIUM (LAMP BY DTHE, T)
IZ0 YDIT;
TYPE III (ASYMMERY) DL' TYPE Y Up,,MET,PIC), PLEASE 49YISE
MOGUL BASE
IB AK TYPE jww
IMP 0,05W k 94-557
SPring Ci ty Electrical Jlf o Co.
PHONE ( 610) 948 -4000
SINCE 1843 HALL AND MAIN STREETS - P.D. DRAWER 19 - SPRING CITY, PA. 19475
FAX ( 610) 948 -5577
DESCRIPTION THE l'ILMET E LUMINAIA'E WITH EDGE'140,
BALLAST 41199L
CUSTOMER U7 DF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
J OB 117 DF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
SCALE DRAIN BY: DATE DRATING N0.
1/4'- 1' T, 0 MER 2- -7 -90 FIX -21992
oc
A
mad � cl
ano &ql --VOW
�XRA
YV.AV
V A
A;ell VA
A,A IWk-AL4U
voo
-1 � q
\l
Y en
�Ivo
lv- w
LWA I
A;ell VA
A,A IWk-AL4U
voo
-1 � q
\l
t
historic preservat i on comm issi
p on
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUN'T'Y CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 235 -9798
Carl Littrell
Division of Engineering
Department of Public Works
13th Floor County -City Building
South Bend, IN 46601
April 12, 1995
Dear Mr. Littrell:
I am writing in regard to the Certificate of Appropriateness application filed
by the Department of Public Works for the replacement of streetlights on
Riverside Drive in the Riverside Drive Local Historic District.
The work outlined in the - application is appropriate by the standards of the
Historic Preservation Commission with the exception of one' item, the proposed
removal of the only remaining original cast iron post in the Riverside Drive
District. The streetlight at 916 Riverside Drive numbered 14 on the drawings
attached to the application is a c.1915 Park View Streetlight Post
manufactured by the George Cutter Company of South Bend. This streetlight has
a historical significance to the Riverside Drive Streetscape and to the
history of South Bend. I cannot allow the approval of its removal. My personal
recommendation to the Historic Preservation Commission will be to deny this
portion of the application.
My second concern with the proposal was the retention of the removed poles and
luminaires for use elsewhere in the City. I understand from the HPC staff that
it is your intention to store these items, however this was not part of the
Certificate of Appropriateness application. I intend to make their retention
part of the approval of the application.
I hope we are able to settle the issue of streetlighting in South Bend's
Historic Districts in the interest of all parties as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
l7vvv L /7 . � awn
J n H. Oxian, President
Historic Preservation Commission
JHO /caa
�'J • _ 0 £
° Q
.�T
" w
r,
'p yv.Av
�I -�yf'
.'�- WA
e
J:Icl VA
014 Y4
Alm WJ
�LV.A 1
- 441st
1rA dp
K�
•4
Ids
ioU
HMO �idg
IV4-R
--I . VY19
`l
9?
r
R
" w
r,
'p yv.Av
�I -�yf'
.'�- WA
e
J:Icl VA
014 Y4
Alm WJ
�LV.A 1
- 441st
1rA dp
K�
•4
Ids
ioU
HMO �idg
IV4-R
--I . VY19
`l
4/17/95
RE: Streetlighting on Riverside Drive
From: Message left by Tom Yarger, 916 Riverside Drive on HPC answering machine
Mr. Tom Yarger of 916 Riverside Drive, South Bend is unable to attend the
April 17, 1995 Historic Preservation Commission keeting, but asked if the HPC
staff would convey to the Commissioners his opinion on the streetlight
replacement on Riverside Drive. Mr. Yarger said he understood most of the
proposed replacements would be an asset to the neighborhood, but he had a deep
concern for the streetlight directly in front of his house, the George Cutter
House. He felt as one of the original fixtures made by the George Cutter
Company, this streetlight certainly fit into the Riverside Drive Historic
District and it seemed most appropriate that it should be left in front of the
George Cutter Home. He asked the Commission to consider these issues when
determining the appropriateness of the application to replace streetlights on
Riverside Drive.
CAA
4/17/95
i
historic preservation o commission
p on
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 235 -9798
Carl Littrell
Division of Engineering
Department of Public Works
13th Floor County —City Building
South Bend, IN 46601
April 12, 1995
Dear Mr. Littrell:
I am writing in regard to the Certificate of Appropriateness application filed
by the Department of Public Works for the replacement of streetlights on
Riverside Drive in the Riverside Drive Local Historic District.
The work outlined in the application is appropriate by the standards of the
Historic Preservation Commission with the exception of one item, the proposed
removal of the only remaining original cast iron post in the Riverside Drive
District. The streetlight at 916 Riverside Drive numbered 14 on the drawings
attached to the application is a c.1915 Park View Streetlight Post
manufactured by the George Cutter Company of South Bend. This streetlight has
a historical significance to the Riverside Drive Streetscape and to the
history of South Bend. I cannot allow the approval of its removal. My personal
recommendation to the Historic Preservation Commission will be to deny this
portion of the application.
My second concern with the proposal was the retention of the removed poles and
luminaires for use elsewhere in the City. I understand from the HPC staff that
it is your intention to store these items, however this was not part of the
Certificate of Appropriateness application. I intend to make their retention
part of the approval of the application.
I hope we are able to settle the issue of streetlighting in South Bend's
Historic Districts in the interest of all parties as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
J n Ii. Oxian, President
Historic Preservation Commission
JHO f caa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
PROPERTY -- 221 Hammond Place
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Robert & Barbara Names
DESIGNATION -- RB- LHD
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT
This Gabled -Ell house was built c. 1895. It has been majority altered by the
addition of aluminum siding, enclosure of the front porch, and a 15'X 12'
addition to the rear of the house c.1960. The house is rated N/C in the
Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Survey.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The owners propose to fence in the rear of the property (see plan) with a 6'
privacy fence of 1x4 dog - ear in 8' sections, install a new gate on the west
side of the house, and relocate the chain -link kennel from the rear of the
house to the Northeast corner of the lot. The installation of the fence
requires the removal of a tree at the rear property line.
STANDARDS
I.B. Building Site and Landscaping ...Greater latitude will be allowed in the
application of the adopted standards in the rear of the properties in order to
accommodate the individual preferences of property owners in the treatment of
backyard areas.
I.B.1. Required - ...Trees which reflect the properties history and
development shall be retained.
I.B.3. Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by
removing trees ... before evaluating their importance to the property's history
and development.
I.B.2.Recommended - New site work should be based upon actual knowledge found
in photographs, drawings, and newspapers. New site work should be appropriate
to existing surrounding site elements in scale, type, and appearance.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed fencing changes conform to the standards for the River Bend
Historic District. The tree to be removed is growing adjacent to a utility
pole. It appears to have been trimmed drastically several times probably due
to its interference in the utility lines. As a result, the branches growing
from the main trunk are thin and give the tree a very unnatural shape. Its
removal would not be detrimental to the property. Staff recommends approval of
the application.
CAA
4/11/95
rev. 4/17/95
V
13
. I i i
L
L •
CTARA%orc
0 s�
L
t
147
X "TIM 4T
y
4/
4
4 g at
Haw
arAte
r-
fto
A&
J•w.
�RLIS H4 FR6443-r
CIF PeAce
F-STUKA.T
t
I
�z
K%:
I Minutes of the Regular Meeting
of the
Historic Preservation Commission
Regular Monthly Meeting 7th Floor County Commissioner's
7:30 p.m. Conference Room, County -City Building
January 16, 1995
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M.
II. Roll Call
Members present: Mrs. Catherine Hostetler, Mr. John Oxian, Ms. Jewel Van
Dalsen, Mrs. Janeanne Petrass, Mr. Jed Bide, Mr. Jerry Weiner, Father Richard
Bullene as Architectural Historian.
Staff present: Mrs. Aladean DeRose - Legal Counsel, Mr. David Duvall -
Director and Ms. Christine Anderson - Administrative Assistant.
Members Absent: Ms. Lora Spaulding and Mrs. Joann Sporleder (Leave of
Absence), and Mrs. Martha Choitz.
Also present: Marsha Stevenson, John & Nola Mynsberge, and Ed Talley.
III. Public Hearing
A. Certificates of Appropriateness
1. 1840 Kessler Blvd. -- LL -- Driveway replacement and widening
Ms. Anderson read the staff report. President Oxian asked the owners if they
had anything to present. Mr. Mynsberge discussed the difficulties of backing
out of such a narrow driveway. He mentioned the apron on the driveway would
most likely be replaced as well because it is a lower grade than the street.
Commissioner Bullene inquired if Mr. Mynsberge intended to change the
dimensions of the apron or just raise the grade. Mr. Mynsberge stated they
would just resurface the apron. Commissioner Eide moved the Certificate of
Appropriateness for 1840 Kessler Blvd. be approved. Commissioner Hostetler
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimouslv.-
IV. Regular Business
A. Approval of Minutes
B. Treasurer's Report
C. Correspondence
Mr. Duvall reported on a questionnaire received from the National Alliance of
Historic Preservation Commissions regarding Americans with Disabilities Act.
Mr. Duvall welcomed the Commissioners to discuss the subject with him if they
wished to add any information to the questionnaire. He asked for specific
input on a question asking what building review for ADA had been found to be
the most challenging. Mr. Duvall reported receiving a request from the County
Board of Commissioners for a' departmental report for the purpose of the State
of the COunty Address. Mr. Duvall reported on a request from the YWCA for
nominations for their Women of the year award.
III D. Committee Reports
1. Budget and Finance
2. Legal
Mrs. DeRose reported regarding last months request by the Near Northwest
I Neighborhood for sponsorship of their workshop series. She stated in her
opinion there was some liability exposure, but as long as the Commission was
satisfied the NNN had ample coverage and some kind of provision for waiver by
participants, she saw no reason that the Commission could not sponsor the
workshops.
Mrs. DeRose reported that at the last Common Council Meeting, Common Council
Member Cleo Washington raised an objection to the designation of 310 West
Monroe as a Local Landmark based on the definition of Historic Landmark being
part of a Historic Preservation Plan that had been approved by the Common
Council and Area Plan Commission. She noted on that basis, he suggested there
be no vote on landmarking structures until the Common Council was satisfied
such a plan existed. Mrs. DeRose said she had found a reference to a plan in
the Indiana Statute that gives local governments the power to create Historic
Preservation Commissions. She stated the statutory definition of a plan was
difficult to interpret. She mentioned one interpretation of a plan is an
unfolding thing that changes each time a landmark is created. She added
another interpretation would be whenever you create a landmark the plan is
amended. She said at this point she had no definitive answer to offer.
President Oxian reported the landmarking of two other structures was tabled,
but 1601 Kemble (Toth Bank) went through. He noted according to the Legal
Counsel for the Council, as long as there was owner consent or no owner
objection, the landmarking could be passed. President Oxian suggested sending
a copy of the survey report and the approaches to setting up landmarks and
historic districts to the Common Council to serve as a plan. Legal Council
DeRose noted another possibility was to contact other Commissions adopted
pursuant to the 1977 Indiana Legislative Act where there is clearly a
reference to a plan. President Oxian said at first the objection of Council
Member Washington was based on owner consent, but Mr. Washington was told
owner consent could not be used as a basis to turn down landmarking a
structure. President Oxian reported at that point Council Member Washington
brought up the necessity of a plan. Legal Council DeRose agreed with President
Oxian that the survey responded to the question of what buildings are
candidates for landmark status. Mr. Duvall inquired if the action at Council
level would be dependent on the Council's Legal Counsel. Mrs. DeRose noted she
had been contacted by the Common Council's Legal Counsel, but had not
understood that this matter was to be decided by the lawyers. Mr. Duvall
reported his understanding was the Committee Members felt the matter could not
move forward without the clarification of the legal issue and the Legal
Counsel was not prepared to give an opinion without studying the issue.
President Oxian noted Council's Legal Counsel did give the opinion that when
the owner consents or does not respond negatively, the structure should not be
prevented from becoming a landmark. Legal Counsel DeRose explained her opinion
that if the Council passed a landmark without settling the legal question,
then they had waived the issue of the plan being a prerequisite. She said she
would research the matter and report to the Commission by the Common Council
meeting in February. Mrs. DeRose suggested President Oxian's idea of
submitting the survey book and the HPC procedure for creating Local Landmarks
and Districts be followed through. Mr. Ed Talley inquired if the Common
Council adopted the survey book as the Preservation Plan, would they have to
approved it every time a change was made. President Oxian replied negatively
and added that it would be stated that any structure rated 10 or higher in the
survey has the potential to be a landmark if it fulfills the criteria.
'16 3. Historic Districts
Mr. Duvall reported the Lincolnway West Steering Committee had been working on
refining the design guidelines and leg work was being done to arrange the
public meetings to make property owners aware of the district.
4. Historic Landmarks
a. First Reading
None.
b. Second Reading
.None.
c. Status of Recommendations to Council
President Oxian reported 310 West Monroe, 534 LaPorte, and 320 West Jefferson
had been tabled until the second week in February and 1601 Kemble had been
passed by the Common Council.
5. Standards and Maintenance
President Oxian inquired how the staff was progressing on the issue of
enforcement for COA. Ms. Anderson reported she had received a called from Don
Orban of the Fort Wayne Commission who reported similar problems and welcomed
any solutions the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend might
discover. Mr. Duvall said he had been scrutinizing the ordinance and come up
with some ideas he wished to discuss with Mrs. DeRose. He reported the
Commission may be able to put stop work orders on projects that don't require
a permit. He also reported regarding the Building Department's after the fact
zoning issues, the fee is multiplied by three. He said he needed Legal opinion
on whether this was a possibility for the HPC and would get together with Mrs.
DeRose to discuss these Enforcement issues. Mr. Talley inquired where the
funds would go. Mr. Duvall explained the COA application fees go to the
County. A discussion on funding of the HPC ensued.
6.Personnel
No report
7. Staff Reports
a. C of A Staff Approvals
1. 701 Portage Avenue -- LL Grade and in -kind replacement of driveway
2. 1045 Riverside Drive -- RSD -LHD in -kind replacement of siding, foundation
repointing, and straightening porch columns.
8. Nominating Committee
Commissioner Van Dalsen reported the nominations for HPC officers: John Oxian,
President; Catherine Hostetler, Vice - President; Treasurer, Jerry Wiener:
Secretary, Janeanne Petrass. Commissioner Wiener seconded the nominations. The
nominations passed unanimously.
V. Old Business
Mr. Duvall reviewed the Near Northwest Neighborhood Inc. workshop proposal and
reported he had received assurance of NNN's liability coverage. He noted at
this time there was no assurance of the waiver of liability that Mrs. DeRose
had recommended. Mrs. DeRose said she would ask NNN to name the Commission as
insured and notify the insurance company. She explained the waiver she had
suggested may be found invalid by a court, but at least it would be a starting
point in case of a law suit. A discussion was held regarding what houses were
to be used for the project. President Oxian called for a motion. Commissioner
Eide inquired what the Commission's sponsorship involved. President Oxian
reported it was the Commission name only, there was no financial sponsorship.
Commissioner Weiner inquired if the projects were historic preservation
oriented. He noted the Commission would not want to have its name involved
1 with something such as synthetic siding a house. Ms. Anderson reported the
letter received from NNN stated the workshops were aimed at teaching skills to
rehabilitate homes that would respect the original character of the house.
Commissioner Petrass inquired if the workshops were open to anyone.
Commissioner Wiener said he had seen projects like this before that were well
done, but he would hate to have the Commission put its stamp on something that
was not historic preservation. Commissioner Bullene responded if sympathetic
to historic preservation, the workshops seemed like an opportunity to tell
ordinary people historic preservation is not something for the upper class,
that it is an ordinary thing that everyone can participate in. Commissioner
Wiener moved the Commission be a sponsor in the NNN workshop proiect provided
the items on their agenda are sensitive to historic preservation. Commissioner
Petrass seconded the motion. Legal Counsel DeRose inquired how this was to be
implemented. Mr. Duvall read some of the possible topics listed in the letter
from Near Northwest Neighborhood Inc. Mrs. DeRose suggested when reporting to
NNN on the sponsorship of their program by the Commission, it should be made
clear that it is a conditional sponsorship and that topics should be approved
by the HPC first. Mr. Duvall said it seemed easy to withdraw sponsorship upon
the observation of something inappropriate. Mr. Talley inquired if the
sponsorship was necessary for grant monies. Mr. Duvall indicated his belief it
was merely for public relations. The motion passed 6 -0 with President Oxian
abstaining.
VI. New Business
President Oxian noted having skipped the approval of the December. Minutes
under the Commission's regular business. President Oxian had a correction
concerning the National Register Nomination of the Stephenson Mill.
Commissioner Hostetler moved the Minutes be approved with corrections.
Commissioner Van Dalsen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
President Oxian asked if there was a treasurer's report. Commissioner Weiner
said he would have a report next month. Mr. Duvall noted the Commission should
be hearing in the end of January about the grant applications made to the
state in October.
Mr. Duvall asked to report on 114 Frances Street. He reported the change of
zoning was approved by the Common Council and the Commission had received an
opportunity to search for a party to move the structure before it was
demolished. He stated a notice of availability would be published in next
months Southhold news letter. He reported he had made efforts to locate an
appropriate sight for relocation so if any inquires were made, the Commission
would have a packet of information to distribute. Mr. Talley inquired what the
cost of moving would be. Commissioner Wiener estimated $20,000. Mr. Duvall
noted there were many variables but he would agree. Mr. Talley inquired if
there would be any funding from Economic Development. Mr. Duvall reported the
only possible connection that had been identified would be if one of the
families that is to be relocated from the Sample Street Redevelopment Area
would be desirous of one of the feasible locations, possibly some of that
relocation money could be used. Commissioner Wiener noted the City may have
available land that could be donated to a not - for - profit acting as a pass
through for the property. President Oxian noted a person could move and sell
the house and still be financially ahead because of the high property values
in the area.
VII. Hearing of visitors
Mr. Talley inquired if the Commission was aware of the Army Corp of Engineers
report stating the Riverside Drive Local Historic District Area and the North
end of the Chapin Park National Register District had one to five years before
houses begin to slide down the bank and major structural damage occurs to the
1 streets and sewers. Mr. Talley suggested the Commission write a letter of
support for the City to continue to the next phase of the project. Mr. Duvall
noted one of the grant proposals that the Commission had sent to the state was
for a study of the erosion problem in the Riverside Drive Area. Mr. Talley
reported on the erosion conditions he had noted in Shet:terley Park. President
Oxian suggested the Commission wait to see what happened with the grant. Mr.
Talley noted the issued needed to be addressed prior to the 1996 City budget.
VIII. Announcements
Mr. Duvall noted a public meeting regarding the Darden Bridge to be held
Tuesday, January 17, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Health and Hospital Building.
IX. Adjournment
President Oxian adjourned the meeting at 8:40.
Minutes of the r n
of the �g `O �e 2�0rf
Historic Preservation Commission
Regular Monthly Meeting 7th Floor County Commissioner's
7:30 p.m. Conference Room, County -City Building
February 2.7, 1995
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. President Oxian announced that
due to a lack of a quorum, the Commission would hear the property owners
present and make a recommendation to the full Commission for a vote either at
the next regular monthly meeting or at a special meeting.
II. Roll Call
Members present: Mrs. Catherine Hostetler, Mr. John Oxian, Ms. Jewel Van
Dalsen, and Mrs. Janeanne Petrass.
Staff present: Mrs. Aladean DeRose - Legal Counsel, Mr. David Duvall -
Director and Ms. Christine Anderson - Administrative Assistant.
Members Absent: Mr. Jed Eide, Mr. Jerry Weiner, Father Richard Bullene, Mrs.
Jdann Sporleder (Leave of Absence), and Mrs. Martha Choitz.
Also present: Marsha Stevenson, Kim Pummill, Mary Hendriksen, Andrew Greta,
Marty Murphy, Kevin Boughal, Kathy Dempsey, and Ed Talley.
III. Public Hearing
A. Certificates of Appropriateness
1. 1077 Riverside Drive -- RSD - LHD -- Landscape
Ms. Anderson read the staff report. Mrs. Hendriksen noted she had trouble
finding an appropriate replacement light fixture, but was still looking. Mr.
Talley inquired if there had been any changes to the minutes from the November
21 meeting of the Commission. President Oxian replied affirmatively. He noted
the motion concerning the COA had been inserted verbatim into the minutes. Mr.
Talley inquired if the Commission had withdrawn the portion of the motion that
included the directive no work was to proceed on plant material. Mr. Talley
stated his belief that the motion had included the direction that planting
materials would not be addressed until both property owners had completed a
survey. President Oxian replied that even if the motion did include that
directive, it would only address the property line area and the proposal for
work at 1077 Riverside Drive did not involve plant material on the property in
dispute. Mr. Duvall stated his recollection of the motion was that no
landscaping work would be done without a COA. Mrs. Hostetler recalled the
motion including the need for a survey. President Oxian said the minutes Mr.
Talley received had been corrected at the December meeting to include the
motion as stated verbatim by Mrs. Choitz. Mr. Talley noted that he had not
been made aware of any changes and wanted to advise the Commission that the
owners of 1077 RSD and 1081 RSD had met to discuss the property dispute. At
that meeting the owners of 1081 requested the landscape material to be
relocated be tagged. Mr. Talley stated he believed some of the proposed
landscape changes may be on areas still in dispute. Mr. Talley advised the
Commission that they may have a problem with common property law. Mrs. DeRose
interjected that she did not belief the Commission would have a problem with
the property line. She stated that if the Commission approves a COA that is in
keeping with the requirements of historic preservation and it turns out later
that the changes are on a disputed property line, the dispute would be Petween
the property owners. Mr. Talley asked that the COA be put into committee.
President Oxian replied it already was. He elaborated that this was not a
formal meeting due to a lack of a quorum and that he would not put the issue
to Committee unless it was put to Committee at the formal hearing. Mr. Talley
stated that the owners of 1081 Riverside Drive were under the impression that
some of the plantings in question were on their property and they would take
whatever legal action they could to stand in the way of the execution of the
COA if it is approved. President Oxian inquired of Mrs. Hendriksen what
planting were on the property line. Mrs. Hendriksen stated that according to
the stakes put up by Mr. Talley's surveyor, the proposed changes were all on
the side of 1077 Riverside Drive. She added her understanding at the meeting
with the owners of 1081 Riverside Drive was they approved of the changes she
had proposed. Mrs. DeRose said it appeared at least two of the proposed items
had nothing to do with the property line and the two that possibly could be
disputed would be disputed at the owners sufferance. Mrs. DeRose stated if the
COA was approved and the owner took the action and the work turned out to be
on the neighboring property, it was a private dispute. Mr. Talley said he did
not dispute Counsel, but he was under the impression after the November
Commission meeting that the Commission had made some strong recommendations
requiring 1081 to seek further legal counsel which has resulted in $4,500 fees
to date. He reported the owners of 1081 were not advised of any changes to the
ruling of the Commission and have incurred additional expenses operating under
the impression that no landscaping was to be addressed without both property
owners having a survey. Mrs. DeRose indicated even from a reading of the first
minutes the point was that any landscape changes by either party required a
COA. She added a further refinement of that was that any change of landscaping
on a disputed property line would involve a survey or something to resolve the
differences of the owners. Mrs. DeRose stated the Commission was trying to
tell the property owners that it cannot become involved in property line
disputes. Mr. Talley interjected that the Commission had become involved. Mrs.
DeRose said the Commissions involvement was only to the extent of saying if
the COA involves a property line dispute the owners would need to get their
evidence to determine the property line. Mr. Talley agreed and added that 1081
had indeed presented that information as a preliminary survey. Mr. Talley
restated the belief that the COA proposal was for plant material involved in
the disputed property. Mrs. DeRose said if the Commission approved landscape
changes, even on a disputed boundary line, all the COA said was this was a
historically appropriate change. Mr. Talley stated the owners of 1081 were
mandated to make changes to their COA of November 1994 based upon testimony
given by the owners of 1077 Riverside Drive which he believed to be perjured
information. He added 1081 Riverside Drive had never been advised of changes
made to the directives issued by the Commission. IIe said Counsel's statement
that Commission rulings were based upon historical appropriateness was shown
to be inaccurate when looking at the requirements made for the COA for 1081
Riverside Drive. He noted that they were required to make changes in their COA
based on the property line dispute and alleged damage to trees. Mrs. DeRose
questioned if Mr. Talley's proposal had been for the removal of trees or
shrubbery. Mr. Talley replied negatively. fie reported due to property line
question raised by the owners of 1077 Riverside Drive, the owners of 1081 had
a survey done. The surveyor determined there was plant material overhanging or
on the property line. Plant material was not addressed in the COA application
made by 1081 Riverside Drive, however the owners of 1077 brought up the issue
at the Commission meeting and the Commission made a judgment on the COA based
on that information. Mr. Talley noted the objection of the owners of 1081
Riverside Drive was only to the plant material which may be in the area of the
property line dispute. Mrs. DeRose inquired what items might be in question
according to the owners of 1081 Riverside Drive. Mr. Talley noted the request
had been made by the owners of 1081 that the plant material involved in the
COA application be tagged. Mrs. DeRose noted there was only one proposed
change that could be involved in the property line area. Mr. Duvall stated he
believed items 1 and 2 were in question (Transplant a rhododendron from the
rear of the garage to area of dying rhododendron near screened porch and
remove sapling that is interfering with the dogwood.) Mr. Talley noted what
items the owners of 1081 Riverside Drive objected to. President Oxian stated
if Mr. Talley had stated earlier what specifically he objected to, the
Committee would not have to had this long discussion. President Oxian said Mr.
Talley's time was up and he intended to hear from Mrs. Hendriksen. Mrs. DeRose
said President Oxian did have the power to set time limits. President Oxian
asked to hear from Mrs. Hendriksen.
Mrs. Hendriksen noted neither she nor her husband perjured themselves and that
the trees had indeed been tagged for three days. She added the stakes placed
by Mr. Talley's survey indicated that none of the proposed changes for 1077
Riverside Drive involved plants on the property line. She stated the plantings
were approximately 2 feet from the line. President Oxian made the motion that
the only items to be given a recommendation would be 1,2, and 5 because they
were not under dispute. Mr. Duvall asked for clarification because the numbers
in the staff report did not correspond with the numbers to which Mr. Talley
was referring. Mrs. Hostetler asked for clarification on item 4 concerning the
hemlock tree. She was informed the tree was on the other side of the property
and was not in dispute. Mr. Talley said items 2 and 3 would be involved in the
disputed area. President Oxian moved a favorable recommendation be given to
items 1.4. and 5 and items 2 and 3 be postponed. The Committee voted
unanimouslv in favor. Mrs. DeRose recommended in the interest of getting this
resolved the owners should try to work out whether they could agreed to items
2 and 3.
2. 621 Lincolnway East - - EP -LHD -- Front porch
Ms. Anderson read the staff report. President Oxian noted this was the second
time this issue had been before the Commission. Ms. Pummill stated the last
time her father wanted to replace the porch with a different porch but she
could not get funding. Ms. Pummill reported now she just wanted to replace
what needed to be replaced to meet Code Enforcement standards. President Oxian
asked if Ms. Pummill had a written plan. Ms. Pummill replied negatively.
President Oxian noted the standards of Code Enforcement were secondary to HPC
standards and therefore would have to be fulfilled by a plan approved by the
Conmiission. President Oxian asked that Ms. Pummill give the staff specific
plans otherwise he would recommend some action be taken. He said :A plan could
simply state what items were to be replaced in a specific way. He said this
plan must be to the HPC staff before March 9, 1995 so the staff was prepared
for the Code Enforcement hearing. President Oxian informed Ms. Pummill if she
fulfilled HPC requirements, she would be fulfilling Code Enforcement
requirements. No recommendation was made.
IV. Regular Business
A. Approval of Minutes — No Quorum
B. Treasurers Report
C. Correspondence
Mr. Duvall reported on a item received from the Department of Interior
National Park Service on National Register Bulletins dealing with use of the
National Register after a property has been listed. He reported the NPS was
soliciting case studies of interesting uses of the National Register. He asked
that if any Commissioners were aware of specific interesting uses to notify
staff.
Mr. Duvall reported on an brochure from the NPS called Accessibility and
Historic Preservation.
Mr. Duvall reported on a solicitation from the National Trust for Historic
Preservation for 1995 National Preservation Honor Awards nominations. He asked
that Commissioners give nominations to the staff to be forwarded to the
National Trust.
D. Committee Reports
1. Budget and Finance
2. Legal
Mrs. DeRose reported regarding the request from Common Council for a Historic
Preservation Plan. She reported the attorneys from the Common Council and the
HPC had met with members of both groups to resolve what appeared to be a
dispute or misunderstanding on how the Commission functions and what the
prerequisites for creating a landmark are. Mrs. DeRose recalled that she had
informed the Common Council the Commission had submitted a Preservation Plan.
She noted the plan had been in effect de facto since 1975 and formally sent to
the Common Council in 1985. Mrs. DeRose reported the Common Council's attorney
believed something more formal needed to be done to recognize the plan and
consider it being in place for any future landmarks. She reported this was to
be discussed further. Mrs. DeRose noted another problem the Common Council
asked to be addressed was the issue of notice for owners when a landmark is to
designated. She explained the Common Council would like to see an ordinance to
provide for notice whereas she felt it could be done internally by procedures
within the Commission.
President Oxian stated he had suggested at the meeting that the old
Preservation Plan book would be kept but updated. He said according to the
Council Members, this would be satisfactory. President Oxian discussed a
second issue brought up by Council involving the simplification of the report
sent down to the Council concerning landmarks. He said the new format would
include a check list of qualifications and the name of the contact person from
the owner or owners. President Oxian noted besides the updated Plan book, the
Council Members wanted a copy of the survey summary report. He explained he
had asked that the next meeting be postponed until the book was up to date.
Mrs. DeRose said she had understood they acknowledged the HPC had a plan, but
the hang -up was it had not been formally adopted. President Oxian said the
updated plan would be adopted by ordinance. Mrs. DeRose inquired if there
still was a dispute over the issue of notice. Mr. Duvall reported it was more
a dispute over the documentation of notice.
3. Historic Districts
No report.
4. Historic Landmarks
a. First Reading
None.
b. Second Reading
None.
c. Status of Recommendations to Council
President Oxian reported 310 West Monroe and 534 LaPorte had been tabled and
320 West Jefferson had been withdrawn at the last Common Council meeting. He
reported the withdraw had been at the request of the Council due to a dispute
over whether the building had been sold.
5. and Maintenance
6.Personnel
Mrs. DeRose noted a copy of the Employment Contract for Ms. Anderson needed to
be sent to the County Commissioners.
7. Staff Reports
a. C of A Staff Approvals- none
b. DHPA Grants - Mr. Duvall reported tentative approval for the St. Casimers
National Register Historic District Nomination grant, the South Bend Brewing
Association National Register Nomination grant, the Northern Indiana
College /South Bend Chilled Plow building National Register Nomination grant,
the North Pumping Station National Register Nomination grant, and the study of
economic benefits of historic preservation in South Bend grant. Two of the
applications made were denied, those being the stabilization of Riverside
Drive bank study and the Archaeological survey of the Hardy Manuel Log House.
In regard to the Riverside Drive bank, Mr. Duvall reported seeking other
sources of funding including ISTEA, which unfortunately disallowed erosion
control as a use of that funding. He reported also seeking funding from the
St. Joseph River Commission. With regard to the Hardy Manuel Log House, Mr.
Duvall noted a meeting will be held February 28 at Historic Landmarks
Foundation regarding a less ambitious study for an archaeological study
through Notre Dame.
c. 114 Francis Street
Mr. Duvall reported the building had been advertised and considerable interest
had been shown. He noted one individual had more or less been placed first on
the list for purchase of the building in negotiation with the clinic.
d. Oliver School
Mr. Duvall reported the prior purchase of the school had been withdrawn and
the school has been offered on the market again. The information packets and
feasibility study have been circulated through Economic Redevelopment and
Historic Landmarks Foundation.
e. Erskine Golfcourse Clubhouse
Mr. Duvall reported that this S 111 building has been advertised for bid for
remodeling and window replacement. He noted it is not a landmark building and
the Commission has no oversight, but he did look at the plans. Mr. Duvall said
the proposed windows are vinyl replacements and the proposed deck addition on
the rear of the structure was very sketchy, the plan only including railing
height and spacing of the balusters.
f. Southeast Redevelopment Area
Ms. Anderson reported the HPC staff had seen a tentative plan for this area
which included a park area, school grounds, and a 10 -15 lot area to which some
houses from the redevelopment area could be moved. She stated a list generated
by the HPC staff of possible house moves had been sent to SEQUOL (Southeast
Quality Of Life), Economic Development, and City Planning offices. Ms.
Anderson reported a meeting is to be held with property owners in the area and
HPC staff will attend to advise what houses the Commission would like to see
moved. Commissioner Petrass inquired about some new construction she had noted
on Fellows Street. She was informed that this was housing by South Bend;
Heritage Foundation. Mr. Duvall noted another interesting facet of the
proposed plan was for the landmark farmhouse at 701 Pennsylvania to be placed
in the context of a park. The house may be used as a community center.
g. 702 North Lafayette
Mr. Duvall reported this house is a brick four - square which is owned by
Memorial hospital and is available for a house move. A discussion of where the
house is located ensued.
V. Old Business
A. 1244 Lincolnway East
President Oxian inquired of Mrs. Dempsey if she wanted to hear the COA
application or put it off since no decision could be made. President Oxian
said he felt it was more appropriate to have the whole Commission present
since this was an application for demolition. Mrs. Dempsey inquired if a
decision could not be made this evening, would the application not be heard
until next month. President Oxian replied that he could call a special meeting
if that was desired. Mr. Duvall noted the next Commission meeting would be in
three weeks. Mrs. Dempsey asked if her presence would be required at a special
meeting. President Oxian advised that she attend. Mrs. Dempsey stated her
biggest fear was that there may be a tragedy involving this building if
something is not done soon. She mentioned several incidence of break -ins and
noted each storm brings more damage to the structure. Mrs. Dempsey noted if
she got approval from the COmmission for demolition, she still would have four
weeks of paperwork and notifications before the demolition could actually
occur. President Oxian asked the staff to schedule a special meeting. Mr.
Duvall inquired of Mrs. DeRose what would be required for the Commissions
notification procedure. Mrs. DeRose indicated the owner had been notified for
this meeting and had chosen not to attend. She suggested notifying the owner
of the new meeting, but essentially by not attending the regular meeting this
evening, he had waived notice of any further meetings. President Oxian
requested if anyone in attendance wanted to be notified they should indicate
that desire on the sign -in sheet. Mr. Millea inquired if the owner had
indicated to the Commission what his intention with the building. President
Oxian replied the Commission last heard from Dr. Klopfer that his intention
was to repair the house. Since then, President Oxian said, the Commission had
been contacted by people interested in purchasing the property, but no sale
had gone through that the Commission was aware of. Mr. Greta said that it
seemed clear the owners intention was to do nothing. Mr. Greta commented the
Commission had been very generous in allowing Dr.. Klopfer time and resources
to get the job accomplished, but he agreed with Mrs. Dempsey that this needed
to be taken care of.
VI. New Business
A. Copy Machine Policy
Ms. Anderson read the staff request for the implementation of a copy machine
policy. Commissioner Petrass moved a favorable recommendation be Qiven to the
Proposal. Commissioner Van Dalsen seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
B. Committee Assignments
President Oxian gave the 1995 Committee assignments as follows:
Executive Committee- President -John Oxian, Vice President - Catherine Hostetler,
Secretary -Jane Anne Petrass, Treasurer -Jerry Weiner.
Historic Districts- Co - chair Martha Choitz and Catherine Hostetler, John
Oxian, Janeanne Petrass.
Landmarks- Chair -John Oxian, Jewel Van Dalsen, and Janeanne Petrass.
Budget and Finance- Chair- Jerry Weiner, John Oxlan
Legal- Chair- John Oxian, Catherine Hostetler
Standards and Maintenance- Co chair- Joann Sporleder and Jewel Van Dalsen,
Martha Choitz, Janeanne Petrass, and Jerry Weiner.
He noted the Commission will be getting two new members, so there would be
additions made to Committees. He asked if any Commissioners desired a change
in their Committee assignments to inform him.
VII. Hearing of visitors
None.
VIII. Announcements
None
IX. Adjournment
President Oxian adjourned the meeting at 8:55.
t.
Minutes of the Special Meeting
of the
Historic Preservation Commission
Special Hearing 7th Floor County Commissioner's
4:00 p.m. Conference Room, County -City Building
March 7, 1995
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Members present: Mrs. Catherine Hostetler, Mr. John Oxian, Ms. Jewel Van
Dalsen, Mrs. Janeanne Petrass, Mr. Jed Eide, Father Richard Bullene.
Staff present: Mrs. Aladean DeRose - Legal Counsel, Mr. David Duvall -
Director and Ms. Christine Anderson - Administrative Assistant.
Members Absent: Mr. Jerry Weiner, Mrs. Joann Sporleder (Leave of Absence), and
Mrs. Martha Choitz.
Also present: Joe MacHatton, Andrew Greta, Kevin Boughal, Kathy Dempsey, and
Kenny Kent.
III. Public Hearing
A. Certificates of Appropriateness
1. 621 Lincolrway East -- EP -LHD -- Porch Repair
Mr. Joseph MacHatton informed the Commission he was the owner of 621
Lincolnway East due to reacquiring the building from Kim Pummill, land
contract purchaser. He asked that the COA be tabled until he had time to
inspect the porch to see what type of repairs were necessary. President Oxian
inquired if Mr. MacHatton would be able to have a plan for the Commission by
the third Monday in March. Mr. MacHatton said he felt he needed to get
together with Mr. Duvall to discuss the matter and that he was not sure when
he would be able to do the work. Mr. Duvall stated he believed a new
application would need to be filed by the new owner. President Oxian suggested
the COA application be withdrawn and Mr. MacHatton could reapply. Commissioner
Petrass moved that the COA application be withdrawn and a new application be
filed by the new owner. Commissioner Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion
Passed unanimouslv.
2. 1077 Riverside Drive - - EP -LHD-- Landscaping and light replacement
Ms. Anderson read the staff report and the Committee recommendation. President
Oxian asked for Legal Counsel DeRoses opinion. She recommended since the
parties involved were not in.attendance the Commission should vote as the
Committee recommended. Commissioner Bullene inquired why two items were to be
tabled. Mrs. DeRose explained the property dispute that was the cause of the
items being tabled. Commissioner Petrass inquired if there was a way to get a
definitive answer on the property boundary. Mrs. DeRose said she did not
believe that was necessary for the Commission to make a determination on
whether the proposed changes were appropriate. Mr. Duvall noted the issue that
caused the problem was an agreement between the parties that the landscape
material to be moved would be tagged. Mr. Duvall explained the plant material
was tagged but due to climatic circumstances the tags did not last very long,
but the plants have again been tagged. Commissioner Hostetler moved proposed
items 1. 2. and 5 be annroved and items 2 and 3 be tabled until the next
hearing. Commissioner Petrass seconded the motion. The motion passed c
Y
unanimously.
3. Copy machine policy
Ms. Anderson read the staff request for a copy machine policy and gave the
report of the Committee's recommendation. President Oxian asked for a vote on
the Committee's recommendation. The motion passed unanimouslv.
4. 1244 Lincolnway East -- LWE -LHD - Demolition
Mr. Duvall read the Staff report. Mrs. Kathy Dempsey, Director of the
Department of Code Enforcement presented Code Enforcements history of the
property. Most significant to Mrs. Dempsey was the attractive nuisance the
building presented to children and vagrants. She explained all the possible
receivers for the building had fallen through not because the costs were
prohibitive, but because the ownership was such a problem. She commended the
Commission's attempts at salvaging the building, but stated in her opinion, no
stones were left unturned and she respectfully requested the approval of the
COA for demolition. Mr. Kenny Kent, owner of 1234 -1236 Lincolnway East
addressed the Commission. Mr. Kent inquired if the Commission had any direct
contact with Dr. Klopfer. President Oxian explained each time the Staff
contacted Dr. Klopfer he had stated his intention to save the building.
Commissioner Hostetler noted that Dr. Klopfer had stated his intention was to
restore the house and that was the assumption the Commission had been
operating under. She noted Dr. Klopfer had gone so far as to ask permission to
put temporary storage structures on the site for the repair of his building.
Mr. Kent inquired if the whole thing was a smoke screen, because his
understanding was if the building was torn down, there would be a lawsuit
against the City. President Oxian stated in his opinion, the owner was
desirous of demolition and a lawsuit with the City. Mr. Kent agreed with Code
Enforcement that the building was a hazard, but he was concerned with what
would happen after the building was torn down. Mr. Kent inquired if the
Commission had enough teeth to prevent Dr. Klopfer from constructing something
the neighbors would not want in their neighborhood. Commissioner Hostetler
said she believed that would be a zoning issue. Mr. Kent replied the zoning in
the neighborhood was "B" residential which outlawed commercial uses except
medical offices. Mrs. Dempsey concurred. Mr. Duvall stated other uses that
were not strictly commercial uses such as fraternity houses or clubs were
allowed. Mr. Kent inquired if the Commission would be able to prevent Dr.
Klopfer from constructing anything he wanted on the site. President Oxian said
anything that was to be built on the site would have to be approved by the
Commission. Commissioner Bullene noted the only concerns of the Commission
would be the exterior of the structure and landscaping issues. He noted the
Commission could make no judgments on the use of the site. Commissioner
Bullene said it maybe the only thing stopping Dr. Klopfer from building a
medical office on the site is the existing structure. Mrs. DeRose explained he
could use the present structure for a medical office if he so desired.
President Oxian inquired if the Commission could take him to court for
violating the Commission's Maintenance Ordinance. Mrs. DeRose said that is
what Code Enforcement had done. President Oxian inquired if it could be
pursued in a higher court. Mrs. Dempsey said even if that happened, Dr.
Klopfer may incur a Civil Penalty, but it would not result in the property
getting repaired. Commissioner Bullene inquired who would pay for the
demolition. Mrs. Dempsey responded that the City would and they would seek
collection of the demolition costs from Dr. Klopfer. Commissioner Bullene
inquired if the owner failed, did the City seize the property. Mrs. Dempsey
replied they could foreclose on the property. Commissioner Bullene inquired if
the City could repair the property and then seek the cost of repair from the
owner. Mrs. Dempsey said that basically was the receivership program, but the
City did not have the funds for this property. Commissioner Petrass inquired
if the unpaid debts would prevent the owner from building a new structure.
Mrs. Dempsey replied negatively. Mr. Kent inquired if the Commission could
prevent Dr. Klopfer from getting a building permit President Oxian explained
if the Commission denied a COA or if no COA was filed, the owner could not get
any permits. Mrs. DeRose said if the new construction appeared historically
appropriate, the Commission could incur a lawsuit if it denied a COA. Mr. Kent
inquired if the Internal Revenue Service Building was historically
appropriate. A discussion of the IRS Building ensued. Mr. Kent inquired if Dr.
Klopfer would be allowed to put the IRS structure on his lot. President Oxian
said he believed that would be considered inappropriate. Commissioner
Hostetler explained Dr. Klopfer could put whatever he wanted in a Queen Anne
style building. Mr. Andrew Greta, 1232 Lincolnway East noted there was nothing
to prevent Dr. Klopfer from putting in a clinic now if he got a COA. Mr. Greta
said he felt it was important to keep the issue of new construction separate
from the issue that was before the Commission which was the demolition of an
unsafe structure. Mr. Kent agreed with Mr. Greta that the structure needed to
come - down, but he was concerned what would be the consequence of the
Commission approving the demolition of the structure. President Oxian stated
if Dr. Klopfer's intention was to demolish the building by neglect and not
have to pay for the demolition until he tried to sell the property, he would
have accomplished that, and if Dr. Klopfer's intention was to build a bigger
building, he has accomplished that because if the current building is torn
down that opens the property up to any structure that is appropriate by
Commission standards. Commissioner Bullene noted the residual affect on
historic preservation was another lost structure and the Commission
demonstrating they had no recourse against demolition by neglect. Mr. Greta
agreed and elaborated that property owners could do what they wanted and the
Commission could do nothing to stop it. Mrs. DeRose disagreed. She said the
Commission has enacted standards that require a property owner to maintain
their property to certain standards. Mr. Greta inquired what the Commission
had done to resolve this problem. Mrs. DeRose replied the Commission had
obtained Dr. Klopfer's approval for repairs on the building and the Commission
took him at his word that he would make those repairs. She explained because
Dr. Klopfer did not keep his word, the Commission had come to this point.
Corrurtissioner Bullene inquired if any someone or some agency were willing to
put up the money, could the building be saved. Mrs. Dempsey replied that would
require about $200,000. Mr. Kent said he thought it was unrealistic to think
someone would invest that much money in a building they did not own and also
burdensome would be the lawsuits -that would likely follow any attempt at
receivership. Commissioner Hostetler inquired if members of the Historic
District could sue Dr. Klopfer. Mrs. DeRose noted she did not feel Dr.
Klopfer's threats of a lawsuit should be taken to seriously. She said his only-
basis for a lawsuit would be due process and she felt he had been due
processed more than adequately. She added that did not prevent him from filin-
a lawsuit and incurring expenses on whomever was at the other end of the
lawsuit, but she felt in terms of winning the lawsuit his chances were slim.
President Oxian discussed the receivership program and noted the owner could
not recover the house unless he paid out the receiver. Mr. Kent asked who
would finance repairs on a house the borrower did riot own. President Oxian
explained the bank would get it's money back even if the receivership fell
through because the owner would have to pay off the money borrowed and the
interest. President Oxian noted the bad part of the receivership would be the
owner could get: the house back by paying off the receiver and then let the
building start deteriorating again. Commissioner Bullene inquired if granting
the COA gave the necessary time to document the building. Mr. Duvall replied
the documentation was typically done within the regular demolition schedule.
Mrs. Dempsey said it would take approximately 30 days before the demolition
could begin. Mr. Duvall said there should be no problem in documenting the
building provided the staff had access to the site.
Commissioner Bullene said he was also concerned with documentation of the
historic landscape features because they might serve as a bases for
determining the appropriateness of any new construction. Commissioner Eide _
agreed and added the trees may be more significant than the house at this
point. Commissioner Petrass inquired of Mrs. Dempsey if Code Enforcement would
state in the demolition contract that no trees were to be taken down. Mrs.
Dempsey replied Code Enforcement would only be demolishing the house.
Commissioner Eide inquired if the basement would be taken out. Mrs. Dempsey
explained the requirements for the demolition.
Mr. Duvall noted an alternative might be after the demolition contract is
awarded, an individual could conceivably negotiate a house move from the
demolition contractor. Mr. Duvall said the method of demolition is not
prescribed in the contract.
Mr. Greta said unless the Commission had another method for making Dr. Klopfer
repair the house, he saw no other alternative to demolition. Commissioner Eide
said unless there was some feasible plan of action, he agreed with Mr. Greta.
Mr. Kent inquired what would happen if the Commission denied the COA. He was
informed the issue would come before the Common Council. He inquired what
would happened if the COA was tabled. He was told the Commission could not
table the COA because the applicant was not likely to consent to that.
President Oxian said if the Commission denied the COA and it went to the
Common Council, the demolition could be stayed for up tc a year if the Council
agreed with the Commission.
Commissioner Hostetler asked what the steering Committee in the neighborhood
thought about the demolition. Mr. Greta responded they were more concerned
with what might go on the site in place of the house. He said they kne�a time
current structure was an eyesOre and unsafe. He said he felt the biggest
concern was what would happen when the house was gone. Iie explained many felt
the house may be what is preventing the construction of Dr. Klopfer's clinic.
He said personally he felt it was two separate issues because Dr. Klopfer
could have put a clinic in the current structure if he wanted to. He felt the
issue should only be viewed as to the current structure and its detrimental
effect on the neighborhood. Commissioner Hostetler noted the benefit to Dr.
Klopfer in the house being demolished was the cos of demolition was much less
then the cost of repairing the structure. Mr. Greta said if Dr. Klopfer came
to the Commission with a COA for demolition, he would get the b uilding torn
down. Mrs. DeRose replied if Dr. Klopfer were the advocate for demolition, he
would have to convince the Commission lie could not afford to repair the house
and she doubted he could do that given his financial abilities.
Commissioner Eide moved the Commission ar)prove the COA for demolition of 1244
W
Lincolnway East. Commissioner Bullene seconded the motion. The motion was
defeated 4 -2. Commissioner Bullene asked for alternative suggestions. Mrs.
DeRose said there needed to be an alternative motion to deny the COA with
specific reasons for denying it in the record. President Oxian said if this
were going to go before Council, there needed to be a basis from the
Commission for denial. Commissioner Bullene gave his reasons for supporting
the motion to approve the COA. Commissioner Eide said he did not feel it would
be responsible to deny the COA without some fairly convincing reasons.
Mr. Greta asked for clarification on how long it would take for Common Council
to hear the appeal. Mrs. DeRose explained it would come before the Common
Council next month and if the Council sided with Code Enforcement, the
Commission could appeal the decision in court.
President Oxian inquired how large of a fine Mrs. Dempsey could seek from Dr.
Klopfer. She replied the maximum Civil Penalty was $1000. President Oxian
inquired if there was any provision in state legislation for criminal charges.
Mrs. DeRose replied negatively. Mrs. Dempsey said she felt better means of
enforcement had been enacted, however several buildings, such as 1244
Lincolnway East, had been in Code Enforcement longer than the new regulations
had been in place. Mrs. Dempsey enumerated the many programs and agencies
available to prevent demolitions and noted all possibilities had been
exhausted for this structure. She said her biggest fear would be a tragedy
would occur in the building before any action was taken. President"Oxian said
he could see Mrs. Dempsey`s point, but the felt there ought to be some means
of getting a criminal suit filed against delinquent property owners.
President Oxian called for a motion to deny the COA with reason for denial or
for a revote on the previous motion. Commissioner Petrass indicated she had
changed her vote. Commissioner Hostetler said she felt the Commission needed
to take a stand against absentee landlords who do not care for their property.
Mrs. DeRose said she felt Dr. Klopfer had another agenda and could not be
placed in the category with regular absentee landlords. Mrs. Dempsey voiced
her agreement with President Oxian that very strong enforcement of the
standards was necessary. Commissioner Bullene inquired if Mrs. Dempsey could
as part of the demolition, make requirements regarding the retention of
surrounding landscaping elements. President Oxian said Commissioner Bullene
could introduce that into a motion. Mr. Kent said he did not feel just telling
Dr. Klopfer he could not cut down the historic trees on the property would
stop him from cutting them down if that is what he desired. Commissioner
Hostetler noted under Indiana law the Commission can not confiscate the
property or hold it against the rightful owner or could not coerce him to
repair the property by withholding licenses from him. Mr. Kent said the
Commission should not justify its decision to allow the demolition by saying
they could save the trees. Commission Bullene replied the Commission was not
justifying the demolition, but were trying to make it as limited as possible.
Mr. Duvall noted there were other landscape features such as ornamental rock
structures and the fence as well as the trees.
Commissioner Bullene moved the COA for demolition be approved and asked that
Code Enforcement notifv the owner in a letter of the sentiment of the
Commission that anv new construction would have to respect the existing
building as a historic precedent. that all mature trees and decorative
landscape features which do not have to be removed for safetv reason be
� K
retained, and that their retention be a consideration for a COA for anv
further construction. Commissioner Eide seconded the motion. The motion passed
4 -1 with one abstention.
Mr. Duvall asked for clarification on the issue of documentation noting that
the guidelines say the applicant will provide documentation of the structure
before demolition. President Oxian said he believed the Commission staff
should be responsible for documentation.
Mr. Greta said he thought the idea of criminal penalties for owners of
historic district properties who allow demolition by neglect should be
pursued. President Oxian noted the tremendous effect demolition in a intact
historic district has, especially in a case like this when it is on a corner
and on a very significant street.
Mr. Dent said he was very disappointed that the Commission had no poker to
prevent this from occurring. Commissioner Eide explained until last year the
Commission did not have maintenance standards, but now that it does, this
would probably not happen. President Oxian noted Code Enforcement had enforced
HPC maintenance standards on certain properties and it has worked, but this
house was already improperly maintained before the Maintenance ordinance was
adopted by the Council. Mr. Kent said the same thing could happen again.
Commissioner Hostetler explained a property owner would not be able to let the
property get to the point of demolition. Mr. Duvall said Code Enforcements
ultimate recourse is still demolition, however there is the alternative of the
receivership program which is more appealing when taken on at an earlier stage
of disrepair.
President Oxian adjourned the meetinc- at 5:30
I COMMON NAME 4. PROPERTY'S MAILING ADDRESS 5. LOCATION NOTES
2 OWNERSHIP P....'t
A VISIBLE No
-AS' PRESENT PAST 7 ENDANGERED 8 CATEGORY M. LOCAL LEGAL PROTECTIONS
vicam O.w'cl
p H.sto,ic O'st'.cl
Neglected B. — Landmark
EnitloaChm•, st — Deed Restf,coon
Other___._ Site — other
P"k Object
KA L:
EIucat-or,al 7 go. SURVEYS
u SA NR NHL_ MASS — MAER_
13 CONDITION It BUILDING INTEGRITY Ila. Specify Alterations 17,
Unaltered
Removals
Aiwted ' 1
Moved Structural
Date R,ol.cent
ct,. Add.I-o.s_j6CE!f!&44_1r'
12 DATE STYLE 6Z L1S8 N Q. ARCHITECT /BUILDER
1 1 DESrAJPTION
4 OUTBUILDINGS
19 AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE: SPec,fv the ssigndicance to, each area checked
0
18. ENVIRO JMENT
A.1gI
AT I ACH
7 � p0" Im !-1' 20n.re-) . h ,SC
NE -ATIVE
.7 r)
EN'ELOPE
commu.-Tv Plamm.ng
MOS
Ectucaf-cin
r In - Piz ,,4 Cc) 1k, ("Invor �)Ljllrr
.ons,'Ne.ghbo,toods
✓F.
�1 ly lon -, Uir -. - G-, ) 13 P,,,rrl -_,pjj
E..lo,,:/Setv,t
rr,4 SP
Hul,n.t
,�
a4*kr, jpel Yvirf I v - Rie k,10s.; IA di 1`327 1 ke In ryl el
LdWaoe AlCh'trict."
a Y(i k. N" )V\ _ Y C t DA (3 y) d
re n
V.0"
V"A
.Src@1Te
T %Vo , jat , o ,
I mill
I INFORMATION SOURCES 171 v\ Y)a - T>e-A Re-rr, to
9- 27- 19 3-29-1q %
SURVEYOR - V- AhX> ASStne-_!.4
22. DATE
_.
A HISTORICNAME
&COUNTY ST •5rftj C.MUMBER 14 J5'!Pl
?I) ADDRESS
E. TWP/CITY FV F. QUAD NAME
A A TING)4O.I~dIN 0 S 'g n "' canuN O'sb 4 DJr-mb'MN/R-4-rroeONOICOnldbuting UTMAEFERENCES 11,61
STATE OF INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES INDIANA HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY AEVISCO
511 West Colfax
Recommendation
Based on the HPC Local Landmark Criteria, the building at 511 West has been
recommended by the Landmarks Committee of the Historic Preservation Commission
as a Local Historic Landmark. The building meets the criteria in at least four
areas. ,
1.) Its character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage or
culture of the City of South Bend or St. Joseph County, the State of Indiana,
or the United States;
2.) Its embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or
craftsmanship which represents an architectural characteristic or innovation;
3.) Its educational value;
4.) Its suitability for preservation;
5.) its identification with the life of a person or persons of historical
significance;
The building fulfills criteria #1 as material evidence of one of South Bend's
important industrial families - the Birdsells. The house was built in 1898 for
J.B. Birdsell, President and Treasurer of the Birdsell Manufacturing Co.
The building fulfills criteria #2 as an excellent example of a turn of the
century Tudor Revival style residence rated 0/13 in the Indiana Historic Sites
and Structures Survey featuring half timbering Tudor detailing and a stone
porch and first story facade. The structure was designed by architect Wilson
B. Parker.
The building fulfills criteria #3 as an excellent example of the past culture
of one of the important industrial families of South Bend. This structure
represents an intact example of historic architecture that expresses a quality
of workmanship and aesthetic that is rare elsewhere in South Bend.
The building meets criteria #4 by the integrity'of its original construction
with only minor alterations.
The building meets criteria #5 for serving for several years as the offices of
attorney F. Jay Nimtz who was a congressman and civic leader.
I
TE OF APPROPRIN"`?NESS STAFF REPORT
PROPERTY -- 1077 Riverside Drive
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Mary Hendriksen & Dwight King
DESIGNATION -- RSD -LHD
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT
The house at 1077 Riverside Drive was built c. 1925 for
Harriette E. and Dora I. Keller, sisters of Fred W. Keller
partner in the prominent real estate company of Whitcomb
and Keller. This Colonial Revival style house is rated
S 111 in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Survey
and is considered to be in excellent condition.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The owners propose the following changes:
1..Transplant a rhododendron from the rear of the garage
to area of dying rhododendron near screened porch.
2. Remove sapling that is interfering with the dogwood.
3. Transplant redbud sapling near lilacs to corner of
screened porch on Riverside Drive.
4. Remove two lowest branches of hemlock extending over
sidewalk (Custom & Moore to do work).
5. Replace backdoor light with light matching original
lanterns.
STANDARDS
Standards: I.B.1. "New site work should be based upon
actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property
found in photographs, drawings and newspapers. New site
work should also be appropriate to existing surrounding
site elements in scale type and appearance."
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed changes 1 -4 are minor landscaping site
amenities that are appropriate to the existing site
elements, staff recommends approval.
Proposed change 5 would involve the removal of a
non - historic light fixture and replacement with one more
compatible with the original fixtures. Staff recommends
conceptual approval with the proposal referred to the
Standards and Maintenance Committee for approval once the
owners have selected the specific fixture.
CAA
2 -13 -95