HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 1997IC
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING
of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular monthly meeting County Commissioner's
7:30 p.m. Conference Room
Monday, February 24, 1997 7th Floor County City Bldg.
I. Call to Order
II: Roll Call
III. Public Hearing
A. Proposed Landmark Designations
1. 801 North Lafayette - Madison School
B. Certificates of Appropriateness
1. Blanket COA for street identification and traffic control signs
IV. Regular Business
A. Approval of Minutes
1. February 3, 1997
B. Treasurer's Report
C. Correspondence
D. Committee Reports
1. Budget & Finance
2. Legal
3. Historic Districts
a. Project Access
4. Historic Landmarks
a. Status of recommendations to Common Council
1) 501 West Colfax
2) 513 Harrison Avanue
3) 1631 Lincolnway West
5. Standards & Maintenance
6. Preservation Week 1997
E. Staff Reports
1. C of A Staff Approvals
a. Leeper Park - removal of 5 dead and or diseased trees.
Replacement of 4
2. DHPA Grant status
a.1996-97
V. Old Business
VI. New Business
A. Appointment of Committees for 1997
VII. Hearing of Visitors
VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters
IX. Adjournment
•
JAMES MADISON SCHOOL
• 804 NORTH LAFAYETTE BOULEVARD
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
This site was first platted in 1845 as a portion of the 3rd Bank Outlot
laying just outside of the original plat of the City of South Bend. This and
the immediately surrounding properties were eventually'replatted between 1870
and 1872. The property on which the Madison School is located was platted in
1871. The tract lying to the north of this property was donated to the City in
1902 by Elish Peck, to become the what is now the central section of Leeper
Park.
The first James Madison School was constructed at the northwest corner of
Lafayette Boulevard and Madison Street in 1862. This building was replaced in
1893 by a much larger building on the same site, designed in the Romanesque
style. This building remained until its demolition in 1958. However it ceased
use as a school when the building under consideration was constructed in 1930.
This third James Madison School was designed in the Collegiate Gothic
style by the prominent South Bend architectural firm of Austin & Shambleau and
constructed by H.G. Christaman & Company. It was constructed starting 'in 1929
and opened in 1930. An addition to the rear along North Main Street was
constructed in 1968.
The school was listed on the National Register' of Historic Places in 1982
as a contributing structure to the Chapin Park Historic District.
• ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
The Madison School is a two-story brick structure designed in the
Collegiate Gothic Style common for schools and Universities during the first
half of the Twentieth Century. It is characterized by red brick laid in
running bond accentuated by details of limestone including water table
stringcourse, door and window surrounds, parapet caps, and ornamental relief.
The walls are punctuated with pilasters at intervals which mark changes in
parapet height which give emphasis to the elevations unrelated to functions.
The windows are wood double hung type. Some locations include leaded glass
divisions in square and diamond I patterns. Typical classroom windows are
arranged in groups of six with 4 over six panes in each. An oriel window
graces the main academic area.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Historic Preservation Commission,s Local Landmarks Criteria
as adopted by the Common Council, the building at 804 Lafayette Boulevard has
been recommended to the historic Preservation Commission for designation as a
Local Historic Landmark by its Landmarks Committee. The building meets the
criteria in -at least four areas:
•
• 1.) Its character, interest and value as part of the development , heritage,
or culture of the city of South Bend, St. Joseph County, the state of 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 461 as an example of development of
institutional amenities to the early suburban fringe which developed just
outside the north end of the original City of South Bend. The school served
the Historic neighborhood of Chapin Park, and was related by proximity to the
public park which was developed just previously.
The building fulfills criteria 462 as an example of Collegiate Gothic
style as employed by the South Bend School Corporation. The building is rated
Significant 11 in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory.
The building fulfills criteria' #3 by the integrity of its original design
and environmental context. The building is central to the greatest
concentration of historic sites and neighborhoods in the city and is included
along many historical tours.
The building' fulfills criteria 464 by the integrity of its original
construction with only minor alterations.
• DBD
2/19/97
• MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Monthly Meeting (postponed from 1/20/96) County Commissioner's
7:30 p.m. Conference Room
Monday February 3, 199 -el 7th Floor County -City Building
I. Call to Order
John Oxian, president of the commission, brought the meeting to order at 7:30
p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commission members present were: John Borkowski, Richard Bullene, Adrian Fine,
John Oxian, J. Edward Talley, & Jerry Wiener. `
Commission staff present were: David Duvall, director and Aladean DeRose,
counsel.
Also attending the meeting were: Thomas Botkin, Mike Bramlett, Marie E. Davis,
Richard Davis, Julia DesLauriers, Kenneth Fedder, Rick Keller, Anne Kempf,
Dana Kopkowski, Becki Moffett -Moore, Jan Moffett, Robert Rowland, Dustin New,
Stephen Sharper, Joe Shefer, Mary K. Sherman,J. C. Sporleder, Leighton Stump,
Terry Stump, Bruce Von Deylan, Kevin Williams, and Ralph Williams.
III. Public Hearing
• A. Second Reading - Local Landmark designation
1) 52939 U.S. 33 N. - Blake Gardens
Mr. Duvall Presented the Staff Report. Because of the large public attendance,
Mr. Oxian then established rules for presentation, instructing those speaking
to the issue to identify themselves and calling for the owner of the property
to speak first.
Mr. Fedder, attorney, spoke for the owner, Ralph Williams and Associates. He
indicated that the owner was opposed to the designation of the site as an
Local Landmark. Referring to the Historic Preservation Plan adopted by the
City, he expressed concern about the accuracy of the public notification which
had identified the site by street address. He noted that this description
identified acreage up to 8 acres and that the limits of the area proposed as a
Landmark had yet to be defined. Fie then proceeded to indicate that the
remaining integrity of the Gardens was not in his opinion sufficient to merit
Landmark designation. He noted a 1989 newspaper article describing the
deterioration at that time. He indicated that when his clients purchased the
property approximately 6 months previously that there had been no record or
indication which might have informed them of any pending historical
designation. According to his discussion with a previous manager of the former
motel, Mr. Fedder indicated that few occupants of the motel had taken interest
in the Gardens. Ile further indicated that the insurance company had expressed
concerns for liability resulting from conditions at the gardens. According to
his own judgment the site would not meet the criteria for placement on the
National Register of Historic Places. The Indiana Department of Natural.
• Resources had provided him a list of sites on the State and National Registers
of Historic Places (circa 1985) and this site was listed on neither. Referring
to the Staff report, Mr. Fedder stated that in his opinion Ludwig Blake was
not a historical person, the site is unsuitable for preservation.
Mr. Fedder indicated that permits were in process for the filling of the ponds
. and that his clients had commissioned J.F. New and Associates and Peirce
Associates to perform necessary engineering and design. He noted that
representatives of those firms were present. He indicated that the anticipated
designs would result in environmental quality superior 'to the present
situation for those downstream along Juday Creek and requested the commission
tobring this issue to .,a conclusion by not recommending the site for
designation and, indicating that the engineering consultants had brief
comments, yielded the floor to them.
Mike Bramlett of Peirce and Associates, civil engineers, stated that the
proposed site plan is feasible from an engineering condition and indicated
that the ponds in their proposed reconfiguration will improve environmental
conditions along Juday Creek.
Justin New of J.F. New & Associates echoed Mr. Bramlett's comments, indicating
that storm water handling will improve the water quality engineering at Juday
creek and that the proposed ponding will equal or improve the mitigation of
such water, thus concluding the owners objections to designation as a Local
Landmark.
Mr. Oxian requested others attending the meeting wishing to address this issue
to do so.
J.C. Sporleder, representing the St. Joseph Chapter of the Izak Walton League,
read a prepared letter from the Izak Walton League which is attached to these
minutes.
Mr Fedder indicated that he would like Mr. New to respond to this letter.
However Mr. Oxian denied this request.
Mr. Davis of the Izak Walton League and Friends of Juday Creek indicated that
• over the past five years he had been involved in citizen activities regarding
many developments which would affect the environment along Juday. Creek. Of
all the projects of which lie was aware, this was the only case in which the
developer had proceeded with significant sitework and in which the developers
and their designers had failed to meet with and cooperate with these
organizations in addressing their concerns. He further noted that another
engineering firm associated with the present development had met with their
group and subsequently relieved of responsibility regarding this project.
Noting that he had worked well in the past with Mr. Bramlett and Peirce
Engineering, concluded that this developer was uncooperative. He further
indicated that according to his information there were presently no permit
applications yet filed for this project and thus no indication of the
developer's proposal or intentions for the property or the protection of
affected environments. He indicated that plans which he had seen indicated
extensive coverage of the site with pavement and little remaining land area
for mediation of storm water.
Mr. Oxian stated that at the time that the commission. undertook consideration
of this designation, lie had specifically appointed a special committee to work
with the developer, in consultation with his attorney. Instead of having
cooperation of the developer the commission finds itself in a compromised
situation of considering a demolished site for Landmark designation. He
discussed the issue of the powers and standards for Landmarks as opposed to
register listings. lie indicated that he was disturbed at having been dealt
with in such poor faith by the developer. He then indicated that Mr. Fedder
might now have an opportunity to respond to the preceding public comment.
Mr. Fedder asked Mr. Bramlett to address the comments about the floodway and
permits. Mr. Bramlett brought forward his site plan board. He stated that at
this time all permits had been applied for which were required to be applied
for regarding the activities undertaken at the site to date. lie noted that
there were several permits yet to be applied for including Department of
Natural Resources Construction in a floodway permit, Army Corps of Engineers
wetland fill permit. He indicated that the plan brought to him by the
developers had not changed substantially. He indicated that one reason that
discussions with concerned organizations and permit applications had not
proceeded were related to awaiting. the results of the present deliberations.
The engineering aspect of this plan proposes large, interconnected drywells.
From a first flush standpoint, it has greater capacity than other past
projects principally due to the elevation considerations. According to -Mr.
Bramlett, the pond presently fills with cold water from Juday creek and
discharges water warmed in the ponds back to Juday Creek. The reconfigured
pond will increase holding capacity, discharge cooler water, and create a
wetland to filter surface water.
Becki Moffett -Moore questioned whether there was any data indicating that the
proposed discharge system would discharge cold water. Mr. Bramlett indicated
that he had no such data. She then asked Mr. New whether the Army Corps
permits did not include a historical component. Mr. New responded that they
did, but to his knowledge, the list provided to him by the State Division of
Historic Preservation and Archaeology did not indicate that the site was not
listed in either the National or State Register.
Addressing Mr. Bramlett, Mr Davis stated that he was aware that this was not a
proper forum for water quality issues and did not want to hear excuses for not
having proper consultations regarding this process.
Mr. Oxian reinforced the view that the discussion needed to be limited to the
historical issues. He asked Mr. Bramlett to indicate on his plan where the
presently existing features of the Gardens remained. Mr. Bramlett indicated
that the only remaining architectural feature remaining was a retaining wall
west of the creek which is unaffected by the design. Fr. Bullene sensed that
• the response was not comprehending the question and clarified that the
commission wished to know what features remained extant at this time rather
than after completion of the proposed project. Mr. Bramlett allowed that he
had misunderstood the question. 'Mr. Fedder interjected that the river house
was gone, the walkways and walls have been removed and concluded that the only
remaining features were the aforementioned retaining wall and the ponds
themselves. Mr. Bramlett then roughly indicated the area of the present ponds,
noting that fill dirt had been piled high around them on the north, east, and
south.
Mr. Sporleder noted that this piling of fill was effectively eliminated the
possibility -of major flood mediation.
Fr. Bullene reiterated that the concern of this hearing was historical and not
to discuss other environmental issues. lie asked if there was anything of
historical value worth preserving at the site at this time. He did indicate
his sympathy with the concerns expressed regarding bad citizenship on the part
of the developers and the flood control' and ecological issues but felt the
commission needed to focus on its specified duties. Mr. Fedder indicated that
in his opinion there was nothing of value or importance left at this site. Mr.
Oxian reminded him of the wall remaining along the west side of the creek. Mr.
Shefer of the Ralph Wi11iams Associates produced a set of photographs showing
the conditions of the site in its deteriorated state and including said wall
which remains today. Mr.. Shefer indicated that all architectural elements
above the water line had been removed, but indicated that some concrete pond
borders were existing and some features might remain below the water level.
Mr. Oxian requested any other questions from the commission. Mr. Fine stated
that the Blake Gardens were listed on a statewide Survey of Planned '
• Landscapes filed with the DHPA in 1994 or 1995 _which listed the site as
significant and therefore would indicate a review pursuant to Section 106 of
the Historic Preservation Act related to Army Corps of Engineers permit
process.
Mr. Talley spoke as a member of the special committee which had been appointed
.to meet with the developers regarding this proposed designation. Ile noted that
their first meeting with the developers had ended with a seven day recess of
discussion which was quickly followed by demolition activity without
consultation. He noted that one rarely finds a pristine antique. He stated
that although lie understood the concerns of business, he was very troubled by
the blatant disregard for the commission in this case. He found Mr.. Fedder's
conclusions in regard to .criteria and historical parallels to be poorly
informed. Based on his meeting with Mr. Fedder and Ralph Williams Associates
and discussions with the Army Corps and DNR/SHPO that if the designation of
this property is recommended to the County Council by the commission it may
well result in an impediment to .the Army Corps 404 permit. lie also is under
the impression that some of the structures which were in place at the time of
the committee's meeting with the developer were removed but that the integrity
of the ponds including some of its architectural edging remains and part of a
footbridge. Within the mission, powers, and duties of the Historic
Preservation Commission, he felt those remains to be worth saving. As a member
of that committee, he moved for approval of the recommendation of Blake
Gardens as a Local Landmark -to the County Council. This motion failed for lack
of a second. Mr. Oxian asked the commission for other motions, and hearing
none, he stated that: he felt the developer owed the commission a debt. He
recommended that the developer should commit to placement of a plaque
indicating the history of the site and the gardens. He asked for objections
to this proposal from the commission and heard none. Mr. Fedder indicated for
Ralph .Williams Associates that he would provide a letter to the commission
indicating compliance with this request for a memorial plaque affixed to
aforementioned wall which is to remain. Mr. Oxian indicated that the
• commission would provide text for this plaque. Mr. Fedder indicated that the
developer could probably accept this and would provide a letter to this
effect. He reiterated that he found no evidence in his correspondence with the
SiIPO of this site being listed on the State or National Register of Historic
Places. Mr. Oxian moved to approve his above recommendation. Mrs. Hostetler.
seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of- G to 1 with Mr. Talley
voting nay.
B. Certificates of Appropriateness
1) 521 River Avenue
Mr. Duvall read the Staff report and circulated photographs. The owner was not
present. Mr. Oxian noted that there- was evidence in the photographs of
re -roofing. Mr. Duvall replied that the proposed glass block was a part B of
an application which included re -roofing as part A. The Re -roofing had been
approved by Staff as an in-kind replacement and a COA issued. Mr. Talley asked
if this was rental property. Mr. Duvall indicated' that it was not clear. He
recalled the commission's having entertained an application for oversidi.ng a
couple of years earlier and had believed it to be a rental at: that time.
However, this is the given address for the owner at this gime, and from this
he surmised it to be Mr. Hursey's home. Mr. Duvall had not been able to reach
the applicant by phone as the number given on the application was a business
which had stated Mr. Hursey no longer was employed. there. Mr. Fine asked
whether the block was to be recessed or flush. Mr. Duvall indicated that this
was not specified in the application. Mr. Talley stated that it had been
allowed in the past to cover material which however was being conserved in
• place. He further stated that this appeared to be a case where the owner was
not fully cognizant of the intentions and requirements of the district. Mr.
Oxian stated that the commission had never approved installation of glass
block. Mr. Talley moved to deny the application. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
2) 1202 Lincolnway East
• Mr. Duvall read the Staff report and circulated recent photographs and
photographs from an earlier application at the same site for comparison. Ile
noted that the applicant Dr. Anne Kempf was present with her attorney Tom
Botkin. Mr. Botkin addressed the commission emphasizing that in addition to
concern about 't -he condition of the property, there was a history of vandalism
at this location which rendered use of the structure, even for storage,
problematic.
Noting the commissions' policy on demolition which called for thorough
investigation of all economical alternatives to demolition and alluding to
personal knowledge of the possibility of turning this structure to economic
use in service to neighboring businesses, Mr. Oxian suggested tabling this
application to the March Commission meeting. Dr. Kempf duly signed a waiver of
the statutory time period for such consideration. Mr. Talley moved to table
the application to the March 1997 meeting of.the commission. Mr. Fine seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Fr. Bullene inquired whether the past recommendation of the commission to
structurally stabilize the structure had been investigated. Dr. Kempf
indicated that an engineer had provided recommendations. She stated that the
previous estimates received had been for all elements of preservation except
simple stabilization. Mr. Oxian suggested that she bring all pertinent cost
estimates to the subsequent hearing. Fr. Bullene indicated that he was
interested in a cost estimate for the minimum amount of work required to
satisfy Code Enforcement.
3) 105 South Main
Mr. Duvall read .the Staff report and circulated the original construction
drawings which had been reduced for the commission members' packets. Mr.
Keller of Ken Hercig & Associates presented the application for St Joseph
County. By way of introduction he recounted that security concerns had led
Judge Brook to require a guard position at.this location and the subsequent
discomfort of officers at this station and attendant difficulties had led the
County Commissioners to request proposals for adapting the space to its
current, requirements. Having provided options as described in the Staff
report, the present proposal had been established. He noted that the new
installation was increasing energy efficiency of the window -wall system. Mr.
Keller apologized to the commission for having been negligent in the timing of
submitting the application in relation to the contract schedule causing
construction to commence prior to approval.
Mr. Talley moved for approval of the application. Mr. Oxian suggested
restoring the original appearance of the west wall. Mr. Borkowski seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Oxian requested a motion to suspend the rules to move the tabled
application for 66251 Cedar Road from old busiiio:.s for l;?arid;; at this time
and moving the report of the Nominating Committee Lu last on Lhe agenda. Mr.
Talley so moved. The motion passed unanimously.
1996-11203, - Demolition of "Summer House"
Mr. Duvall indicated that he had received an additional correspondence from
Richard Geyer since the packets were distributed. Ile circulated copies of this
letter and noted that Mr. Geyer had been the principal correspondent for this
application. He also noted the presence of Leighton and Terry Stump
representing the owners. Mr. Duvall read the Staff Report.
Leighton Stump presented the application for the owners. He indicated that the
breakdown of itemized expenses for necessary repairs to the "summer house"
would be as follows:
concrete foundation and floor slab = $2047
• windows and doors = $3050
siding and soffitt = $1275
roofing =_L4.80
material subtotal = $6852
tax =--L326
material total = $7178
labor 5584 (includes jacking)
TOTAL $14762
He noted that the vinyl siding and soffit would probably no not be required.
'He also noted that Richard Geyer had indicated that they would be agreeable
and cooperative to relocating the structure if this were feasible.
Mr. Oxian recalled when the farm site was designated as a Landmark. lie
indicated that from his personal knowledge that Lloyd Geyer had intended that
the farm be conserved in total. He noted that there was only one other
remaining whole farmstead established as a Landmark and that this was the
only such site known which still contained an original cabin along with later
buildings as a unit. He then asked Mr. Fine to report for the'Standards and
Maintenance Committee.
Mr. Fine indicated that he and Mrs. Hostetler had visited the site on January
20. They observed that the "summer house' (taking note of this questionable
identification) is an integral part of the whole farm complex and that there
is probably historical significance of this structure yet to be determined. He
also noted that the building had reached a precarious level of deterioration.
He indicated that the committee had wished to have a more -itemized sense of
40 the costs involved which had now been provided. He' reported the recommendation
of the committee was to stabilize the structure for safety but retain it in
situ for possible future restoration. Fr. Bullene indicated that the minimum
critical costs would be the foundation and roof related costs, noting that
doors and windows could be boarded. Mr. Wiener noted that foundation
considerations were primary in this case. Mr. Oxian stated that he felt
"mothballing to be the most appropriate response to the present conditions and
situations adding that the vinyl siding was not required.
The committees recommendation to deny the application was taken as a motion
and seconded by John Borkowski. The motion passed unanimously.
A IV. Regular Business
A. Approval of Minutes
1. December 16, 1996
Mr. Borkowski moved that the November minutes be approved as corrected. Mr.
Fine seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Treasurer's Report
Mr. Wiener, treasures, stated that there was no report.
C. Correspondence
Mr. Duvall indicated that notice had been received from the Indiana Alliance
of Historic District Commissions regarding two upcoming workshops:
Destination Designation — February 27, Huntington, IN
Commissioner's Roundtable — March 5, Mishawaka
He especially encouraged Commission members to attend the round—table in
Mishawaka.
D. Committee Reports
1. Budget- & Finance
R1r. Oxian stated there was no business to report.
3. Legal
There was no new legal report.
4. Historic Districts
Mrs. Hostetler reported that the Project Access meetings were scheduled to
resume in March.
Mr. Talley reported on progress regarding the problems of River Bend LIID
residents with the Madison Center for Children. A follow-up meeting is being
proposed for later in the month to pull together what has been discovered by
the investigators from iUSB and the project architect. A copy of the Summary
Report on Environmental Noise Study prepared by Steve Shore and Bob Rowland
has been received by the commission. ,
5. Historic Landmarks
Mr. Duvall reported that the Landmark ordinance for 513 Harrison Avenue had
been prepared and delivered to the Common Council. 50.1 Colfax has not yet been
called back up.
Mr. Oxian, chair of the Landmarks Committee, reported that 1631 Lincolnway
West was still threatened with demolition by Code Enforcement- and continuing
efforts to contact the owner for cooperation in saving the building were
proving futile. The taxes are paid on the property. John Borkowski indicated
that the previous partner had been contacted but that the separation had not
been amicable. He indicated that Code' Enforcement had been' unable to make
• direct contact as well
Mr. Oxian indicated that he had met with the attorney for Allied Prcducts, the
owner of the former Oliver plant property, and had received assurance that the
powerhouse would not be demolished while awaiting the City's feasibility study
on the general- Oliver complex. Jon Hunt of the Department of Economic
Development had also requested that this item be tabled for the period of the
feasibility study. He had agreed to include long-term maintenance of the
Powerhouse as a component of the feasibility study.
Mr. Oxian indicated that the proposal to designate the Madison School had been
removed from tonight's Agenda because it had been so full but will be brought
up for Public Hearing at the February Meeting. Mr. Talley asked if the
Landmarks Standards had been sent to James Jasewicz, Director of Buildings and
Grounds for the South Bend School Corporation. Mr. Duvall stated that he had
sent an extensive packet to him but did not specifically recall whether the
standards were part of that information and would verify this. Mr. Talley
expressed concern that this relationship be cultivated.
Mr. Oxian noted that letters had been sent to developers soliciting interest
in the Nuner School as an adaptive re -use project.
6. Standards and Maintenance
Mr. Fine, chair, indicated he had no additional reports.
7. Mr. Duvall indicated that he had discussed with Patrick Furlong the
necessity of an organizational. meeting with representatives from Southhold,
Historic Landmarks Foundation, Center for History, etc. to share ideas and
strategies for Preservation Week. :19r. Oxian reminded Catherine Hostetler that
• lie had appointed her to chair the committee for these special activities. Mr.
Talley expressed the need to move forward to have a strategy by March.
E. Staff Reports
1) Staff Approvals
Mr. Duvall reported the following Staff approvals:
a. 947 Riverside Drive - Installation of heat\ -pump compressor
b. 105 S. Main St., 3rd County Courthouse - Part A, In-kind. replacement of
Curtain wall at west side entry (see part B in Public Hearing Above)
Mr. Oxian asked whether there had been further developments on the propane
tank issue in the Edgewater District. Mr. Duvall indicated that he had met
with the owner and provided him with the necessary COA application- He had
also further discussed the issue recently with Don Fozo, the Building
Commissioner, who had indicated that there was not good documentation in the
Building Department about their insistence on the owner acquiring the
necessary permits. Mr. Oxian inquired whether time limits had been made for
the return of the application. Mr. Duvall indicated that lie had not specified
a schedule but that the owner understood that the next step would be to turn
the issue over to the City Legal Department. Mr. Oxian asked Ms. DeRose
whether the commission should await further action from the Building
Department or proceed legally. Mrs. DeRose indicated 'that she understood that
the Building Department had found the installation to be allowable, by code.
Mr. Duvall indicated that the Building Department had determined the
installation to be allowed by code but that permits which were required had
not been obtained. Mrs. DeRose asked whether he had understood that the
Building Department intended to pursue the issue. Mr. Duvall indicated that
his understanding had been that the HPC was following up on actions of the
Building Department but that he had been surprised to find that there was no
correspondence from -the Building Dept. to the owner. Mr. Talley asked how long
it had been since Mr. Duvall met with the Owner. Mr. Duvall indicated that it
had been about a month or less. Mrs. DeRose indicated that Mr. Duvall should
• send a reminder latter to the Owner reminding him of the outstanding violation
of permit process and giving a two week period for response. Mr. Talley
recalled that the propane installation had been an emergency, "get us through
the winter " arrangement. Mr. Duvall provided the additional information that,
by his account, the Owner's inability to provide gas service was related to
unpaid billings for another property owned by(this Owner in another city.
2) DHPA Grants
a) 1996-97
1. Regarding the DIIPA Grant status, Mr. Duvall reported that consultant
contract agreements had finally been approved by the DHPA and these contracts
had been duly executed. He h.ad also processed the related first billings. A
letter had been received from the DHPA Staff indicating preliminary approval
of the activities for the 1997-1998 cycle but that. this determination was not
final due to lack of a quorum at the State Review Board's January meeting.
3) CDBG
a) 1997
1. Mr. Duvall reported that the a-greements for this funding cycle had boon
rece�ivFd and signed by him, but that the final copies signed by all part.iE?s
had not yet been returned.
2. 1996
lie also reported sending a letter to the Dept. of Economic Development
requesting an extension of the 1996 funding due to having surplus funding
which had not been expended due to the delays of congressiopal action during
the past year. He indicated that a verbal approval had been received to submit
•
the contractor payments noted above for reimbursement to the County from the
City as a last claim. He int.erpreted the sub -text of this approval to mean
that the Dept of Economic Development did not intend to extend the contract
period. Mr. Oxian asked who had made this response. Mr. Duvall indicated his
communication was from George Adler 'for Beth Leonard. Mr. Oxian indicated
that this did not fully reflect his understanding from his meeting with Jon
• Hunt, Director. of Economic Development. Mr. Talley asl ed what the remaining
balance in the 1996 contract was. Lir. Duvall .indicated it was about $9,000.
Mr. Oxian suggested th.3t he might seek another meeting with Jon Aunt on this
issue. Mr. Oxian indicated that a second Letter should be sent on Lir. Oxian's
signature repeating the request, to extend 1996 funding and indicating his
understanding of the meeting with Mr. Hunt.
4.) Lir. Duvall raised the issue of increasing the Administrative Assistant's
work schedule from 20 hours per week to 30 hours. He felt that since the new
CDBG funding seemed to be forthcoming, the commission would have assurance of
sufficient funding for this. He indicated that no amendment of her contract
would be required for this. He indicated that he felt she had received
sufficient training at this time to start attending commission meetings and
maintaining the minutes. Mr. Talley expressed his concern with making sure
that the telephone is answerable at all times during business hours and that
his favorable vote on this would be conditioned on this. Mr. Duvall indicated
that increasing her hours would improve this situation. Mr. Oxian stated that,
he would like to increase the assistant's regular emploSnnent to thirty hours,
but that he wanted to review and approve the Assistant's tune cards, and make
the final determination on her schedule including accumulation or.use of comp
time as part of this policy change. Lir. Oxian stated this as a motion which
was seconded by Mr. Wiener. Mr. Talley noted that a new Employee Policy Manual
was forthcoming in consideration by the County Commissioners and Council,
understanding that this would not directly affect this employee. The motion
passed unanimously.
• V. Old Business
There was no -old business heard.
VII. Hearing of Visitors
A. Mr. Oxian recognized Lis. DesLauriers who discussed apprehension on the part
of the River Bend LHD residents for the possible affects of then proposed
developments opposite the district across the St.. .Joseph River and expr.�ssed
concern for reviving their- Liaison Committee to address these continuing
concerns. She identified herself and Linda Fritschner as interested parties in
undertaking liaison responsibilities.
Mr. Oxian observed that the commission could make temporary appointment for
such circumstances. He noted that this was especially warranted under the
present circumstances, but that proper elective procedures should be
undertaken as soon as feasible. Lir. Oxian moved to temporarily appoint Julia
DesLauriers and Linda Fritschner as temporary Liaison Coirnnittee for the River
Bend Historic District for a maximum period of six months during which period
proper elections were to be held. Mr. Fine s(,r.onded the motion which passed
unanimously. Mr. Oxian noted that he found no prescribed number of members for
this district'o-; Liaison Committee in the River Bend Standards and Guidelines
Boole.
"is. DesLaurier discussed that because of the Madison Center, many residents
are now concerned with the proposed river walkway and condominiums. She
indicated that she had discussed the lighting issue at the walkway with Carl
Littrell. This discussion had included the height and design of the light
poles and fixtures (shoe -box type @ 20" height), noting that this could be
• critical for .its effect projecting onto their homes in the evening. Lir. O:cian
observed that much shorter lighting had been installed elsewhere on the path.
Ms. DesLauri.er noted that even the location of the ligliting was still not
determined. Mr. Talley noted that the angle adjustment for such a fixture
would be on the pole side of the lamp. Fr. Bullene noted that in looking at
comparable lighting installation it was important to note both height- and
• spacing of the lights.
VII. New Business
A. Mr. Duvall submitted copies of sample letterhead for the commission to
comment on.
B. Nominating Committee
Mr. Borkowski reported for the Nominating CUI(mi Ltee as a motion. the officers
proposed for 1997 are:
President - John Oxian
Vice President - Catherine Hostetler
Treasurer - Jerry diener
Secretary - J. Edward Talley
These nominations were seconded by Fr. Bullene. The motion passed unanimously
with Mr. Borkowski presiding for the vote.
ViIT. Announcements & Miscellaneous Natters
none
IX. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
(These minutes are revised as approved by the commission, 2/24/97)
•
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
• APPLICATION -- 1997-0108
PROPERTY.-- Riverside Drive, (all Local Historic Districts)
OWNER -- City of South Bend
Department of Public Works
DESIGNATION -- Riverside Drive Local Historic District
(Blanket Certificate Request)
RATING -- N/A
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
Although not individually rated in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures
Inventory the street identification signs are an integral part of the
character of the established neighborhood. Though not historical in nature,
the traffic control signs are understood as a modern necessity.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The City of South Bend requests a blanket certificate of appropriateness to
replace and install street identification and traffic control signs in all
Preservation Districts per the documentation submitted. Signs are to be
• mounted on U channel posts.
STANDARDS ,
I.A.l. - Required
Distinctive existing features such as parks, gardens, streetlights, fences,
signs..... shall be retained. New plant materials, fencing, walkways,.
signs..... shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood in size,
scale, material and color.
I.A.2. - Recommended
Whenever possible, original features should be restored.
I.A.3. - Prohibited
Signs, street lights..... which are out of scale or inappropriate to the
neighborhood may not be used.
"Note: The standards stated above pertain to River Bend, Edgewater Place,
Lincolnway East, East Wayne Street as well as Riverside Drive. While West
North Shore was more generalized, the same remains for all Historic Districts
listed respectively.
RECOMMENDATION
It should be noted that the letter from the Department of Public Works (see
letter as exhibit of application) states that the same street identification
signs that were removed at intersections along Riverside Drive (four inch high
white lettering on a green reflective background on a six inch blade) will be
reused. Verbal conversation confirms thatthe same traffic control signage is
also to be reinstalled. However they are proposed to be displayed atop
standard U channel posts rather than attached to streetlamp posts. Staff
• concurs that the mounting of appurtances to the streetlight posts may tend to
cause damage to the conrete poles and therefore agrees that alternative
measures are appropriate to the display of such signage.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
• The posts which are being proposed to mount the signs are acceptable for.
traffic control signage. However the historical evidence indicates that a
tubular type of post would be more appropriate toward restoring the street
identification signs. The traffic control signs are presumably necessary for
tpublic safety but are not of historical significance.
Staff recommends approval of the installation of street identification signs
on posts similar to the remaining historical post at the corner of Forest and
Riverside. Staff recommends approval traffic control signage as required with
the caveat that such signage should be as unobtrusve as possible regarding
size, color, and location.
Regarding the issue of a blanket COA, Staff is not certain of the legal
appropriateness of offering approval for proposals which are unreviewed. It
may be possible that a memorandum of agreement might be developed which might
accomodate these ends. Alternatley, the Staff Approval Policy might be amended
top allow Staff review and approval of routine traffic signage operations.
DBD
2/19/97
•
•
•
Joseph E. Kernan, Mayor
Department of Public Works
John E. Leszczynski, Director
October 21, 1996
Historic Preservation Commission
1100 County -City Building
South Bend, Indiana
Attn: David Duvall
Executive Director
Re: Street Name Signs
Riverside Drive Historic District
Dear Mr. Duvall:
It is the intention of the Bureau of Traffic and Lighting to replace street name signs that were
• removed from lighting poles during restoration of the street lighting system.
The signs that were removed were mounted to the light poles. We do not propose to re-
mount them on the poles to avoid damaging these old and fragile poles further. We propose to
mount the signs on free-standing poles driven into the ground on the west side of Riverside at the
currently unidentified intersections. The poles will be galvanized steel "U" -channels with ribbed
backs. The signs will be the same signs that were removed, four inch high white lettering on a green
reflective background on a six inch blade. The posts are the same as in place in several locations in
the district. They are also the standard in inventory for replacement of posts in June, 1985 when the
Riverside Drive Historic District was designated. Likewise, the sign materials and size are the same
materials and sizes in use at that time.
Please let me know if you can issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for this administratively,
or if I need to petition the full commission. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
(�21 7(
Carl P. Littrell, PE, Director
Division of Engineering
• c: Gary Vargo
1316 County -City Building • South Bend,
Indiana 46601 • (219)235-9251 • TDD
(219)235-5567
Engineering
Environmental Services
Equipment Services Transportation
Water Works
Carl Littrell, P.E.
John J. Dillon, Ph.D.
Matt Chlebowski Sam Hensley
John F. Stancati
235-9251
277-8515
235-9316 235-9444
235-9322
Fax 235-9171
Fax 277-8980
Fax 235-9007 Fax 235-9272
Fax 235-9728
Stephen Luecke, Mayor
Department of Public Works
John E. Leszczynski, Director
January 7, 1997
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County
County -City Building, Room 1123
227 West Jefferson Blvd.
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Re: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness
Street Signs and Mountings
Gentlemen:
• By the enclosed application, the Bureau of Traffic and Lighting is requesting a "blanket"
Certificate of Appropriateness for installation of new and replacement street signs, mounts, brackets,
and other appurtenances.
There are several different types of mounts which we would use in the Historic Districts.
Most would be direct application of a sign face to a post driven in the ground for that purpose. The
sign would be bolted to the post. The posts are galvanized steel, perforated, U -channels. Stop signs,
speed limit signs, information, and warning signs are examples of such installations that are
common on all streets, including streets in the historic districts. The sign consist of vinyl sheet
backing color -coded according the "Indiana Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices," with
lettering either painted on or applied self-adhesive lettering, reflective or non -reflective backing
and/or lettering..
For visibility from all directions rather than just one, there are two different types of mounts
for street name signs; post -top and cantilevered. The post -top mount consists of two aluminum
castings which bolt the crossing signs together and bolt to the top of the same type of U -channel
used for other signs. The cantilever mount is used for street name signs whenever a light post or
utility pole is conveniently located for the purpose. The same type of castings are used to join the
sign blades, but they are fastened to a steel bracket having a ninety degree bend. The horizontal arm
of the bracket is fastened to the pole with stainless steel bands.
Photographs of typical installations are attached.
•
1316 County -City Building - South Bend, Indiana 46601 -
(219)235-9251 - TDD
(219)235-5567
Engineering Environmental Services Equipment Services
Transportation
Water Works
Carl Littrell, P.E. John J. Dillon, Ph.D. Matt Chlebowski
Sam Hensley
John F. Stancati
235-9251 277-8515 235-9316
235-9444
235-9322
Fax 235-9171 Fax 277-8980 Fax 235-9007
Fax 235-9272
Fax 235-9728
Historic Preservation Commission
January 7, 1997
Page Two
The immediate need for this Certificate is to replace street name signs removed from within
the Riverside Drive Historic District when the street lighting was upgraded last winter. Several of
the street name signs were mounted on the light poles with the cantilever type bracket. We believe
those brackets are harmful to the hollowspun concrete poles which have considerable historic
character and interest. We would like to replace those signs with post -top mounted signs.
No other immediate need comes to mind. From time to time signs and posts need to be
replaced due either to age, automobile collision or vandalism. We are requesting a "blanket"
Certificate so that timely replacements can be made in the future without delay for application to
the Commission for replacement with the standard materials. If in the future, the materials
described above are no longer available, or the Department of Public Works standards must change
to comply with regulation outside the Department's control, that information will be presented to
the Commission for consideration of a new or revised "blanket" Certificate.
Thank you for your consideration.
•
Enclosures
Application
Photographs
0
Sincerely,
�� O
Carl P. Littrell, PE, Director
Division of Engineering