Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 1996• • AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular monthly meeting 7:30 p.m. Monday, January 15, 1996 I. Call to Order A. announcement of new appointments II. Roll Call A. election of Architectural Historian III. Public Hearing .A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 1027 East Wayne Street (LL) - cap chimney County Commissioner's Conference Room 7th Floor County City Bldg 2. 1314 East t°;ayne Street (LIID-EW) - new triple track storm/screen combination windows at existing sunroom IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes - December 18, 1995 B. Treasurer's Report C. Correspondence D. Committee Reports 1. Nominating committee 2. Budget & Finance 3. Legal 4. Historic Districts 5. Historic Landmarks a. Status of recommendations to Common Council - 534 LaPorte Avenue (Starzynski Texaco Gasoline Station) 237 North Michigan (LaSalle hotel) Stanfield Napoleon street light b. Leeper Park LL proposal c. 415 Parry Street (LL) zoning change 6. Standards & Maintenance a. 1414 East Wayne Street (LHD-EW) - front yard fence 7. Personnel E. Staff Reports 1. C of A Staff Approvals a. 723 Park AV. (LL) - removal and replacement of tree in tree lawn. b. 1414 East Wayne Street (LIID-EW) - in -hind roofing replacement (after the fact by contractor) 2. DHPA Grant status a. Request for bridge appropriation 1996 b. National Register nominations c. Economic Benefits Study 3. Legal a. alternative modes, of certification. V. Old Business VI. New Business VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IY. Adjournment • There will be a brief meeting of the Landmarks Committee following the adjournment of the regular meeting. 0 � 0 /' q -Z ET 9,:&-p 9,- L14 G�,w,i� % ", 111 w„t w.. �-a �I ��� P1 G,.� i� �6 , /�� ia`� � � � �4t� Wil}, A40 2 c4lr-�4 � 0 JV) • CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF -RUM APPLICATION 1995-1222 PROPERTY -- 1027 Est Wayne Street South Bend, IN OWNER -- Philip Schatz & William Story DESIGNATION -- Local Landmark STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This Prairie Style house was constructed in 1912 at 728 East Jefferson Street next door to a similar prairie style house owner by Roy Shambleau one of South Bend's most outstanding architects of the period. The house was published in Western Architect magazine the following year. The original owner, a dentist named Merrit J. Keightly moved from South Bend in that year selling the property to Edward A. Heylman, a designer. In 1930, the house was again sold and moved to its present location by Allen K. Frame, a conductor for the Northern Indiana Transit Co. and his wife Clara. The house is rated Significant (S/12) in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory. • PROPOSED CHANGE The applicant seeks to cap the chimney. STANDARDS The Standards for Historic Landmarks - Group B state: C.2 Construction and Style - All work should be done in the architectural style and in a technique which compatible with that of the original structure.... RECOMMENDATION The proposed alteration will have no visual impact on the character of the structure whatsoever. Staff recommends approval. DBD 1/10/96 • CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT APPLICATION -- 1996-0105 PROPERTY -- 1314 East Wayne Street North South Bend, IN OWNER -- Jeff Bernard DESIGNATION -- East Wayne Street LHD STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This Georgian Colonial Revival house designed by H.R.Stapp was built by Whitcomb & Keller in 1926. It is essentially and "I" house in plan with appendages at the rear southeast corner and the west side, the latter being a sunroom. The house was first occupied by William B. Schaefer, a lumber wholesaler, and his wife Madge who purchased it in the same year. The house is rated Contributing (C/10) in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory. PROPOSED CHANGE The owner proposes to install triple -track storm -screen combination windows at the sun room. the proposed window units are aluminum construction with baked • enamel finish in white. STANDARDS The guidelines for the East Wayne Local Historic District state: II.C.2 - Recommended - ... When metal storm windows and doors are used, they should be painted, anodized, or coated to match the existing. ... RECOMMENDATION The existing windows at this house are wood, double hung type with eight/one sash at the main body of the house and eight/eight sash at the sunroom. the proposed storm/screen combinations will fit inside the casing of the windows and reflect the double hung design of those windows. the visual impact of these windows will be negligible and the proposed new material is removable without damage to the historic fabric. Staff recommends approval. If wood storm windows exist for these window openings, they should not be discarded but should be stored on premises. DBD 1/10/96 0 0- EL 0 f`'7 L9 + . • ME x 7;-gS 0,QF 5Wy fA rt�H you,.0,,,C SCeCEW 07 sra4A. sir f,�f 880 SERIEPES - Good Two -Track Overlap Aommabie imoft, irmau muft for .bP air tow vemt ; ful Poknotor tom; r i fruno oor►sttivcAm; ovedap bmU tt on & Eom io- c aW. NM., i. M'aS: Mo. U.I. =118 1 Wds. = 14-W 1 Hts, = 27-79 PERFECT MATE - Better Tivo nick Bli tddgp F r waWo iMGP t% W Pmno U a ffibed fry► mmUmlion; WWW aida from it Woow stnygoi and scab; k ori batmm sWmit. lal WM egardir. E LATS: U-1. =1161 Wds. =14.561 f•ICs. a V-79 XU! N -A Two-Trucit Mmistop Womble ms s; W finer, pouriur Fnt il0v t1sip; rrftsd fmm =Wrnction; stpped We frame for graalar sixth wW xmA intmfo* boNa m sires; stabilizing fe har, fixed bow pir%.S1wKkuT.1 qtr exrerd w. SIZE UMITS' Max U-1. = 1281 Wds. = 14,55 f MS.:_ 27-89 • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Monthly Meeting County Commissioner's 7:30 p.m. Conference Room Monday December 18, 1995 7th Floor County -City Building I. Call to Order Catherine Hostetler, vice-president of the commission, brought the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Commission members present were: John Borkowski, Richard Bullene, Martha Choitz, Catherine Hostetler, Janeanne Petrass, Jerry Wiener, & J. Edward Talley. Commission staff present were: David Duvall, director and 'Aladean DeRose, counsel. Also attending the meeting were: Susan Rabe, Scott Peacock, Jennifer Lackman, and Marsha Stevenson. III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness The order of presentation was altered from the published agenda for the convenience of applicants present. • 1. 1995-1130; 1733 East Wayne Street (LHD-EW) - Enclosure of existing screen porch as all season room. Mr. Duvall distributed photographs, drawings and read the Staff Report for this proposal. Mr. Duvall noted that the applicant and the contractor were present. Mr. Talley moved for approval of the application per the Staff recommendation. Mrs. Petrass seconded the motion. The floor was opened for discussion. Fr. Bullene inquired if this was the front porch and if it was screened already. Mr. Peacock stated that it was the rear corner porch which was being enclosed and that it was screened presently. Hearing no moire questions, Mr. Talley called the question. The motion was passed unanimously. 2. 1995-1201; 1414 East Wayne Street (LHD-EW) - Removal of hedging at the west property line, installation of fencing, restoration of planting beds and development of new planting beds per site plan and photographs submitted. Mr. Duvall distributed photographs and read the Staff Report for this proposal, noting that the applicant was present. Mrs. Hostetler suggested that the proposal be broken into constituent parts for seperate consideration by the commission. Mrs. Petrass moved that the commission approved the removal of the hedge. This motion was seconded by Mr. Fine. The floor was opened for discussion. Mr. Talley asked Ms. Lackman whether she had been informed by a neighborhood liaison of the requirements of the district upon her purchase of the house. She replied that she had bought the house in 1991 and was aware that it was in a historic District but that no-one had informed her specifically of neighborhood requirements and did not realize the requirement for COA. She also stated that she had submitted along with this application, a list of the renovation work which she has had done since that time noting that • no previous complications had arisen at the occasions of those projects and that her .intention has always been to maintain the historic character of the house. Work has included roofing and limited replacement of non -original windows at the Kitchen. Mr. Talley also verified that this was the applicant's first experience with property ownership. He stated that his inquiry was to determine the extent and nature of the neighborhoods interaction with the applicant. She stated that with regard to this (fence) project that the direct • neighbors had been informed in conversation and that she had explained the necessity of fencing for her dog. At this time, a neighbor mentioned the HPC but her fencing contractor had stated that no permit had ever been required. She expressed the presumption that someone had complained and that her direct experiences with others in the neighborhood since the fence was erected were of four individuals who were pleased with its appearance. Mr. Talley expressed that the purpose of the commission was to assist owners and enforce regulations which were developed by the neighborhood, and that he hoped that she would not take these proceedings as someone trying to pick on her. He stated that the commission was in a peculiar position as he felt her property looked quite nice but that the commission was charged with maintaining the established standards for the neighborhood. Mr. Talley asked if there was any documentation regarding the condition of the hedge. Ms. Lackman stated that having been unaware of need, that she had prepared none. She went on to state that both the house and yard had suffered years of neglect prior to her purchase of it. The hedge had been allowed to grow without pruning and therefore would have been bare after shaping to its proper form. Neighbors had complained to her of the appearance of the hedge. She further stated that there had been a concrete paved dog kennel with rusted metal fencing in the rear yard. She is working with Faidley and Custom & Moore to retain the plant specimen in the yard which are of value. Fr. Bullene inquired as to how far forward the hedge had come. Ms. Lackman indicated that it had extended to the sidewalk. He noted that the standards forbid fencing forward of the front of the house but do not address hedge barrier at this • location. He recognized that he could support the motion on the floor. Mrs. Hostetler called this question. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Lackman added that her fencing contractor had indicated that there was some deviation in height requirements from Mishawaka to South Bend. The chair then entertained a motion regarding the fencing. Jerry Wiener moved that the commission approve the white PVC fencing. Mr. Borkowski seconded this motion. Ms. Lackman noted that the fence enclosing the tennis court across the street extends forward of the setback line. Mr. Talley inquired of counsel as to the advisability of splitting the fence discussion into front and rear parts. Mrs. DeRose indicated that she felt this was advisable in these circumstances and that she felt the discussion would center on the front portion. Mr. Wiener amended his motion restricting approval to the fencing behind the front setback. Mr. Borkowski seconded this amendment. Mr. Wiener then sought to verify that a building permit was required for the fence. Mr. Duvall replied that when he had received a complaint regarding the fence that he had referred it to the Building Department who had proceeded to place a stop work order on the project. Therefore no permit has subsequently been purchased for the fencing as one would not be issued without a COA. Hearing no more questions, the chair called the question. The motion was passed unanimously. Mrs. DeRose suggested that the chair proceed to the remaining conforming issues. So doing, the chair requested a motion regarding the planting beds. Fr. Bullene moved that the commission approve the planting beds in the rear • yard. Mr. Talley seconded the motion. Bearing no discussion, the chair called the question. The motion passed unanimously. The chair then requested a motion regarding the fencing extending along the west property line forward of the front setback. Mr. Talley moved to deny this item from the application. Mr. Wiener seconded the motion. Mrs. Hostetler inquired or Staff what the applicant's course of action would be in the case • of such a denial. Mrs. DeRose indicated that if the denied fence remains, a court order could be sought for its removal. If the fence is removed there would be no remaining problem. Mr. Duvall indicated that the fence would remain "red -tagged" until such time as a COA is issued and a building permit is purchased. Ile noted that the previous approval of the rear -yard fence will result in a COA which would enable purchase of such a permit. He noted that the plan documentation had been prepared by the applicant and that Staff was unaware of whatever documentation or representations had been made to the applicant by the contractor. Mrs. DeRose indicated that in this case it might be wise to revise the previous motion so as to prevent the contractor being able to purchase a permit until after the non -complying sections have been either approved or removed. Mr. Duvall indicated that it would be useful to hear from Ms. Lackman regarding any correspondence she may have had with the contractor regarding the stop work order and her intentions in this regard. Mrs. DeRose inquired of Ms. Lackman whether additional time would be helpful in discussing the issue with the contractor. She responded that she believed that the contractor had acted in good faith up to this point, and that they had not discussed the fence's removal and that she was not concerned about the financial concerns. There was some brief discussion regarding the requirement for permits in the case of such a fence and the details of such permits. Mr. Talley indicated that the tennis court fence referred to had been in place prior to the designation of the district. Mrs. DeRose expanded on this point, that the conditions existing at the time of a district's establishment are taken as the benchmark for future developments, but all alterations occurring after the establishment need to conform to the standards as developed by the • neighborhood committee. Mr. Fine inquired what the purpose of extending the fence forward in the yard was. Ms. Lackman indicated that her intention was to provide support for plant growth. Mr. Talley inquired after the consequences of denial of the fence at this time. Mrs. DeRose indicated that the proceeding should indicate to the contractor that if the front section were to be removed, an application for COA regarding the rear yard fence would probably receive approval. Ms. Lackman indicated that the only discussion between her and the contractor since the stop work order had involved arranging for completion of the work by installing the "Gothic" caps on the posts. Mr. Talley and Mrs. DeRose indicated that it appeared important an necessary in this case to give clear and authoritative message to the contractor regarding the requirements of the historic district and for permits in general. Mrs. Hostetler inquired whether it would be best to refer the matter to the Standards & Maintenance Committee to meet with the contractor before taking further action. Mrs. DeRose replied that this would be possible if Ms. Lackman was willing to sign the waiver of the statutory limit for the commission to act on her application. The waiver was explained to Ms. Lackman who concurred in so signing. Mr. Talley inquired about the status of the liaison committee for the East Wayne Street- Historic District. Mr. Duvall indicated that whenever he has had business with the neighborhood, he has contacted the neighborhood association through its officers and that to his knowledge there are not individuals currently performing the liaison responsibilities. Mr. Talley minuted that he felt that the commission was upholding its responsibilities and that the • applicant has been acting in good faith. Ile broached the subject of the neighborhood amending the guidelines if in fact the fence was acceptable to them. Father Bullene reiterated that the fence company had acted unprofessionally in constructing the fence without proper permits. He also suggested that the fence, in use as a trellis might conceivable be construed as a replacement of plant material for the removed hedge. Mr. Wiener assented that this might be • so but expressed concern regarding the precedent of allowing such a fence. Mrs. DeRose noted that the fence covered with shrubs might meet this criteria but as it stands it is clearly non -conforming. Mr. Talley indicated that he believed the fence was also in violation of the broader fence regulations in the municipal code regarding setback. He called the question, however Mrs. Hostetler suggested that she believed it better to send the application to committee. Mr. Talley then withdrew his previous motion and moved to rescind the vote approving the rear fence. This motion was seconded by Mr. Borkowski. The motion passed unanimously. After verifying the applicants intention to sign the waiver, Mr. Talley then moved to table the application to Standards and Maintenance committee as discussed. This was approved unanimously. Ms. Lackman inquired as to whether she should solicit neighbors regarding modification of the guidelines. Mrs. Hostetler indicated that this would not be recommended but that she should contact the neighborhood association regarding their liaison responsibilities in assisting owners with historic district requirements and noted that Jed Eide, a former commission member, lived in the neighborhood and might also assist her. Mr. Wiener noted that roofing work had apparently been done without proper permits. Ms. Lackman said that this was done by South Bend Roofing. Marcia Stevenson offered that this was a good example of the problem which has developed as district have become more established and properties have been sold repeatedly that owners often do not have the standards passed to them and may be unaware of the district requirements. Mr. Talley indicated that he has had discussion with the auditor's office regarding data entry in their records which will put purchaser on notice as part of the title search process. Mrs. • DeRose noted that although these guidelines are similar in purpose and intent to deed restricting covenants, that they are not attached to the deed as covenants are. The guidelines are restrictions on the use of property by law. Though presumption is made that purchasers understand that the designation carries restrictions, the law is barely satisfied by this and certainly greater efforts at public information would be useful. 3. 1995-1128; 811 Golden Avenue (LHD-RD) - Replacement of attic windows, replacement of plumbing vent pipe, & installation of cable TV service entry. Mr. Duvall distributed photographs and read the Staff Report for this proposal. Mr. Talley moved that the commission deny the application. He further noted that the applicant was not present but that he had corresponded with Mrs. DeRose. Since this correspondence was not submitted with the application nor directed to the commission office, it had not been included in the meeting packets but that the applicant might be under the impression that he had addressed the issues to the commission. Mrs, DeRose then summarized the portions of the letter which bear on the consideration (the letter is attached). Mr. Talley moved that the application be denied. Ile inquired as to his status regarding conflict of interest since lie is a neighbor to this property and is personally mentioned the applicant in some complaints contained in the letter. Mrs. DeRose stated that he was free to make the motion and give any objective statement regarding the merits of the application but that he would need to remove himself and speak as a citizen regarding personal opinions or concerns. He restated his motion for denial • giving reason that the replacement windows are not original, the roof vent does not match the other or the original, and the CCTV wires are not recommended by the guidelines. Not hearing a second, Mrs. Hostetler declared the motion dead. For the benefit of the commission members, Mrs. DeRose quoted the recently • adopted rules for the conduct of business regarding conflict of interest, her point being that a conflicted member may make a motion but may not support his motion as a member of the commission but must speak as a member of the public. Fr. Bullene moved for approval of the motion. Mr. Wiener seconded the motion. Mr. Fine indicated that he felt the replacement windows were not appropriate noting the difference in the muntin pattern. He concurred that the vent pipe and TV service connection were appropriate. Fr. Bullene noted the highly altered state of the building and the relatively minor character of the windows in question stating that if general restoration were to be undertaken on the building that these would be incidental to the work required. Mr. Talley indicated that in his view the windows were probably not broken accidentally and that the applicant had acted in disregard of the information communicated to him by himself, Ms. Stephenson, and the HPC office. Mrs. DeRose indicated that despite the sarcasm in his letter, the applicant is now clearly on notice and has submitted the required application. She believes that he now understands the requirements and the extent of possible recourse. Fr. Bullene asked for clarification of the chronology of related events. Both Mr. Talley and Mr. Duvall described the course of events over several months. Mrs. DeRose indicated that a letter from counsel should be helpful in assuring future compliance on the part of the applicant. Mr. Wiener inquired about the relative significance of the window material remove. Mr. Duvall indicated that it was difficult to assess as the windows had been discarded and the documentary photographs in the survey did not clearly indicate the character • of those windows. The motion passed on a six to one vote with Mr. Fine voting no and Mr. Talley abstaining. IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes - November 20, 1995 The minutes were approved unanimously as submitted. B. Treasurers Report Mr. Wiener distributed copies of the third quarter financial report. He stated that at the next meeting he would provide the 1996 budget. Mr. Talley inquired about how across the board departmental budget cuts would effect the commission. Mr. Duvall noted that the office had received no notification of cuts. Departmentally the commission budget is line item in the County Commissioners budget and not a department. Reductions of the administrative funding would be at the discretion of the County Commissioners. Mrs. Petrass moved to approve the treasurers report. Fr. Bullene seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. Correspondence Mr. Duvall Indicated the following, including items carried forward from the previous month: Received: 1) Letter from the National Trust for Historic Preservation giving access information to Preserve -Link on the internet. . 2) Copy of letter from Parks Dept. to John Grcich of Riverside Drive LHD indicating the inappropriateness of his performing unauthorized landscaping activities in Shetterly Park. 3) Letter from Hercig Assoc. thanking Mr. Duvall for conferring regarding proposed alterations at the North Pumping Station and indicating that the proposal to cut scuppers through the parapets in no longer being favored. t Sent: • 1) Letter to Hosinskis regarding the vacant Sears house which they have purchased on West North Shore Drive. 2) Response to Scott Berger of Muncie providing information on establishing new districts. 3) Letter to John Grcich regarding the plantings in Shetterly Park without COA. He also noted that the commission has received the Nomination to the National Register for the Studebaker building on South Lafayette Street. D. Committee Reports 1. Budget & Finance Mr. Wiener indicated that there was no report for this month. 2. Legal Mrs. DeRose indicated that she had no report except for the By -Laws which are in old business on the agenda. 3. Historic Districts No report was made. 4. Historic Landmarks Mr. Talley reported that he had provided maps for the 1898 street materials . and the 1912 Kessler Boulevard Plan. Regarding developments on Leeper Park he has received materials from St. Louis, St. Joseph MO, and Chicago on how these cities are regulating historic assets in their park systems. Development of supplemental guidelines for historic parks and woodlands are being considered as a vehicle for moving forward with this designation. 5. Standards & Maintenance There was no report from this committee. 6. Personnel Mr. Duvall reported no change in the personnel status. He anticipates republishing our notice of the available position in the upcoming Southhold Newsletter. The position description will be changed to indicate the part-time position. E. Staff Reports 1. C of A Staff Approvals a. 1059 Riverside Drive - LHD-RD; In-kind replacement of roofing. b. 231 South Eddy Street - LL; In-kind replacement of copper gutter & downspout. C. 1027 East Wayne Street - LL; In-kind roof ridge and underlayment replacement. 2. DHPA Grant status a. National Register nominations: . The nomination of the Studebaker Building has been received. Ms. Greiff is proceeding with work on the other nominations. b. Economic Benefits Study The Appraisal Group has completed approximately 40% of their work. We have had a consultation visit with Donovan Rypkema who has worked with the National Trust on similar studies on December 14. f • • • 3. We have been notified by the SHPO the Stephenson Mill has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Our office has duly notified the owner and public officials of the City and County. V. Old Business A. Revision of the BY -Laws. Mrs. DeRose indicated that having had a first reading at the November meeting, these may now be adopted. Mr. Talley moved to adopt the amendments to the By -Laws as submitted by counsel. Mr. Borkowski seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved and two copies of the By -Laws were duly signed by all members present. One copy is to reside in the commission office. The other will be maintained in the Legal Department file. VI. New Business Mr. Duvall proposed a meeting schedule for the 1996 calender year, noting that there was a conflict of the usual third Monday with the County holiday in observance of President's Day in February. The calender was adopted establishing February 12 as the date of the regular meeting during that month. VII. Hearing of Visitors Marcia Stevenson indicated that there was little interest by individuals who she has contacted regarding the assumption of Liaison activities in Riverside Drive LHD. Referring back to the issue discussed earlier regarding the knowledge of property owners of the requirements of districts, she noted that she believed that approximately a third of properties in the district had changed ownership since the guidelines were adopted. Mrs. Choitz suggested revising the regular spring letter to attempt more comprehensive understanding and participation. VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters 1) Mr. Duvall reported for the president of the commission in his absence that he wished to establish a nomination committee to identify officers for the coming year. The committee is to be chaired by John Borkowski and also to include Mr. Talley and Mr. Fine. 2) Mr. Fine announced the upcoming workshops of the Indiana Alliance of Historic District Commissions in Jeffersonville and Muncie. 3) Mr. Duvall indicated that the prospectus deadline for Indiana Historic Research Grant fund application is slated for January 17, 1996. Iie suggested that we maty wish to persue this funding for the brick streets project or some other topic of interest to commission members. Mrs. Choitz recalled the tree study and suggested that continuation of that work might be considered. IN. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. FINANCIAL REPORT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January I thru December, 31, 1995 REVENUE St. Joseph County Y22361.78 Block Grants thru City 9500.00 Anticipated Grants 0.00 $31861.78 EXPENSES STAFF Director and Assistant $28350.00 OFFICE EXPENSES Books $133.25 Conferences Copier 1285.81 Dues and Subscriptions 391.00 Legal Notices 189.52 Legal Services 0.00 Office Supplies 114.00 Phone and Postage 699.25 Photography 439.70 Printing 0.00 Travel 151.75 3511.78 SPECIAL PROJECTS/ Surveys,nominations, studies,etc. 0.00 0.00 TOTALS • $31861.78 $31861.78 0 REVENUE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR 1996 St Joseph County $32880 Block Grant from City of South Bend (1) $19000 Anticipated Grants from other sources$15000 $66880 Director Salary $18850 Director Fringe Benefits $700 (Employer Share - Insurance, PERF, etc.) $3200 Director Employment costs FICA) $1430 Assistant Salary $17000(l) Assistant Employment Costs $1000 (FICA, Worker's Comp.) $2000(l) Phone $42480 OFFICE EXPENSES Books $150 Conferences (includes lodging) $700 Copier $1500 Dues & Subscriptions $300 Legal Notices $100 Legal Services $1000 Office Supplies $400 Phone $300 Photography $750 Postage $300 Printing $200 Travel -iPECIAL Pi,.OJECTS Norrtintt;nns, etc. (contmctt.� (2) —osz: non-cQunty items uHPC or-,.)unts m*+!=:) we fujided' by - 1E Spe,,-: project.- .ue fun, frcrndiverS&, grant s :.,c, -,s x6 i provid(.dr , -")sa t r;c� Illy by %.rtb1'-.j*'ions and ir; -kir'd !ov f 1�1 f. .. � ..• • January 19, 1996 County Commissioners St. Joseph County 700 County -City Building South Bend, Indiana re: State of the County 1995 Honorable Commissioners, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to inform the County Board of Commissioners regarding the activities of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) during the 1995 calender year and our anticipated projects for the coming year. You will find attached, a copy of the 1994-1995 Certified Local Government (CLG) report which our office has filed with the Department of Natural Resources - Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DNR-DHPA). The CLG/DHPA calender runs from October to September and therefore varies somewhat from the regular calender year; but this report gives an overview of the CLG activities through September of the past year. I.. :s, --.__z- d,, ,: ibud Ili ulli. L"rVTC,Vring last calender year, the HPC and its staff received and reviewed sixty-nine applications requesting Certificate of Appropriateness for construction (or demolition) activity at local landmarks and in local historic districts. Of these, sixty-two received full approval, five were patially approved, two were • denied. A portion of one of the partially approved applications remains tabled. One approved application with which we are very pleased is the rehabilitation of the historic street lighting in the Riverside Drive Local Historic District which has been undertaken by the City of South Bend Department of Public Works. During 1995, the former Stephenson Underwear Mill was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Four new Local Landmarks were established, the Birdsell-Nimtz Building, former Monarch Publishing building, and two historic street lights in the Harter Heights area. The commission also worked with the Lincolnway West Business Association in developing the standards and guidlines for a Lincolnway West Local Historic District for which they have made application. An additional landmark has been proposed to encompass the historic features of Leeper Park. The commission has also worked with a local developer to assure the maintenance of the Frame family burial site as a residential subdivision is developed on this land. During this year our community has seen the completion and occupancy of two important adaptive re -use projects utilizing Historic Preservation Investment Tax Credits which converted abandoned buildings for new housing use at Central High School and the former Stephenson Underwear Mill. Progress continues on the rehabilitation of the old Darden Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian traffic utilizing ISTEA funding for historic preservation enhancements from the Department of Transportation. A proposal has also been accepted by the South Bend School Corporation for the adaptive re -use of the Oliver School Local • Landmark as a private arts academy. n.�"e has received fourteen thousand eight hundred dollars in grant • funding for this year from the DHPA to enable nominations for three individual buildings and a local district for placement on the National Register of Historic Places. Work on these nominations has been undertaken with considerable progress having been made in their development. The National Register nomination for the only remaining structure from the Studebaker Wagon Works has been submitted and is presently in the review stages. Hopefully these nominations will enable future ISTEA funding and DHPA grants for much needed capital improvements, maintenance and repair at public facilities and leverage private investment through the State and Federal investment tax credit(s) at privately held properties. A similar grant request has been submitted for the coming DHPA grant cycle and we are hopeful of continuing the work of so recognizing and benefiting the rehabilitation of historical sites and structures in St. Joseph County. A summary of the proposed grant projects is attached. , •.�l�' �,�, Yours truly, David B. Duvall, Director cc: John Oxian, President • • • 1996 CALENDAR OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Unless otherwise noted, Regular Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month at the County Commissioners Conference Room on the seventh floor of the County -City Building commencing at seven -thirty p.m. JANUARY 15 FEBRUARY 12 (second Monday) MARCH 18 APRIL 15 MAY 20 JUNE 17 JULY 15 AUGUST 19 SEPTEMBER 16 OCTOBER 21 NOVEMBER 18 DECEMBER 16 This schedule was approved by the HPC at its Regula Meeting, December 20, 1995. If you have any questions regarding this schedule please contact David Duvall, Director of the HPC at our office (219) 235-9798.