Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 1995OF -1111 REGULAR MEETING or 1 -pie HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular monthly meeting County Commissioner's 7:30 p.m. Conference Room Monday, June 19, 1995 7th Floor County City Bldg I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 1001 Hudson Avenue - RSD-LHD; shutters B. Second reading on landmark status for the following properties: 1. 518 South Michigan IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes - May 15, 1995 B. Treasurer's Report C. Correspondence D. Committee Reports 1. Budget & Finance 2. Legal a. proposed procedural rules for HPC meetings b. Historic Preservation Plan c. pending amendment(s) to ordinance 3. Historic Districts a. Lincolnway West 4. Historic Landmarks a. First reading on landmark status for the following properties: 1. Streetlight at NW corner Stanfield & Pokagon b. Status of recommendations.to Common Council - 310 West Monroe (Olivet Church) withdrawn 534 LaPorte Avenue (Starzynski Texaco Gasoline Station) 221 North Michigan (Roma) 237 North Michigan (LaSalle Hotel) 511 West Colfax (Birdsell/Nimtz Building) 5. Standards & Maintenance 6. Personnel 7. Staff Reports a. C of A Staff Approvals 1. 1618 East Wayne - EW-LHD; in-kind asphalt shingle reroof 2. 1234-1236 Lincolnway East - LWE-LHD; in-kind replacement of driveway apron, sidewalk, and steps to house (concrete) V. Old Business VI. New Business VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment historic Preservation commission of south bend and st. joseph county ROOM 1123 COUN-Pf CITY BUILDING south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 235-9798 SIGN—IN 1.) M .4, 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) 6.) 7.) 8.) 9.) 10.) 12.) 13.) 14.) 15.) 16.) 17.) 18.) 19.) 20.) 21.) 22.) 23.) 24.) 25.) CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT APPLICATION -- 1995-05-22 PROPERTY -- 1001 Hudson Avenue South Bend OWNER -- Carole S. Streeter DESIGNATION -- RSD-LHD STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This American Four -Square residence was constructed c. 1942. It has some unusual features compared to the typical 1920's and 1930's Four -Square. These, modifications include the very small vented roof dormer on the south side, the lack of much eave overhang, and the presence of the entry door on the side rather than on the street facade. The house has Keen majorly altered by the addition of aluminum siding. It is considered non-contributing in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Survey. PROPOSED CHANGE The owner proposes to install white vinyl shutters on the larger three .first floor windows. STANDARDS Riverside Drive Local Historic District Standards state: I. Existing Structures - Windows and Doors 1. Not Recommended - Metal, vinyl, or fiberglass... shutters that would detract from the existing character or appearance of the building should not be used. RECOMMENDATION Based on the standards on the standards and noting that this house type seems to have a more simplified aesthetic than an older Four Square, staff recommends denial of this application for installation of vinyl shutters. CAA 6/12'/�5 1 518 South Michigan RECOMMENDATION Based on the HPC Local Landmarks Criteria [1], the building at 518 South Michigan 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, St. Joseph County, the State if Indiana, or the United States of America. 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. The building fulfills criteria #1 as part -of one of South Bend's few remaining commercial districts from the period of 1910-1930. The building fulfills criteria #2 as an excellent example of 20th Century Neo -Classical style detailed commercial construction. The building is especially noteworthy .for the prolific use of terra cotta detailing. The building is rated Significant 11 in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Survey. The building fulfills criteria #3 as a significant building in the South Michigan Street proposed National Register Historic District. This district is significant as one of the city's only remaining commercial districts of the period, reflecting the use of terra cotta and brick ina variety of styles from.Sullivanesque to Neoclassical. The building meets criteria #4 by the integrity of its original construction with only minor alterations. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 518 South Michigan Street fronts on the East side of Michigan Street. To the north is a vacant lot and to the south an alley. Across the street are several similarly detailed commercial structures. This building is a masonry bearing type structure with the Michigan Street facade executed in a medium brown variegated brick. The north wall is.rendered in a lower quality brick and is absent of terra cotta detailing. This wall has been partially stuccoed and displays a large mural of a keyboard and guitar. This north facade is broken_ by two recessed rectangular second story bays with 2/2 double hung windows. The front facade is profusely ornamented with terra-cotta parapet coping, bracketed cornice, string course, window sills and lintels. The parapet wall is detailed.with three oval arcaded sections of terra-cotta. The window surrounds are executed in terra-cotta with vine and medallion motif lintels. The exuberance of the terra-cotta detail wraps around to the south side of the building only on the first bay to face the alley. The rest of the south side is rendered in lower quality brick. The openings on the south side are boarded but segmental arch brick lintels and concrete sills are visible. At the rear a , one story concrete block addition abuts the brick structure. The concrete block building was used as the printing shop when it was constructed in 1924. At the rear of the concrete structure is a metal overhead door for delivery and loading. The first floor street facade exhibits a brick pilaster at either end of the modern shop'front windows. This one story enframed window wall store front consists of large plate glass windows with a recessed entry. The area directly under the terra-cotta stringcourse is occupied by three large horizontal windows. The second story openings on the front facade are large single pane plate glass windows with metal casing. The extant south side windows indicate these openings were probably at one time fitted with paired 2/2 double hung windows. HISTORIC CONTEXT This building is located in an section of South Michigan Street that was developed from 1911-1930 predominantly as a commercial area. Many of the structures were investment properties leased to a variety of businesses. The businesses changed frequently. This area is significant as one of South Bend's only remaining commercial districts of the period, reflecting the use of terra cotta and brick in a variety of styles from Sullivanesque to Neoclassical.[2] Lot 9 of Martin's Addition (516-518 South Michigan) was purchased by Jacob Kerner in 1916 as an investment property, but he did not build on the site until 1921.[3] Mr. Kerner was born October 5, 1860 in Erie, Pennsylvania. At the age of fifteen he became a volunteer firefighter in the city of South Bend. A few years later, he was in charge of the fire brigade at the Studebaker Corporation, a job that he held for two years. When South Bend formed its first paid fire department in 1886, Jacob Kerner was hired as the Second Assistant Chief. In 1891 he was promoted to First Assistant Chief. In 1894 he retired from the fire department and went to work for American Express Company until he was appointed South Bend Fire Chief:in 1898. He served in this position until 1901. [4] Mr. Kerner's construction at 516-518 South Michigan was complete by 1925 at which time it housed Paul Anderson's Electric Shop, the Monarch Printing Company, and Don E. Williams, and autoworker who lived in the 2nd floor apartment. As with most commercial buildings in the area, the businesses changed rapidly, although Monarch Printing Company remained at this location until 1935. [5] The building appears to have been transferred from Kerner's wife Maggie Kerner to Isadore & Jacob Mooren in 1926, but Mooren became delinquent and defaulted on what is assumed to be a land contract. The Moorens surrendered their interest in the property in 1932 to Emma Staples. Staples died in 1936 and her heir Rita M. Littleton received the property. The property changed hands several more times until 1963 when it was purchased by Joe Gendel.[6] It housed Gendel's International Sales Warehouse and Gendel's Surplus Sales business from 1965 until 1977.[7] The property suffered a fire sometime in the 1.980's. The interior of the structure was gutted.[8] The building was purchased from Mr. Gendel and rehabilitated as the Pro Sound Musical Instruments shop in 1987. This business lasted only a short time. The building has recently been purchased again by Mr. Gendel and is currently used for storage.[9] 1. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No.3: Historic Landmarks Procedure (July 14, 1975). , 2. City of South Bend Summary Report- Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory (South Bend: 1993). 3. Portage Township Tax Assessors Records (1932). 4. Anderson & Cooley, South Bend and the Men Who Made It, The Tribune Printing Co. (South Bend: 1901). 5. South Bend City Directory, 1925. 6. Deed Records Bk.180, Pg.372; Bk.386, Pg.110; Bk.363, Pg.276,289,290. 7. South Bend City Directory, 1965-1977. 8. Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory, survey card, 518 South Michigan. 9. Portage Township Tax Assessors Records. CAA 5/9/95 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 -pity Building May 15, 1995 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. II. Roll Call Members present: Father Richard Bullene, Mrs. Martha Choitz, Mr. Adrian Fine, Mr. John Oxian, Mrs. Janeanne Petrass, Mr. Ed Talley, Mr. Jerry Wiener, and Mrs. Catherine Hostetler. Staff present: Mrs. Aladean DeRose - Legal Counsel,,Mr. David Duvall - Director and Ms. Christine Anderson - Administrative Assistant. Members Absent: Mrs. Joann Sporleder (Leave of Absence), and Ms. Jewel Van Dalsen. Also present: Marsha Stevenson, Mary Hendriksen, Dwight King, Francis Yeandel, Florence Yeandel, Laura Smith, Bill Bonney, Peter Philander, Natalie Philander., Susan Coulter, Brian Coulter, Abraham Marcus, and Darcia O'Blenis. III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 1033 Riverside Drive -- RSD-LHD -- Reroofing & skylight Ms. Anderson read the staff report. Mr. Philander, the owner reported to the Commission on the necessity of a skylight to allow additional light into their north facing living room. He commented the skylight would be dark colored and would only be visible to a slow moving, careful observer. Commissioner Bullene inquired if the new asphalt shingles were to replicate the scale pattern on the existing shingles. The owners replied negatively. Commissioner Bullene inquired if -the -installation of a window on the East side of the house would alleviate the lack of light problem. The owners indicated they could look into that solution if the skylight was riot allowable. Commissioner Choitz noted the sentiment of the caucus had been to agree with the staff recommendation to deny the installation of the skylights. President Oxian asked for Commissioner Bullene's opinion. Commissioner Bullene repeated the two questions posed to the owners previously, emphasizing that the side window would be more acceptable than the skylight, especially at night when the light from the room would be seen through the skylight. President Oxian noted skylights tend to leak. President Oxian asked the owners what they thought of a side window. Mr. Philander explained there is a chimney on the East side which would make the installation of a window impossible. President Oxian inquired .if Mr. Duvall had any comments. Mr. Duvall indicated it seemed fairly straight forward that the standards had negative indication on the installation of skylights visible from the street. Commissioner Choitz moved the installation of a skvlieht at 1033 Riverside Drive be denied. based on the standards of Riverside Drive Drohibitine such an installation. She recommended approval of the asphalt re -roofing takine- into consideration Commissioner Bullene's recommendation on the existing scalloped shineles. Commissioner Fine seconded the motion. Mrs. Philander said the shingles that are currently on the house are not original. Commissioner Choitz said the existing shingles were of the style that was predominant during the time the house was constructed. The vote was seven for with Commissioner Talley abstaining due to his conferring with the applicant after the application had been filed. Mr. Philander commented he felt the Commission was being very arbitrary. President Oxian replied the decision was not arbitrary because the standards written by. the neighborhood specifically state skylights cannot be visible from the main thoroughfare. President Oxian noted the owners were welcome to come back with a new application. 2. 1333 East Wayne South --EW-LHD-- front stoop replacement Mr. Duvall read the staff report. Mrs. Smith asked for clarification on the sidewalk. Mr. Duvall replied because his recommendation had been to retain the porch railing, the ability to put a_sidewalk into the -front of the stoop would be moot if the railing was retained. Mrs. Smith said she did not wish to keep the iron railing and indicated there was no other iron railing on the house. She inquired if she would be able to bring a sidewalk to the front stoop. Mr. Duvall indicated that would be at the Commission's pleasure. President Oxian asked if there currently is a sidewalk. Mrs. Smith replied there was not. Commission Bullene asked if the owner intended for the new stoop to remain un -railed. She replied positively. Mr. Duvall noted the driveway widens over to the stoop currently. President Oxian noted it would be cleaner to have a sidewalk. Commissioner Bullene commented the house is almost severe in it aesthetic and wondered if the curved stoop would compete with that. He continued that the exception to this severity was at the entrance where it is broken by a bracketed canopy. He said he felt either the severe aesthetic could be maintained with a rectangular stoop, or the elaboration could be emphasized by a semi -circular stoop. He said it was an aesthetic judgment on how one read the house and how the house relates to the neighborhood. President Oxian said he did not really see much difference in a rectangular or semi -circular stoop. Mrs. Smith asked for confirmation that the house has the lowest rating possible to still be considered historic. President Oxian said that was true but it was still part of the district and therefore changes had to be taken into careful consideration. President Oxian asked if the hand rail was original. Mrs. Smith replied she believed it was. President Oxian said in his opinion, the semi -circular stoop could be used and the hand rails stored. Mrs. Smith asked about the proposed sidewalk. President Oxian indicated as a rug cleaner, he felt a sidewalk would keep the house cleaner. Commissioner Fine said it would give the house a more formal entry. Commissioner Bullene asked if the proposed changes could be characterized as preserving the severe aesthetic of the house, but granting a more gracious entry to the house therefore a happy compromise and suitable for approval. Commissioner Tallev moved for approval as the applicant had applied based upon Commissioner Bullene's characterization of the proposed changes. President Oxian asked that the motion include the retention of the removed railing. Commissioner Tallev restated his motion for the approval of the application as summitted by the owner based upon the Commission Architect's recommendation and required the owner to retain inv materials removed (the railing) as per the East Wavne guidelines. Commissioner Bullene seconded the motion. Mrs. Smith indicated confusion on how she was to retain the railing. President Oxian explained when the Commission allows the removal of a feature such as a window, they often require the owner to store the removed item so if a future owner wishes to restore the feature, the original can be used. The motion passed unanimouslv. 3. 325 West North Shore Drive --CANS-LHD-- Guesthouse/garage Mr. Duvall read the staff report. President Oxian asked that each item proposed be considered separately. Mr. Yeandel explained the reason for the proposed work was to try to upgrade the guesthouse/garage so it did not detract from the main house. Mr. Yeandel said he disagreed with Mr. Duvall's assessment of the peeling paint problem being caused by moisture in the walls. He said they had been spot painting the building for years because it was painted with lead paint and they were unable to do that anymore. Mr. Yeandel said the windows all had 1/4"— 1/2" of play. Mr. Yeandel said his contractor could not be responsible for the insulation factor of the windows if he took Mr. Duvall's advice and used a product like "Quaker Tracks" to repair the existing windows. Mr. Duvall said Mr. Yeandel's contractor would not warrant the repaired windows, but if you contrast a repaired window with a factory build window, the factory build window has been scientifically tested and therefore has been warranted whereas a field repair such as replacing the sash tracks would not have been scientifically tested and would have no such warrant. Commissioner Choitz suggested Mr. Yeandel's contractor meet with Mr. Duvall to discuss the repair verses replacement of the windows. President Oxian suggested the Commission review the proposal in the order in which it was presented on the staff report. Commissioner Hostetler said she had concerns that if Mr. Duvall's assessment of the paint problem was correct and the walls had moisture in them from roof problems, vinyl siding would cause the structure to deteriorate. Mr. Yeandel indicated the roof was a shed roof that falls off 24-30" and the water flows to collection boxes. Commissioner Hostetler suggested if the roof was determined to be the problem, Mr. Yeandel could avoid vinyl siding and get the roof repaired. She said she feared the problem would be exaggerated by the addition of siding and then the owners may discover they have to remove the vinyl and still need to repair the roof. Mr. Yeandel said they have used the guest house for over 20 years and had not had any roof problems other then trees being blown down onto it in 1980. He said the building did not have any moisture problems. Mrs. Yeandel asked if the Commission was recommending a new roof. Commissioner Hostetler said not having been on the roof herself, she could not make such a recommendation, but she wanted to make sure the Commission was not compounding a moisture problem by allowing vinyl siding to go up that was going to eventually cause the destruction of the building. President Oxian said a determination needed to be made before the siding could be approved by the Commission to ensure there were not moisture problems in the walls. Mr. Yeandel said there had not been any moisture problems with the building for 26 years although there was a need to repair some leaks in the roof. President Oxian recommended the issue of vinyl siding be turned over to the Standards and Maintenance Committee which could make a site visit and then make a determination. Mrs. DeRose asked that a 30 day waiver be signed by the owner. President Oxian said the staff and Committee could come out for a site visit and if they felt it was appropriate the Committee could approve the vinyl siding. Commissioner Fine asked for clarification regarding the reason for installing the vinyl siding. President Oxian asked Commissioner Fine to temporarily serve on the Standards and Maintenance Committee. Commissioner Bullene asked the owner to clarify the type of new windows he proposed to install. Mr. Yeandel explained currently the windows were single glazed and required a storm window whereas the new windows would be double glazed and would require no storm windows. Commissioner Bullene pointed out that although the owners proposal did not preserve the actual material of the guesthouse, it preserved the aesthetic of the main house. Commissioner Choitz mentioned the option of an inside storm window which would not change the appearance from the outside. President Oxian inquired if the owners were going to have to use new windows to replace the two windows that were altered by AC units. Mr. Duvall responded they would if they did not reuse the window units that would be taken out to install french doors. Commissioner Fine pointed out if the vinyl siding was not allowed and the french doors were approved, the owners would need to deal with the existing door in a different manner since they would not want to vinyl side over it. Commissioner Bullene moved the Commission approve the replacement windows for 325 West North Shore Drive. Commissioner Petrass seconded the motion. President Oxian asked for clarification. Commissioner Bullene said his motion included all window and door items as proposed by the owner. Commissioner Bullene included in his motion that the removed windows were to be saved. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hostetler moved the Commission accept the staff recommendation- regardina the replacement of the rear door. Commissioner Petrass seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimouslv. President Oxian informed the Yeandels that the Standards and Maintenance Committee would make a site visit and have the authority to grant the COA for vinyl siding if the Committee felt it was appropriate. 4. 1077 Riverside Drive --RSD-LHD-- fence & landscape Mr. Duvall and Ms. Anderson read the staff report. Mrs. Hendriksen said her landscaper had indicated it was not feasible to move the lilacs in front of the fence because of the lack of sun. He suggested instead the plants be moved along the river. Mrs. Hendriksen asked that they not be held to the 4-8" from the property line for the installation of the fence as was written on the application. President Oxian asked if the fence would face out or in. Mrs. Hendriksen said the picket side would face 1077 Riverside. Jim Giesel, co-owner of 1081 Riverside Drive, explained the owners of 1081 had no objection to the installation of a fence, however they did have an objection to the type of fence because it would be visible from the street. He said he felt something more historically appropriate would be a better choice. Mr. Geisel said the owners of 1081 also had an objection to the fence being so close to the property line. He said they would like it to be 2-3' from the property line so the owners of 1077 would be able to maintain and mow around the fence. President Oxian asked for clarification on the style of fence to be installed. Commissioner Bullene noted he was not certain what the local feeling on fences is, but in his home town whoever owned the fence had the structure on their side. He said he did not know if this was tradition or courtesy, but if this was followed the fence in question would need to face opposite what the owner was proposing. Mrs. Hendriksen explained she had checked and South Bend had no ordinance regarding the way a fence faces, but the main reason she wanted to do it with the boards facing toward her property was because the fence company said they would need to go onto the neighbors property to install the fence with the boards facing out toward the neighbors. She noted she had received a letter from the owners of 1081 stating their property was not to be trespassed upon. She noted the neighbors did not want her children to get a ball that strayed onto their property. Mr. Geisel asked that the owners of 1077 be held to issues pertaining to the fence. Commissioner Hostetler moved the Commission accept the staff recommendation. Commissioner Bullene indicated he had some additional questions. Commissioner Bullene asked why the proposal called for 29-32' of fencing. Mrs. Hendriksen said at the time she made the application, she had three different estimates and all the fence companies had different minimum sizes. Commissioner Bullene asked where the fence would end in relationship to the house. Mr. King indicated the variance would be at the rear, depending on if the southernmost lilac remained. Mrs. Hendriksen said the fence would only overlap the edge of the house by a foot at the most, and it would not be enough to obscure the windows. She said they had considered extending the fence farther, but the foundation was very high and the fence did not offer any more privacy from the windows. President Oxian asked how the fence was to be maintained. Mr. King said they did not intend to paint the fence and with the fence facing in, if a board broke, they could replace it easily from their own side of the fence. Commissioner Talley indicated he had spoken with two fence companies and both had indicated a fence of this type had a life expectancy of 5-7 without maintenance and to lengthen that life, the fence would need to be painted or stained annually. Commissioner Talley said the fence companies also said a soft wood fence of this type if left untreated would attract termites and he had also discovered from these companies that in a situation like this one in which the fence owner is not allowed to trespass, the suggested setback was 18-24". Commissioner Talley noted the fence companies he spoke with said 95% of people installing fence do as Commissioner Bullene said and had the structure of the fence on their side and the boards facing out toward the neighbor. A discussion ensued on whether Commissioner Hostetler's motion had been seconded. Commissioner Choitz seconded the motion. The motion passed with 6 for. 1 azainst, and 1 abstention. 5. 521 River Avenue--EP-LIID-- vinyl siding President Oxian moved this item up on the agenda from old business. Mr. Bill Bonney, contractor for the project, said the plan was to foam core the house and then side it with lifetime warranty vinyl siding and the windows were to be wrapped with white aluminum and the soffit would be done in vinyl. The frieze board would be wrapped in aluminum. Ms. Anderson indicated the staff recommendation had been that the owner address the concerns regarding the additional layer obscuring the window and door trim and the issue of the size of the vinyl to be installed. Mr. Bonney indicated the size was to be double 4 inch. Mr. Duvall added there was a complication because the original application was only for the vinyl siding and in-kind porch repairs and did not include the wrapping of the windows and soffit. Mr. Bonney said the soffit was rotting. He explained the windows would be wrapped with a 4 inch aluminum trim called a picture frame look so the siding would not run up to the existing window. President Oxian asked if the windows were original. Mr. Duvall said they appeared original. President Oxian said he could not agree with wrapping the window trim and unless Mr. Bonney could positively convince him of the condition of the soffits, he could not agreed to that either. President Oxian said unless they could see the original siding, he would not agree to the 4" vinyl because houses of this type would not have had 4" siding. President Oxian recommended the COA be rejected and a new COA be applied for and that the staff and Standards and Maintenance Committee go and look at the property before it comes back to the Commission. Mr. Bonney said he had photos of other houses he had sided. President Oxian explained neither he nor the Commission could agree to wrapping the windows and soffits. Commissioner Talley moved the issue be put into the Standards and Maintenance Committee. President Oxian said he wanted a new COA filed. Mrs. DeRose asked for clarification on the motion. Commissioner Talley moved to deny the COA application and said if a new COA application is made the Standards and Maintenance shall review the COA prior to it coming before the Commission. Commissioner Bullene seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Bonney inquired what he needed to do now. Mr. Duvall said better specs were required. Mr. Bonney explained that is what he had come to the Commission meeting for this evening. He said the owner just wanted to improve the look of the house. Mr. Bonney asked what additional specs he needed. President Oxian responded that Mr. Bonney had heard the motion and knew what the Commission wanted for specs. 6. Riverside Drive --RSD-LHD-- streetlighting Mrs. Darcia O'Blenis of 934 Riverside Drive brought before the Commission a petition from property owners in the Riverside Drive Local Historic District regarding the meter boxes proposed for the streetlighting. Mrs. O'Blenis explained the petition represented over 50% of the homeowners in the Riverside District and that of the people asked to sign the petition, only one did not sign because he felt he did not have enough information. She said otherwise every person who was asked, signed the petition. Mrs. O'Blenis said she knew that one of the meter boxes would be either on her property or on the property line between her house and 930 Riverside Drive owned by Brian and Susan Coulter, but she.was not proposing the box be moved to a different yard. She said the parents of an autistic child who lives close to her home asked her to speak on their behalf stating their concern for the safety of the child who is fascinated by dials and numbers. She said there was a concern for the autistic child's safety around the box as well as the safety of her own child. Mrs. O'Blenis explained she felt she and the other property owners had not received proper due process on the meter boxes. She presented a photograph to the Commission which she believed to be the style of the box to be installed in front of her property although she indicated she was not certain because she had heard different information from different people. Mr. Brian Coulter of 930 Riverside Drive explained he had additional concerns that the box was going to be an eyesore. Mr. Coulter said secondly he was concerned with the process by which this had been brought up. He said he had sat and listened to nit-picking at people by the Commission which is supposed to regulate the authenticity of a historic area and now he was being told that there were two boxes that were going to be placed somewhere on Riverside Drive. He said the residents were asking that if they had to live up to certain standards, the Commission should be held to those standards as well. Mr. Coulter noted the residents wanted some alternatives such as putting them in an alley or somewhere not quite so much in view. He said he wanted some thought to be put into the placement of these boxes. Mrs. O'Blenis pointed out Mr. Littrell had gone on record as saying the meters were not going to be pretty, and when she saw this one she cried. President Oxian stated in the original motion, the Commission was going to give 60 days for the Riverside Drive residents to comment on the proposal, but the liaison representatives indicated such a period of delay was unnecessary. He added that the issue would not have been on the May agenda but he had asked that it be added and had also gotten Mr. Littrell to attend so that the residents could make their presentation before the City proceeded with the project. President Oxian said he wanted it to be clear the Commission had not tried to railroad the project through. Mr. Littrell explained no specific design was given because no specific design had been chosen. He added the decision would be contractors choice but it would be along the lines of what Mrs. O'Blenis' photo depicted. Mr. Littrell said he had to have two of the boxes somewhere and that the City had spent $5,000 to pare that number down to two. He indicated the reason the boxes were proposed for those particular locations is because that is where the service is located now. Mr. Littrell said to move the boxes from these locations, they would have to intercept an underground wire or would have to dismantle the overhead wiring and put that wiring underground, but would still have to have a box somewhere. He said the cost of putting additional underground wiring in is beyond the budget for the project. He noted I&M would not allow the City to put wire on their poles. He noted another problem was that even if they received permission to do something like run wire on I&M's pole, there would still have to be a junction box somewhere which would not be locked and someone with some stick-to-itiveness could be exposed to 280 volts. He said the proposed electrical service was much more attractive than others in the - city. He said in his opinion there would be no danger to children. Mrs. O'Blenis inquired if a dial wouldn't be visible from the sidewalk. Mr. Littrell replied affirmatively. Mrs. O'Blenis said she felt this would be all attraction for children. Mr. Littrell said these boxes are located all over the city, even in peoples front yards. He pointed out Lincolnway East as an example. He said he suspected that children walking along streets and alleys find meters and meter boxes everywhere. Mrs. O'Blenis agreed but noted Riverside Drive was a very busy street. President Oxian said he had seen boxes that were lockable so that no dials were visible. Mr. Littrell said those were vandalproof covers. President Oxian said the meter reader has a key and unlocks the meter cover, reads the metier, and locks the box. He asked if there was anything like that available for these meter boxes. Mr. Littrell said he had not asked, but he suspected I&M would resist. Commissioner Bullene asked what the best looking meter box looked like. Mr. Littrell indicated the box in Mrs. O'Blenis' photo was the most attractive. Commissioner Bullene inquired in the box could be flush with the ground. Mr. Littrell said they had to up to be serviced and to keep them out of the snow. Mr. Coulter asked if it was possible to put the box on an existing utility pole. Mr. Littrell said it would still be four feet above the ground. Mr. Coulter said in his opinion if the meter was on the pole it would be somewhat out of view. Mr. Littrell disagreed. Commissioner Talley said the electricity for the eastern end of the district was coming from Leeper Park currently. He said the last two streetlights on the north side of the street needed to be tied into the rest of the circuit on the north side which would only require trenching from the O'Blenis House to the Cutter house to tied that circuit together. Commissioner Talley said the power that is going to the north and south side of Riverside Drive's eastern end is coming from a pole next to the playground on the southeast corner of Lafayette Street and the pole at the northeast front of the Leeper Park tennis court building. Commissioner Talley said now the electricity was to be disconnected from the park and pushed out the other way by putting this meter box in front of someones house. According to Commissioner Talley's research between $10,000-$12,000 would be spent to do this. Commissioner galley said all that was necessary was to trench across two lots to tie this two lights into the circuit which certainly would not cost as much money and would also put the control panel at the edge of Leeper Park. Commissioner Talley said the pole for the western end of the district sits on the alley. He suggested aerial be run back to 1067 Riverside Drive with the box in the back or trench from the pole back 50-75 feet and put the meter in the back. Commissioner Talley pointed out the Riverside Drive Standards forbid new above ground wiring and poles in the District. Commissioner Talley said he felt his plan would save the City several thousand dollars. Mr. Littrell replied Commissioner Talley's plan was impractical. Mr. Littrell said the electricity could not go from the tennis courts to Leland with enough power to light the streetlights. Commissioner Talley said that is the' current situation. Commissioner Talley elaborated. Mr. Littrell said he could not tie the last two streetlights into the circuit because there was not enough power. Commissioner Talley pointed out there were already 5-6 streetlights per power source and he saw no reason why the cable couldn't push 120 volts down to more lights. Commissioner Talley said Koontz Wagner electrical company had recommended the same scenario as he had proposed. Commissioner Talley said he was concerned that this project violated the standards in four areas and he had concerns that this issue would tear apart the district. Commissioner Talley said his plan would also allow for the removal of two of the three utility poles could be removed. A discussion of the.qual.ity of life on Riverside Drive ensued. Commissioner_ Hostetler inquired what the boxes were for. Mr. Littrell explained I&M would not allow the proposed changes and would not be responsible for repair, but they would sell the system to the city and that is why the meter is necessary. Commissioner Talley said he estimated a $1300 annual savings for the city and suggested this savings be pooled into a non -reverting fund. Mr. Littrell noted a non -reverting fund had to have some revenue. President Oxian asked the discussion to remain on the subject. President Oxian recommended the neighborhood and Mr. Littrell get together and work this out because the Commissioner could not require Mr. Littrell to move the boxes. Commissioner Talley agreed but said he had not been able to do that for four years and he wondered how this was to be accomplished now. President Oxian said the subject could have been put off for a month, but Mr. Littrell agreed to hearing from the neighbors now. President Oxian reiterated that the step needed to be taken to get the neighbors and City Engineering together. Mrs. DeRose agreed. She noted the Commission could deny the streetlights but then there would be an impasse because Mr. Littrell would say there would be no new streetlights. Commissioner Talley said he thought there was an option under Indiana Code for the neighbors to take up a petition stating exactly what they wanted in streetlights and lumens and presenting that to the Board of Public Works. Commissioner Talley elaborated on this process. President Oxian questioned whether the neighbors wanted to go to such lengths at this point. Commissioner Talley felt they did not, but that this was an option. President Oxian said Mr. Littrell seemed willing to talk to the neighbors at this point. Mrs. O'Blenis asked for clarification on the result of the Commission voting to deny the GOA for the meter boxes. Mrs. DeRose said the Commission could vote to deny the COA for meter boxes, but the result would be the death of the whole project. Mrs. O'Blenis inquired if Mr. Littrell could come back with another COA if the Commission denied the meter boxes. She said she was concerned because Mr. Littrell had told her specifically she had no recourse. President Oxian said the Commission could vote to deny the meter boxes, but there was no guarantee the_City_would_come-"back--with-a-different—"--- plan.—For--this"-reason,— President Oxian said he would rather allow 60 days for discussion before the work commenced. He said he was certain Mr. Duvall would be willing to sit in on meeting between Mr. Littrell and the Riverside Drive residents and that if his presence was requested, he himself would be willing to attend the meetings. Commissioner Talley agreed with President Oxian and suggested to the residents that if the meetings did not take place within 30 days or are not agreeable to the neighborhood, then the neighbors could come back to the Commission seeking or demanding the denial of the COA for the meter boxes. Mrs. DeRose said the Commission would need to change their approval from the last meeting because at that meeting they had vote to approve unconditionally the COA filed by Mr. Littrell. She said now that COA would need to be amended for work to begin no earlier than 60 days to allow discussions to work out this problem, otherwise the City could go ahead and install the box. Commissioner Bullene said there seemed to be this question of whether there was a better way to do the project and that the feasibility of this suggested plan would need to be determined. Mr. Littrell inquired if the locations were changed if he would have to file for a new COA. Mrs. O'Blenis inquired if she needed some sort of legal means of preventing Mr. Littrell from proceeding with the project. President Oxian said he did not believe Mr. Littrell would proceed without further discussions. Mrs. DeRose said she would prefer there be a motion that conditions the approval of last months COA to a sixty day waiting period. There was a discussion on how long of a delay was necessary. Commissioner Bullene pointed out last month he had made a motion to delay action for 60 days and he would like longest time period possible so they did not have to do this again. Commissioner Bullene moved to condition the approval of last months COA to a sixtv day waiting period before the commencement of work. Commissioner Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion Passed unanimously. Ms. Stevenson (1093 Riverside Drive) noted at the last months meeting, a specific location for the boxes was not given. She said the liaison did not intend for the boxes to go into peoples yards. President Oxian explained they had discussed the type of meter boxes, but not the location. He said Mr. Littrell brought up the meter boxes several times, but everyone was so occupied with the lights that they did not focus on the meter boxes. President Oxian said no one was trying to push something through without discussion. IV.Regular Business Mrs. DeRose asked if President Oxian would move the legal report up on the agenda. Mrs. DeRose reported an ordinance had been prepared on behalf of the Commission which would amend the code to allow the Commission to introduce any ordinance which would create or alter a historic district or create or alter a historic landmark. She said as it is right now, such ordinances were introduced by a Common Council member, but a change in state law may prevent this from occurring. Mrs. DeRose reported another amendment to the ordinance had been prepared which would prevent a double public hearing on creating a historic landmark. She said this would allow the Commission to hold a public hearing before the recommendation to Common Council, or after the ordinance. had been introduced to the -Common __Council.------- ------ - --- Mrs. DeRose said she had also introduced a resolution to the Common Council to adopt the Historic Preservation Plan. She said this had been a hold up for designating local landmarks. She said both the ordinance and the resolution would be before the Common Council this month. Mrs. DeRose said they had also been working on some ideas for notifying contiguous landowners when a COA may effect a boundary line. A discussion was held on whether the Common Council Committee on the Preservation Plan would need to meet. Commissioner Talley inquired if there was anyway for the Commission to put a freeze on alterations and demolitions in a district while it was under consideration but not yet designated. Mrs. DeRose said that type of ordinance had been discussed but that she wanted to get the non -controversial ordinances through first. A. Approval of Minutes - President Oxian made two corrections to the April 17, 1995 minutes. Commissioner Tallev moved for approval of the April 17. 1995 - minutes as corrected. Commissioner Choitz seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. B. Treasurer's Report Commissioner Wiener explained the treasurers report. Commissioner Talley reported he had sent a letter to Mrs. Kathy Dempsey of Code Enforcement on the possibility of the Commission being included on Code Enforcements computer . network. Commissioner Talley read from a letter from Mrs. Dempsey stating her department was replacing their computer system and she would be happy to discuss adding a terminal for the HPC on the new system. Commissioner Talley reported Councilmember Luecke had not progressed on budgeting for the HPC with the City of South Bend, but that a meeting Kevin Horton and Mr. Talley would be occurring soon. President Oxian asked that Commissioner Talley speak with him because President Oxian had already done some work in that area. C. Correspondence- No report D. Committee Reports 1. Budget and Finance- see treasurers report 2. Legal - discussed previously. 3. Historic Districts Commissioner Choitz moved the application for the Lincolnwav West. South Bend Historic District be accepted by the Commission. Commissioner Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimouslv. 4. Historic Landmarks a. First Reading 637 South Lafayette - Studebaker building Mr. Marcus of the Ivy Tower Corporation, reported the building at 637 South Lafayette was in terrible disrepair, including having no heat, water or toilets, a leaking roof, and a severe crack in one wall. Mr. „_arcus said it was no secret he was planning to demolish the building, but he was willing to donate it to the City with the restriction that it be maintained as a historic landmark structure for as long as they wished it to and if the designation was removed, the land would revert back to Ivy Tower. He said Ivy Tower had no desire to tear down the building if the Commission wanted it to remain, but they were not in a_p_o_sition __to_rehab_._it--for--its-historical—value. 518 -South Michigan b. Second Reading 511 West Colfax- Birdsell Residence/ F.J. Nimtz Building Commissioner Choitz moved the Commission accent the Proposal for 511 West Colfax as a Local Landmark. Commissioner Talley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. c. Status of Recommendations to Council President Oxian reported the status of 310 West Monroe remained unchanged. He commented 534 LaPorte had been sold and a letter sent to the new owner notifying them of the proposed designation as a landmark. President Oxian reported he had been speaking with the owner of the LaSalle Hotel and the Roma building and they were agreeable to the landmarking of the LaSalle, but there was still a hang up on the Roma building. President Oxian said until the Roma issue was settled, the LaSalle would not go any further.. 5. Standards and Maintenance Commissioner Bullene reported the committee had proposed a check box be added to the COA application by which the applicant indicated whether the proposed project affected in a material way any adjoining property. The other issue of discussion was the general notification of a public hearing by requiring the applicant to put up a yard sign or some type of window sticker. He said in a general way this would notify people what their neighbors were proposing. Mr. Duvall added that if the box were checked, the Commission would be responsible for notifying the adjoining property owner. Commissioner Bullene moved these committee Proposals be adopted as Procedure by the Commission. CoiYonissioner Talley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bullene said the other issue discussed was enforcement and penalties for work done without a COA. He reported the Committee had not conte up with a satisfactory means of -solving the problem. President Oxian inquired what other Commissions do in regard to enforcement. Ms. Anderson said she had received a generic enabling ordinance packet as a response from the National Trust to her inquiries and the responses from other Commissions in Indiana to her inquiry had not been enlightening. President Oxian suggested larger cities as a source for information. Ms. Anderson indicated she had excerpts from other cities ordinances regarding enforcement and they used financial penalties as their means of enforcement. President Oxian said the State law would need to change for the Commission to collect monetary penalties. Ms. Anderson said in some larger cities there are two different types of violations involving two different penalties, one being for staff approvable violations which would carry a $15 dollar a day fine and the second for major alterations, additions, or demolitions which would carry a larger fine. She noted in some cities where real estate is a high commodity, the developers incorporate the historic preservation fines into the cost of their projects. President Oxian asked that Mrs. DeRose get copies of the enforcement articles. Commissioner Choitz said the city attorney's office may not be willing to cooperate unless there was very strong case to pursue a violator. Commissioner Choitz said there are alternative methods that may be more public and more effective than fines. She explained the Commission needed to be more creative. President Oxian indicated that steeper fines have held up in court cases including a supreme court case. Commissioner Fine noted a commission in Southern Indiana established a penalty of $100,000 for demolishing a building which was_determined_to--be-i-llegal-.—He-added-in-Indiana,—"such-fines can not exceed $2,500. Commissioner Fine suggested the Preservation Alliance as a source of information and support if a higher fine was desired. 6.Personnel President Oxian reported Ms. Anderson had submitted her, resignation effective the end of June. Ms. Anderson explained she is getting married and moving to Indianapolis. 7. Staff Reports a. C of A Staff Approvals 1. 909 Riverside Drive - RSD-LHD; playset replacement 2. 1716 East Wayne- EWS-LHD; in-kind repoint of the chimney V. Old Business VI. New Business A. Survey updates and rerates Commissioner Fine moved to approve the reratings and additions to the survey as presented by the staff. Commissioner Petrass seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VII. Hearing of visitors None. VIII. Announcements IX. Adjournment President Oxian adjourned the meeting at 10:17 pm. I -A FILE COPY City of South Bend lt­eph E Kernan. klj%or Departmefft-df -a---w Richard A. Nussbaum. 11 City Attorney Members of the HPC Commission Room 1123 County -City Building South Bend, IN 46601 Jenny Pitts '.\Ianier Chief Assistant City Attorney June 7, 1995 Recently I had occasion to amend the By-laws and Rules of Organization for the South Bend Human Rights Commission. At that time it occurred to me that the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County had never enacted any Rules (other than some general guidelines which Fred Holycross and I created a few years ago as a guide for discussing certificates of appropriateness at public meetings) Thus, I drafted, and enclose for your review.. comment ,and approval proposed Rules for the Conduct of Meetings. I drafted them in part with an' objective of improving the efficiency at public meetings. From,time to time, members of the Commission have expressed their concern with the public perception of the Commission, and these Rules are also, in part, designed to improve the image. If you have other matters that you would like to address within the Rules (consistent with the requirements of law), please feel free to let me know. Note that the section pertaining to time limitations on public debate is drawn from the Municipal Code of the 'City of South Bend Section 2-9 which governs meetings of the South Bend Coimmon Council. The Common Council limits presentations to five (5) minutes rather than fifteen (15) minutes as I have allotted to homeowners under these Rules. Sincerely, Aladean M. DeRose Deputy City Attorney AMD/pjh c:\1\ccnduct.1tr 1 -400 CoL1111% -Cit\ Fillildine - South Bend. Indiana 4o601 - 2 10!235-924 1 -TDD 211/235-551)? L li,idnar J.+.n 1: Broden Anne L. Bmneel ALIA.....'r 11 D-J<,,,e M Robe,T C I. 0 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF BUSINESS Time, Place & Agenda of Meetings A. Regular Meetings The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend, St. Joseph County, Indiana (HPC) shall meet regularly on the third Monday of each month unless holidays or other reasons call for a special date. The meetings shall be held at the County -City Building at South Bend, Indiana, except the Commission may from time to time designate such other place within the City of South Bend, Indiana. Ce,3 B. Special Meetings Special meetings may be called by (a) the President, (b) the Executive Director, (c) any three members. Notice of such meeting shall be given in writing at least five (5) days prior to such meeting, unless waived by the Commission. C. Quote A majority of the Commission membership shall constitute a quorum. D. Agenda Certificates of vy. „r.;aeness which are not otherwise delegated to staff for approval shall be heard by the Commission at its regular monthly meeting in addition to any other business which the Commission may or is required by law to consider. Any person wishing to place a specific matter on the Agenda shall notify the President with copy to the Director at least five (5) days prior to the meeting unless an emergency exists. E. Format of Meetings The regular and special meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public and the public shall be entitled to participate consistent with the policy of the ordinance and any other applicable law. Notice shall be posted of the regular or any special meetings pursuant to law. The President shall preside at all meetings of the Commission followed by the Vice -President in the absence of the President, and the Secretary in the absence of the Vice -President If all the foregoing designated officers are absent at a Commission meeting, then the member having the longest continuous tenure on the Commission shall preside. Order at Meetings A. Robert's Rules of Order Robert's Rules of Order will be followed except in instances where it conflicts with the ordinance, regulations or by-laws of the Commission. The President shall restrict comments by members of the public or members of the Commission to those matters which are germane, material or relevant to the issues at hand. B. Restriction of Public Comment 1. The President may limit a property owner who wishes to address the Commission as to his/her certificate of appropriateness or the designation of his/her property as a landmark to no more than fifteen (15) minutes, unless a majority of the Commission Members present vote to extend such a period. 2. In all other matters of business affecting the Commission such as creation of historic districts or other, the President may limit a member of the general public to no more than five (5) minutes of oral presentation, unless a majority of the Commission Members present vote to extend such a period. a. Each member of the public who wishes to be heard must give his or her name or address for the record b. No member of the public may speak twice on the same issue unless a majority of the Commission Members_ present vote to allow such a second presentation. A three (3) minute limit shall apply to such a second presentation. C. Restriction of Comment by 1. A Commission Member who owns or beneficially owns real Commission Members - Conflict estate which is the subject of or directly affected by a certificate of of Interest appropriateness, landmark designation, or which is located within a historic district or within a district affected by Commission action, shall address the Commission as a member of the public and not as a Commission member subject to the time restrictions set forth in the prior and foregoing member Section II (B) of these Rules. M. Commission A. Members B. Loss of Membership 2. A member of the Commission who owns property for which a certificate of appropriateness has been requested or which is the subject of landmark designation or which is located in aproposed historic district or whose realty is directly affected by a third party's certificate of appropriateness shall abstain from Commission action involving the approval, disapproval, recommendation, etc. of such certificate of appropriateness, landmark or historic district designation. The Commission shall consist of such terms as shall be provided by the ordinance creating the Commission. Members of the Commission may be removed by the appointing authority for just cause. Unexcused absence of a member from three (3) regular meetings in succession, may, after due consideration and consultatio win�th the member, cause the President to request that the appointing authority request the member's resignation from the Commission. 1 C -u C. Power and Duty The Commission shall have such powers and dudes as are specified by the ordinance. Correspondence or contact with third parties on behalf of the Commission must be authorized and approved by the President. RESOLUTION NO. J A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE NEED FOR A. NEW FEDERAL INCOME. TAX. CREDIT TO ENCOURAGE THE REHABILITATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS FOR. HOMEOWNERS IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND AND URGING ENACTMENT BY CONGRESS OF THE "HISTORIC HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE ACT" WHEREAS, the abandonment and destruction of older and historic buildings presents a growing threat to the public. safety and the social and fiscal well being of the citizens of South Bend; and WHEREAS, more than 235 houses have been caused to be demolished due to lack of maintenance investment in the .City..of, ,_South Bend. during_.. the_ period from January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994; and WHEREAS, there_ are- not -at .present, sufficient financial incentives to attract homeowners. to rehabilitate older buildings in such struggling, distressed, declining, andthreatenedneighborhoods as West Washington and Chapin Park National Register Historic Districts; Riverside_ Drive, River Bend, Edgewater Place, and Lincolnway East Local Historic Districts; other eligible neighborhoods such as St. Adalbert Parish, St. Casimir Parish, Monroe Park, Rum Village,. and Howard. Park, and. at. isolated landmark_ buildings..in_other neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, a strong base of.homeowners is essential to..the civic and economic health of this community and its tax base; and WHEREAS, there has. been introduced into the Congress the "Historic Homeownership Assistance Act" which would provide homeownership incentives for the rehabilitation of older buildings in historic.districts through a Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit for homeowners; and WHEREAS, the City of South Bend has established a Historic Preservation Commission as.a Certified Local ..Government with...the.capability of promoting and enabling the certification of such tax credits for the purpose of historic preservation, and WHEREAS, the "Historic Homeownership Assistance Act" would stimulate the revival of decaying neighborhoods and the preservation of -historic buildings and districts in the city of South Bend through homeownership; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT.RESOLVED that...the Common Council of.the City of .South Bend supports and endorses and encourages .the prompt enactment of the , "Historic Homeownership Assistance Act", and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be sent to the entire Congressional Delegation of the State of Indiana. Member of the Common Council RECOMMENDATION ' Based on the HPC Local Landmarks Criteria, the lamp -post at the northwest corner of Stanfield and Pokagon 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, St. Joseph County, the State if Indiana, or the United States of America. 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. The object in-situ fulfills criteria #1 as a significant example of the City's geographical, technological, and cultural development, being among the earliest generation of electrically powered illumination devices for public streets in South Bend. The object in-situ fulfills criteria #2 as an example of the innovative technology in design, detail, and materials of the early twentieth century. The object in-situ fulfills criteria #3 as a surviving remnant of obsolescent technology. The object in-situ fulfills criteria #4 by its unaltered condition, integrity, and continued use. CAA 6/13,/95 °