Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 1998AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular'monthly meeting County Commissioner's 7:30 p.m. Conference Room Monday, January 19, 1998 7th Floor County City Bldg. I..Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Public Hearing A. Certificate of Appropriateness Applications 1) 1202 Lincolnway East - Parking Lot expansion IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes 1. -December 15, 1997 B. Treasurers Report C. Correspondence I. Montel letter D. Committee Reports 1. Nominating Committee 2. Budget & Finance 3. Historic Districts a. River Bend LHD expansion b. Project Access - Liaison Books 4. Historic Landmarks a. Status of recommendations to -Councils 1) 804 N. Lafayette- Madison School 2) 513 Harrison 3) 1631 Lincolnway West 5. Standards & Maintenance a) COA - Chapin Park NRHD gate proposal 6. Legal a) Extension of period for consideration of COAs E. Staff Reports 1. C of A Staff Approvals (see attachment) 2. Legal a) Public'.Works - "Good Neighbors" COA'notification 3. DHPA Grant status a. 1997-98 4. St. Joseph,River - Heritage River Initiative up -date 5. East Bank Heritage Tourism program 6. Proposed Local Historic Districts a. South St. Joseph St. b. Cushing St. 7. St. Casimir NRHD - centennial celebration and plaque dedication V. Old Business VI. New Business VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment • CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT, APPLICATION -- 1997-1212 PROPERTY -1202 Lincolnway East South Bend, IN OWNER -- Drs. Anne & Carrold Kempf DESIGNATION LHD-LWE RATING Contributing CAO STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT On November 18, 1830 a claim was filed at the U.S. L - and Office if Fort Wayne, Indiana by Christian Holler.' Mr. Holler purchased a total of 47.85 acres, which included the land this house sits on: In 1835.. Mr. Holler sold the land to Samuel & Mary Leer, who with this acquisition increased the size of their farm to 212.38 acres. When Samuel Leer died in 1850 he left behind eight heirs Mr. Leer appointed his two eldest sons, John and Daniel.. as the sole executors of his will. This will ordered that his farm be divided equally - among his seven children and that 1/3 /3 of it go to his wife. The process of dividing the land took over,20 years due to deaths and 'family squabbling. When property rights were finally settled Leer's heirs began selling their shares to their brother, Jacob Leer. Jacob Leer took this land and created his first subdivision in November of 1886, he platted his second subdivision in December of the same year. Jacob Leer continued to subdivide his fathers farm except for the land south of the railroad which he kept for agricultural use. When Mr. Leer died in 1892 he left an estate valued at $2,600.00. in his will he directed that the income from the farm area be paid to his minor child, Kitty May, and that portions of -this land, which included most of present-day Lincolnway East Historic District, be withheld from sales until Kitty May turned 21 years of age at which time she would become the properties owner. The Queen Anne style house located at'1202 Lincolnway East was constructed in 1902 for John Rohrer a real estate developer and speculator. John Rohrer died four years after the house was finished. His wife continued to reside in the house until 1921 when she sold it to William E. & Hattie Cody, The Cody's divided the house into two apartments, 'living in one unit and renting the other to tenants. Mr. -Cody sold the house in 1938 for $4,000.00 to Carrie L. Dickey, who also used the house for rental purposes. She sold the house in 1970 to Alfred H. Farber, who lived here until 1976 when Robert P. Allen purchased the property. In 1982 Smessaert Realty Corp. purchased the house. The current owners are the Kempfs who use it as a,doctors office. PROPOSED CHANGE Applicant proposes to enlarge their existing parking lot by paving the area at the rear which lies along Marine Street. STANDARDS The Preservation Guidelines for Lincolnway East Local Historic District: b) .... The Guidelines for,the Lincolnway East District follow the Rehabilitation Model.... I.A.3. Prohibited Existing relationships of. buildings and their environments shall not be destroyed through widening existing streets, changing paving material, or, by introducing inappropriately located new streets or parking lots incompatible CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT with the character of the neighborhood. Signs...... walkways and paving materials which are out of scale or inappropriate to the neighborhood may not be used. I.B.3. Prohibited ...Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots, paved, blacktoppedor fenced. RECOMMENDATION The area of this property proposed for expanded 'parking.facilities includes a parcel behind the adjacent building located at 1208 Lincolnway East. This _ property has no alley access but does have an existing driveway connection at its Lincolnway frontage. The proposed enlargement of the parking pad will, prov ide morecoherentparking layout of a design with improved layout in compliance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Although the proposed (and completed) paving retains two trees which'mark the extension of the property—line from forward on the property, the removal.of one mature tree has been required as shown on the site plan. The exp ansion of the parking lot is appropriately located at the rear of the property and is appropriate to the use of the property. It should cause no ill effect to the existing structures which include the house and carriage house. The commission typically-requires.replacement of removed trees. Staff recommends approval of the application with a stipulation that the tree lost to this project be comp_ens'ated by the planting of a new tree at an appropriate alternative location. DBD 12/19/97 ca� �d 7 • 0 rt « � Y _ ` t .. i r,.,• i�i�e k �� {; x 'i •"' - �� s LIN, K. w tr ' r �t sS fir •t ,,. t �5�, #•; S. r '� •� ,� '� �. :+ It t ." r '. i �• }�� S - � to -R�.",�'�.�, ,� -'�a ;� �''"„ ' �ti"` , nn. �� i �"►!. .i ii t�j, s� Y _ , MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING, of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Monthly MeetingCounty Commissioner's 7:30 p.m. Conference Room Monday December 15,.1997 7th Floor County -City Building - I. Call to Order John Oxian, president.of the -commission,' brought the meeting to order'at•7:35 P.M.. II. Roll'Call' Commission members present were:.John Borkowski, Martha Choitz,'Adrian Fine., John.Oxian, Joann Sporleder, Catherine Hostetler, & Jerry Wiener. Commission staff present was:, David Duvall, director .& Rhonda Saunders, administrative assistant. Also attending .the meeting were:. -Mr & Mrs. Bickel, Don Sporleder, Steve Moerlein and Mr. Kil. III. Public Hearing- Mrs..-Sporleder earingMrs._ Sporleder moved to' alter the order of the agenda 'so that the Standards and Maintenance Committee report would be first. Mrs.. Choitz seconded the motion. The motion passed-unanimously.- A: assed unanimously:A: Standards and Maintenance Mr. -Fine noted that the Standards and MaintenanceCommitteemet a couple of weeks ago to look over, the Certificate of Appropriateness applications that were submitted by the. owners of 1704 East Wayne -Street and 1208 Lincolnway East. 1.--1704 East Wayne Mr. Fine stated that'the house had rotting cedar -siding that the -owners wanted to replace with vinyl' -siding. He noted that the committee had met with the _ owners, Mr. & Mrs. Bickel, who were present, to_discussed the condition of the existing cedar siding. .'Mr.. Fine further rioted that Mr.'Duvallhad gone to the site -and examined the siding. After hearing- Mr. Duvall's report and .the owners,testimony the committee came to the conclusion that the existing siding was.in.a serious .state of deterioration with a severe moisture problem and that to solve this problem the existing siding would have to be removed. Mr. Fine stated that the committee and, the owners then discussed what should be used to replace the cedar siding, either new cedar shingles or, vinyl siding. - - The decision, came down to which option would best 'replicate the. existing sidingwith its 14 inch ,width and which option was the most economically feasible. The committee meeting. adjourned so that a search - could_ be made to see if such siding.existed and to get further prices on other alternatives._ Mr. Fine stated that. the committee and -the owners met again prior to tonights 'meeting, at which time it was decided- that there is no vinyl siding,. which resembles the existing cedar siding, in todays market. -Mr. Fine stated that the committee decided -to -allow, for this case only due to its special, circumstances; the replacement -of the existing cedar -siding with the proposed Dutch Lap vinyl siding. He, furthernoted thatthe proposed siding does -not replicate the existing,scale,,of the c . edar siding,- however, at thistimethere„ does not appear to be anything on the market- that does replicate it. Mrs. Choitz further noted that the current siding,is 14, inches wide -and that there is nothing. on the market today that replicates this width at a reasonable ,price. Mr. Fine stated that the recommendation from the committee was not to be seen assetting a 'precedent for the East Wayne Historic District. He further noted that' the recommendation was only for this particular house and its unique circumstances. Mr. Oxian asked if the existing siding was going to be -removed. Mr. Fine stated that it had to be,removed do to its high level of deterioration. Mr. Oxian stated that if Mr. Fine was going to make a motion that he would have to specifically state' that this house had •a one of a' kind situation and then state the reasons. Mrs. Choitz noted that Mr. Duvall could insert the reasons -into the minutes. Mrs,. Choitz also stated that there were Numerous _reasons why, the 'house- was retaining moisture and that in order to attempt to solve these problems the cedar siding. would have to come off. Mrs. Sporleder asked if 'the. source of the moisture problem had been found. Mr. ,Duvall - stated that the- real mystery with the house was. its severe mold infestation, which was`the -houses 'main. problem. He also noted that if the. house only had.a' moisture problem then it might have been possible to address the problem without removing the 'existing siding. Mr; Duvall stated that,the possible cause behind,the moisture was that there had been, insulation blown in to, -.the walls witout a vapor barrier - in the .interior or any. visible methods_of ventilation. Mr:. Duvall also stated that the owners speculated . _that the moisture 'was caused by the seasonal use of the house. Mr..Duvall' reiterated that the house'was a classic- example of moisture build up do to having insulation blown in with out interior vapor barrier..'He further stated that the best the owners could do would be to ventilate properly to stop any' future moisture build'_up-. Mrs. Sporleder stated that the owners should be very careful not'to-trap anymore moisture -in -the walls for fear of it damaging the structural -portions of the house. Mr:'Fine moved to allow, in this case only, the installation of vinyl -siding as presented by the' applicants and the removal.' of the existing shingles so that the house would be allowed to dry out, with recomiendations.that'the applicants look at appropriate ventilation for the new siding as well as check into an interior. vapor barrier pant or , weep holes. Mr. Fine also added_ to the motion that this- approval was not -intended'to set a precedent for vinyl siding in the East Wayne Street Historic District, that -this was the only feasible alternative for this house and that the existing siding.could not be maintained. Mr. Duvall interjected that the building was also a non-contributing structure in the district. - Mr. Oxian'. stated. that the tfirst and most important thing is that the house has a very serious moisture and mold problem and that removal of the,siding is the only way to resolve this problem. Mr. Fine accepted the amendments to his motion.' Mrs. Hostetler seconded the -motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr..Oxian stated that Mr. Duvall should go out to the • site '.and inspect the house after the siding is -off to try and discover the source of the problem. Mr. Duvall asked the - owners if they would keep him posted on -how things are going so he can come out and look at it. 2. 1208'Lincolnway East Mr. Fine stated that the committee.had -met with the owner, Mr. Hubner, to. discuss .his- application. During this meeting a question over' -'handrails was asked of Mr. Hubner at which time he was unable to answer so the meeting was adjourned until this question could be answered. Mr'. Hubner, has since. answered the question,- stating that the railings are to. be very simple — rectangular elements that 'are similar to what was done .on his other property down the street. Mrs. Choitz moved to approve the application as presented.in the Standards -and Maintenance Committee meeting on December 2•, 1997 with the addition of the railings that Mr. Hubner had described to the committee. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian-asked if there -were any changes from what.was in the presentation. 'Mr. Duvall stated that the excavation of a 2 basement 'stairway was required along with the alteration of .a side door and the installation of handrails. .Mr.' Duvall, further noted ,that a physical exhibit had.been submitted for the handrails. The motion passed unanimously. Mrs. Sporleder moved to return ;to the agenda. Mr.'Fine seconded the motion. . The motion passed unanimously. B. National Register'Nominations 1.' 16581 -Chandler. Boulevard - Reservoir Caretaker's -Residence Mr. -Duvall stated that the. Commission was reviewing a. National Register Nomination that. did not originate from the Commission, it was submitted_by Glory June Greiff and prepared on behalf of the owner, Peter Dekeiver. Mr. Duvall noted that the owner could not be, present,, however, he had telephoned Mr: Duvall to express his approval of the nomination. Mr.' Duvall presented the staff report and circulated photos. He then noted that the house had been moved from its original location to a lot -a few miles down the same road. He also noted that the little pergola was too severely deteriorated to survive the move, however, it has been thoroughly documented and it is the owners intention. to reconstruct that feature. Mr. Fine asked if he was going' to., rebuild the terrace. Mr. Duvall stated 'that he :did'. not believe the owner • intended to do so.. Mr. Oxian asked if the light had been moved, with the house. ' Mr. Duvall stated that -it had been moved with the house. Mr. Fine asked Iif :the nomination included the newly" constructed garage. Mr. Duvall stated that he did not recall if it did or not. Mr. Fine noted that, the garage should be included: in the nomination. Mr. Duvall: stated that the garage has the same approximate relationship to the house with the same -roof, line.configuration as the garage at the previous site': -Mr. Fine moved to make a favorable recommendation for the nomination with- addition that the newly constructed garage be included in the nomination and .send this to the County Commissioners as well. as the State .Review Board for their review:" Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. �. C. Second reading of 214 West -Jefferson Mr. Duvall presented, the staff report and circulated photographs. He•noted that' the, owner, Mr. Moerleiri,and his -architect Mr..-Kil were present.. Mr. Oxian moved that the nomination . be sent down to the'_ Common Council based. on the three criterions that it .meets. He also stated, that even though the building is -only rated a contributing 10 it is still historically significant. Mr. Borkowski_ seconded the. motion. Mrs. Sporleder asked what made up the buildings structure. Mr. Duvall stated that it was "a brick -barring wall_ structure with wood framed floors. Mrs. 'Sporleder asked if -the wood framing posed any serious fire hazards. Mr. Kil, the owners architect, ,stated 'that they did meet with the building commissioner and have applied to have the'fire escape be the buildings second. form of, egress.,. He. further noted that there are plans to install a sprinkler system. He then, discussed the proposed alterations and restoration that was planned for.the building. Mr.. Kil stated_ that the owner also would like to pursue the nomination to the state level. Mr. Kil- noted that he has had, initial- conversations with ..the state in which the state showed concern over it'being a border line building. Since this'. conversation the owner has done some extensive historical research on the building in hopes'of•strengthening their -case. Mr.-Oxian asked -if Mr: Duvall had, looked at 'the original criteria for the downtown Multiple Resource District. Mr. Duvall. stated that he, had not •pursued that issue. Mr. Fine stated that, he had talked to Mr.'Hurdis,_from the State Historic Preservation Board, about the possibility of placing, this _structure in the Multiple Resource District. Mr. Hurdis told Mr. Fine that the criteria required that each buil-ding had to be individually eligible. Mr. Fine went on to state that 3 it should, be noted that there are. very few of these simple office buildings left in South Bend and''this fact alone boosts the buildings significance. The motion passed unanimously. Mn. Moerlein, one,of the buildings owners, gave a , brief presentation of the buildings_ history and corrected the staff report that was read earlier., IV. Regular.Business A.,Approval of Minutes_ 1. November 17, 1997 Mr. Oxian noted - that on page two under the North .Pumping Station where Mr.' Oxian abstained,.it should state that' he abstained because he is on the Board of .'Water,_Works. Mr. Oxian stated that concerning the application- of demolition of a garage on Riverside Drive' -it needs to state that Mr. Talley accepted the friendly amendment to., his. motion- concerning the minimum maintenance'standards. He.further noted that the reason the application was denied needed to be added and that the'example given should. read Lincolnway East not Lincolnway West. Mrs. Choitz moved 'to .accept the minutes as corrected. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.. B. Treasurer's Report Mr. Wiener,stated-that he would have the end of the year report next month. *% - C. -Correspondence Mr. Duvall stated that he had. sent a.letter to Dr. Kempf stating that they need to get a'Certificate of Appropriateness -to pave their parking lot. Mr. Duvall -.noted that the staff has received their application. He further stated that he sent a general aluminum siding letter to a gentleman in the Park Avenue area. Mr. Duvall asked Mr. Oxian if he wanted to.mention the letter he sent to the South Bend Tribune. Mr. Oxian stated that he sent a letter to the Tribune noting that they should be attending the Commission meetings --and that . the.newspaper was not giving adequate coverage to the Commission and its work. D.'Committee Reports 1. Budget & Finance Mr. Oxian stated there was no business to report 2: Historic.'Districts a..Project,Access Mrs. Choitz passed out'a handbook the committee had put together that outlined the requirements and duties of liaison committees (see attachment).. She also stated that she would like a motion by the Commission accepting the handbook, pending review and approval - by Mrs. DeRose. Mrs. Choitz stated that this would- give the liaison .committees a way to deal with their .neighborhood'' problems and feel- comfortable .in' the information they give to home owners. She stated that this, would give them support as they, are .the Commissions closest link to home owners. Mrs. Choitz noted that these pamphlets and any further information would be up dated on a regular basis so that everything. that -is 'out there will be correct. Mrs. Choitz moved to,approve the handbook for Riverside Historic District, pending a review of- the .'article by Mrs.. DeRose. Mr. Fine seconded the motion -. Mr. Oxian noted that if anyone sees an error or something that is not in the booklet that should be that they should gives this information. to Mrs..'Choitz. .There was some discussion over the. format and design of the handbook. The motion passed unanimously. - 4 b. Chapin Park Gates " — Mr. Oxian I removed the Chapin Park gate proposal_'from the District Committee and _placed it'into Standards and Maintenance Committee. 3. Historic Landmarks Mr. Oxian stated that 804 N. Lafayette_ will be on the January agenda. He also - stated that. 513 Harrison will include the house facing -Harrison Street and the. nomination .will beon the December 22 agenda. He further noted -that both y houses -were donated by the owner to South Bend Heritage Foundation: 'Mr. Oxiari' stated that 1631 Lincolnway West has been sent down.to the Common Council. 4. Legal Mr. Oxian brought forth the resolution to amend the Public Historic Resources Policy to include such public buildings as schools (see attachment). Mrs. Choitz moved to send_ the resolution to the Common Council: Mrs:. Hostetler seconded.the motion. Mr. Fine noted that the date on -the resolution was in correct. The motion passed unanimously. E. Staff Reports - 1. Staff Approvals - see attachment 2. Legal a.—Extension—of time for Certificate approval - Mr. Duvall noted that the amendment'to the South Bend Municipal*Code'regarding, extending periods for approval of Certificates of Appropriateness is presently. at -the council. b. Public -Works:: Mr. Duvall -noted that Mrs. :DeRose has corresponded with the Engineering. Department of -the 'Ci ty with regards to the .Good Neighbors Program and that they have agreed on the text of a notice that is to be sent to .owners of historic houses notifying them of 'their responsibility to get approval from the- Historic Preservation Commission for this project. Mr. Oxian,stated that the Good Neighbors program is ending. Mr.' Duvall stated that it -is believed that no more applications will betaken for -it. c. 106 Review Mr. Duvall stated that an, issue has come 'up regarding the 106 Review.' The house in question' is 608 East South. Street which •is . owned 'by 'the Bureau of Housing who .have begun to remodel'it with out"benefit: of the 106 Review. The . people in•Economic Development realized that the project was being'financed by program roll over program money.from Community Development Block Grant -Founds so.they are currently under taking a 106 Review on the property. d. Presidents Day Mr. Duvall stated ,that. Presidents Day falls on the third ,Monday of February - and.that the Commission meeting schedule would have to be altered accordingly. Mr. Duvall noted,that.usual-ly the meeting was held over to Tuesday the 17th.. This date was agreed upon. e.—Parry Street Mr: Duva11-stated that the request for rezoning parts of Parry Street, which included local landmark at -•415 Parry, to light industrial has been resolved. The ,owners removed the houses in question from the petition.- f. etition:f. Blake.Gardens 5 Mr. Duvall also noted that notification was.: received of .a judicial hearing '= regarding the permit at Blake Gardens. It has been scheduled for December 30 in Michigan_City. Mr. Oxian asked if Mr. Duvall was going to°attend. Mr. Duvall stated that he had 'planned on being out of town'at that time. ;Mr. Oxian,stated that Mr. Duvall should be there. Mr. Duvall said he could go if need be. Mr. Sporleder interjected that anyone opposing the' permit should write_a letter.stating their opposition by December 22, he further noted that the appeal was placed by Michiana Watershed. 3. DHPA \Grants a) 1997-98 Mr. Duvall noted' ''that the Commission has gone to contract with the consultants on, the County Home National Register Nomination and_the Leeper Park Historic Preservation Plan. 4. St'. Joseph River"- Mr. Duvall stated that St. Joseph River, Heritage River Initiative, has given the staff a copy"of the application. .5. East Bank -- Mr. Duvall; stated that the East Bank "Heritage Tourism Program is once more getting underway.- The resident experts of the program will be... arriving in South Bend on January 12,'1998 for a -two day group ,of sessions with people .from the Chamber of Commerce, Parks Department, Historic Preservation- Commission and East Bank Business Association. With in these sessions they will look at implementing heritage interpretation and tourism development programs for the.East'Race area. . 6. Proposed -Local Historic Districts a. South St: Joseph.Street Mr. Oxian asked if Mr. Duvall had sent down St.' Joseph Street. Mr. Duvall stated •that he had not, that.', he was still waiting for the:map and legal description from Area Plan. b. -Cushing Street Mr. Oxian stated that he' wants to put' -Cushing Street'- into the 'District Committee to.have' them develop better standards with the` help of Todd Ziger, " head of Near Northwest Neighborhood Association. V:. Old Business There was no ol.d,business.heard. VI. .New Business -Mr. Oxian appointed John Borkowski as the Chair man �of the'Nominating Committee_ along with Mr.' Talley and Mr'. Fine, .with .elections in. January,.. VII. Hearing of Visitors None heard VIII.. Announcements & Miscellaneous'.Matters none IX.. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. A. Purpose of • At the,formation of a local historic district the property owners are responsible for establishing a Liaison Committee which becomes the primary method for the exchange of information between the district and the Historic Preservation Commission. The Liaison Committee must be at full strength continuously and be constituted as outlined in the following procedures. The Liaison Committee members: (1) represent a historic district and provide for an organized group to • hold discussions on projects, efforts, and concerns. (2) coordinate the efforts of a historic district with the Historic Preservation Commission. (3) help property owners understand the purpose of a historic district, the process, and its benefits. MembershipB. • .(1) The Committee consists of 3, 5, or 7 members, depending on the stated number in the Standards for the Historic District, with terms of three (3) years, one-third (1/3) of whom expire each year. (2) The first election following the adoption of these procedures, one-third (1/3) of the members will be elected to one (1) year term/s; one-third (1/3) to two (2) year term/s; and one-third (1/3) to three (3) year term/s.. (3) Subsequent elections will be in March of each year and shall replace the candidates/s who are serving the last year of their term/s. (4) Elections for new Liaison Committee member(s) will be held each . March. The Historic Preservation Commission will be responsible for coordinating the election process and will consist of the following: a. In February, the Commission will send forms to each prope owner requesting nominations for the Liaison Committee and t existing Liaison Committee members or historic district representatives will meet to review submissions. b. In March, the Commission will send a slate of candidates and a ballot to each property owner. The ballot will be mailed or otherwise returned to the Commission office where the Liaison Committee members or historic district representatives will meet to review the ballots and tally the results. c. In April, the Commission will send the results of the election, and the names of the current Liaison Committee members to each property owner. d. If there is no timely election scheduled, or a vacancy on the liaison Committee, the Commission President shall call the election or appoint an interim' Liaison member, to serve until the next election, at what. ever time deemed appropriate. (5) Members of Liaison Committee shall elect a Chair and Vice -Chair for a term of one (1) year, notifying the Commission of this action. r (1) Represent the historic district and assist in providing information. (2) Maintain contact with the Director of the Historic Preservation Commission and attend monthly meetings of the Commission when possible. (3) Distribute materials prepared by the Historic Preservation Commis- sion, including standards of the district to new property owners. (4) Maintain a friendly presence within a historic district and be a source of information. (5) Meet regularly with property owners within a historic district to discuss projects,"issues and any particular concerns. (6) Understand the standards for a historic district and help answer questions. (7) Understand the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process and help answer questions. The Historic Preservation Commission office will notify the Liaison Chair of all COA's as they are approved. (8) Refer requests for technical assistance, advice and interpretation of the standards for a historic district to the Director of the Historic Preservation Commission. • Look over neighborhood regularly for work being done on properties. Look for the Historic Preservation Commission COA, and Building Permit. Both should be posted in a location that can be seen from the street. If there is any doubt notify the HPC office with the street address. (10) Review standards and make recommendations for changes needed. (11) Identify prospective Liaison Committee members for the future. the Standards of the Historic District. The Liaison Committee will revise standards based on neighborhood recommendations, Historic Districts Committee findings, and one of the models found in the Historic Preservation Commission Historic Districts Model Preservation Guidelines, as prescribed in the Procedures for Implementation and Revision of Historic Standards as adopted by the South Bend Common Council.(1) With a vote by a quorum of Liaison Committee members, suggested amendment(s) to the standards of a historic district may be forwarded to the Historic • Preservation Commission for review no later than every five (5) years at a regularly scheduled Commission meeting. As early as possible, Liaison Committee members should contact the Director of the Historic Preservation Commission for advice and help in drafting proposed amendments. (2) A quorum of the Historic Preservation Commission members or a specified committee will discuss the proposed amendment(s) and determine if they meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation (copies available upon request). Members of the Commission will work with the Liaison Committee to further discuss the proposed amendments and make recommendations. (3) Recommended amendment(s) to the standards for a historic district will be presented at a regularly scheduled Historic Preservation Commission meeting at which time the amendment/s will be assigned to the Districts Committee for review and recommendation. At the following regularly scheduled Commission meeting the amendment/s will be presented for a Public Hearing. With assistance from the Liaison Committee members, all property owners within a historic district will be notified of the time and location of the public hearing. All property owners will be given an opportunity to respond. (4) Following the public hearing, a quorum of the Historic Preservation Commission members will vote on the proposed amendment(s) to the standards for a historic district. Any adopted amendment(s) to the standards will be distributed to each property owner. • February 1999 ar Liaison Committee Handbook � Riverside Drive Loeal Historic District Established June 1985 Historic Preservation Commission of • South Bend and St. Joseph County, Inc. 1122 County/City Building 227 W. Jefferson Blvd South Bend, Indiana 46601 . 219-235-9798 FAX 219-235-5578 David Duvall, Director John Ozian, Commission President RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY AMENDING ITS PUBLIC HISTORIC RESOURCES POLICY WHEREAS, the intent of the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County has always been to include within the category of "public historic resource" a school or a structure owned by an agency affiliated with the City of South Bend and County of St. Joseph, and WHEREAS, the present definition of "public historic resource" set forth in the existent Public Historic Resources Policy of this Commission is subject to an interpretation different from the intent of the Commission as set forth above, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the definition of "public historic resource" set forth in the Commission's Public Historic Resources Policy at paragraph (1) is amended to read as follows: A public historic resource is defined as any building, -structure or site that is listed on either the city or county survey and owned by either the City of South Bend, St: Joseph County, or by any affiliate subdivision, or public entity created under the authority of either the City of South Bend or St. Joseph County, or by a school corporation, a publicly owned utility, or similar public corporation or agency. A true resolution of .the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County adopted unanimously at its meeting of December 7A, 1997. John H. Oxian, President ATTEST: Edward J. Talley, Secretary JOSEPH J. MONTEL DONALD J. STUCKEY GRANT VANHORNE CLARAMARY VANHORNE WINEBRENNER VANHORNE & STUCKEY _1i-rorzvr:ys A -r 112 SOUTH CEDAR STREET POST OFFICE BOX 523 AU111112N. IN-T)1A. a 40700 TEL: 219/925-1966 FAX. 219/925-6166 December 29, 1997 Mr. David B. Duvall Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County 227 West Jefferson, Room 1123 County -City Building South Bend, Indiana 46601 - RE: Robert Montel and Sherry Mantel 60500 Bremen Highway (S.R. 331) Dear David: WINSLOW VANHORNE 1 1908.19891 JEFFREY L. TURNER OF COUNSEL Thank you for taking the time to speak with me on Tuesday (December 16, 1997). As we discussed, the St. Joseph County/South Bend Building Department, through attorney Kenneth P. Fedder, has confirmed that the Building Department will not be able to issue any permits to the above referenced real estate until such time as the Historic Preservation Commission withdraws its pending objection. The HFC objection stems from an ordinance ostensibly passed in 1976 (Ordinance #107-76) purporting to designate a forty (40) acre tract on "Bremen Road" as a Historic Landmark. Numerous factors exist warranting removal of the HPC objection, .which will be discussed toward the end of this correspondence. The HPC's position that the above referenced real estate is a Historic Landmark should also be addressed in conjunction with the resolution of its pending objection. These issues are further compounded by two factors which have been discussed at length with your office and its attorney (Ms. DeRose). First, the real estate is being exposed to potential structural damage as a result of the stop order issued by the Building Department as there is no protective exterior (siding) upon a portion of the residence; and, second, no certificate of appropriateness can be filed since such a request would presuppose the real estate is in fact a Historic Landmark. The entire problem is compounded by the absence of any established procedure within the HFC for de -certification (or dis-establishment or un -designation, whichever of these terms is most appropriate under the circumstances) of real estate believed, correctly or erroneously, to be a Historic Landmark. Mr. David B. Duvall December 19, 1997 Page 2 , You recommended that, other than litigation, the best approach would be to send a letter outlining the problem. The letter would be heard during the Hearing From Visitors portion of the agenda at the next regular monthly meeting of the HPC. Placing this matter before the Historic Preservation Commission is the primary purpose of this correspondence. It is my understanding that, once before the HPC, this matter may be referred to the Local Landmark Committee for evaluation. The evaluation may include an on-site inspection, which my office is willing to arrange. We would also suggest that an on-site inspection is an important and necessary part of a good faith review of the problem and the IfPC objection. Numerous photographs will be made available, and the current title -owner will explain the repairs needed and will answer questions. Your attorney is invited as well. We would also recommend speaking with the neighbors. Since the Commission has once before decertified a structure (removing it from the Historic Landmark Registry), we have at least some precedence and guidelines to follow. The de -certification of the prior real estate, you believed, was premised upon structural changes performed by the owner. This case is similar, and perhaps more compelling. Robert Montel purchased this real estate while the former owner was in the process of replacing the exterior wood siding, and all of the windows. At the time of possession, much of the siding had been replaced, the second floor windows completely replaced, and various other structural changes completed. My client was merely finalizing what had already been done when the objection was received. A review of the title commitment issued by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation indicates no record of the Historic Designation. The prior owner did not make any such disclosure, and there was (and is) no plaque upon the real estate indicating such a designation. In fact, the ordinance (#107-76) reflects a description of some forty (40) acres commonly described as 60500 Bremen Road. My client purchased substantially less than forty (40) acres, purchasing approximately five (5) acres, on State Road 331. Hence, there is considerable ambiguity between the ordinance and the parceling of this real estate (and its roadway description), and the current real estate subject to the HPC's objection. It should also be noted that a large commercial area has been established immediately to the north of this real estate, which would include a Meijer, 31 by-pass, and other commercial features. Additionally, this residence is believed to be the only residence in the area being claimed as a Historical Landmark. It is not in a multi -residence district. Further, a building permit (#96781) was issued for the erection of pole barn upon this property, which did not draw any attention or notice from the HPC. The permit was issued in June of 1993, and copies have been delivered to the attorneys of record. As you suggested, the only practical means for resolving this dispute would be for the local landmark committee to make a recommendation to the HPC. If the recommendation is to remove this residence from the Registry, all remaining issues would become moot. It is understood than an on-site inspection may take place, and, again, my firm will make the arrangements. Also, it is my understanding that the HPC may consult with its attorney (Aladean DeRose) to obtain some form of a legal opinion concerning the chain of title issues, as well as the issues pertaining to the legal description contained in the original ordinance. Mr. David B. Duvall December 19, 1997 Page 3 Once you have had an opportunity to, review this correspondence and consult with the relevant individuals, would you kindly advise as to the procedures, if any, that will be employed by the Historic Preservation Commission in determining whether it would be appropriate to decertify the above referenced real estate and remove it from the Historic Registry. If no procedures exists (or if the procedures which may exist, albeit informal, will not be used), kindly advise my office so we may take the appropriate action. If we do not hear from you within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, we will presume that this request is being denied and that the Historic Preservation Commission will not place this matter upon the agenda for purposes of decertifying the designation. We will also presume that the legal issues raised are being rejected. Thank you for your kind considerations. We hope to hear from you soon. Very truly yours, VAN HORNE & STUCKEY /Joseph J. Montel JJWdsb Z 201 287 351 cc: Robert and Sherry Montel Kenneth P. Fedder Aladean DeRose John Oxian pmw real estate montel robert duvall Itr