HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 1999i.
l
i
AGENDA OF THE AUGUST 1999 MONTHLY MEETING
of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
7th Floor County -City Building County Commissioners Conference Room
Monday, August 30, 1999 7:30 PM
1. Call to Order
II.Public Hearing
A. Certificates of Appropriateness
1. 1999-0518 - 803 N. Notre Dame - LL- Fire House #7, fountain restoration
2. 1999-0721 - 1501 E. Wayne - EW- landscaping and driveway replacement
3. 1999-0728 - 1636 LWW - LL- sign permit/door permit/ windows
4. 1999-0730 - 549 River -EP- greenhouse addition on rear
5. 1999-0805 - 1130 E. Wayne -EW- rear addition 8t site work
6. 1999-0806 - 713 LaSalle -LL- rear porch U fire exit
7. 1999-0807 - 524 N. St. Joseph -NSJ- resubmit demolition
8. 1999-0811 - 947 Riverside Dr. -RSD- ice guard for condenser unit
9. 1999-0812 - 710 Cushing -LL- rear yard fence
B. Proposed Local Landmarks, 2nd reading
1. 14600 Adams Road - Harris Prairie Cemetery
111. Regular Business
A. Approval of Minutes (May, June, July 19 8T 26)
B. Treasurer's Report
Vi.
V.
C. Correspondence
D. Committee Reports
1 Historic Districts
2. Historic Landmarks
3. Standards and Maintenance
E. Staff Reports
1. C of A Staff Approvals
2. Legal
3. Miscellaneous activities U Grants
Old Business
1. 701 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
2. 982 Riverside Drive
New Business
1. FY 2000 Budget (approved by executive committee)
2. New permit fee for CofA's
3. New deadline for CofA applications
4. DHPA Fiscal Year 2000 Grant
5. Commission member needed to attend IUSB Fest on
VI. Hearing if Visitors
VII.
Vill.
Announcements and Miscellaneous Matters
Adjournment
9/25/99
HPC Meeting
Soptentbrr 30, 1999
4%qS4
Please sign your name, address and telephone number.
Take an agenda.
Welcome
1. 1
« ?, 5,-&), /C S` Y�' A A
2, t
ko
r�Te�
3.
4. �Ct .v 52
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
4i/C
Z73`9g13
A31-3501
95l-a56S
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Application Number: 1999-0518
Property Location: 803 North Notre Dame Avenue
Property Owner: City of South Bend
Landmark or District Designation: Local -State -National Landmark
Rating: S-12
Survey Number:
Key Number:
141-597-46269
18-5030-1082
Statement of Significance & Historic Context
Information to be read at Monday's meeting.
Page: 1
F,
Proposed Change(s)
Applicant wishes to refurbish the fountain so that it functions as it was originally
intended to do. Also the replacement of playground equipment, landscaping, etc.
The project is a complex array of donated time, funding and grants.
Page: 2
Reference To Governing Standards:
Restoration: Rehabilitation:
See attached standards.
0
Page: 3
No neon or flashing signs will b
the structure. Although these
Building Permit, a Certificate
Billboards and supergraphics
appropriate identifying sign will
Urollu'D B Standards)
permitted unless they are original to
kinds of changes may not require a
of Appropriateness may be necessary.
will also be disallowed. Only one
be permitted per business.
The Commission has the authority to determine the architectural merits and
the extent of any proposed treatment, renovation, or addition to a historic
landmark. The ' Commission will require drawings, plans, specifications,
and/or samples where appropriate.
A.Maintenance
The maintenance of any historical structure orsite shall in no way
involve any direct physical change except for the general cleaning and
upkeep of the landmark. The Commission shall encourage the proper
maintenance of'all structures or sites.
B.Treatment
Treatment shall be defined as any change of isurface materials that will
not alter the style or original form. SUCA improvements include
reroofing, glazing, or landscaping lawns and may involve a change that
can potentially enhance or detract from the qharacteF of the landmark. A
treatment change of any surface whether on the landmark or in its
environment may require a Certificate of Appropriateness if it
significantly alters the appearance of the landmark. Although these
kinds of changes may not require a Building Permit, a Certificate of
Appropriateness may be necessary. The Commission should review the
proposed treatment for character and style consistency with the original
surfaces. I
C.Renovation and Additions
Renovation is the modification of a structure which does not alter the
general massing while an addition is a change in mass. A modification
which involves the removal of a part of the landmark should be considered
under demolition (see demolition).
Additions toi landmarks should not detract from the original form and
unity of the landmark and should not cover singular examples of
architectural detail; Additions to landmarks should be added in a manner
that does not disrupt the visible unity or overall appearance of the
site. The proportions, materials and ratios of the 'existing Istructures
should be carried through in the additions. Care should be taken not to
change or alter the following:
1. . Structure - Necessary structural improvements, where safety demands
should be accomplished in such a way as to cause minimal visual
I I I
change to the original style and construction.
2. Construction and Style - All work should be done in the architectural
style and in a technique compatible with that of the original
structure. Change that I alters, removes, or covers existing
significant stylistic detail shall not be permitted. A change which
adds detail of another 'style will not be permitted.
3. Material - Additions and improvements involving any new material in
the landmark should be of the same material As the original. It
should be the same size and texture. An alternative material may be
allowed if it duplicates'the original, -
a. wood - all wood trim should conform with existing trim in shape
and size.
siding materials the Commission discourages the covering or
alteration of original materials with additional siding.
Structures already sided with incompatible materials should be
returned to a siding similar to the original when renovation is
considered.
D.Demolition -
Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a landmark poses a
threat to the public safety, and demolition is the only alternative,
documentation by way of photographs, measured drawings, or other
descriptive methods should be made of both the exterior and interior of
the landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the
landmark shall be responsible for this documentation.
E.Moving I
The moving of landmarks is discouraged, however, 1moving is preferred to
demolition. When moving is necessary, the owner 8f the landmark must
apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
F.Signs
No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to
the structure. Billboards and supergraphics will also be disallowed.
Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business.
Building Site and Landscaping
(These standards apply to both groups A and B)
I. Required
Major landscaping items,' trees, fencing, walkways, I peivate yard lights,
signs (house numbers) and benches which reflect the property's history
F !
and development shall 'be retained. Dominant land contours shall be
retained. Structures such as: gazebos, patio decks, fixed barbecue
pits•, swimming pools, tennis courts, green houses, new walls, fountains,
fixed garden furniture, trellises, and other similar structures shall be
compatible to the historic character of the site and the neighborhood
and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way.
2. Recommended
New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past
appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings, and
newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the
building that are causing deterioration to the buildings historic fabric
should be removed. However, trees and plant materials that must be
removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. Front yard
areas should not be fenced' except in cases' where historical
documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should
be in character with the buildings style, materials and scale.
3. Prohibited
No changes may be made to the appearance of the bite by removing major
landscaping items, trees, fencing, walkways, outbuildings, and other
elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history
and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking
lots nor paved nor blacktopped. The installation, of unsightly devices
such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted
in areas where they can be viewed from public thoroughfares.
To apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness,
or if there are any questions regarding these
Standards or about work you wish to do on your
landmark building contact:
The Historic Preservation Commission of
Pouth Bend and St. Joseph County Room
1123 County -City Building
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Telephone: 235-9798
Recommendation:
The staff recommends that this project be accepted and approved with attention to the specifics in the
standards.
Herman Beyer who was the first Superintendent of the South Bend Park Department laid out the
park, fountain, etc. All fire houses in the city at the time of the turn of the century has flower beds, and most
had fountains. It is impressive, important and quite fortunate that we still have at this location traces from the
past which provides for the rehabilitation of same for the future.
This project should carry the full support of this commission and the recognition of Jennifer
Moorehead for her unselfish giving of her time for the rehabilitation of this very important and special project
which will preserve for future generations a portion of our irreplaceable past.
Page: 4
1. Rating 2, County 3. Surrey ivo.
❑Outstanding VJSignificant lNotable ❑Contributing S/12 St, dosenh 141-597-46269 GCjV
4. Historic Name S. Township Preliminary No.
City of South Bend (Firehouse No. 7) Portage Z Q Z 7 4 57AfE
6. Address 7. City 8. Quad Name
803 N. Notre Dame Ave. South Bend, IN 46617
INDIANA HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY State of Indiana Department of Natural Re urces State Form 188221 Revised 1986
. • ��",Re
L..Ir!:1a�'mm,Yl.s:i�a 'It's LA
(9. Common Name 10. Visible f11. Endangered Explain
City of South Bend (Neighborhood ser. centr;Xlyea ❑No 1❑Yes allo
12. Ownership Owner's Address (if different}
LXPubfic 11 Private
13. Use Present Past 14. Category 15. Surveys! Legal Protections 16. Location Notes t Legal Description 17. Condition 18. Building Integrity
_Residence ❑ ❑ rig Building(s) LANDMARK Lot 23, Sarins 1st ❑ Excellent ❑ Unaltered
Commercial ❑ ❑ ❑ District KI Good W Altered minor
Firehouse r, . X,] ❑ site ❑ Fair ❑ Moved
TOlam65 ity (A - ❑ ❑ Structure 18-5030-1082 ❑ Deteriorated Date Building was moved
�e5 ❑ Object ❑Ruins
19. Time Period(s) (Dates) 20. Styles) 21. Architect! Bolide
1'904 Queen Anne I C. A. Brehmer
J 22. SPECIFY ALTERATIONS t
I Removals Replacement Alum. storm windows Additions Other Metal bars over windows
tl and metal door. on 1st story.
23. DESCRIPTION i 24. SITE PLAN
(Stories 2 plus attic( 1
I Plan Irregular rectangle N
Brick on concrete ft Chim: sIipple, J51" $$quare projecting r,
(Foundation g' chip On nut11,_.n4S p-
�stRun i g bonnQd rk red Vickon lower y�1 vel; sIi i a h' to weather
loneCut
4wa a a�ie ae�se�ahou-N-eAiYgt�� w d� i
Root L .. ..:...1..r.•...
Front gable, two side gables, rear gable dormer & hose tower give
complicated appearance. Sheet metal canopy on ornate metal brackets;
Porches
-h se -tower barFty-vis-iDle Trom w. elevation; etanoratea main Tacaae nas
shingle arched_pediment,false balcon rojecting_baw/detTiil course
Openin s /1 dbl .�ty,�u�g w Cut go,
e sit 5 & flat .l inttels• Courr dhedad dbl.
4!_ Ljnq _OyAL-a-�e YEGOr� IYE- easings -ori ta.7Ti-_
Single vehicle overhead door in arched brick opening; 3 simple, passage
-entrances-wttransom-on-E, -S-and-W.s 2nd-fievei eyuipueFic-6uuv uN west. < ", rL > •,. ?
Grounds f Outbuildings Corner lot w ar ng_.0 north: gmen-area to cnntl-w _
shade trees; swing set/Dlavaround in rear,
125. No. of Contributing Resources 126. No. of Non-contributing Resources 27. Environment Residential
28. Areas o1 Significance: Statement of Significance I Additional Description:
[] Agriculture
❑ Archilecture Firehouse No. 7. at B()3 N-No�P na ne,_•wae hnitr i _Iqn1 The ATTACH NEGATIVE
❑ Art ENVELOPE HERE
❑ Commerce Queen Anne style bid1din.o�ac designed..by.�outh-Bead-architect
❑ Communications Charles Brehmer, who lived across the street in a house he designed in
❑ Community Planning
❑ conservation
1884 (see history for 804 N. Notre Dame). Brehmer was a oraduate of the
I
❑ Economics University of Notre Dame where he studied architecture from 1876-1882. He designed a
❑ Education1 number of houses in South Bend, including the fire station at 219 Hill Street.
eeri
CJ Engineering '
❑ Entertainment lrecreation The No. 7 Fire Station is a two story structure with brick walls on the first floor,
❑ Ethnic heritage
Ll Exploration/ settlement and wood shingles on the second and in the attic gable. A bow window oro.iects from the
❑ Health I medicine I second floor, above the fire truck door. The Gable above contains a rPcBssPd...arch with_.
❑ Indian i
❑ Industry an oval window.
❑ Invention The building was closed in 1968, when it became too antiquated to serve as a fire
❑ Landscape architecture
❑Law station. It is currently used as a neighborhood center, and is owned by the City of
❑ Literature South Bend.
❑ Military
❑ Performing arts
❑ Philosophy f 24. FOR STATE OFFICE USE ONLY
❑ Politics 1 government
❑ Religion NR
❑ Science ` SR
❑ Social history
❑ Transportation - c
❑ Vernacular I construction NG
❑ Other ❑SEE CONTINUATION SHEET 33 UTM Reference
I a! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
30. information Sources South Bend Tribune 6/9/68
31. Surveyor BC 5177 Affiliation Date
32. Revised by ! CN 8187 Affiliation Dale
{
7ieldstone Water Fountain (due south of 803 N. Notre Dame Ave.)
eonlDe!�,criotlon: Lot 1 C.L.HodSon"s Sub, of Lot 24, 25 of
=.'s 1st. =-~~...
Prop rt�� owned by the City of South Bend (1991).
This simple fountain was built circa 1915 by neighborhood
residents and firehouse workers from Firehouse #7 next door. The
corner was also landscaped with evergreens and various Flowers
were planted. It was maintained for many years by local residents
before -failing into disrepair twenty or so years ago' Some of the
People involved in the prujeo�_ wer*: Bill Williams, an
electrician, his brother Jack, a bricklayer and Jim Scott a local
carpenter.
Source: Conversation With Arthur J. Howard 103 N. LeDeLa Paix
Blvd. South Bend,, In, [7-22-91l. Howard Was; a resident of the
neighborhood `worked in the firehouse for many years and
participated as e boy in the project.
9
Northeast Neighborhood
NENC auncil, Inc.
803 N. Notre Dame Ave., South Bend, IN 46617
June 4, 1999
PARK PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Northeast Neighborhood Council, Inc. is currently in the process of refurbishing the pocket park nest to the Northeast
Center. The Hose House #7 was built in 1904. A fountain built sometime after 1904 and before 1910, currently exists. It
is in need of repair and is not operational currently. We recently located a picture at the Northern Indiana Center for
History that was taken in 1909 by Herman H. Beyers, a Superintendent for the City of South Bend Parks Department, who
planned and landscaped the pocket park. He also was the landscaper for the Oliver Family. The Northeast Neighborhood
Center located at 803 North Notre Dame Ave. and the fountain are both considered local historic landmarks. We will be
putting new play equipment behind the Center, as well as, refurbishing the fountain to its original state. In addition to
applying for funds from the Building Blocks grant from the City of South Bend for $5,000, we have received funding from
the Florence Carroll Foundation, Bowsher-Booher Foundation, Muess4Eilison Memorial Trust, and the Stanley and Flora
Clark Foundation in the amount of $5,000. We are seeking other fundin�sopportunities from the Historic Preservation
Commission. These funds will be used for the remaining windows and railing that needs replaced on the front of the Hose
House V. Ed Talley has seen our plans and we will be forwarding this week our final plans to him for the Commissions
approval for which he sees no problem. They have already seen the preliminary drawings. Currently, Esmee Bellalta, an
Emeritus Professor from the University of Notre Dame is donating her services in architectural landscape, as well as, the
City Parks Department has removed the old play equipment. The play equipment and refurbishing the fountain will be the
most expensive items in this project. We have located play equipment through the park department and it will cost around
$4,000 - $5,000 (3 pieces and swings for the already existing swing set). We will be seeking to put some funds away for
the on-going maintenance of the fountain and the park. This project will rejuvenate a visible corner in the neighborhood
and bring new life to a historic landmark.
� r
•
�
i.,
+fir
, •,
a�f ::,i j�%
i �`�
� r
rr.. M"'r w"'r w w""'r"
.e �
:.3' ,
�` � ' � arnxw�'
.�.�r..ti�[�'o�ta�''w'w�... .
lW qri
LA
llk
lip
. -;17
1p
4
ra
t, C=Z.
w—e
,=TnTyrr,
-wo
lw=Mv.
,M=rl
ir
Im
zki�
jog',
N
kip
4L
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Application Number:
Property Location:
Property Owner:
1999-0721
1501 East Wayne Street
John Axelberg
Landmark or District Designation:
Rating: C/10
Survey Number:
MIA 11
Key Number: 18-6106-3797
141-57217-597
STATEMENT OF SIGNWICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
Developers, Whitcomb and Keller built this H.R Stapp designed house in 1926. It
remained vacant until 1931 when the house was sold to James B. and Pearl B. Hughes. Mr.
Hughes was originally from England, he migrated to the United States in 1921 to become the
chief body engineer for Studebaker. Mr. and Mrs. Hughes owned the house until 1941 when
they sold it to Ralph and Helen Van Horne. Mr. Van Horne was the president of Van Horne &
Company, Inc., a jewelry company located at 114 W. Washington. He resided here until 1972
when he sold the house to Jane and Leonard Fleck, an assistant professor at Indiana University
South Bend. They resided here until 1987 when they sold the house to the current owner, John
Axelberg.
PROPOSED CHANGE(S)
The Applicant wishes to remove and redesign the driveway and landscaping.
REFERENCE TO GOVERNING STANDARDS:
Restoration: Rehabilitation:
The Preservation Guidelines for East Wavne street Local Historic District:
b)... The Guidelines for the East Wayne Street District follow the Rehabilitation Model...
I. Environment
B. Building Site, Landscaping & Accessories
I.B. Required
Major landscaping items, fencing, walkways ... which reflect the property's history and
development shall be retained. Structures such as: gazebos, patio decks, fixed barbecue pits,
swimming pools, tennis courts, green houses, new walls, fountains, fixed garden furniture,
trellises, and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and
the neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way.
I.B. Recommended
New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property
found in photographs, drawings and newspapers. New site work should be appropriate to
existing surroundings site elements in scale, type and appearance. Plant materials and trees in
close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration of the buildings historic fabric
should be removed. However, trees and plant materials that must be removed should be
immediately replaced by suitable flora.
I.B. Prohibited
No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items,
trees, fencing, walkways, outbuildings and other elements before evaluating their importance to
the property's history and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking
lots nor paved nor blacktopped.. Front yard areas shall not be fenced and fences shall not extend
forward beyond the setback line of the house.
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR A DETAILED LOOK INTO E. WAYNE STREET FLORA
2
RECOMMENDATION,
t
ia
ly
a
�s '�r� �1{S�,V„,td+t'r*6+, p�,,� j g ,1y�t�j"•�'��'.
w
a 4�ti
i � � j �_, / ,1 `�
J ',
� � B
"��egyyM, Y`.w�� l��Ir�.'w iaw ' ..M,alN ate... t � �
�•�FAKY � � Y rhI ��ti rt� _ . rr "l -.o .. .� �•�y�,�Y�.� �' � r � f r • ♦ a�r'r .. ,yam. .. "Y�:�,�
�- _ �?�"#.�;^ Y ``y�'�"'.�"w �' .y'�?���ye�,�,,1, �¢�.yi• tr. �i;•; «.t+it' ':a�:;�.1 y�+`, '� a'.�?''
ai�'�' � .�".�:�i'�:�a�. i�is's.b^ii{w.�'�.7'u"s����:3+Y."`.�i�"1y��,3w�'''•;" t ".+,j « : t'.. � 'i' € � .
`+'
:., _ �
.. .� .
J
"��egyyM, Y`.w�� l��Ir�.'w iaw ' ..M,alN ate... t � �
�•�FAKY � � Y rhI ��ti rt� _ . rr "l -.o .. .� �•�y�,�Y�.� �' � r � f r • ♦ a�r'r .. ,yam. .. "Y�:�,�
�- _ �?�"#.�;^ Y ``y�'�"'.�"w �' .y'�?���ye�,�,,1, �¢�.yi• tr. �i;•; «.t+it' ':a�:;�.1 y�+`, '� a'.�?''
ai�'�' � .�".�:�i'�:�a�. i�is's.b^ii{w.�'�.7'u"s����:3+Y."`.�i�"1y��,3w�'''•;" t ".+,j « : t'.. � 'i' € � .
Overall Recommendations for Landscape Preservation in,
Local Historic Districts
Vegetation
1. Having a list for each Local Historic District that outlines
the species of trees that are allowed to maintain species variety
as well as visual continuity. When a resident want to plant a
tree in the tree lawn Adjacent to their h ' ome the list unique to
their district can be presented and they can make an informed
decision.
2. Any new construction, such as sidewalks or driveways, near
existing, trees should not encroach on their roots. Disturbance
of the root systems can cause serious damage and death.
3. Encourage the use of the botanical or Latin name when
specifying which tree is being discussed. This- can eliminate any
confusion that can occur using slang.terms or common names.
4. 'Making a permit necessary for the planting of trees.
Requiring the type of tree to be specified will enable the
database that has been established to be updated with ease and
will keep the records current.
5. To avoid a monoculture in any given area, a record of the
trees present and those planted should be kept to insure a.
variety of species. In the future, limits could be set on the
number of any one species of tree within each district. This
would further eliminate the possibility of- a monoculture and
insure visual interest in the street tree planted.
6. Significant trees should be removed only in cases of disease
or insect infestation and storm damage when public safety is a
factor or when death of the specimen is impending.
7. Any vegetation with thorns or fruit should be restricted to
establishment at least 5 feet away from public right-of-ways.
Thorns pose an obvious danger especially when thorny trees are
hanging over the sidewalk at eye level. Fruit, such as that of
the Flowering Crabapple, can cause a pedestrian to slip, loose
their balance and fall.
Topography
1. When the topography is designated as a significant landscape
element in a district, terracing, planting, ornamentation and any
other element that disrupts the effect of the elevation change
should be prohibited.
page #27
The Local Historic Districts fit into an interesting web of
activity within the city o.f South Bend. With the exception of
East Wayne Street Local Historic District, all of the districts
have some kind of connection to the water. The river is an
important historic landscape element. Historically, the river
provided transportation of goods and people, a source of water
for crops and livestock and a means of entertainment and
recreation. The river continues to provide all of these
necessities. The Local Historic Districts that are along the
river could easily be connected to the Riverwalk, Park and
Greenway system that has been designed for South Bend. This type
of approach would strengthen the ties of various historic
elements in the city and -make more apparent the value of these
somewhat neglected features.
A portion of Riverside Drive Local Historic District is
directly across the river from West North Shore Local Historic
District. Although the physical connection of the Lafayette
Street bridge is no longer present, a visual and psychological
link remains. The presence of Shetterley Park within Riverside
Drive'L. H. D. adds to the strength of the concept of developing
ties to the park - system and the Local Historic Districts. River
Bend Local Historic District is connected physically by Leeper
park to Riverside Drive L. H. D. River Bend L. H. D. is, in
turn, linked directly to the East Race Waterway that has become a
part of recent history of the city.
Edgewater Place Local Historic District presents a definate
opportunity for a physical connection to the river. The
residents along Edgewater Drive maintain the riverbank and use it
a waterfront property. Notre Dame University is another
important fixture that is linked to the Local Historic Districts
through a visual connection in Edgewater Place L. H. D. The
Notre Dame boat launch is across the river from Edgewater Place
L. H. D. This is an example of two historically significant
entities, the L. H. D. and N.D.U., linking to a third, the river.
This is a tie that should be recognized and preserved.
East Wayne Street Local Historic District is tied to the
important industry and development of the city of South Bend in a
round -about way. Many of t -he homes built by thetycoons of
business and industry are located in East Wayne Street L. H. D..
This is the reason for the establishment of the district which
maintains the most historically correct landscape of any of the
Local Historic Districts.
Lincolnway East Local Historic District has a tie to the
river that is totally ignored. Opening connections to the river,
if only visually, would make the district more appealing with a
stronger tie to other historic aspects of South Bend.
The history of South Bend is extremely strong with
industrial, commercial and educational institutions. The Local
_ Historic Districts present a.rich architectural history of the
page #28
land development in the city. The architectral aspect of history
is one easily lost to the possibility of monetary gains. The
land is treated in the same fashion.
The landscape elements of .the city can tell a story of the
communities history. The. landscapes in the Local Historic
Districts work to tie the individual properties together into a
cohesive unit. Standards regulating. the alteration of the
landscape should be set up to insure that the identifying
elements are not defaced and,the historical significance lost.
page #29
ri
for
CHOOSING THE RIGHT TREE
The following is a list of hardy trees, tolerant of urban environ-
ments, that would be acceptable under South Bend City Ordinance No. 3425
which prohibits planting of the following species: Catalpa, Soft or Silver
Maple, Box Elder, Poplar, Cottonwood, Tree of Heaven, Birch, Horse Chestnut,
Willow, Mulberry, Chinese Elm (which I believe is confused with the Siberian
Elm in this case), Ailanthus, Mountain Ash, Carolina Poplar, Basswood and
all nut bearing trees.
Form refers to the shape that the tree will have. The small image
refers to the tree at 15 years and the large image at maturity. The branch
pattern shows what the silhouette will be in winter.
The botanical name is the one to use when purchasing a tree to insure
that the proper species is being selected. The common names can be confused
and this type of confusion could result in delivery of the wrong tree. Any
reputable nursery will use the botanical name to insure that the proper
product is being delivered.
Some basic comments referingto fall color, tolerance, any disease
problem oroutstanding characteristics are provided to give you a little
information to start'with. Your choice of nurseries can give you more
specific information.
BOTANICAL NAME
Height of 65' or More - Tree Lawn of No Less Than 6'
ple Acer saccharum Yellow in Fall -Not for Street
White Oak
Sweetgum.
let Oak
-Fin k
W2 Oa
1
English Oak
Red Oak
Japanese Scholar Tree
ttleleaf Linden
-'-S1Zt'M iLi
Ginkgo biloba
Liquidambar styraciflua
Liriodendron tulipfera.
Quercus alba
Quercus coccinea
Quercus palustris
Quercus robur
Quercus rubra
Sophora japonica
Tilia cordata
Yellow*in Fall -Light Shade
Yellow -Scarlet in Fall
Too Large for Street
Move Only When Young
Less Pollution Tolerant
Chlorosis prone
Russet in Fall
Messy w/ Fruit&Flowers like
Crabapples (Malus)
0 . (Japanese
Zelkova Zelkova serrata Meant to Replace Dutch Elm
FORM COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME COMMENTS
Height of 50' - Medium to Tall Growing - Tree lawn of No Less Than V
4X Map.
IVColumnarls'
'Crimson King'
ISchwedlerl'
ckberry
wwood
Ash
`Auttlynn Purple'
Acer platenoides
Celtis occidentalis
Cladrastls lutea
Fraxinus americana
Ash Fraxinus; pennsylvanica
'Marshall's Seedless
Very Tolerant Dense Shade
Narrow Spreading Branches
Red Leaf
Leafs in Red in Spring
then Turns Green
Good Urban Tree
Nice Flower -A Bit Weak -Wooded
Some Disease -Many Seeds
Seedles Variety
Hardy
Seedless Variety
-Height.of 40' - Medium Growing - Tree Lawn of No Less Than 5'
GreenMountain 15aple
Seedless Horsechestnut
1*5 Golden Raintree
I
glil, -
Acer saccharum 'Green Mt.' More Tolerant than, Sugar Napl
Aesculus x plantierensis
Koelreuterla paniculata
Not Nuts
Very Tolerant
Decorative Pods in Fall
Height of 251 - Small Growing - Tree Lawn of No Less Than 51
American Hornbeam Car
.pinus; carolina Strong Wood Slow Growing
White Fringe Tree
\-Sourwood
Amur Corktree
Chionauthus virginiana
Oxydendrum arboreum
Phellodendron amurense
Fragrant Flowers
Birds Love Berries
Ornament in All Seasons
Not for Street Planting
Appendix B
East Wayne Street Local Historic District
Assessment Summary
East Wayne Street Local Historic District possesG®Q a
character that has endured for decades and has maintained the
most intact historic landscape of any of the Local Historic
Districts. The flavor and ambiance should be maintained to
ensure historic continuity. The use of hedges, ground cover and
ornamental trees are the most obvious landscape elements that
create a visual -continuity throughout the district. Formal
street tree plantings could enhance the district 'but are not
necessary due to the presence of large trees in the front yards
of most homes. The human scale of the neighborhood is a unifying
factor that should be maintained through regulation if necessary.
A grouping of Oak and Walnut trees is one element not as obvious
as some but no less significant to the historical landscape. The
large trees act as a back _drop for the historic homes and -also
tie the neighborhood together.
The use of hedges in combination with the architectural
styles of the homes in East Wayne Street Local Historic District
create a very formal atmosphere. In yards visible from the
- street, fences as property dividers and privacy barrier should be
prohibited and the use of hedges for these purposes should be
encouraged. The large trees in the front yards in combination
with those in the tree lawns create a canopy enclosure that
enhances the intimate human scale of the neighborhood. The
street trees do not seem to create a line or visual connection in
the manner of the trees in -some districts, therefore, planting in
the tree lawns is not imperative but would not be objectionable
either. The use of one large tree in the front yard seems to be
more characteristic of the neighborhood than formal street tree
plantings. To preserve the character of the district, each
residence should have either trees in the tree lawn or a large
tree in the front yard. The use of ground cover rather than wood
chips or decorative stone also adds to the formal design of the
early 1920 homes. The use of Pachysandra (Pachysandra
terminalis) and English Ivy (Hedera helix) should be encouraged
while wood chips and decorative stone should be used in a limited
fashion. Ornamental trees, such as the Flowering Dogwood (Cornus
florida) and Flowering Crabapples (Malus) are the elements that
add to the symmetry and structure of the district. While the use
of ornamental trees is desirable and adds to the formal
• atmosphere throughout the district, each lot should use only two
or three to eliminate disruption of visual continuity.
All of the elements discussed above combined with the
architectural styles of the homes along East Wayne create an
environment that is scaled to the human. The character of the
elements should be maintained to insure the integrity of the
page #6
human scale district.
A stand of various varieties of Oak trees runs from
Sunnyside, south of the district to approximately 1630 East Wayne
Street. An exciting find,. these trees are native species with
size and shape that suggest they were- planted immediately after
conclusion of construction. Because the land which became the
sunnymede Development in the 1870's was farm land, the idea that
the trees are survivors of 'development holds slim possibilities.
However, the size of the trees dates them at 80 to 90 years old..
This fact is interpreted to suggest that the Studebaker brothers,
Jacob,. F;- and John M., let the trees grow to enhance their
subdivision and" business venture. In any case, the number,
location and visual affect of ,the trees is significant to the
character and should be -preserved.
The large trees behind the homes act as a backdrop for the
historic homes and add to the ambiance of the historic
neighborhood. The effect of the canopy should be maintained with
a tree for a tree policy. When -a tree is cut down due to damage,
disease or age then another of the same species or an acceptable
alternate should be replace it.
The street trees present in the neighborhood include Norway
Maples (Acer platenoides), Sugar Maples (Acer saccharum), Green.
Ash'(Fraxinus pennsylvanica.), White Ash (Fraxinus americana), Pin
Oak (Quercus palastrus) and American Sweet.gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua). The combination is a nice mixture that should be
continued. The planting of Flowering Crabapples and other
ornamentals within the tree lawn should be prohibited.
Considering the character of East Wayne Street Local Historic
District, this practice does not adhere to the, concept of
historic,landscape preservation for this.area.
The use of hedges, sizable shade trees, ground cover and
ornamentals maintain the historic character of East Wayne Street
Local. Historic lDistrict. The, historic landscape is the most
intact of all the historic districts and should be maintained.
Stringent guidelines regarding fences, ground cover materials
(wood chips and decorative stone) as well as the number or
ornamental and shade trees may need to be regulated to maintain
the character and scale of East Wayne 'Street Local Historic
District
Note* East Wayne Street Local Historic District has a small
park area located at the west fork in East Wayn Street that- is
not designated as a city park. The vegetation includes two
trees that are considered historically significant due to their
age. The area includes the following:
Black Walnut (Juglans nigra)
Chinese Elm (Ulmus parviflora)
2 Red Oak (one is significant) (Quercus rubra)
Mulberry (significant (Mores alba)
page #7
Colorado Spruce
2 Colorado Blue Spruce
2 Flowering Crabapple
17 Yews
3 Crimson Pygmy Barberry
16 Bridalwreath Spirea
(Picea pungens)
(Picea pungens var glauca)
(Malus)
(Taxus cuspidata)
(Berberis thunbergil
var. atropurpurea)
(Spirea prunifolia)
A row. of 5 Flowering Crabapples (Malus) are in a boulevard median
at the east fork in East Wayne Street.
Suggested -ested Trees for Tree Lawns in
East Wayne Street Local Historic District
Norway Maple (Acer platenoides)
Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum
White Ash (Fraxinus americana)
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
American SweetqLTm .(Liquidambar styraciflua)
Pin Oak (Quercus palustrus)
page 48
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Application Number: 1999-0728
Property Location: 1636 Lincolnway West, South Bend IN 46628
Property Owner: Ethel Anderson
Landmark or District Designation: Local Historic Landmark -Pending Nat'l.
Rating: S-12 Key Number: 18-2018-0536
Survey Number: 141-598-24188
Statement of Significance & Historic Context
Will be read Monday - Se attached)
a
Page: 1
------
i2.0—is'shlp Owne,' Address(!f different)
— -- —
❑Public QPFlvate Kenneth P. Inwood 1504 E. Colfax South Bend
13. Use Present Past 1e, Category 15. Surveys! Local Protections 16, Location Notes t Legal Description
Residence ❑ Cl ❑ Rullding(s)
Commercial Ela ❑ ❑ District E. Rupel's Outlet
❑ ❑ ❑ Site 18-2018-0596
6revery. ❑ B9 ❑ Structure
❑ Oblect
19. Time Pedoda) `20. Styte(s} 421. Architect t Bull -
1905 I Cothle/Industrial f
E 22. SPECIFY ALTERATIONS
�Removais (Replacement Windows altered in jAddlllons
Storefronts modernized numerous ways. Manv bricked u or otherwise closed off.
23. DESCRIPTION
(Stories 4 - 5
Pian ILreeular vile
Foundation J ;.
RSinninQ b htck Fropt and side 1oa11 painted W/ fadinlz $$da for �`� 1
Watts l.avtenx s �h+arajwfqa�re7l g cojr,Lbelle corhpice 1pC}ana benaa(Ct b'TjybyatQtlamPanta.
Root al elitheryentivoY et ion[cf acadea[eas�rawleofaT la CWroofaAoiBs aECawingsw[ arear „A.:i
-Porches Buildirtg_is_partially retail. nartl.ally factory. Pias seen man h
bus
nesses come and go.
Openings Front windows areevenlit-ranged w/voussoired roman -arch heads and stone '
sills. Doors and windows on West facade were once laree basket -handle arailles�
now brick un and reolaced w/rectaneular oaenines.
c
GroundsfOotbuitdinos A butte buildinir. much -o£ which had fallen into disuse.
Parts ofthe structure are still occupied by retailers.
25. No. of CpnlrlDuling Resources 126. No. of Non-contributing Resourc0es 127. Environment
t
26. Areal of Significance: 129. Historic Context(s) I Statement of Significance I Additional Description:
❑ Agriculture 1
®Architecture (Roof cont: including a laree smokestack.
❑ Art
® Commerce
❑ Communications
❑ Community Planning
0 Congo such
❑ Economics I
❑ Education
❑ Engineering
0 Entertainment f recimetion '
❑ Ethnic haulage
❑ Expioratron 1 settlement
CIHealth I medicine
fi Indian It!
❑ Industry
❑ Invention
❑ Landscape architecture 1
❑ Law
❑ Literature
❑ Military
❑ Performing arta
❑ Philosophy
❑ Politics I government I
❑ Religion Ilii
❑ Science
❑ social history
❑ Transportation
❑ Vernacular I Construction
❑ Other
' Ma££ CONTINUATION SHEET
30. FOR STATE OFFICE USE ONLY
j NR
1 SR
a
NE
1131. UTM
"am I I I I I M I t i t i i
STA
V INDIANA HISTORIC SITES AND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
EET)
STRUCTURES INVENTORY (SUPPLEMENTAL SH
State Form 42881 (11.88)
Baia
STATE OF INDIANA
Name Survey! Site Number
Address (Street and number) County
1636 Lincolnway West: Supplemental Sheet #2 .
City I -Township
Additional Information (Use reverse side for drawing)
After Prohibition the company began to again brew beer 3.)Icj
ki") t✓I I HI -; J U,_ i I l',,i _>V,0,30 ' b Ct I I -,z 1 Z-_ cl Y v,=[ I . TI lt� P I i 111,t I y 1--t. -A I �::; It
for their products was in northern Indiana and southern Michigan.
Th _- L iiiJ Wt_,_-.;_
:i
and the old offices were converted to manufacturin<space.
V, <a J La:=j , ia Li i i �4 Ll is y I Its L, i u v., , i
produced half of their 'Past volume. Brewery officials blamed a,
was seen as a severe burden for a small brewery. The brewery
and Fuel , remained in business for a few more Years,
T'r-t:3 !:__1 i 1 •j i rl .;� .1 j r, —, 1 .1 , L I ,:; .1"1�� C , , � _�. 1, ,
Company operated b,/ Russell E. Frushour. By 1960 it -,jas bf-:,in,_1
L!. L moo, f i P-- F)
1970 to 1985 it housed Mc, -Daniels' Harley-Davidson r_,(DmPan,,/, In
1017!7 it L -v
It is Presently (1991) ot-ined by Kenneth P. Tnitjo(-_)(J who Purchased
it in 1-,O.
South Bend City Directories: 1902-1988,
t -h 'crd T - i '� u I) c 2 7 11 a 1 i 4 0
(obit. 11-14-50.
!k.I i C -C. :: Iia-ne-cuc nce_-7ds:Q 092.
John B. Stoll "An Account of St. Joseph County From Its
=a t-1 C 1-1 F. 'r _ v , L -,.,a F, ni t �'f I r,,--! i a -na r, C", h 11
.... . . .... .. .
1923). 4391.
bq r
Information Sources
I
1 Prepared By Date
INDIANA HISTORIC SITES AND
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
STRUCTURES INVENTORY (SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET)
0. State Form 42881(11-88)
lele' STATE OF INDIANA
Name I Survey/ Site Number
Address (Street and number) County
1.536 Lincolnway West "South Bend Brewing Association"
City 1 Township
Additional Information (Use reverse side for drawing)
The brick building at 16,36 Lincolnway West was built in 1905
IJI r-!,VCI y f,llt•.1 VI r 1,d`� I VI I..}ItY JVUI.II �3�'lIC] �( f'IN111<? ftiS �'OC;1ciGLC�11.
Its design, with. different tiers and decreasing heights towards
LI It7 1 C.:31 1 , r
for brewing; the systema was based on gravity flow assisted by
j -u IIIN .411y 0. 111a (ItJl�l.11l!-1. IIR� IIVI l.GVlllr d.l J'" f -
,'. t. u 1 15 1 •J 1 15 I I I .. I I C I :;; d 1
contained power, heating, refrigeration equipment and loading
fuIiLI�- ::,.
The South Bend Brewing Association was founded in 1903 by a
:.il Ju}--' V � ..i �J 1.1 LII ES s�llf� .=•fXliJ iJll i��; c71-./tdl J 1�1 .I IIIQI 1l Y V r i V 11:�Il , '._']CI Illdll
and Hungarian descent. They organized in order- to manufacture and
1 }
tai :J ..11.41.4: IJ 7G1 I'Il r IIIC.-II lJ:�..�Cill LI I,: J. 1 f -i l 111 wi Lh : irowi :. ,:.1 � 1G:Jt �.. .l •.J II .! i'
$100,000.00 made by selling 10,000 shares of stock- 1=- the (and of
1 E. � I'_ h F,- ._. :ry, w,' 1. 1 •.a t .1. '•� i I 1.v •� .; 1 � .;i : i I 1�-f _.:.7, l V V I I 1 r.t I V 1J. I I f.l I. I 1 � 1. 1 I_ j. �_! "r I,. i I •
end of thf� �(next Year they were in control of ten, man- on the Jv �t Yid:- I l.. •J Uv 11 4R�I . I ' 1
ICI .. ..I IG / ..1111.. I.1 It71 �-. 1 1� A '.. 1JbV 1111111 .L ;-1 i 111..•
Pr.imaril;,, located.
T r, '- - I
f✓ 1 �•�1��; �� �:' ' iiia a. i�l r 1 v.a llV l"..J 1 I I I_I I ✓' C•� 1 l Y y 1,q I •7 4U <y 1 q 1 1 :•d ^•= I :: 111.(
Hoosier Beer. The first manager was Jerry Voelkers who was given
1I ( i a
1.•' r �• rr ..J :v t i. f l n N 1 1 1 ♦! I 1� t,l }i �� V �_. 1 i\ C 1 ,:? VJ CI ;._� _. t_I r 1 I I I .� 11 !N I I lJ I ri, l
previously been involved in the plumbing btasiness. He died in
1?1 L jjV 4 a-3 1" �liA 4'1a L, I kf.f Q11 .
After the Volstead Act and t1j,2 restrictions of Prohibition
in 1 ? 1 ? , t h:::. 1-! •- 4+ 1-%•� .L •:7 1...6 1 J 1 1 � I I C1 1 1 �•lI C:: 1„. i �...-r L 114 1 L C: 1 Q I I la 1.1 `� `• i •^. I I L 1J
manufacture ice cream, candy, cereal beverages, soft drinks :ind
�ra.1L ext, ..tom, Th1�, u1�1� I✓. `�:a11 Ji"t illill�
L 1a 1 7 L. ta. l L lJ 111•f .� I+L' 1
industrial purposes. In 1922 the firm's name was changed tri the
In 1922 George Voedlscryh, a twenty-five year employee of
�'�'=��..C.+ �I 1 v'i' •� IBJ �.. F f 1 i j .^.; v �..i t I`I L• Ii +a y U C:1..._.111 c r= 1 •� •� .L 1_�'c 111, ca 1 I J Q_ 1 1 C I Q I
Manager of the firm. The V6edisch family remained associated with
th'� until th._ �. _ J.v,`.1_.r. y I.
August of 1840. His son^ 1; '.JJ�a. �1�1J �•"-,,-li �.`_II 1.1.1.1 111
, Hugo (Ike) and John, tol: k control rr r
.J .: hli :e Tli... vl ...1'.a e::lll., :.7111) I ll..i 1:1 'J I.I I•.= I 1.. .. _.•:7111,-:
v ic:=-president . Hugo died in 1945.
Information Sources
Prepared By I Date
-A
Proposed Change(s)
1. No C of A was applied for when the tattoo parlor installed their sign next to the
building but the St. Joseph county Building Department issued a sign permit non -the -
less. The purpose of this hearing is to clean-up the violation of the permit being issued
prior to the C of A (cart before the horse). See the photograph of the sign.
2. The (again after the fact) removal of a doorway on the east side of the building
and the installation of a new door. Other improvements are to the interior of
the structure and do not fall under the jurisdiction of this commission.
There are other window treatment improvements and window coverings which
owner wishes to accomplish.
Page: 2
Reference To Governing Standards:
Restoration: Rehabilitation:
See attached standards.
Page: 3
No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to
the structure. Although these kinds of changes may not require a
Building Permit, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be necessary.
Billboards and supergraphics will also be disallowed. Only one
appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business.
I
Gro-u�-v B Standards
The Commission has the authority to determine the architectural merits and
the extent of any proposed treatment, renovation, or addition to a historic
landmark. The C6mmission will require drawings, plans, specifications,
and/or samples where appropriate.
A.Maintenance
The maintenance of any historical structure or site shall in no way
involve any direct physical change except for the general cleaning and
upkeep of the, landmark. The Commission shall encourage the proper
maintenance of all structures or sites.
B.Treatment
Treatment shall be defined as any change of surface materials that will
not alter the style or original - form. SucA improvements include
reroofing, glazing, or landscaping lawns and may involve a change that
can potentially enhance or detract from the qharacter of the landmark. A
treatment change of any surface whether on the landmark or in its
environment may require a Certificate of Appropriateness if it
significantly alters the appearance of the landmark. Although these
kinds of changes may not require a Building Permit, a Certificate of
Appropriateness may be necessary. The Commission should review the
proposed treatment for character and style consistency with the original
surfaces. I
C.Renovation and Additions
Renovation is the modification of a structure which does not alter the
general massing while an addition is a change in mass. A modification
which involves the removal of a part of the landmark should be considered
under demolition (see demolition).
Additions to (landmarks should not detract from the original form and
unity of the landmark and should not cover singular examples of
architectural detail: Additions to landmarks should be added in a manner
that does not disrupt the visible unity or overall appearance of the
site. The proportions, materials and ratios of the lexisting Istructures
should be carried through in the additions. Care should be taken not to
change or alter the following:
l., Structure - Necessary structural improvements, where safety demands
should be accomplished in such a way as to cause minimal visual
change to the original style and construction.
2. Construction and Stvle - All work should be done in the architectural
style and in a technique compatible with that of the original
structure. Change that I alters, removes, or covers existing
significant stylistic detail shall not be permitted. A change which
adds detail of another style will not be permitted.
3. Material - Additions and improvements involving any new material in
the landmark should be of the same material As the original. It
should be the same size and texture. An alternative material ma_v be
allowed if it duplicates'the original.
a. wood - all wood trim should conform with existing trim in shape
and size.
siding materials - the Commission discourages the covering or
alteration of original materials with additional siding.
Structures already sided with incompatible materials should be
returned to a siding similar to the original when renovation is
considered.
D.Demolition
1 Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a landmark poses a
:.nr:ZL ,.ns v•!..___
documentation by way of photographs, measured drawings, or other
descriptive methods should be made of both the exterior and interior of
the landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the
landmark shall be responsible for this documentation.
E.MovinQI
The moving of landmarks is discouraged, however,;mo'ving is preferred to
demolition. When moving is necessary, the owner of the landmark must
apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
F.Si ns
No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to
the structure. a Billboards and supergraphics will also be disallowed.
Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business.
Building Site and Landscapina
(These standards apply to both groups A and B)
I. Required
Major landscaping items,' trees, fencing, walkways, Iprivate yard lights,
signs (house numbers) and benches which reflect the property's history
c s. ..
J
and development shall 1 be, retained. Dominant land contours shall be
retained. Structures such as: gazebos, patio decks, fixed barbecue
pits!, swimming pools, tennis courts, :green houses, new walls, fountains,
fixed garden furniture, trellises, and other similar structures shall be
compatible to the historic character of the site and the neighborhood
and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way.
2. Recommended
New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past
appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings, and
newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the
building that are causing deterioration to the buildings historic fabric
should be removed. However, trees and plant materials that must be
removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. Front yard
areas should not be fenced, except in cases' where historical
documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should
be in character with the buildings style, materials; and scale.
3. Prohibited
No changes may be made to the appearance of the §ite by removing major
landscaping items, trees, fencing, walkways, outbuildings, and other
elements befdre evaluating their importance to the property's history
and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking
lots nor paved nor blacktopped. The installation, of unsightly devices
such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted
in areas where they can be viewed from public thoroughfares.
To apply for a , Certificate of Appropriateness,
or if there are any questions regarding these
Standards or about work you wish to do 6 on your
landmark building contact:
The Historic Preservation Commission of
I South Bend and St. Joseph County Roolm
1123 County -City Building
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Telephone: 235-9798
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval (after the fact) for the sign.
Staff recommends that the window uncovering and re-covering be placed into
committee. The reason for this is so the owner and her workers can have a formal review
along with consultation and suggestion so they will understand and acquire the mental attitude
whereby their sensitively will be to understand what rehabilitation in the local historic
landmark frame of mind will mean.
The owner has good intentions and simply needs to be caressed with historical
motherly guidance.
Page: 4
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Application Number: 1999-0730
Property Location: 549 River Avenue South Bend M 46601
Property Owner: Thomas & Suzanne M. Spink
Landmark or District Designation: Edgewater Local Historic District
Rating: C-10 Key Number: 18-3039-1526
Survey Number: 141-597-56783(56245)
Statement of Significance & Historic Context
See attached survey card.
Page: 1
I1. Rating 2. County 3. Survey No.
❑Outstanding ❑ Significant lNotable RIContrlbuting r/10 St. Joseph .
14.
Historic Name 5. Township Preliminary No.
ue...y c tarts el n,.rr t l Portaqe 141. 597.56783 (56245)
I6. Address 7. City 8. Quad Name
549 River Ave. South Bend)IN. 46618 South Bend East
INDIANA HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY State of Indiana Department of Natural Resources State Form 168221 Revised 1087
12.OwnershipOwner's
29. Historic Conlexte)l Statement of Significance I Additional Description: 1
1 This house was built in 1920 by
Addre
❑ Public X Private
❑ Art
13. Use Present
Past
14. Category
Residence ®
X3
El Bullding(s)
Commerclaf ❑
❑
(3 District
❑
❑
❑ Site
❑
❑
❑ Structure
I I Ethnic heritage
luntil 1976 when they sold it to Thomas Coffey (etal). Mr. Coffev did live in how
❑ Oblect
19. Time Perlod(s)
Il Health I medicine
the and his associates rented the house to Linda K. Poindexter from 1978 to 1979. IN 1980
10. Visible 11. Endangered Explain
f3 Yes ❑No I❑Yes MNo
15. Surveys I Legal Protections 16. Location Notes I Legal Description
Edgewater Place local Lot 51 Edgewater Place Add
Historic District
18-3039-1526
! 1920 Homestead',' Craftsman
! 22. SPECIFY ALTERATIONS
Removals I Replacement I Additions
I 23. DESCRIPTION
Islorlee two alus attic
Plan Rectangular Chim: one exterior, stepped br. w/conccreteacapsane'
(Foundation concrete
walls clapboard: wide board separates 2nd story and attic
Roof Cross gable; asph. sh. false beams; wide overhang.
Porcneg_full open porch_z clapboard covered piers & wall.
10penings Single leaf- wood qlass
1lnterfor
2/1 w/divided transom
Grounds I Outbuildings 1 car, clapboard, front gable garage.
I
125. No. of Contributing Resources
126. No. of Non-contributing Resources
0
21. Architect I Builder
17. CohdltIon 111 Integrity
(5 Excellent ( Unaltered
❑ Good ❑ Altered
❑ Fair ❑ Moved
❑ Deteriorated (Date moved
❑ Ruing
Whitcomb & Keller
Other
24. SITE PLAN
I
II
27. Environment Residential
'28. Areas of Significance:
29. Historic Conlexte)l Statement of Significance I Additional Description: 1
1 This house was built in 1920 by
❑ Agriculture
❑(Architecture
i
I Whitcomb & Keller. IN 1920 Henry J. and Mildred Butto moved into ATTACH NEGATIVE
❑ Art
1 in 1923 the was transfered into their names Mr. ENVELOPE HERE
❑ Commerce
the house and property
❑ Communications
I
gutis A fisted as being a foreman in the City Directory. 'Die Buttoloh lived in ch
❑ Community Planning
❑ Conservation
f
Ymtnlnh
until 1925. The house was rented to Raymond Sekel in 1926 for a year then in 1927 MRs.
D Economics
1Buttolph reappears as the resident, think Mr. Buttolph died. MRS. Buttoloh continued to
1by an on and off resident until 1937 when she sold it to LeClair H. Bells. Mr. Bells
ElEnnginegineerrning
L7 Entertainment I recreation
1 was a professor at Notre Dame University. He and his wife, Dorothv, lived in the house
I I Ethnic heritage
luntil 1976 when they sold it to Thomas Coffey (etal). Mr. Coffev did live in how
I I I Explofatlon I settlement
not the e
Il Health I medicine
the and his associates rented the house to Linda K. Poindexter from 1978 to 1979. IN 1980
I L)Indian
Industry
they sold the house to Paul Crawls Mr. Crowle was em to ed in the commercial le ding__
r_ Y__-_ rL_y_-------------_H--'
❑ invaman
department for First Bank & Trust. He lived in the house until 1986 when he sold it`tQ_
Landscape architecture
1 Thomas Spink.
ICi
❑ Law
❑Literature
1
L3 Mtiitary
❑ Performing arts
❑ Philosophy
1 30. FOR STATE OFFICE USE ONLY
❑ Politics I government
1 ❑ Religion
1 NR
I❑ Science
❑ Social history I`
❑ Transportation
❑ Vernacular I Construction 1
❑ Other I ❑SEE CONTINUATION SHEET
(32. Information Sources 1932 Assessment Card
South Bend City Directories 1920-iJak 1980
! Deed Records: Book P. 164 see file
33. Surveyor
E.. A. Straw August 86
34. Revised by
Chris Nally April 88
135. Revised fyynnistory by: Rhonda Saunders 1997
SR
F
NF
131. UTM
,low 1 I i I 1 W I I 1 1 1 1
and South Bend Tribune Obituary see file
1
Affiliation
Dale
Affiliation
Date I
Ahilletlon
(Date Ii11
Proposed Change(s)
Applicant wishes to add a greenhouse to the rear of the existing house.
Page:
r_-,W�3
ME
CIO
F-
r_-,W�3
ME
. c,L--
O
O 1,9
L L.8
N
CD
C')
N
f
`
UN Y..
l•,
e 11
Reference To Governing Standards:
Restoration: Rehabilitation:
See attached standards concerning new construction.
Page: 3
Edgewater Place Historic District
Height—this is a
III. New Construction mandatorycrae-
ria that new
buildings be con-
structed to a
A. Height and Proportion ofth averagin e
The majority of structures in the district are two stories in height of existing
adjacent build -
high and are square or rectangular in plan. There are a few ing,
single story bungalows. The most prevalent facade
proportions are between a 1:1 and 1:2 height to width ratio. Proportion of
Required
The height of a new structure and its height to width
proportions shall be consistent with adjacent buildings in
the district. The building height shall be no greater that that
of the tallest existing structure and no less than that of the
lowest existing structure in the same block. Facade
proportions shall be established by by permitting no
structure with a facade wider or narrower than those
existing in the same block. Additions to existing buildings
shall be related in height and proportion to the existing
structure.
Recommended
Contemporary designs should be compatible in character
and mood to the building or neighborhood.
Prohibited
Additions that would add new height or change the existing
facade of a building and change its scale and architectural
character may not be constructed.
Not Recommended
New stories should not be added nor should existing stories
be removed which would destroy important architectural
details, features, and spaces of the building.Any style or
period of architecture that is incompatible with the existing
should not be permitted in the new additions.
A EP r IN TPE. 17A rN
buildings' front
facades—rhe
relationship
between the
width and height
of the front eleva-
tion of the build-
ing.
Proportion of
openings within
the facade—the
relationship of
width to height -of
windows and
doors.
Rhythm ofsords
to voids in front
facade—rhythm
being an ordered
recurrent ahema-
tion of strong and
weak elements.
Moving by an
individual build.
ing, one experi-
ences a rhythm
of masses to
openings.
JAN UM5Yi1PfU} MX --ft)(Crum
'E.0ff
17 �
1 W Urlo
Guidebook
L�.'�11JI11 pE16NT
' '1✓ I I i
I1/2 WIDTH 3�
i
1Zdt10 p1zOPORT lO N I ' I I �2
KHTTR M A • I • I'll -1 • 3
A CHANGE t4 IIE169r 09 5EVAGK
is
Edgewater Place Historic District Guidebook
B. Building Materials in New Construction
Wall materials in the district range from brick, clapboard, shingles and masonry to aluminum siding.
Required
Exterior materials used on a new structure shall be compatible in type, scale, texture, and color with adjacent
structures. Materials used on an addition to an existing structure shall relate to the existing or original materials of
that structure. As much of the original structure as possible shall be retained so that the addition could be removed
without damage to the basic structure and appearance of the building.
Recommended -
Aluminum or vinyl siding may be used when it is the only feasible alternative. This siding should be compatible in
size and style and with the the materials of other buildings in the district.
Prohibited
Inappropriate materials such as asbestos, asphalt, cast stone, or artificial brick may not be used.
1 Not Recommended
Glass blocks should not be used. Concrete block should not be used for anything other than foundations.
N. Safetv and Code Reauirements
A. Safety and Code Planning
Required
Code requirements shall be complied with in such manner that the existing character of the building is preserved.
Recommended
Local code officials should be consulted to investigate alternative life safety measures that will preserve the
architectural integrity of the structure. Variances for historic properties should be investigated.
Prohibited
Construction of new stairways and elevators that would alter the existing exit facilities or important architectural
features and spaces shall Ne prohibited.
Not Recommended
Fire prevention equipment should not damage the appearance or fabric of the building.
page36
Recommendation:
Guidelines for the district allow for this addition. Details for the constrcution and
treatment may need to be suggested or specified so the addition does not alter permanently
the original architecture.
Page: 4
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Application Number: 1999-0805
Property Location: 1130 East Wayne Street South Bend IN 46615
Property Owner: Stephen Fredman
Landmark or District Designation: East Wayne Local Historic District
Rating: C-9 Key Number: none listed
Survey Number: , 141-57195-5597
Statement of Significance & Historic Context
See survey card,
9
Page: 2
A. HISTORIC NAMF Lowles-Northrup Residence
D.ADDRESS 1130 East Wayne
I RATING 0 Oulatanding 13 SlgnilleanVNolable P.Conld .g/Ralannp ONon•CenlrmuRng
B. COUNTY St. Joseph C.NUMBER 141-57195.5-597
E. TWP/CITY Portage/ 0 r� th Bend F. OUAD NAMF
UTM REFERENCES 11161 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES INDIANA HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY
Public _x._ Private
_X—_ Yes No
11. BUILDING INTEGRITY
— Unaltered
X_ Altered minor
_ Moved
Date
4. PROPERTY'S MAILING ADDRESS
Fredman. Stephan & Katherine Todd Shite
1130 East Wayne
South Bend, IN 46615
PAST
13
7. ENDANGERED
Vacant
Neglected
Encroachment
_ Other
SURVEY$
I _— NR _ NHL
Ile. Speeify Alterations
Removals
Structural
Replacement ..__
Additions EnOmd Lem nnrrh
12. DATE 1928 13. STYLE Tudor Revival 14. ARCHITECTIBUILDER
15. DESCRIPTION 2 story frame, irregular Dlan: Gable roof. molded raung trim -
decorative brick pattern in the Gable. slaternof- steep ahle roof wall dnrmer-�
through -the -cornice; 6 light casement windows with stationary transoms, brick
Inscriptions Facade Materia^ Brick
REVISED
last
S. LOCATION NOTES
7th building east of southeast
corner of South Eddy and East Wavne.
8. CATEGORY 9a. LOCAL LEGAL PROTECTIONS
— District _— Historic District
X Buildingls) _— Landmark
Structure __ Deed Restriction
_ Site .— Other
_ Object
HAGS _ HAER
17. s SITE PLAN
1
' N
s
1
J
V• _l�� i
.rl
�fI
18. ENVIRONMENT _
Residents&.1,1111owet}rear pliLca4.1_
and chain link fence.
19. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Specify the Significance for each area ehecke 1
— Aboriginal ATTACH
— ArtsNEGATIVE
This Tudor Revival house was built in 1928. According to the r.ity
_ ArchitectureENVELOPE
— Commerce Direl:tories. Stanley E and GrarP M fnwlea were the First owners in 1G9G — HERE
Communications The Deed Records show that Grace M. rnwles and 7ne Franree Wile.,., a j..a.,a
_ Community Planning tenants, purchased the property in 1928 from Whitcomb & Keller. Stanl P_v rnwles was a
Education _building contractor who conducted his huqines� at address.
Engineering
Environs/Neighborhoods In 1933, George D. Keller, a salesmanager at Studebaker- resided at the pronerty with his
Exploration/Settlement wife Vera. �i� 11
_ Humanities In 1934, Everett and Edna Northup OMRBO `the property. Everett Nor hun was a ranraconta Tiuo
_._ Indian for Studebaker Corp. Grace M. Cowles sold the house in 1959 to James A. R .lncenhino Miller
_— Landscape Architecture ' - -
_ Military Mr. Miller was an engineer with Torrington Company, he resided tbere until 19F5 when he 01A th,
_ Politics/Government house to John G. Richardson, who sold the hosue 2 years later to Mrs. Rernire M_ 11—ly and her h—hand
_ Religion Gerald, the vice president of production Drewry's Ltd. She owned the house until 1979 when she
_ Scienee/rechnologysold it to Duane DePaepe. Mr. DePaepe resided there until 1980 when he sods the hour;.. to cre he.. A W—A
Social/Ethnicity 7 ^pan.
Transportation
_— Vernacular/Construction
_ Other
Descrp. Cont.: header course sills, brick soldier course lintels; round arch entry in gable front, brick corbelled door
surround, wood screen door, paneled front door with round window. diamond brick pattern above door; gable canopy cirfe
entrance with brackets; brick corbelled chimney with stone cap; brick half wall at northwest corner; 1 story rear enclosed -
porch, flat roof.
Legal Desc. L 142, EX 5 ft. W. pt. Key k 1R - 6108 - 3R57
20. INFORMATION SOURCES SnIlth Rend City Dirpctys�iE51 Portage_Toum„_,,hipAraseccorse Deems d Retorts- .Ronk 70_ 9T_._ Pane SAo
22. DATE tpnt TOP$;
Proposed Change(s)
Applicant plans to do major construction. He has submitted several spec sheets for
brick, shingles, windows, etc. Plans have been copied for each of you.
Page: 2
LA
ID
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE, 1/6' V-0"
EXISTING
HOU5E
DRIVE
/.42'-'7'1
Lit]
BASEMENT PLAN
A(N f7 -'ALE: 115' - 1'-0"
FREbMAN F;ZE51VENCE,4,,-
J 130, HAYNE.Tfzgttl -,"
mqww
I
I
TERRA GOTTA
/
ACCENT TO MATCH
EXISTING ACCENT
%/
ABOVE FRONT DOOR
I
\
\
SILL COARSE TO --I
MATCH EXISTING
APPCARANGE TO
BRICK
EXISTING ASBESTOS
BRICK WAINSCOT TO
�
MATCH EXISTING
BRICK EFFT
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE. I/B' = 1'-0'
WE5T ELEVATION
SCALE: V8" - 1'-0'
5EGOND f
N SCALE: I/8" = I' -C
1
� GARAGE
'rte
_
ASHALTIG SHINGLES
(SIMILAR IN
APPCARANGE TO
EXISTING ASBESTOS
TILE)
®STUC-
®
CEMENTATIOV5
/
CO
_
- HALL' TIMBERING
✓
WE5T ELEVATION
SCALE: V8" - 1'-0'
5EGOND f
N SCALE: I/8" = I' -C
1
� GARAGE
'rte
i - w
!1
r �
r'
i
tt} lry �• � } «•�1t ., its -._,,,_,_,_,_
if O ij Q iFFsF:!��k*.
�1t 6ARAeE
�i EXISTING
HCUSS
/ 3,6,
FLAN
FRED
O.M.SHA
i
/4 55r0' A L L�£ Y
_
• 1
', OR,cK ro
o Gawae6 n
'y
i gveq!s;:.;w__P.=,Yrrw•�.l�T."t',?;."T.'.�F�: s;54�.; M*;•"r�.+n�y: _ `n^•:> !"°'^. �
.ye 17.3' ,
t3'6' 1 to
� Z/2 -Stoat
a L3R1ck N�56 ro
M I
17.D 4Fy
•M
13Y d
60,01
W,4 Y. itiE- S
I'o TRE�"T
No. 12442
THIS 1►ARCEI IS HayT I* , tTATE
A DESIGNATED Floor.
HAZARD AREA MD svxr„
i�,�� z%
n.: y. <..x1y. n.t ...w.•,d #6 A— ,,y.N, ..� 1.1 iii., 16 64,
I.A ...d M.sal� ..u. A. yiA. li.n «I �►... ... .. .....«►...�. - �.j"W l..1 M...« No. $244! ';.�•
EDWIN VOSS LOT 142, W. 8A: SUNMEDE AM J"'
Regiitt,Dd Land Su.voyo. 12442 H30 East Wayne Streit
3220 NORTHSIDE BLVD. South Band, Indiana ; j•,�
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46615 Buyers: Stephen 8 Katherine Fre*dfi
DRAWN ■T P J. ( SCALE /" c 20' DATE May 2/, 19801 JON No- 5439
Reference To Governing Standards:
Restoration: Rehabilitation:
Page: 3
East Wayne Street Historic District
General. Definitions
Guidebook
(a) Preservation
Defined in these guidelines as the act or process of applying measures to maintain or restore the form, integrity and
materials of a building, structure or site in its existing or original condition. It can include stabilization work,
restoration or rehabilitation work, ongoing maintenance and/or prevention of demolition.
(b) Preservation Guidelines
An outline of requirements and recommendations which are used as guides in the determination of appropriateness
of proposed work within a
Historic District. The Historic t914 "W'
Preservation Commission has ,
established three sets of
guidelines - Restoration, .:.`
Rehabilitation, and
Conservation. One of these will — -"�-
_be selected for each Historic
�,.: -
District at the time of
implementation. This selection
will be based on the quality and
integrity of the architecture and — L
environment of the District, and — -
upon the goals of the =,, t; __-
neighborhood organization. The
preservation guidelines are _
defined as follows:
(bl) Restoration
Maintaining the original or unimpaired character of the District as it was at the time of construction. Any restoration
done must return the structure to its original state. Authenticity of a restoration would require the removal of
incompatible exterior elements and the replacement of all damaged or deteriorated elements with replicas of the
same design and materials. New construction shall conform to the guidelines for defined elements of preservation
regarding height, proportion, and building materials. A Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) applicant shall be
responsible for documenting the authenticity of the proposed work to the satisfaction of the commission.
(b2) Rehabilitation
Maintaining the existing character of the District, and whenever possible returning it to its original condition. Any
rehabilitation would not require the removal of all non -original materials but would encourage the removal of all
such materials which are jncompatible with the defined elements of preservation for the District. The design of new
construction or alteration would not require the duplication of of the original design and construction but should be
compatible with the existing structures and the District's defined elements of preservation. The use of original
materials or construction techniques would be encouraged, but contemporary methods and materials would be
acceptable when compatible.
(b3) Conservation
Maintaining a District in its existing condition by placing guidelines on new construction, and limiting demolition
and moving. The use of contemporary methods or materials would be acceptable if they are compatible with the
defined elements of preservation for the District.
page 34
East Wayne Street Historic District Guidebook
(e) Elements of Preservation
Defined as specific areas of preservation covered within the guidelines. The elements to be defined for each Historic
District, with the exception of those with Conservation guidelines, are as follows:
1. Environment
A. The District Environment
B. The Building Site & Landscaping
II. Existing Structures
A. Building Materials
B. Roofs and Roofing
C. Windows and Doors
D. Entrances Porches and Steps
III. New Construction _
A. Height and Proportion
B. Building Materials
IV. Safety and Code Requirements
A. Safety Code Planning
V General
(d) Guideline Components
Statements within the guidelines which specify the requirements and recommendations for the preservation of the
characteristic relationships of the various features which are of significance to the appearance of the Historic
District.
Shall is defined as an expression of something that is mandatory or must be done
Should is defined as an expression of obligation, something that ought to be done but that is open to compromise.
(e) Guideline Categories
Guidelines for the District will address each of the Elements of Preservation individually within four divisions of
classification. At the time of implementation of an Historic District, the commission will work with the respective
neighborhood association to select the desires category of placement of each of the Guideline Components. These
categories are as follows:
(el) Required
Defined as work which shall be done in a restoration or rehabilitation projecting order to restore or maintain the
original or existing character of the structure or site.
(e2) Recommended
Defined as work which should be done to help restore or maintain the original or existing character of the structure
or site. ?
(e3) Prohibited
Defined as work which shall not be permitted in a restoration or rehabilitation project because it may have a
negative impact on the original or existing character of the structure or site.
(e4) Not Recommended
Defined as work which should not be undertaken in a restoration or rehabilitation project because it may have a
negative impact on the original or existing character of the structure or site.
page 35
East Wayne Street Historic District Guidebook
EAST WAYNE STREET LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT
DISTRICT GUIDELINES
I. ENVIRONMENT
A. The District Environment
The district is characterized by its proximity to downtown South Bend. It encompasses several blocks of East
Wayne Street, North and South, from Eddy Street east to Greenlawn and the south side of Jefferson Boulevard from
Eddy Street east to Sunnyside Avenue. The district is bounded on the North by Jefferson Boulevard from Eddy
Street to Sunnyside Avenue and then by the North property lines of the Wayne Street properties to Greenlawn. The
south boundary is the southern right of way of the alley or the southern property lines of East Wayne Street, South.
Unique features of the neighborhood include the island of homes between East Wayne Street, North and East
Wayne Street, South; the parks at each end of the island; and the brick pillars at the entrance way (Eddy Street_) to
the subdivision with signage that reads "Whitcomb and Keller's Sunnvmede".
Definition - the term trees in
the following standards shall
be defined as follows:
shade trees - twelve
(12) inches in diameter
ornamental trees - four
(4) inches in diameter or
fifteen (15) feet in height.
evergreen trees - eight
(8) inches in diameter or
fifteen (15) feet in height*
Any removal or planting of
trees which are of the sizes
indicated above or larger
shall be reviewed by the
Historic Preservation
Commission.
Whitcomb & Keller's
*Definition of trees by David Bamcord, ASLA, Indiana Certified Landscape Architect, THE LANDSCAPE
DESIGN COMPANY, INC.
Required
Distinctive existing features such as brick entry pillars, parks, gardens, streetlights, fences signs, walkways, streets
and building setbacks shall be retained. Major landscaping items, fencing, walkways, streetlights, signs, and
benches shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood in size, scale, material, and color. Street
lighting illumination should be maintained at levels recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society. Light
sources must have spectral distribution in all color ranges. Older light fixtures and supporting posts must be similar
in proportion, scale, size, shape, style, and appearance to the existing historic lamps. Streetlights shall be placed so
that adequate illumination is afforded all sections of public sidewalks (refer to Appendix A).
page 37
East Wayne Street Historic District
Recommended
Guidebook
Whenever possible, the original features should be restored. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to
buildings, sidewalks or streets that are causing deterioration to those elements should be removed. As much
natural vegetation as possible should be preserved. If large shrubs become unsightly, to the point of detracting from
the historic character of the house or site, they should be cut back and allowed to rejuvenate. Dead and diseased
material should be selectively removed. Trees and major landscaping elements that must be removed for one reason
or another should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. When replacement of utility poles or power supply
lines is necessary, consideration should be given to underground conduits or utility poles erected along rear
property lines. The curb height should be high enough to maintain adequate drainage of the street. If older light
fixtures are taken down in the city, they should be reserved for use in the historic district. Light fixtures on top of
the brick pillars at the Eddy Street entryway should be replaced according to these standards.
Prohibited
Existing relationships of buildings and
their environments shall not be
destroyed through widening existing
streets, application of asphalt or other
bituminous coverings, or by
introducing new streets, or parking lots.
Signs, streetlights, benches, major
landscaping items, fencing, walkways,
and paving materials which are out of
scale or inappropriate to the
neighborhood may not be used. The
introduction of heavy trucks or similar
vehicles in the District shall be
prohibited.
Not Recommended
High intensity overhead streetlights
should not be used.
i! (;/imps'. oJ';h '1'/,n,,rcnu.l in /he ll'uurir
B. Building Site. Landscaping, & Accessories
Individual properties in the district are characterized by a house located in the center of a flat lawn, often divided
by a walk leading to the front entrance. Several of the residences are sited on two or more building lots; however,
the preponderance of the homes have been erected on a single lot. Most of the properties include a double garage,
usually located at the rear of the property; the majority of garages are accessed from straight driveways leading
from the main thoroughfare, while a few are accessed from the alley. There are also a few homes with a covered
carport located at the rear of the property as well as a few homes with circular driveways. Driveway and sidewalk
materials include concrete, asphalt, and brick. All of the properties have trees and most have trimmed shrubbery
and/or hedges. Most of the houses conform to a uniform setback line within each block.
page 38
East Wayne Street Historic District
Guidebook
Required
Major landscaping items, fencing, walkways, private yard lights, signs (house numbers) and benches which reflect
the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures such
as: gazebos, patio decks, fixed barbecue pits, swimming pools, tennis courts, green houses, new walls, fountains,
fixed garden furniture, trellises, and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site
and the neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way.
3Ma- VMm
o�y1
r
TYPICAL SITE PIAN
Recommended
New site work should be based upon actual
knowledge of the past appearance of the
property found in photographs, drawings
-and newspapers. New site work should be
appropriate to existing surrounding site
elements in scale, type and appearance.
Plant materials and trees in close proximity
to the building that are causing deterioration
to the building's historic fabric should be
removed. However, trees and plant
materials that must be removed should be
immediately replaced by suitable flora. All
high intensity security lights should be
approved by the Historic Preservation
Commission.
Prohibited
HOUSE No changes may be made to the appearance
of the site by removing major landscaping
items, trees, fencing, walkways,
outbuildings and other elements before
evaluating their importance to the
property's history and development. Front
yard areas shall not be transformed into
parking lots nor paved nor black -topped.
Front yard areas shall not be fenced and
fences shall not extend forward beyond the
setback line of the house. The installation
of unsightly devices such as television
reception dishes and solar collectors shall
I not be permitted in areas where they can be
viewed by the public thoroughfare.
page 39
Not Recommended
Telephone or utility poles with high
intensity overhead lights should not be
installed so that they can be seen from the
thoroughfare.
East Wayne Street Historic District
II. EXISTING STRUCTURES
Guidebook
A. Building Materials
Original exterior wall materials in the District include limestone, flagstone, stucco, clapboard, wood shingles,
sandstone and masonry block. In some instances, vinyl or aluminum siding have been applied over the original
surface.
Required
Original exterior building materials shall be retained. Deterioration of wood materials shall be prevented through
repair., cleaning, and painting. The existing or original architectural detail around windows, porches, doors, and
eaves should be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design and materials when deteriorated beyond repair.
Masonry including brick , limestone, flagstone sandstone and stucco shall be cleaned only when necessary to halt
deterioration or to remove stains and shall be done with a method acceptable for the preservation of the surface: i.e.
low pressure water and soft natural bristle brushes. When repairing stucco, stucco mixture compatible in
composition, color, and texture shall be used.
Recommended
Whenever possible, the original building materials should be restored. Metal or vinyl siding may be used when it
is the only alternative to maintaining or replacing the original surface material. When used over wood surfaces,
this siding should be the same size and style as the original wood. Every effort should be made to retain the original
trim around windows, doors, cornices, gables, eaves, and other architectural features. Ample ventilation must be
afforded the structure when metal or vinyl siding has been installed in order to prevent increased deterioration of
the structure from moisture and/or insects. Mortar joints should be repointed only when there is evidence of
moisture problems or when sufficient mortar is missing to allow water to stand in the mortar joint. Existing mortar
shalt- be duplicated in composition, color, texture, joint size, method of application, and joint profile. It is
emphasized that, prior to initiating any restoration or rehabilitation effort, the property owner should contact the
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County which is located in the County/City
Building of South Bend. The Commission is an invaluable source of information about all facets of rehabilitation
and restoration.
a. Typical wood frame wall where moist inside air
freely migrates to the oul,ide. Mouture may condense
in the wall cavity and be absorbed into the adjacent
_ — materials and evaporate a, the wall iv heated by the
S1111.
INTERIOR - EXTERIOR
warm. moist air 4 cold. dry air
dc wood siding
moisture
r? _-condensation
plaster
1 (` page 41
b. Typiral wall condition utith insulation and a vapor
barrier facing in (toutard the heated .vide of the wall).
The vapor barrier prevent, moisture mi{ralion, th t.v
keeping the iirvulation d► -r.
INTERIOR
warm. moist air
moisture
EXTERIOR
cold. dry air
1.4 insulation
vapor barrier
East Wayne Street Historic District
Prohibited
Wood siding shall not be resurfaced with new material which is
inappropriate or was unavailable when the building was constructed,
such as artificial stone, brick veneer, asbestos or asphalt shingles.
Sandblasting or the use of harsh detergents shall not be used on
masonry including brick, stucco, limestone, flagstone, and
sandstone. This method of cleaning erodes the surface material and
accelerates deterioration. Brick surfaces shall not be painted unless
they had been painted originally. Repointing shall not be done with
a mortar of high Portland cement content which can often create a
bond That is stronger than the building material. This can cause
deterioration as a result of the differing coefficient of expansion and
the differing porosity of the material and the mortar which can result
in serious damage to adjacent brick. Paint shall not be removed from
masonry surfaces indiscriminately.
Joints
Hot
l8ricks, expand)
Cold
(Bricks contract)
Normal
ed
too fun
A. flexible Mortar
(Lund
e, ,.. •..-..,� !!!
Mortar compresses
Mortar flexes
Wide feather:
B. Inflexible Mortar
(Cement)
edge susceptible �• -. —• ,.•
to spelling
. ".
{ ..
' �A
.. •`
joints
Slightly
recessed
Figure 6. Comparison of visual effect of fol! matter joints vs slightly
rectssrd joints. Filling joints too full hides flet actual joint thickness
and changes the character of the original brickwork.
Guidebook
Incorrect
Mortar not Cleaned out to a
sufficient uniform depth -
Edges of brick damaged by toaf
or grinder. Creates wider joint.
Correct
Mortar Cleaned out to a uni-
form depth—about I- deep.
Undamaged edges of brick.
Figure 4. Con,varis" of incorrect and correct Freparanon of mortar
joints for "cunning. onnaing: Robert C, Mack and Dmnd W. look.
Not Recommended
Waterproof or water repellent coatings or surface
consolidation treatments should not be used on masonry
surfaces unless required to solve a specific problem that has
been studied and identified. Coatings are frequently
unnecessary, expensive, and can accelerate deterioration of
the masonry. Mortar joints which do not need repointing
should not be repointed.
Hot
l8ricks, expand)
Cold
(Bricks contract)
Normal
A. flexible Mortar
(Lund
e, ,.. •..-..,� !!!
Mortar compresses
Mortar flexes
f
B. Inflexible Mortar
(Cement)
Spallfng Ciat:ks open up
Figwe �. Diagratnmvne sketches showing effects of w,,veran a change uvon masonry. Flenbh, mortar (A) expands and contracts with ternerrneurt
changn. Bricks bonded by n"Oesible mortar (B) tend to spall at the rages (the area of greatest strrsst in hot weather and separate from flit mortar
when it is cold. This latter condition ovens cracks. permnnng the entry of water and cawing additional deterioration. Adavred from Maintenance
of Old Buildings, Docummt DI0. National Swedish Institute for Building Research, Stockholm, 1975.
page 42
East Wayne Street Historic District
B. Roofs and Roofing
Guidebook
Roof shapes in the district encompass most of the various designs found in residential structures. Roofs are covered
with a variety of materials such as asphalt, asbestos, wood, and slate shingles, as well as clay tiles.. Residences in
most cases have wood fascias with gutters and downspouts. The facial of some vinyl or metal sided houses are
covered with the same material.
ROOF TYPES
Required _
The existing shape and materials of the roof shall be retained. All architectural features which give the roof its
essential character, such as dormer windows, cupolas, cornices, brackets, chimneys, cresting and weather vanes,
shall be retained
Recommended
Whenever possible, the original shape and
materials of the roof shall be restored. Particular
effort should be made to retain materials such as
slate, tile, and other unique materials not
commonly found in new construction. Roof
covering which is deteriorated beyond repair
should be replaced with new material that
matches as closely as possible the original in
composition, size, shape, color, and texture.
Gutters and downspouts are often a necessary
adjunct in order to prevent deterioration of the
structure.; they should be maintained whenever
possible or replaced with a style comparable and
suitable to the architectural period.
a
Figure 16. Attachments for repair and replacement of clay tiles include:
(a) copper tab, (b) stainless steel or other non -corrosive metal clip, slate
hook or "tingle,"and (c) nailing and wire nailing. Drawing: Karin Murr Link.
Prohibited
Nothing shall be done to Change the essential character of the roof as viewed from the thoroughfare by adding
architectural features, large unsightly fixtures, or by using materials inappropriate to the style of the house. The roof
shall not be stripped of architectural features important to its character.
Not Recommended
If metal or vinyl siding is added to a building, overhanging eaves, soffits, brackets, and gables should not be
covered or enclosed.
page 43
East Wayne Street Historic District
C. Windows and Doors
Window and door frames are of wood or
steel (some casements) or in the case of
brick structures, stone sills and brick lintels.
Where metal or vinyl siding has been
applied, window trim has been covered.
Storm windows are of wood or aluminum.
Casemeni windows adapted the English
y: tradition of using wrought iron casements
with leaded cames for residential use.
Rolled steel casements (either single, as
shown, or paired) were popular in the
1920s for cottage style residences and
Gothic style campus architecture. More
streamlined casements were popular in the
1930s for institutional and small industrial
buildings.
Recommended
Window Elevation
Guidebook
Head
Rlaung
top nU `����,, rabbal
Ptt,ty putMg bead
-Irwntin J�,
-tneeling railxeight.w --L7P1--
-pane. ght pock:t
parting bead
puny Jamb
interior stop
bottom rail
silll Mend. Proliks
Theo ase only three examples
kcenty.4 mptsniblr prniile.. hits..
tins can contribute substantially
window Sectiom tp window sigmlicance.
Required
Original windows and doors including sash,
lintels, sills, shutters, decorative glass,
pediments, hoods, and hardware shall be
retained or when deteriorated beyond repair,
replaced with units and trim resembling the
original.
Wood frame storm windows and doors painted to match the original, should be used but should not damage
existing frames. If new sash and doors are used, .the existing or original materials, design, and hardware should be _
used. When metal storm doors are used, they should be painted anodized or coated to match the existing. When
awnings are used they should be of canvas material.
page 44
Prohibited
3Maa•.ues.! tsteM1dn
Spe nR•mm.i pp rip in / pp„. brain pr
n-nlaa neat Iric4ondit
Original doors,
x,,,,) d sn mte.nl
ThewgmenmDWnR n.ppli.4 aver
the rip-rtds-e paimadt"e„nd
windows and
F `{T L r�)
W...1. eorsoswa This tYp. of [hip
""`diaini°ifind. [`"°"°`"'""°""
UZVR .Nr$P toR dieioa,
}
hardware shall not
n
APPt.iEp
be discarded when
H E'(7i:.AlCir
ACRYLIC 7AANEf
vf+,fstrtps Ettemlon vinyl%trim are scoredand Wdintoa"/^
tsmetunwan.Appketlaaheayeunemary
they can be restored
whkwdt inareau ma chickpea of the
h
O?pntf.m kmRttimmmpn-f
7 hatnnpmn
r,w,e fpr.—i....om.;M..temnl"I"`R
and re -used in place.
--'-----.--., -- JA++p—
.. '-
i is .aneratta applied . crit -ad- .net
ti -.a atm n. punnne.
New window and
'">H
efp,w tmm
door openings which
•� — - -
_ f'.. T.M tTTLmtoM1 cell npr eoma$ ea[fitt .nh
o whom rip a4h-we baekin;. ti .
afteinee fpr ndow$ .,th a R.p f
h-
would alter the scale
_ 1
+Md? appm=imrtelY and in —V I. moan.
H..ever.
(JV
� e !', � G J CJ`l
This type of +ve=thtnutpmpt
,rwneZ„ In ...d ln,nent np.aamen% pn
.iado.s in reepiu .the metal %xenon
and proportion of
p�
SAM„f OL1.7i ..
uWa[MStm,, should be clesne4 of all din and Rrens
the building should
_
.
prior to its application.
g
not be introduced.
star -god sytenrot, Thin vmy edeppve try” of wsaNmmptanR
'.vat— the appficnM"pf a ci... lead of
y,�
I i VT :. � J C tL.
=:IZfirm setttnR cauik on the onfnen.
Inappropriate new
-�
MM'Y —h. potyanafene bod beaker tape be
theORbl" $9t-”. the_dn"
" .f load unto he lean° -$nand takes th.
iwm pf m.,ao. rho $-h . $nap opanad
�pe?7,,,r and the tap. is removed I. -int [tae set
features such as
Ft 9 Two exam les o adding a second layer -lazing in order to im-
g p f g y f = �
Baulk -the vNth.nrnppinel
f
prove the thermal performance of historic steel windows. Scheme A
aluminum insulating
(showing jamb detail) is of a 10 " acrylic panel with a closed cell foam
Fg. 8 APPROPRIATE TYPES OF WEATHERSTRIPPINO
FOR METAL WINDOWS.
glass combinationsteriar
gasket attached with self -tapping stainless steel screws directly to the ex -
Weatherstripping it an important
Part oJapgradbir the thermal efficiency of historic steel windows.
The chart above shows the jamb section Of the window with the
that re wire removal
4
of the outwardly opening sash. Scheme B (showing jamb detail) is
of a glass panel in a magnetized frame affired directly to the interior of
weatherstrtppfngin place. Drawrngs: Sharon C. Pork -41A.
of the original
he historic steel sash. The choice of using glass or acrylic mounted on
Windows doors
the inside or outside will depend on the ability of the window to tolerate
and
additional weight, the location and size of the window, the cost, and the
shall not be installed,
long-term maintenance outlook. Drawing. Sharon C. Park, AIA.
Piot Recommended
tal, vinyl, or fiberglass awnings, hoods, and fake shutters that would detract from the existing character or
earance of the building should not be used.
page 44
F
East Wayne Street Historic District
M. New Construction
Guidebook
New construction includes any new buildings or structure constructed within the boundaries of the historic district,
or any new addition to existing building.New construction should be designed considering the appearance of the
other buildings in the neighborhood.
A. Height and Proportion
The majority of structures in the district are two
stories in high and are square, rectangular, or
irregular in plan. there are a few story and a half
residences. The prevalent facade proportions are
between a 1:1 and 1:2 height to width ratio.
Required
The height of a new structure and its height to.
width proportions shall be consistent with
adjacent buildings in the district. The building
height shall be no greater than that of the tallest
existing structure and no less than that of the
lowest existing structure of the same type in the
same block. Facade proportions shall be
established by by permitting no structure with a
facade wider or narrower than those existing in
the same block. Additions to existing buildings
shall be related in height and proportion to the
existing structure. -
Recommended
Contemporary designs should be compatible in
character and mood to the building or
neighborhood.
Prohibited
Additions that would add new height or change
the existing facade of a building and change its
scale and architectural character shall not be
constructed.
Not Recommended
New stories should not be added nor should
existing stories be removed which would destroy
important architectural details, features, and
spaces of the building.Any style or period of
architecture that is incompatible with the
existing should not be permitted in the new
Idditions.
Height—this is a
mandatory crite-
ria that new
buildings be can.
structed to a
height within 10 -
of the average
height of existing
adjacent build-
ings.
Proportion of
buildings' front
facades --the
relatonship
between the
width and height
of the front eleva-
thn of the build-
ing.
Proportion -of
openings within
the facade—the
relationship of
width to height: of
windows and
door.
Rhythm of solids
to voids in from
facode--rhythm
being on ordered
recurrent ahema.
tion of strong and
weak elements
Moving by an
individual build -
in& one experi.
ences a rhythm
of mosses to
openings.
page 46
IM
CLIO fffU
i
i
_r—ZI
I
1�(LLL4.v4.:1.��j(j�( T
l'.9W7 �� puaxT
l.Jlr' I I r
r
M&MV4M I
11/2 W! VTH
�t ti
tZtTfO rizaroKTtoN 1— 11/2
>t�rtlt1kltt � 1 t h 3 rt,Irh'�trtt4
'tiiiitt Htt�jti
KS -M M A • ► • 01. • I - 3
East Wayne Street Historic District
Atli 045ytrm is --TkUCrum
Guidebook
A CHANGE N HOW QR SETOACK
B. Building Materials in New Construction,
Wall materials in the district include: brick, stucco, half-timbering, stone, clapboard, shingle, and metal and vinyl
siding.
Required
Exterior materials used on a new structure shall be compatible in scale, texture, and color with adjacent structures.
Materials used on an addition to an existing structure shall relate to the existing or original materials of that
structure. As much of the original structure as possible shall be retained so that the addition could be removed
without damage to the basic structure and appearance of the building.
_ Recommended
Metal or vinyl siding may be used when it is the only feasible alternative. This siding should be compatible with
the original size and style and with the the materials of other buildings in the district.
Prohibited I
Inappropriate materials such as asbestos, asphalt, molded or artificial stone, or artificial brick shall not be used.
Not Recommended
Glass blocks should not be used. Concrete block should not be used for anything other than foundations.
C. New Sheds and Accessory Structures.
Accessory buildings are those structures that serve a specific subordinate function to the residence. These include
garages, carports, and storage sheds. All of the accessory buildings are located in the rear yard. Most of the garages
were designed in an architectural style related to the residence and were constructed at the same time as the
residences.
Required
Accessory buildings shall be located at the rear of the property and as unobtrusively as possible while preserving
historical relationships between the buildings, landscape features, and open spaces. Proportions and materials shall
conform to those required for new construction.
Recommended i
Accessory building designs should be compatible in character and mood to the residence and the neighborhood.
Prohibited
Prefabricated metal shed shall not be used.
Not Recommended
Prefabricated wood composition sheds should not be used unless they conform with all other standards.
page 47
tz
a
S
E
i
Recommendation:
Staff recommends this go to committee since there is much to review and this single application could
very well consume all of the meeting time.
Page: 4
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Application Number: 1999-0806
Property Location: 713 West LaSalle South Bend IN 46601
Property Owner: Naomi Cassifer
Landmark or District Designation: Local Historic Landmark
Rating: S-12 ' Key Number: none listed
Survey Number:, 141-55209-598
Statement of Significance & Historic Context
See attached survey sheet
9
Page: 1
A. HISTORIC NAME .__ Bernhard Neitzel
D. ADDRESS _713 IaSalle Street .Ji`
I21ATINGAkOuhtanding O StpniOcant/Notatrla(3 Cmtdbutb otsmnca allon-Contributing
STATE OF INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
S. COUNTY St. Joseph C. NUMBER 141-55209-598
E. TWP/CITY Portage/South Bend F. QUAD NAME
UTM REFERENCES 11,81 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lt I i i 1 1 1 IJ -+7_
a a• a a•
lip
• t i s. f
REVISED
1981
1. COMMON NAME - _
4. PROPERTY'S MAILING ADDRESS
S. LOCATION NOTES
2. OWNERSHIP - - ---- Public -AL Private
�4fl�VNS2KL^'�
_.dil lOt resi. tial slrea.
3. VISIBLE __X_. Yes ____ No
Y�]3._[e$a3t�.S.tlrt
_ __,jUst off canttnrcial Done ma y
Borth Pend,. IN o.A�lrie iia
-bold„gs-PE-,,4j_railar_propo tiM pear and
a iramd r•nrner
& USE PRESENT PAST
PRESENT PAST 7.ENDANGERED
& CATEGORY 9a. LOCAL LEGAL PROTECTIONS
Residence rX (X Miinary
❑ ❑ __ Vacant
— District — Historic District
Govt,/Pot 0 ❑ Entertainment
❑ ❑ Neglected
X._ Buddingls) — Landmark
Commerce 11 ❑ Scientific
❑ ❑ Encroachment
Structure — Deed Restriction
Induulial 1.3 ❑ Religious
❑ Other —
Site _ Other
Agncalh w Ft ❑ Park,
❑ ❑
Object
Trarrpmtanon 1.7 0 Museum
❑ ❑
Org.antmion C1 ❑ Educational
❑ ❑ 9b. SURVEYS
Cther. _ __
E) ❑ SR,_ NR NHL
HASQ HAER
10. CONDITION 11. BUILDING INTEGRITY
Ila. Specify Alterations
17. � � � SITE PLAN
-X-- Excellent $= _ Unaltered
Removals
r r Gl
_X __ Good __ _ Altered
Fair _____, Moved
Structural,..__,
1!
Deteriorated Date
Replacement
=
.__. Ruins
Additions
f�
12. DATE .1884 13. STYLE __Queen_Anne. _
14. ARCHITECT/BUILDER
u
15. DESCRIPTION2storeyresidence with attic;_irregularlap 1112 h with
_roof
front and side les back_hi _ ro ection close verges, closed soffit, decorated
_ -L_..� .P P__j—: ---tornice
- 1
plain. entablature; attic stogy
is turd shingles, 1st and 2nd storevs are
Facade Material clap,_oard___
18. E VIRONMEN'r
16. OUTBUILDINGS .----_----,_,_.
---
'1 ti s (4:14JI_(1+.1_
19. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Specify the significance for each area checked_ The twc) -t= teeif Anne 1bml lel orated at 7,ja_
Aboriginal ip{_ TaSalle wan M1ilt in 1884 byRarn�Ple aila South cart>Pnter. w. ATIACH
Arts Neitzel moved frcn 113 West South St. to occuov his new residence at what was NE'.ATIVE
Architecture EN ELOPE
_. Commerce then known simnly as Cobbs Grove on West Water Street. The residence is a geed HT E
Communications exatople of what a carpenter or builder could do with the pattern books of architectural styles
community Planning which were available to the public at that timei The clapboard siding and,wood shingles in the
. ._ Education
Engineering attic storey. together with the Palladian window (also located in the attic gable) and the porch
Environs/Neighborhoods details, Shaw how a variety of details could be colilined by the non-professional to form a visu-
__.__ Exploration/Settlement ally interesting yet livable dwelling. The Neitzels purchased the property in 1884 froin
.__. Humanities Christopher Kuppler for $5450. It renained in their family until 1960 when Bernard 11. and
Indian
_.... Landscape Architecture Shirley Neitzel sold the residence to Edith Wolff. .
Military 'Ilse current owners are Oscar & Kathryn Brookins.
.. _ Politics/Government
. -_. Religion
Science/Technology
._ .- Social/Ethninty
__- Transportation
Vernacular/Constniction
.. .. Other
I)escriptlan_CDAt,.'d: clap board,2nd stnrey has -mall- irtt— Is 1-1cau March• 7 fmnt rlrin s one side ail fl rsh,
.One-frDnt has plain Sil'xxl s4nolo I.—I one frfMt 2/4 glass non front rrntltilirrhtod cid,
truliipan_ edr• rine. front_C1,D�Ied pan ring)r+ glg_cc single hay wind mnIdori_entablature- one crua,i windcm wjtyjow ,wi+h
.fivials_on.side- front -hlohas trtladitnn ty wi nrirx- i» front _seecad Storey frrmt c&H-1- hao ril-blp hung tach with
P1ain_Aran a4_x.est are doable hung and fixed r sh windowtg.� sidesteps nit stone front steps' ono central l,rir•ir
.iiliMeY with stone Ca ;._,yeranda rune frrmt and one sidP,_..gmt4aeri wgpii,Lrlorie rnlrtmn --yid Rlat floor. plain aptahl-+,,-
sill flaps projecting hip cap with pendent brackets
20. INFORMATION SOURCES Deed-.ReecrAds--Bk-2Z_p-370;--M-72..p-W: Tri., en r t
q41;-SoUth_Bond ri...._,y_DirArt�.�rr
'I IURVEYOR_J ?�' a._r�31 ,_ t4L1v'Lt=Kgnri Ck_& Acrxx•.iates_ 22. DATE U.I, lF iniza
Proposed Change(s)
To add a second floor deck and stairway which will also provide a necessary fire exit
to the rear elevation of the structure.
Page: 2
I
Lot 5 & Vart of Lot b, t lirist.uptt�r
Kuppler's Subdivision
713 LaSalle Avenue West:. South Br
In.
Surveyor Location Report
z.6Llt
43.0'
40-1•
NOTE: Because of the proximity of the
tp noted improvements) to the property
line, a Boundary §urvey is recommended
to determine if it/they many constitute
an encroachment.
TIIE PRIMARY STRUCTURE -
SI TOWN ON THIS DRAWING
IS NOT IN A FLOOD
HAZARD AREA.
1 �
,ri xi
S.Q
S tory
Nouse
a
�o
x 'r •+- Il S • -► .
I22.3• � y x --
a P o r c%
' or uear ,,-17.4
d 1
flF'G3
aeS�YY VV O, � ; NO.
K �.�- x
x f. s S .0523 it
STATE. OF
WEST LA SALLE'..:A.VE r • otA�,•s�
This report was prepared with/WAW a copy of the Title Insurance Policy
•-•-•�••--- w.,-lilrtnr( therP.nn This drawing
Q
7'
I
Reference To Governing Standards:
Restoration: Rehabilitation:
Standards are supplied already to other Local Landmarl house for this meeting.
Page: 3
Recommendation:
Staff feels that this is in keeping with the standards and recomends approval.
Page: 4
Near Northwest
Neighborhood;
INCORPORATED &
August 13, 1999
TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
FROM: Rita M. Kopczyns , executive Director
re: 524 St. Joseph Street
When we last met, there was some discussion as to whether or not the cost of
rehab for the house at 524 St. Joseph Street was disproportionate to the value
of the house. When we first inspected the house, we felt the structural damage
was significant enough to warrant demolition. We have done further research
and have re -visited the specs in light of a structural inspection made by Paul
Fujawa Engineers, Inc. (Report attached)
This report was discussed by Paul Haydon, Tim Lorenc and Ned Green
construction managers for the Near Northwest Neighborhood Inc.,
Neighborhood Housing Inc, and the South Bend Heritage Foundation. It
should be noted that these men hold over fifty years of collective experience in
moving homes, carpentry, historic rehabilitation and the business aspects of
such work. Their work has been acceptable to other city agencies.
It is our conclusion that the cost of rehab ($115,225) vs. the value of the
structure ($43,500) is prohibitive for a home deemed "non-contributing" to the
St. Joseph Street Historic District. We ask you to please reconsider our
petition to demolish this structure and to grant permission to do so at your
next meeting on August 16.
Thank you for all of your thoughtful consideration for our project thus far. We
have begun our work and have had great interest from potential buyers. When
completed the effects of this project will effect the entire Riverbend area.
1005
PORTAGE AVE.
SOUTH BEND
INDIANA
46616
P.O. Box 1132
SOUTH BEND
INDIANA
46624
TEL 219-232-9182
FAX 219-232-1171
Aug ' l l 99 04:30p Paul Fuj awa En6 i neer s 2 19 _200 _4040 P.1
Tuesday, August 9,19Q9
Structural Inspection
524 North St Joseph Street
South Bend, IN
On August 5, 1999, I inspected the house at 524 North St. Joseph Street in South Bend and made the
following observations. Only items which were visible on this inspection trip can be addressed in this
report Additional hidden damage in a Structure is possible.
OBSERVATIONS:
1. The brick foundation around the front porch has significant settlement The brick near the middle of
the porch has settled 2%4". This settlement has been previously repaired by packing mortar in the
gaps Ie8 by the wttlemerrt. The deck of the porch had been rebuilt with a paired concrete slab. This
concrete slab has a crack and there is approximately I/4" of differential settlement at this crack
2 Some deterioration was noted in the plywood; soffit of the porch roof. It cannot be determined without
opening the soffit the extent of this deterioration.
3. Deterioration and settlement in the brick foundation wall at the northwest comer of the building was
noted The mortar joints have deteriorated and the bricks have loosened and settled
4. The foundation wall at the south side of the building has bowed outwards. Becmw the first floor joist
do not bear on this wall, the floor framing was not able to restrain the lateral movement of the wall.
The wood stud south wall of the house no longer bears proMly on this foundation wall.
S. Doorjambs aro uneven on the first floor near the middle of the house. The vertical differential
movement between the sides of these door jambs is approximately 1" ova a 30" width. The floor
framing under this location is visible in the basement. The floor joists in this 4ea rest on wood
beams which in turn bear on a brick chimney near the anter of the house. This chimney is plumb
but is settling straight down. Heng the Rood beams and woad floor joist are moving downward with
the chimney. See item 6.
6. The joists of the first floor are T/"xl'/," at 20" o c. These joists are in fair condition with some dry
rot evident These joists bear on the exterior brick foundation walls an interior brick foundation wall
and on several wood beams. Twu beams are triple 7i/i"x 1'/4", and ane beaus is a 6'x6". The triple
7V -A -x 1'/4" beams bear on interior foundation walls and an the middle chimney. No settlement is .
evident in the interior foundation walls. The chimney is plumb but is settling straight dawn as noted
in item 5. Because of this, the Brood beams and the floor join which bear an them are uneven.
ANALYSIS:
Items 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are all evidence of very bad sail conditions under this house. The settlement of
nearby housm does not appear as bad It is possible that poor soil woos removed from under the
neighboring houses; that the foundation of this house is shallower, or that this housc.is in a particularly
bad location. It is possible that this settlement will condrrue in the future. Farther imrmtigation of the soil
922 East Wayne / Suite 200 / South Bend, IN 46617 / (219) 288-4640
Aus 11 99 04:30p Paul Ful awa Ens i neers 213-200-4G40
by a soil engineer will define the type and possibly the depth of the soft sail, but will probably not yield an
inexpensive solution to repairing the foundations.
Item 2 indicates problems is the roof frXnwg Cf the porch. Wood framing to enclosed unheated spaces,
such as porch rods, arc particularly susceptible to rot and deterioration. The extern of this damage cannot
be determined without opening the stint.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The repaired porch foundation wall noted in item I may be left as is and repaired if further settlement
occurs. At present, the porch floor aid foundation is not a major -structural problem. The foundation walls
noted in items 3 and 4 must be rebuilt because the wood structure is no longer bearing properly on these
foundations. In order to prevent future settlement the poor soil under these foundations should be
removed and replaced. It is required that the bottom of the foundations be placed 3 foot below grade. I
recommend that the soil for approximately 3 foot below the bottom of the foundations be removed and be
replaced with granular soil compacted to 95% of its Standard Proctor maximum density. Soil borings and
analysis by a soil engineer may lessen the depth of soil which must be replaced.
The settlement of the floors due to the sinlang chimney noted in items S and 6 may be corrected as
follows. It would be difficult and expensive to replace the foundation under the chimney without
demolishing the chimney. One option is to allow the chimney to continue sealing and placing new beam
at both the east and west sides of the chimney at the first and second floors to support the floor joists
which currently bear an the chimney. These beams should be Wax 10 steel beams and should extend 5'-r
past the corners of the chimney to support joists which currently bear on beams which are supported by
the chimney. Holes should be cut in the floor and columns extended from the:r' floor beam to the 1"
floor beam, and from the 1" floor beam to a new foundation pads. These new fon pads should be
2'-0"x2'-0"xl2" concrete pads which set on a minimum of 3 foot of granular fill. This would
support the structure independently of the chmmey and allow further settling of the chimney. To
straighten the floors, the new beams need to be jacked under the floor joists. This will cause significant
cracking of interior walls and skewing of interior doorways and cabinets.
The porch roof noted in items 2 must be investigated and repaired to insure that it does not collapse. The
soffit of the porch must be opened to determine the extent of the deterioration. If the deterioration is
limited, the existing roof may be repaired. It is more likely that the entire porch roof will need w be
demolished and rebuilt
Yours,
Pau! Fujawa, P.E.
Paul Fujawa Engineers, Inc.
Enc: invoice
524 ST. JOSEPH
ETIMATED REHAB COSTS
ESTIMATED VALUE OF PROPERTY: $43,500
Adjacent properties at 520 St. Joseph, @ 1,872 sq. ft. appraised at $50;000;
512 St. Joseph, @ 1,250 sq. ft. appraised at $37,000. An estimated average of
the two (1,561 sq. ft.) vs. 524 St. Joseph @1,500 sq. ft. would place estimated
value at an average between the two or $43,500. Based on the current
condition of the house, this would be a generous price. (Appraised prices
attached.)
ESTIMATED REHAB OF PROPERTY: $115,225
Based on the Structural Inspection Report, to make needed improvements to
the foundation, it would have to be raised (which is approximately 1/2 of a house
move or $10,000), the foundation would be excavated and replaced, foundation
size increased to meet code (approximately $15,000).
Other work needed to be done to the house is outlined on the attached spec
sheet. Other than the foundation, there is much other damage: eg.the front
porch would have to be removed and restored to its historic condition. (See
attached specs from 512 St. Joseph, which was formerly given a certificate of
appropriateness as its porch is similar to the one at 524.)
Each facet of rehabilitation is major and beyond the scope of a "handy -man
special." Also note the standard contingency fee: the market for building
materials has fluctuated greatly in the past weeks, becoming higher.
Contingency fees meet these costs as well as those hidden costs that become
relevant in the course of a project.
1524�t. N. St Joseph
�.ocation I
(Roof
JChimney
I Facia/Soffit
ISiding
lWindows
I Dormers
IDoors
(Total Exterior I
Porch I
Back Porch I
(Side Door
I
(Side Walks
1-
(Grounds II
I
I Electrical
1PIumbing
-L'Alater Heater
eating System
/C
ITotal Utilities 1
1 1
(Basement
I
Main Stairs
I Basement Stairs
(Attic Insulation
IMain Bathroom
11/2 Bathroom
Kitchen
Dining Room
Living Room
Entryway
(Stairway 2nd FI
12ND F1 Hallway
(Bedroom 1
I Bedroom 2
18edroom 3
12nd Floor Landing
Total Interior
otal
112% Contingency)
I
(Grand Total
Costs
80001
I
10001
6001
24001
10001
20001
30001
6001
30001
N/A i
14001
500
600
3850
65501
35001
33501
39501
3900
2400
3380
3900
372801
1028801
123451
1
1152251
'EGHBORHOOD ROUSING SERVICES Of SOUTH BEND PAGE �.
lar Nortyhwest Neighborhood, INC 512 N. St. Joesph St.
WWU # 0000056 Dated 06/16/99 -Printed on 06/18/99 at 13:00 * EXHIBIT -1
Work Description QUAN UOM COS'
* PORCHES
.'.20.0475 [1] FORM AND POUR A NEW STEP
Form and pour a new 8" thick, 3,000 PSI, concrete step over
—compacted earth. Width to match width of existing step or
1211, whichever is greater. Use 6x6 #10 welded wire or
fibermesh'reinforcing. Step shall be same dimension and shape
has existing. SEE DRAWING "D" HAUL ALL DEBRIS FROM SITE.
;NOTE: HAUL ALL DEBRIS FROM SITE.
40.0750 (1] INSTALL NEW WOOD PORCH COLUMN
Install new wood porch columns on each outside corner of porch
on porch floor to hold up roof.and new columns on each side
of porch step on porch floor to hold up porch ceiling.
Columns should be 8" diameter at bottom and taper at top.
price:shall include square, wood bases and tops for each post.
Set posts on nylon pads for correct drainage. Nail or screw
.top plate into framing to secure post. Roof shall be jacked
minimum of 1/811, post installed and roof pressure securing
to. w.
i TE: THERE IS A TOTAL OF 4 POSTS
q .
40.0751 [1] INSTALL. DECORATIVE WOOD HANDRAILINGS
Mill new handrailing top and bottom rails to meet historic
style and standards or build up handrailing top and bottom
railings.to meet historic styles and stock. Install
`handrailings maximum height off of porch floor.
Handrailing shall be between corner posts and step posts and
corner posts and front wall. SEE DRAWING Ends of
handrailings shall be rounded to conform to porch contour or
post mortised out to accept handrailing. Install 1 1/4" x 1
1/4" square spindles on 3" centers. Prime with oil based
primer the ends of each spindle before installing. Install a
1" x 4" starter board on house for anchoring handrail ends on
house.
40.0752 (1] PAINT PORCH AREA
Prime with exterior primer porch floor and steps and porch
handrailings. Apply 1 coat of latex, exterior paint to porch
floor and step and all handrailings. owner shall select
colors.
Subtotal for PORCHES
ROOF *
... spec continued on next page ...
1.0 SF
1.0
E5C3; `) ".
VuClrA?/ ,un1;�_ 7-5,—?7
Customer(s) Date Contractor Dat
MEeIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES of SOUTH BEND PAGE 5
ighborhood Housing Services 1137 nissell St.
WWU # 0000035 Dated 12/18/98 Printed on 12/18/98 at 13:05 EXHIBIT -1
Work Description Q11'' UOM COST
* ROOF * ... continued
Subtotal for ROOF
* PORCHES *
45.0022 [1] CONSTRUCT NEW FRONT PORCH
Remove existing porch and components. Frame a 61 x 201 porch
floor using 211 x 819 wolminized lumber. Set support posts.3611
deep in concrete. Piers shall be no less then 81 apart. Wrap
exterior of outside piers with aluminum. Install aluminum over .r
apron. Install 5/4 x 6 deck flooring. Install 3 round 81
porch columns, Frame a hip roof. Roof -h;411 ntrerhFin- porch
floor perimeter. Rafters shall 'be 2" x ' stock. Apj.')iy 112
CDX plywood, 30# felt and, 20 year 3 -in -1 shingles to match
main roof. Wrap soffit and facia with vinyl. Apply vinyl
soffit to ceiling. Install vinyl handrailings attached to
columns. Construct a set of steps. Steps shall be 51 wide
with 1211 step and 6" rise. If stairs are over three steps
provide a decorative newel post and matching handrail on each
side of steps. Install vinyl lattice panels to bottom of
porch.
NOTE: PRICE TO INCLUDE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PORCH DECK AND
SEE DRAWING. is .0 SF
--
.~
APPRAISAL GROUP, INC.
922EAST JEFFERSON BL1DI,SOUTH BEND, UN48617 �
Fie No. 9F031435
JULY 30, 1999
^ ^
_ R[TAKDPCZYNGK
NEAR NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN.
10O7PORTAGE AVENUE
SOUTH BEND, |N 46616
File Number: 9F031436
In accordance with your request, I have personally inspected and appraised the real property at:
S12NORTH ST. JOSEPH STREET
SOUTH BEND, |N4GG1O
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the uuNaot proporty, as improved.
The property rights appraised are the fee simple interest in the site and improvements.
In my opin|on, the estimated market value of the property as of July 29, 1999 is:
$37,000
Thirty -Seven Thousand Dollars
'
The attached report contains the description, analysis and supportive data for the conclusions,
final estimate of value, descriptive photographs, limiting conditions and appropriate certifications.
SINCERELY,
922 EAST JEFFERSON *BLVD,.SOU /HBEND, |N46517
nwNn. gF0n143a
JULY 29, 1999
ATTN RITAKOPCZNGK ^
R[TAKOPCZYNSK3. ^
NEAR NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN.
1DO7PORTAGE AVENUE
_
SOUTH BEND, |N4G61G
File Number: 9F031438
DEAR MMKOPCZNGN|'
.
In accordance with your request, I have personally inspected and appraised the real property at:
520NORTH ST. JOSEPH STREET
SOUTH BEND, |N4OO1G
The purpose of this appraisal in to estimate the market value of the subject property, oo improved.
The property rights appraised are the fee simple interest in the site and i— �
mprovemons.
In my opinion, the estimated market value of the property as of July 29, 1990 is:
5\000
Fifty Thousand Dollars
The attached report contains the description, ano|yo|a and supportive data for the oonu|uo/ona.
--
final estimate of value, descriptive photographs, limiting conditions and appropriate certifications.
SINCERELY,
ELIZABETH J.THOMAS, iF.A.
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Application Number: 1999-0812
Property Location: 710 Cushing Street
Property Owner:-Je�ian e�7A��z. ,
Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark
Rating: S/11 Key Number:
Survey Number:
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
The original house was built circa 1896 for Philip H. and Lydia M. Woolman. It was
located on Lot 932 of the St. Joseph County Agricultural Society Addition, platted in 1871.
The Woolmans purchased the lot for $725.00 in March of 1896 and probably built the house
soon thereafter. Philip Woolman made his living as a masonry contractor. The Woolman's
resided there until 1904 when they sold the house to Margaret M. Gish for $3800.00. Ms. Gish
used the house as a rental until 1910 when she sold it to two brothers, Jacob and Louis Levy.
Louis Levy and his wife, Bessie, hired a popular local architect, Walter Schneider, to redesign
the residence. Mr. Schneider simplified the style of the house borrowing heavily from the
Prairie Style of architecture, effectively leaving the owners with a modernized and efficient
residence. Louis and Jacob Levy were co-owners of Levy Brothers, a wholesale grocery
business at 223 S. St. Joseph Street. The Levy brothers owned the house until 1942 when it
was sold to Marian P. and Dr. Francis A. Turfler. Dr. Turfler was an osteopathy, he received
his degree in 1932 from Kendallville College of Osteopathy. The Turflers resided here until the
late 1940s when the moved to the country and had the house remodeled into to two separate
apartments. In 1951 the house was sold to Horen Garabedian who moved into one apartment
with his mother, Eva, and rented the other. Mr. Garabedian worked for the Studebaker and
Studebaker -Packard Companies in the 1950s. He also served in the U.S. Army from 1942 until
he was discharged in 1945 as a disabled veteran. Horen Garabedian passed away in 1980 and
Eva passed away in 1982 leaving the house to Hazar Garabedian, Horen's brother. Hazar was
an employee of the Oliver Farm Equipment company. Upon his death the house was passed to
the current owner and another relative of the Garabedian family, John Oxian.
1
PROPOSED CHANGE(Sj
The Applicant wishes to install a six foot tall chain link security fence around the
backyard.
REFERENCE TO GOVERNING STANDARDS:
Restoration: Rehabilitation:
The Preservation Guidelines for Local Landmarks States:
Group `B" Standards
Building Site and Landscaping
1. Required
Structures such as gazebos, patio decks ... and other similar structures shall be compatible to the
historic character of the site and the neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a
public way.
2. Recommended
Fencing should be in character with the building style, materials and scale.
RECOMMENDATION
PENDING ... WILL HAVE FOR MONDAY.
OV I
PROPOSED LOCAL LANDMARK
14600 ADAMS ROAD
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
Historic Preservation Commission
of
South Bend and St. Joseph County
August 1999
14600 Adams Road - Harris Prairie Cemetery
c•aa - - couRrr z : x a rAroN rrR :) x. z r_s a, - c•a)
OJ..A.,
0100J6tOJJpGRo
' dpi O C
Y M11
,r=
� u-
ppap
AZ
.x ISI.P. ROAD �.P:I Mr,. n0
n I fl 1..J
S UL) DttYlS
�fi O e� �> IS
_I IIII����ff it
- ----- -= 0 2111! �1920D
o,
°!5 0102c�n z
m c 001021
001047E 5£ S ozq► c O M - O14a
022.
- T -- jMwr�rr o+o
i1NOW44 EIaT. C51 ��
V ,
u01
a a 01o.5a
j Ioro2J
01040
Z. 22 CLEVELAND O� 2;/j t)A[�w zlI2A RO•DJL_.._.__ 1! i 120Cl[vCl•x0 20 L2i I---- - 10.0 2•Aii
asl2a
o
01046 S € ! o
f
[[
f
!t zr ��xraA _ n•Ma rw_ ��
--mm—
.34
zeyza _� z OOufSLAS _ zfl)o __ RgAD Jq® Nuui! rrr z! ISA xe'2r
fi!). i� �rc4w-rte. - --j'- l ps -.. .-= _- ->cil� --'�.—. '�_s:•�--iifi`- �(-I r... —Wl - n�iiA
LOCATION MAP
14600 Adams Road
Historical Context
This property is located on the south side of Adams Road, four miles east of the Fir and
Clover intersection, in South Bend, Indiana. It is described as the Northwest Corner, the
Northeast Corner of Section 14-38-3E, having a total of 2.0 acres.
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
This property is a cemetery, which contains numerous historical headstones and
monuments.
1
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Historic Preservation Commission's Local Landmark Criteria's
adopted by the Common Council, the building at 14600 Adams Road has been
recommended to the Common Council for designation as a Local Landmark by Historic
Preservation Commission.
The site meets the criteria in at least three areas:
1. Its character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or culture of
the City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, the State 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 suitability for preservation.
The site fulfills criteria #1 as an excellent example of the development of the areas
heritage. A cemetery depicts the beginning of a settlement, shows its growth of wealth
through more elaborate headstones and vividly demonstrates how fragile life was during
the pioneer days.
The site fulfills criteria #2 as an excellent example of an early 1800s cemetery with
wonderful examples of masonry workmanship. The site is rated an S/11 on the
Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory.
The site fulfills criteria #3 by the integrity of its original structures with no
alterations. The site is an excellent example of an early 1800s pioneer cemetery.
Staff finds that the site meets the criteria for designation as a Local Landmark and
recommends that the Commission send such a recommendation to the Common Council.
8/24/99
A
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Monthly Meeting County Commissioner's
7:30 p.m. Conference Room
Monday, July 19, 1999 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 Oxian, Catherine Hostetler, Ron Zmylso, Adrian
Fine, Martha Choitz, Jerry Weiner and Joann Sporleder.
Commission staff present was: Ed Talley, director and Aladean DeRose, consul.
Also attending the meeting were: William Corbett, Pete DeKever, Rita Kopowski and Marco
Mariani
III. Public Hearing
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Applications
Mr. Oxian suspended the agenda so the Commission would first hear Certificates number two
through four, because of the length of application number one.
1. 1999-0708 - 962 Riverside Drive, Change roof on addition.
Mr. Talley presented the staff report and circulated photographs. He also noted that the owner,
William Corbett, was present. Mrs. Hostetler moved to approve the application as
recommended by staff. Mrs. Choitz seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian asked if the roof would
be raised three degrees. Mr. Corbett stated that the roof would be raised no higher then three
degrees because of a door. The motion passed unanimously.
2. 1999-0709 - 16581 Chandler Drive, stone wall, wood trellis porch.
Mr. Talley presented the staff report and circulated photographs. He also noted that the owner,
Pete DeKever, was present. Mr. DeKever stated that the stone he wanted to use for the wall is
as close as he could find to fieldstone. There was some discussion over the original stone wall
that used to be next to the house at its original sight and how the new wall will replicate it. Mr.
Zmylso asked if any of the original stones from the old wall were in existence. Mr. DeKever
stated that the wall, unfortunately, was destroyed when the house was moved and most of the
stones were shattered and buried in the process. There was some discussion over how the wall
would be erected and the difference between the original porch and the proposed porch. Mr.
Fine moved to approve the application with the addition that raised mortar joint be used to
accurately replicate the majority of the details of the original terrace.
Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian asked if the fact that the proposed terrace is not
the same as the original terrace should be noted in the motion. Mr. Fine moved to amend his
motion to include the fact that the proposed construction will not exactly match the original
terrace or wall. The new plan uses different materials, a smaller terrace and does not include
the original opening off of the main entrance.
Mrs. Hostetler seconded the amended motion. The motion passed unanimously.
3. 1999-0713 -701 Portage, Installation of a tornado siren.
Mr. Talley presented the staff report and circulated photographs. He also noted that the owners
were not present. Mr. Talley noted that the siren would be placed on a concrete pole in the tree
lawn area of the firehouse. Mrs. Choitz asked where in the tree lawn the siren would be located.
Mr. Talley reported that it would be located away from Portage Avenue, towards Lindsey
Street. Mr. Talley noted that the only stipulation with the installation of a siren is that it needs
to be next to a transformer. Mrs. Choitz asked how tall the pole would be. Mr. Talley stated
that the siren and pole would stand roughly sixty feet in height. Mr. Talley noted that the office
would like to recommend that at least one of the old sirens be donated to the Studebaker
Museum. There was more discussion over the exact location of the pole. Mrs. Sporleder asked
if placing the pole there would affect any trees. Mr. Talley stated that he was unaware as to
whether or not it would affect trees. Mr. Oxian stated that such concerns should be placed in
the motion. Mrs. Choitz moved to approve the application with the stipulation that it not affect
any trees. Mrs. Sporleder seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mrs.
Sporleder moved to have the old siren donated to the Studebaker Museum. Mrs. Choitz
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. 1999-0107 A -F - Near Northwest/Memorial Hospital property along N. St. Joseph
Mr. Talley reported that the Near Northwest Neighborhood Association and Memorial Hospital
have submitted applications for six houses, two of which are requesting demolition. The other
four applications outline extensive repair and maintenance requests. Mr. Oxian stated that there
are three major conflicts, the first is that the Commission only recently received the information
concerning these applications which is not enough time to study what is being requested. The
second conflict is that this topic did not receive enough advertising since it heavily affects an
entire district. Lastly, there are two applications before the Commission requesting demolition,
which is a topic that will need a lot of time for discussion. There was some discussion over
which houses are being proposed for demolition. Mr. Oxian noted that 508-510 N. St. Joseph
Street is in very bad shape and can understand why it is up for demolition. Mr. Oxian further
stated that it would be a good idea to approve the work on 612 N. St. Joseph Street as soon as
possible to allow work to start. Ms. Kopowski discussed the funding for the project and the
requirements that went with it. There was some more discussion over the houses up for
demolition and the condition of the rest of the houses. Mr. Fine asked if the applications were
sent to the Executive Committee can it meet soon to expedite the projects. Mr. Oxian stated
that the committee could meet within the next week.
0)
There was some more discussion over the fact that the Commissioners have not had enough
time to consider these projects. Mr. Oxian stated that the Commissioners should read the
preservation plan concerning demolition and go out into the field and see the structures, prior to
approving anything. Mrs. Sporleder asked if the Commission was being told it had to approve
all of the applications or none of them. Ms. Kopowski stated that there was an order in which
the houses have to be worked on, not, that they all have to be approved at the same time. Mr.
Talley noted that the application concerning 610 N. St. Joseph Street does not state anything
about demolishing the garage, however, it is listed in the work order. Mr. Fine asked for a
special meeting next week where the Commission can receive staff reports for each property
and they can be investigated thoroughly. Mr. Oxian moved to hold a special meeting of the
Commission on July 26, 1999 at 7:30pm. There was some discussion over notification issues.
Mr. Weiner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Oxian suspended the agenda and brought forth New Business.
III. New Business
A. 701 Pennsylvania Ave, Southeast Neighborhood Re -Development Project - Cease - Desist
Mr. Mariani presented the various projects and changes that were happening in the Southeast
Neighborhood, which encompasses the historic Wenger Farmhouse. He further noted that the
house is now located with in a new subdivision with newly platted lots. Mr. Mariani stated that
the garage belonging to 701 Pennsylvania Avenue is now located on a different lot. He also
stated that redevelopment would like to move the garage to the lot the house sits on, to
accommodate a new house on the vacant lot. There was some discussion over why the garage
was located on the second lot. There was a discussion over the sidewalk that was already
removed and the changes made to the lots that are in the Commissions jurisdiction. The
Commission discussed the procedures for amending the ordinance and how much land the
Commission should relinquish. Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve the moving of the garage to
the replatted lot 21 placed at a site to be determined by the Historic Preservation Commission
Director in cooperation with Re -development. Mr. Weiner seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously. Mrs. Sporleder made a motion to have commission staff and legal
redefine the legal description of the landmark so it comprises lot 21 of the replat by ordinance.
Mr. Fine seconded the motion.. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Marian asked about the
time frame before the vacant lot is released from landmark status. Mr. Talley said it would be
released as soon as it is sent to and approved by the City Council. There was some discussion
over the Certificates of Appropriateness Mr. Mariari still needed to submit regarding the items
already removed and any future projects as long as it is under landmark status.
K
Mr. Talley presented the issues concerning 982 Riverside Drive and 1636 Lincolnway West.
He noted that he has not heard anything from the owners of either properties in regards to their
violations. He further noted that the building department fouled up by giving the owner of 1636
Lincolnway West a permit for a sign with out a permit from the Commission. Mr. Talley stated
that he is proposing to change the preservation plan allowing the commission to order the owner
to remove any work that has been done without a permit. There was some discussion over the
difficulty the staff has had in getting the Building Department to cooperate with the
Commission. Mr. Oxian discussed the need for the Commission to have its own inspector.
IV. Regular Business
A. Approval of Minutes
None.
B. Treasurer's Report
Mr. Oxian stated that there was a report in everyone's packet. Mr. Talley asked if everyone was
able to read the print outs. He went on to notify the Commissioners that effective January 1,
2000 the Historic Preservation Commission will become an official department which means
the office will have to issue a yearly budget.
C. Correspondence
None.
D. Committee Reports
Nothing to report
E. Staff Reports
Nothing to report
V. Old Business
None
VI. Hearing of Visitors
None
VII. Announcements and Miscellaneous Matters
None.
VIII. Adjournment
Mr. Oxian adjourned the meeting.
LI
Passed by the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County, Indiana,
this day of '1999.
M
President
Historic Preservation Commission
of South Bend and St. Joseph
County, Indiana.
ATTEST: 4w
Secretary V
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Monthly Meeting County Commissioner's
7:30 p.m. Conference Room
Monday, July 26, 1999 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 Oxian, Catherine Hostetler, Ron Zmylso, Adrian
Fine, Martha Choitz, Jerry Weiner, Kari Gallagher and Joann Sporleder.
Commission staff present was: Ed Talley, director and Aladean DeRose, consul.
Also attending the meeting were: Rita Kopczynski, Eryn Enns, Betty Nissley and H. Nissley.
III. Public Hearing
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Applications
1. 1999-0701 A - 610 N. St. Joseph
Mr. Talley presented the staff report and circulated photographs. There was some discussion
over the safety issue concerning placing new roof decking over existing decking. Ms.
Gallagher asked what the cost would be to renovate the garage instead of demolishing it. Ms.
Kopczynski stated that she did not have any figures regarding the garage, she only knows that it
was in really bad shape. She further noted that there is parking available to the rear of the house
and that by removing the garage the house would gain a small yard which it currently does not
have. There was some discussion over the heating elements located in the garage. There was
more discussion over landscaping that may be affected by the proposed work. Mr. Oxian stated
that since a landscape plan has not been submitted then the issue should be dropped until such a
plan is submitted. Mr. Fine asked if the garage is removed would the driveway be removed
also. Ms. Kopczynski stated that removal of all or part of the drive is a possibility depending on
the desires of potential owners. There was some discussion over a fence located to the rear of
the property. Mr. Oxian stated that if the Commission votes to demolish any structure it has be
down according to the demolition guidelines. Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve the application
as submitted and as recommended by staff with the understanding that the garage is being
demolished based on the fact that it has been badly damaged by termites, needs to be rebuilt
from ground up, thus, making it economically unfeasible to repair. Ms. Gallagher seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
1
2. 1999-0701 B - 612 N. St. Joseph
Mr. Talley presented the staff report and circulated photographs. There was some discussion
over what was meant in item seven concerning landscaping. Ms. Kopczynski stated that the
only landscaping being proposed is the reseeding of the lawn. Mr. Talley stated that the word
landscaping would be erased from item seven on page two of the staff report. Mr. Fine stated
that Todd Ziger has one of the terra cotta emblems from the front porch and would be happy to
return it so it can be placed in new porch. Mr. Talley noted that there are pictures of the house
prior to the move that can be used as a reference for building the new porch. Mr. Weiner
moved to approve the application with reference to staffs recommendations and the deletion of
the words "and landscape" from item number seven. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
3. 1999-0701 C - 51 N. St. Joseph
Mr. Talley presented the staff report and circulated photographs. Mrs. Hostetler moved to
approve the application as recommended by staff. Ms. Kopczynski stated that upon
investigation of the rear yard of this property rubble was discovered where a garage had
previously been. She went on to ask if a future owner wished to remove this rubble would they
have to get a permit from the Commission. Mr. Talley asked if Ms. Kopczynski was referring
to a cement pad. Ms. Kopczynski stated that it was the remains of a cement pad. Mr. Talley
stated that a permit would not be needed to remove the rubble. There was some discussion over
the how the front porch should be restored. Mr. Talley noted that on page two of the staff report
under item number one it should read that the ..."simple balustrades be two -by -two -inches
squared and spaced".... Mr. Zmyslo asked if the new gutters would be hung with straps and if
those straps would be placed under the shingles. Mr. Talley stated that the new gutter straps
would be placed under the shingles. Mr. Oxian asked if the rear fence would be restored. Ms.
Kopczynski stated that it would be repaired if doing so was cost effective, otherwise it would
simply be removed. Mr. Weiner seconded the motion. The motion passed with Ms. Gallagher
abstaining because of her husbands position with Memorial Hospital.
4. 1999-0701 D - 520 N. St. Joseph
Mr. Talley presented the staff report and circulated photographs. Mr. Oxian asked why spindles
were being suggested for the front porch when they should be squares. Mr. Talley noted that on
page two of the staff report, under item number three it will read ..."along with handrails having
two-inch square balusters on unspecified centers". Ms. Kopczynski stated that they were
planning on removing the satellite dish located in the front yard. Mr. Oxian asked who the
owner of the garage located at the rear of the property is. Ms. Kopczynski stated that the garage
belongs to the house, however, there are now plans to do anything with it. Mr. Oxian further
stated that the trees located at the rear of the house should be removed because of the damage
they are doing to the houses foundation. Mr. Talley asked if the Commission was
recommending the removal of the rear Catalpa Trees. Mr. Oxian stated that this
recommendation was based on the damage being caused to the house.
2
Mr. Zmyslo asked what porch item number fourteen was referring to. Ms. Kopczynski stated
that item fourteen and item three were both made in reference to the front porch. Mr. Talley
stated that item number thirteen on page two of the staff report will be stricken from the report
and items number three and fourteen will be joined together. Mr. Talley went on to state that
the staff recommendation will be amended to suggest approval of items one through twelve
with the addition of the removal of the rear yard Catalpa trees. Mr. Weiner moved to approve
the application as recommended by staff with the addition that item thirteen be struck, item
fourteen be joined with item three and the recommendation of the removal of the rear yard
Catalpa trees. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion passed with Ms. Gallagher
abstaining do to her husbands position with Memorial Hospital.
5. 1999-0701 E - 524 N. St. Joseph, demolition.
Mr. Talley presented the staff report and circulated photographs. Mr. Oxian asked if Mr. Talley
had been in the basement of this house. Mr. Talley stated that he has not been inside the house.
There was some discussion over the lack of solid supports for the house. Mr. Oxian noted that
the interior walls of the basement are not deteriorated and therefore are not the reason behind
the presence of the support jacks. Mrs. Sporleder stated that she feels the house has some
severe structural problems. She further noted that the floor joists are rotting causing the floors
to bow. She also noted that she did not see any obvious indication of termites or water damage
that may have caused the deterioration. Mrs. Sporleder reported that the over all house did not
seem to be in real bad shape, the major problems were with the foundation and floor joists. She
went on to state that in order to repair the foundation the house would have to be lifted off of it.
There was some discussion over the foundation and the support beams. Mr. Oxian stated that to
jack up a house is fairly reasonably priced if all the beams are strong enough to handle the load.
Ms. Kopczynski stated that fixing the foundation was not economically feasible. She further
noted that even if they did fix the foundation they still could not afford to rehabilitate the rest of
the house, doing so would double the already predicted lose the association will take on these
projects. Ms. Kopczynski stated that there was a possibility that if this house was demolished
they would market the lot with the house next door, in essence giving it a backyard. Mr. Oxian
stated that by removing the house and creating a yard would alter the neighborhoods
environment. . Mr. Oxian further stated that demolishing the house to improve the chances of
selling the house next door does not, by the standards, justify the demolition. Mrs. Choitz
showed concern that no one would want to move a house onto the sight because of its location
and the fact that there is already a house located only a few feet off of the rear of the existing
house. She further noted that she would be in favor of demolishing the house if the rear house
could be brought forward to keep the streetscape uniform. Mr. Oxian stated that the lot was too
small to move a new house onto its location. He went on to state that if the demolition is to be
justified all the reasons for the demolition would have to be stated. Mr. Zmyslo stated that the
main issues should be the economical feasibility of rehabilitating the house and the impact its
demolition would have on the neighborhood.
K3
Mrs. Choitz noted that no matter how you argue the issue the house can be saved. Mrs.
Sporleder moved that the Commission suspend the discussion of 524 N. St. Joseph Street until
after the demolition request regarding 508\510 N. St. Joseph Street has been debated. Mrs.
Choitz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
6. 1999-0701 F - 508\510 N. St. Joseph, demolition
Mr. Talley presented the staff report and circulated photographs. Mrs. Hostetler moved to
approve the application as recommended by staff based on the fact that the house is so
deteriorated that rehabilitation is uneconomical and impractical and leaves no inexpensive
alternative to save the house. Mrs. Sporleder seconded the motion. Mrs. Sporleder stated that
the front porch is badly deteriorated, the house has a very serious foundation problem and that
there is enormous amount of dry rot in the siding and sills. The motion passed unanimously.
The Commission returned its discussion to application 1999-0701 E, 524 N. St. Joseph Street.
Mrs. Choitz moved to approve demolition of the structure based on the facts that it is not
economically feasible to rehabilitate and that the foundation of the house is badly deteriorated.
There was some more discussion over what the standards required for demolition. Mrs.
Sporleder seconded the motion. The motion was denied with Mrs. Sporleder, Mrs. Hostetler
and Mr. Weiner voting in favor of the motion, Mrs. Choitz, Mr. Zmyslo and Mr. Fine voting
against the motion and Mr. Oxian and Ms. Gallagher abstaining. Mr. Oxian asked if anyone
had an alternative suggestion for this property. Mrs. Choitz stated that it maybe possible to
have someone else look at the house to see if a private citizen or another organization may be
able to save it. Mr. Fine stated that the house should be rated higher then it is because of its
architectural character. He went on to note that he felt each house should be looked at
separately and that this house deserves to have other options explored. Mr. Zmyslo agreed that
the house was in stable enough condition to deny the demolition request. Ms. Kopczynski
stated that no organization would place that much money into this house. She further noted that
even if the Near Northwest Neighborhood Association placed the house on the market as it
stands it would not sell. There was some discussion over the fact that the house would not
remain in stable condition for much longer, leaving very little time to find a buyer for it. Ms.
Kopczynski asked if the windows and doors could be boarded up for security reasons. The
Commission agreed that boarding the windows and doors would be fine. Mr. Zmyslo stated
that the owner of the property would be responsible for maintaining the current condition of the
house. Mr. Oxian interjected, stating that the Commission has enforceable maintenance
standards that require the owner of an historic property to secure and maintain the house. Mrs.
Sporleder stated that this issue is not about just saving a house, it is about saving a
neighborhood, which is worth the cost of a couple of houses. Mrs. Sporleder asked if there
were specific numbers available concerning the cost of rehabilitating the house. Ms.
Kopczynski stated that she did not have any estimates put together.
2
III. Adjournment
Mrs. Hostetler moved to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Choitz seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
Passed by the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County, Indiana,
this day of '1999.
President
Historic Preservation Commission
of South Bend and St. Joseph
County, Indiana.
ATTEST:. ( 1
SecretaryV
�1
South Bend and St. Joseph County
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
227 WEST JEFFERSON BLVD. RM 1123
SOUTH BEND, IN 46601
Phone: 219-235-9798 Fax: 219-235-9578
E -Mail: historic@,rnichiana.org
John Oxian, President A Certified Local Government J. Edward Talley, Director
MEMORANDUM
To: All Commission Members
From: Commission Staff
Re: IUSB Fest 99'
Ude:-August 19, 1999
The Historic Preservation Commission Staff has decided to participate in the IUSB Fest 99'
Volunteer Expo on September 25, 1999. This festival is to be held at IUSB from 11:00am to
dark, specifically the volunteer expo runs from noon to four. The Commission will set up a
booth providing information to the community about our governmental body while trying to
recruit interns from the various colleges that will be in attendance. The expo requires at least
two members of a participating organization be present. Ed and myself are planning on
attending and welcome any commission member who wishes to help. Please contact the staff
if you would like to attend.
Saving The History Of South Bend & St. Joseph County By Protecting The Irreplaceable
COMMISSIONERS
Martha Choitz Richard Helmus Jerry Weiner
Adrian Fine (Secretary) Catherine Hostetler (Vice -President) Ron Zmyslo (Treasurer)
Kari Gallagher Joann Sporleder (Historic Architect) Aladean DeRose (Attorney)
: ;',1
t /'w
• , ,'
"✓ .
r.'� ,+
{'�
r, -
i
:r
k: <'
::.•
J) �
�.! .
>,
ri'.
', y F'i
'iyT R'•a
:F 4
t
1" , , .. �-
Tr -
I_'- ,. _ ..,. ',
i'`
a
_ }3�
;i ! >
t'.
rt „
S'
i ,,',
i' w •,r++', iii
,T
_ iyA -
'-r
i ij•- . :::tV.
i ti S :;;1'>
1.
t
�Y,. � 4Yv v.:.
5,
r.Ji
-:T.'r..
t: )
:Z,'y
t: �.
'i ,
:'n�i. �T._'.'! :"� ice;. �
,:, ,. •.,- 'fir
,5
A •-t rpt'
_
,i.
•'tom:,:::',,..,.`.'. •�-
,.a. c
:'�' M1 :T'
y..
i. �
1 -,,
f:. , ,
-.r � 1-S>:
_ :;)moi' �.'� _
r� e
at,
rtyx,:
:.
%tt
-4I,. ,:J.
>. Y',
'M1 r ti' !'1 u
fi.'t „4 F
i't'• !
df.tri.:::'r: � F':,'
1; � �;a. S Y ^ ,a; �
r
:;'1.;`;' r -;:ice ,rt.q,..
k :i:
:,,
:1
j ,
,T
- ;d `a
a'l' • ='. 'Y der
' S:' � ''i ^i' r '
¢i u
= £ ,r,fp,, t,
"x
l-
!t)
5 .e'
:f.
..
^1
7
:,4
itis. _ `1. `
J
�1 :t
:i .
_ ri ".
y.,
- ,k
0
fD
_ z `�
F�. ::i:y�St'
:'y< a'�'ga�i
y i
{� s. :C
fes!' :7' .:�Y•l, 4 .:Y'a.
4 ,x.
�t + ::1'
G
�: W� fir.' @ �-.L-„:t.
K.n,
a::. Y:
r�. {Yy
:,z '
.,..f, .'s}.
r-'^
L
.f
,.j,: .t
)T.
- r's'rT "..
�t
2.
�t t
O '(p:
t rra
s . i;,
' r"t- Vit,: ,t, ,.. ;}:
a 7., -
t k 3•,
.«
i'
7 "I ..N� r.5"
/.
1' 4` I I
F.�T`v\^: `.1. .+*---+moi/';: ?. - li
]A, � � Y�> l y�t ::
V.
t
:Qj :.f
!•-. o-
Y• . i r
A
,
L %. / : _
)S ;r
'!`� rti'
i 3.
�:
r
�. j
.,
,x
:.5 } .
s-
=tom: ,
_ • is - � "�:`-'., : .�:. ;4..
;'r : co �'t
I Tt�
d • I'-°♦
+As '' L,
■tom .�'',�
V,^r
N;:
Y ',S '•r
��:+{ •.fit• •-'4. ,
�: rr
v7 .
. r5i � „.�'i''1
w r
'f"a i:5:.
47:- .
T. : t;,
T iii - t , f,,.
^y :'1
�.+, .^, " i.. µ'•Vi ^a.
! t: " ". -tidif
;;
K. �.
s
- 4 i+s•
ai -1 Q., "S'r
� r'
"!. Lir,.': 'Y!
if
? :-' y'�
:iY� uy .�Cn' 'I-r�
:C r�
5,1 ; F
�, .
,,.y:,. ,:, - .n ..ti 1..r .P. .5
.:.......: w'^',:, .. .., ..., ., ,a0'.` a t?
,
t S
^ 1 *. a.;
t ^ y r� ",
':! " .\
Y• V'1 f
Z i,
e.j ;�:: r:tr -A.r -
J� t•:
d lri �: h: •
yc :. Y.
s-
s- SU.
4: t^ : t: ^ r •1+s.
�"
i
`A � '1 i> j � i
"i' a p{ ' is -n•
ii ?`f+... it -1:,;
`:':'
`!' V I' .t
p r
` 6 y•�'%�'� k c'.
=� .' L. z.
}' y 4 •
a
T.
-i >qa 11 �,...
"� . s N.
•.{74 ':i1 �P. .,:3, :':,c` a �i•;;' "' J,`%°'
xa
Vie, Q -
3 Y� - fie- .t R.
^r� 'n' 1,• tom_
r•■i�.; ,
:f, �
i
/� >ti':i i {-�� -,��
} h: :"P 'r - j`,; 1,'F 4a `:.:%::, Ti1,- r�%%'iN '.1: .*'"'
.t�� :'f�'t'it .fy ♦+c..- sl^, ">',. N:a 1..:''.ui:i';"4;'•
::J
!.i • . r . r-::. d . 4
nt+
O` -s. n
i�
d
a C•
- ?• i
:C'�::•C
k. .
(! i; S. t:
i
�-
.:f`: a :` 'jr..:.'.
S, i c,^,
4 �..
f�:f-.
lY. .. -
`t � Sr " ?
(/J 3,y:
'. -
if
• A.• _ l : a
i
-
,
r� '' jK;i
4 y.:
:.
__ i
:r re°.
in ,af ~'il.
" ;i. .ao-;: .r.
�%: '' , t
�.
h
iii, `a fi:'�.
•5 �ff 4
..r"V p1, .��
f
.4:'Y
3 r �1.
1 �. i'
Y
A'
3 fY' -
t
raj':
�♦ }•
),^ (/\J �:j.. S'�, "•.,yam
;'
.I . C . 5' • 'L..
;�:+Y+
mm t'r
,fL
�Ya `'.r. n.
;Ti j:r
!� 15;1
3; /�+= t },��
t' � :;
�
C- i`r
`pa;r' ♦
i':.- .'.ire.
_ 1 t.
.r
r'
_
-- .. ...`. - � :.. - ..; .::,.q.,.Y ..,' div`,' >:'."'
-45 `5�}.
,
ID d
:i,
;1 t
iJ!r .:2 ' I
i.{': Y'
,f z.
,:tin
�% - a v
'O',. r:
e` is
f r' 4'' ..
ii_
::{.: �'r/'- -%: >,;' '(A% ur :.3. '7:.-' •!# ::if1 .C.-. _ i:`r.
- m. '. �' ry,:'S. :5.., .
:'� : :} : t "a' F
�'t
-3 �1 )
a r, ,.
.tet ,.. - ,. :.. t. t'i'� ,'a', fA� ;v` 'i:. -.-u cts
:v.
�/� 'i .:': '? (
' ;.,. 9:. ._ Ani •"�i3'"
i' .yF` n
,t L _
a 'a 3• i..
\ , .1''
5`. :r::.
.Y:
a, fD' ..i,. ,A,
.:s+'
co =
iIti'
3'a.
. ,'. - . 4 . S4 .
.T'.'.,j
4 `,'` :rr": .t tr
.r' « .�•, , rlr.
sa
t n!'
v r', �_' _ 'SC
rr 'l
{,
`e �'i r� r .i..
• 5D.' ar;
+-yx
rx<
:.,..
;, r:.
� , ({L'y , r
`�„�;' , `:ter+
.O r Via,! ':5 :^
r5.. '`" �• �di..
rn
^�,�l ,'� x •i 'iT l
,li ^�`� r
trt
L ••4
y _ ,'�+*:
- :":Sr'r Int nf`
".�
`S- i1
i
!7 ir'•' S
x t -
:T
t'' '
- e,
Al ' k .r•�vr `'
� .f � r•"• d . ��r': ter-' Y i
f• 'f
iii'.. � .'t. Y', . i
•l.
j `'7 r. 1. y!....
: -5„ , 3
/W.',
"'C {y l
`v w!�:r
s:r "; 3. t
.�}. o ..5. ,fit.
M u t ::} ,.rt
yam, , O r ¢ t�'rr
q A
"'saw,''
•i t`• =•1 �dan' [ Y
O't !C w.r, .P.
i. "�,
•a ^.1't r
rn d _.v w.i�r`.. .
�.
s'
P" ,'- r,
vY"
�.
�{ �'7
i} t
�'u
t - :'t;,' i ,:'r , ate
a • , .t Y': ::�I � '
'te `� , i "�' ... - �%fir',:'::', `'mi.ra`Ji
^.�° L'.'. ai..
: 4
y
j, !
,:,� tom.. '��V ,1:
• .a
,
,
,
;
i
A
N'
4..
C.'
?'.
.1.. ••t ,'J.• •.r ri moi';
aO:
0.., a i t
�'^^!� tet+ ,., ^
1 = t... 3
t t 'n 1
':L. r:: 'S� T'.
i 1' i
'ply; :;�:.. ^•�-
r,
Y
3 w �rY
t %a.
�J
L "r
A •:., . Y
''zr
:i
.. .. , .Y .. .. , . , . , .. . , it'r d:'rte F k, ^ {".
,fr S. 5 i S, f, x ,Y nr 4 _ ,•1: ..i�"i=:` i; ~:''n:` al,+ f»:,�.
'... p r (Dr is "" .
i' ;
i'
,i3 , 5 T".;.,�;.
}
i'y 7
3 tH _
.,.� ! c
/A ••'s f
.. fin: ..,fD' ,.Y,., _r a• •Iv
AA 'Y
i11'
pi
f
�/� .� ..t', R. v.;
5 7 .r'L, :YfS
v.
r •1+
",
is
r. r y .
,
,s ,r:, ,3r•:. + .: ,4.., ". 4 : ., ^..i: r'i' G°.. �. .....-ri"' "•: 11 .F>,'�'• f: �At .S• '.�..:5:
.t. Y t. r„ O •a _ ''f` Yi':� P. ,,,i5.
=• �1'I;
.,;t' :[' .t ,}._� .rn' ,.yrt , ,�.,�_ ,},,` ''1'- `i: ,\:: .5 t•'r.:{ a •y, r .5 _ "F, :i^ ,,:Y ..} k
TT :n 1, .,r"; :A .R, .ii.^.•,'
"G.. ;^`
/+� ter,
tiiti4�
1 %i
t., w-
` a+
�,i c 4 ' �.,�:.y�
r,.
�,.�.rf ;r -
:.,
�/�■
>,1
rh
y-
1
•°•
Sri'.: ,
1`
S'
wit" t''!. '
:..) : it i,. i
s:
=,
x�t: rrr:' ,t :i'�':+, ff
2i
'�'' _
i :t
..rt.
r:
i '. • :..t
�h. • 1r'
�;• l
,:y A,
`I
'il:
(A S r"�
i:`
3'.
sr
4' - r
f i "'
:a
Z:i', .
'f il.'':r :•Y•
Y S' t
m
y ,.
s-
�.}
;; ,, y.
!' nr' ,i ')
:F
'.i � ]ter ,�n:::t •:,. •k.
P, . .
,c; y
y.
•!wa •t
ni.rFf:
$`,- -
,5
tl :r i'f
.X,, )
:s •r
f•
^:
i,, ,;' .
Y.
%� .5' rrr'
i, ,{'.',i.' .r'
�r .G 4.' ''.ei ' , nir�_
2v
�A^
i.
i•'�•aY'
'r:
';.
,f'J
e: y
o'
N[. ik .
',a
r'
,r,
a�
r i �
C
.►
O w{, 4
t,ri; ,
-"ir .�
r, O
?:•
�7�' _
a.. t...`^`,` 1 x
c :.
•1•�
h
y
• r
>.. ) w 1. .: ..,w .., f. -:,n ) ..,fC - ..iy7vi 4' rTs' _
..: 5 i,.a. O .'�. - _r=91=s'1' C'r:Cl.• ,t:.' -
', : O
'"i --•A 4'tlii;,' - R,2-i.F nT<:,a'`t'1 i,t�::iLS,X
u a i'x
"v '
`IY) 33
(( a F..,,4. :r y,
■r� i x'41 ^� ,I^ "f.. �...
`:�: ilii -.5^, '��t'-`� i:f' ,1,'.'
r<;'• A'
.'h' '..J,'i,'-. - .tip .:_.. ::i�' . �,
- � i �t
V'. 'nY • ' i ''.i, i '.
y.
0;.,
. 1. ;,.. <:. ti� ,•'.'} is :. - ';., ',"i-' �'h .5 ^t "�.; �'.T':? }�•'•' �r3- .y.s'y }�:r 4'...;. .,)•' 'r,C�,.,.; :: -:'r,,.!}4✓. i"�:�.5..,
5 1,t .
},
1 il- 'I
•at. ., i'y t
':t 4 •f
:/•
y,a.`'
,•„ .•
:P ry. J.,_ 3,
- 'i1f' �.Y� � ::5
i. 1 "
i T 'cr'. ''.j r � `,�
f o-'".
:.d:,' f n3,.,
iS, i'4' - Y.4. el .ir-�..! �5��• n',S ."7a, �r-.. f��
0.-.. .t - 'T,.ir
,4 e:., " C
S.
1t1..:
tam i•f) d}f}
C
J, f �. ` G
•'rt- I - ^'Y
:, y3
y.
:i r
S'. s
`t' " ' i
- t ii i
:;� 4
<.3
kt
it
�i� d. ♦li'' 'f:
i
is M•
.�
;�:'.a:'• �;� Raiz=�{,'*;:;.=: ,..
r '�.'r �. iii' ,
i v: �: 4: 1,,�: , CFr
:: 1
.tiP ter..
..
-t°. o'.; "k:• .fid
^i
t'
'Y�
9!.
y
Y`,
r:
i.
a't , -
�r I,(
Y
,•,
F'• .
)- r
•ir
.: i.S' (- � 1' , qtr ,
.. ,. .. ., - '1" r r , , 'fit f . , ,
FY2000 HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND
ARCHITECTURAL & HISTORICAL GRANT APPLICATION
INTRODUCTION
The Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA), part of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
is the state agency responsible for the administration of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. This Act
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park Service, to provide money from the Historic
Preservation Fund (HPF) to the states for the purpose of carrying out historic preservation activities. In Indiana, a large
portion of these funds are allocated as matching grants to various parties who agree to undertake specific projects that
will assist the State in meeting its preservation goals and objectives.
The information on the following pages describes the grant program more fully and explains the process for requesting
grant funds. Grant applications for FY2000 will be accepted by the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology
until 5:00 pm Friday, October 8, 1999. After evaluation by DHPA Staff, all applications (except any that propose non -
eligible activities) will be presented to the Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board at its fust meeting in 1999, which
is tentatively scheduled for mid-January. This Board will select for funding those projects which best meet the state and
federal guidelines and priorities for the HPF matching grants program. Applicants will be notified of the Board's
decision regarding their project proposals no later than February 28, 2000. No work can begin, however, until a formal
grant agreement has been concluded between the applicant and the State. This process is normally completed by the end
of April or May. All grant projects MUST be completed by June 30, 2001.
PART I: GENERAL GUIDELINES
A. Tvnes of Proiects
Federal regulations specify that only certain types of preservation projects are eligible for funding under this grants
program, including Architectural and Historical projects, Archaeological projects, and Acquisition and Development
projects. This application packet is designed specifically for Architectural and Historical projects, which include the
following:
1. Surveys of historic and/or architectural resources within defined geographical areas.
2. Other survey projects relating to the identification, evaluation, and protection of National Register -eligible historic
and/or architectural resources.
3. Preparation of National Register nominations for properties or districts which the DHPA agrees are potentially
eligible for listing in the National Register.
4. Public information programs (including publications, workshops, training sessions, etc.) that directly relate to or help
explain federal or state preservation programs.
5. Planning projects which are specifically designed to assist the State in updating and refining its statewide
comprehensive historic preservation plan (Indiana's Cultural Resources Management Plan) by identifying and
developing historic contexts or study units. Applicants should contact the DHPA for more information before
applying for funds for a project of this nature.
6. Preparation of architectural and/or engineering plans and specifications for the preservation, rehabilitation, or
restoration of an historic site or structure that is currently Iisted in the National Register of Historic Places, or which
has been nominated and will be listed before the proposed project begins. The resulting plans and specifications
must be prepared in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties. Please contact the DHPA if you have any questions about this type of project, or if you need more
detailed information concerning the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
7. Preparation of an Historic Structure Report (HSR) for a structure that is currently listed in the National Register
of Historic Places, or which has been nominated and will be listed before the proposed project begins. Applicants
should contact the DHPA for more information and the proper HSR format before applying for funds for a project
of this nature.
8. Preparation of a feasibility study for a structure that is currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places,
or which has been nominated and will be listed before the proposed project begins. Such a project must be designed
to help determine a new adaptive use for an historic structure. A feasibility study could include an Historic Structure
Report (See #7 above), along with an investigation of the current structural condition of the building, a list of
suggested uses for the building (with an assessment of the positive and negative aspects of each suggested use), an
explanation of any special problems impeding the reuse of the building, and a detailed estimate and breakdown of
the rehabilitation and conversion costs involved.
B. EliLribility Reouirements
1. Applicant EIigibility: Eligible applicants include (a) private, non-profit organizations with 501(c)(3) tax
exempt status (including local historical societies and preservation organizations), (b) educational institutions
(including public and private schools, colleges, and universities), and (c) local governmental units (including
city and county agencies and commissions funded by a consortium of local governments). Individuals and
private, for-profit entities are not eligible to receive grant funds because federal regulations prohibit grant
recipients from making a financial profit as a direct result of the grant -assisted project, Federal regulations do
not allow grant funds to be awarded to active religious organizations, or to be used to assist buildings that are
used primarily for religious functions. Note also that state and federal auditing and income tax regulations
prevent the DHPA from making a grant award to an organization which is not incorporated, or which does not
otherwise exist as a legal entity.
2. Property Eligibility: Properties to be assisted with grant funds (as the focus of an Historic Structure Report,
feasibility study, or other planning documents) MUST be listed in the National Register of Historic Places at
the time of application, or they must be in the nomination process and have passed both technical and
substantive review at the time of application. Properties may be listed individually, or they may be listed as
contributing resources within listed historic districts. Note that properties within the boundaries of historic
districts which are designated as "non-contributing" (NC) are not eligible to receive grant funding. Properties
listed in the State Register of Historic Sites and Structures which are not also listed in the National Register of
Historic Places are not eligible to receive grant funding. To find out the National Register status of a property,
contact the DHPA National Register Staff.
3. EIigibiIity of Proposed `York Items: Strict federal guidelines govern the activities that are allowable under
this grants program. Proposed projects MUST fall into one of the project categories list in section A above.
All proposed rehabilitation work in completed feasibility studies, Historic Structure Reports, or other planning
documents prepared with grant funds MUST conform to the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties." Planning documents that do not conform to these Standards are not eligible
for reimbursement under this program. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards provide common sense
guidelines for rehabilitation efforts that will respect historic fabric and the patina of age while returning the
building or structure to a state of utility.
C. Proiect Personnel
A Project Coordinator must be designated for any grant -assisted project. In addition, the majority of projects require
a Principal Investigator.
The Project Coordinator is the person authorized to represent the grant recipient/project sponsor in the administration
of the project. The Project Coordinator is responsible for ensuring the progress and timely completion of all work on
the project, and also for submitting progress reports and reimbursement requests to the Division of Historic Preservation
and Archaeology. The Project Coordinator is also the DHPA's contact for all correspondence relating to the project.
2
While it is obvious that the Project Coordinator must be a capable, reliable, and conscientious person, there are no
academic or professional requirements for this position.
The Principal Investigator is the person who conducts or supervises the professional aspects of the grant project. It
is the Principal Investigator that is held responsible for the quality of the final product, and who would be expected to
perform any remedial work required by the State. Note that the State is prevented by federal regulations from
paying for work which does not meet professional standards. The Principal Investigator must meet the requirements
listed in 36 CFR 61 for the appropriate discipline, and must be able to demonstrate previous experience in a similar
project. (See Appendix A -- 36 CFR 61 Professional Qualifications.)
It is possible for one person to serve as both Project Coordinator and Principal Investigator, assuming that he or she has
the necessary qualifications, experience, and ability. In certain instances, the proposed project may not include
professional activities, thus obviating the need for a Principal Investigator (for example, some public information projects
fall into this category). Grant applicants should contact the DHPA if they have any questions regarding these two
positions.
D. Funding Levels
All funds distributed through the HPF grants program are awarded in the form of matching grants, which require the grant
recipients or sponsoring organizations to supply a certain percentage of the total project costs. Survey projects, either
architectural and historical or archaeological, are eligible for grant funding in the amount of 70% of the total project
costs; the remaining 30% of the total project costs must be paid for by the grant recipient. All other types of projects
are eligible for grant funding in the amount of 50% of the total project costs; the remaining 50% of the total project costs
must be paid for by the grant recipient. Questions regarding funding levels should be directed to the DHPA's Grants
Staff.
It is the general policy of the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, when funding projects, to provide the
maximum amount of financial support possible. Note, however, that under some circumstances, a grant providing a
lesser amount of funding might be offered, with a request for a corresponding reduction in the proposed scope of work.
It would then be up to the grant applicant, after consultation with the DHPA, to decide whether or not to modify the
proposed scope of work, accept the grant award, and proceed with the project.
The Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board reserves the right to reject grant applications that do not
include an adequate project description, or that include project budgets not commensurate with the product(s)
to be created or the amount of work to be done.
The DHPA estimates that approximately $400,000 will be available for distribution as grant awards. This funding
amount will be distributed as follows: 40% (approximately $160,000) will be targeted for Acquisition and Development
projects, 35% (approximately $140,000) will be targeted for Architectural and Historical projects, and 25%
(approximately $100,000) will be targeted for Archaeological projects. The maximum grant amount awarded for any
Acquisition and Development or Archaeological project will be $50,000; the maximum grant amount awarded for any
Architectural and Historical project will be $30,000. The minimum grant amount requested must be at least $2,000,
regardless of the project category. Requests for grant assistance must fall within these funding parameters.
E. Matching Share
Because HPF grant funds can provide only a portion of the total costs of a project (as explained in D. Funding Levels,
above) and must be matched at the ratio stipulated in the grant agreement, the grant applicant must make arrangements
to provide the Matching Share. This can be done by having the grant applicant commit its own funds or services to the
project, by arranging for donations from interested third parties, or by a combination of these two methods. The
Matching Share can be in the form of cash, donated in-kind services and goods, volunteer time, or any combination
of these three categories. For more information on the various types of Matching Share, refer to Part II, Section F of this
document.
F. Procurement
When Historic Preservation Funds are used to procure supplies, equipment, or personal services, the purchases must be
made in compliance with state and federal standards. Any procurement that takes place prior to the official start date of
the grant is void and not reimbursable under this grants program. Any procurement that does not comply with state
and federal standards is also void and not reimbursable. Procurement requirements will be covered in detail during
the initial meeting between the grant recipients and the DHPA Staff.
G. Submitting Reimbursement Requests
Historic Preservation Fund grants are reimbursement grants. This means that the grant recipient may only
receive money from the State after providing the DHPA Grants Staff with appropriate documentation showing
that project costs have been incurred and that local matching funds have been expended.
The DHPA normally provides grant recipients with prompt grant payments when quarterly progress reports have been
filed on time and when proper reimbursement requests have been submitted. However, 15% of the total grant amount
will be retained until the final product has been reviewed and approved by the appropriate DHPA Program Area Staff.
Specific instructions on filing reimbursement requests are contained in the Grants Manual, which will be supplied to grant
recipients during the initial meeting with DHPA Staff.
No grant project may result in a net financial profit for any party. Any funds generated in the course of a grant
project will be considered as "program income," and must be applied toward the total project costs. This reduction of
the total project costs will result in a corresponding reduction of the grant award. Applicants who believe they may
generate program income as a result of the proposed project should consult with the DHPA's Grants Staff for advice
before completing this application.
H. The Annlication Process
In order to apply for an Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grant, carefully complete this application in accordance with
the instructions set forth in Part II of this document, and return it to the Division of Historic Preservation and
Archaeology no later than 5:00 pm Friday, October 8, 1999. Please note that applications received after this deadline
will not be considered for funding, and will be returned to the senders.
Completed applications and/or questions should be addressed to:
Grants Section
Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology
402 West Washington Street, Room W274
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Additional information or advice on the HPF program may be obtained by contacting Steve Kennedy or Patrick McClary
of the DHPA's Grants Staff at (317) 232-1646, or FAX (317) 232-0693.
PART II: INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLYING FOR FUNDS
All of the various forms needed to apply for grant funds are attached. Please supply five copies (one original and four
photocopies) of the items marked with an asterisk "*". Specific instructions for each of these items are contained in items
A through J below. Assemble five application packets (one with all of the original documents and four with all
photocopies), with the parts put together in the order shown below. Whenever possible, please use the forms provided
or photocopies of the original forms. Completed grant applications must include all of the following:
A.* Proposal Cover Sheet
B.* Grant Application Checklist
C.* Project Description and Timetable
4
D.* Statements on Meeting State Priorities (Administrative and Categorical)
E.* Project Budget
F. Matching Share and Letters of Commitment
G. Signed Federal Forms (4 total)
► Signed Statement of Understanding
► Part V Assurances
► Signed Certification Regarding Debarment
► Assurance of Compliance
H.* Letters of Support
I. Resume(s)
A. Pronosal Cover Sheet
This form (attached) should be completed and signed by an authorized party. Specific instructions for completing this
form are given below.
1. The Project Title should reflect the kind of project that the grant applicant has proposed in this application (for
example, the "Huntington Downtown National Register Historic District Nomination"). Allowable project types
can be found in Part I, Section A.
2. The Project Sponsor is the legal entity applying for the grant (municipal government agency, educational institution,
or not -far -profit organization with 501(c)(3) status). If the grant proposal is successful, it is the Project Sponsor who
will be offered funding. The Project Sponsor also has the ultimate legal and financial responsibility for the project.
3. The Federal Employer's Identification Number. This is required as part of state and federal auditing and income
tax regulations.
4. Congressional District in which the project is located. This information is required by the National Park Service.
5. The name of the Project Coordinator as the individual designated by the Project Sponsor to administer the project.
(See Part I, Section C, and submit the resume of this person.)
6. The name of the Principal Investigator as the professional responsible for ensuring that the final product meets all
applicable state and federal standards. (See Part 1, Section C.) If a member of the Project Sponsor's staff is to be
the Principal Investigator, please submit a current resume. If the Principal Investigator is not a current employee
of the Project Sponsor, but will be hired later if the grant application is funded, insert "To Be Selected" in this space.
Additional information on selecting professionals can be found in Part II, Section E (6).
7. Indicate the amount of federal funding requested, the matching share, and the total project cost on the appropriate
lines. Note that these figures must be consistent with those contained on the subsequent Project Budget and
Matching Share pages of the application.
8. Indicate the proposed schedule for the project. Do not anticipate starting any project prior to April 1; due to federal
delays, clearance to begin a project is sometimes not granted until June. Note also that the ending date is to be no
later than June 30, 2001.
9. Supply the information specifically requested in lines A through D. All grant projects must produce recognizable
(and preferably tangible) products that are commensurate with the funds to be expended. Contact the Division of
Historic Preservation and Archaeology if there is any confusion regarding this item.
B. Grant Annlication Checklist
After completing all parts of the grant application, refer to the Grant Application Checklist (attached) for instructions
on how to assemble the parts of the application, and how many copies of each part are required to be submitted. Next,
check off the items on the list, and submit the Checklist as part of the grant application.
5
.,A
C. Proiect Descrintion and Timetable
Please supply a narrative statement that:
I . Provides a detailed description of the project, including the reasons for undertaking the project. For development
projects, be sure to include a description of the current building conditions, the specific problems that need to be
addressed, and the proposed repairs.
2. States the project goals and methodology, and indicates how the project would benefit the State and/or the local
community.
3. Lists and describes the products that will result from the project (e.g., county survey, National Register historic
district nomination including X number of properties, etc.).
4. Outlines a proposed time frame for the project that includes both starting and ending dates, as well as a breakdown
of any "phases" or major parts of the project. Projects with ending dates later than June 30, 2001 cannot be
considered for funding.
This narrative should be as clear and concise as possible, and should include adequate detail to fully define the proposed
scope of work. In most cases, however, this narrative should not exceed three (3) pages.
D. Statements on Meeting State Priorities
Attached you will find two different lists of priorities which the State has identified to help evaluate proposed grant
projects. The priorities are based on federal requirements and recommendations, the Division's own established needs
and plans, and public input from constituents throughout the state. It is critical that applicants prepare thorough
responses to BOTH the Administrative Priorities and the Architectural and Historical Priorities when completing
the application. The responses to these sets of priorities are what the DHPA Staff uses to evaluate and score your
proposal. Without clearly detailed and thorough responses, your proposal may not score high enough to receive
grant funding.
Please contact the DHPA if there is any uncertainty regarding the specific priorities that are applicable to your project.
It is unlikely that any single project will address every priority. Similarly, some projects may only partially address
certain criteria. When a proposed project does not address a particular criterion, the applicant should respond with
"Proposed project does not meet this criterion," or "Not Applicable."
Grant applicants should address this section of the application carefully and thoroughly, and should demonstrate to the
greatest extent possible how the proposed project relates to the DHPA's criteria. Staff recommendations will be prepared
based on the point scores earned through this exercise. Grants will not be made to any applicant scoring fewer than
60 points on the Administrative Priorities. Final authority on distribution of Indiana's grant funds rests with the
Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board. A copy of the Division's procedures for the grant selection process
is attached (Appendix B).
E. Proiect Budget
Complete the attached Project Budget form. Be sure to account for the total cost of the proposed project, not just the
federal share. Please complete each line, and insert "0" when the budget contains no costs for that particular line -item.
If grant funding is offered, reimbursements may only be made for costs incurred in the line -items that include these
original budget figures. The budget must be broken down as follows:
i. Personnel. This category refers only to persons on the regular payroll of the sponsoring organization. Persons
employed on a contractual basis for the sole purpose of working on the grant -assisted project are accounted for in
the "Contractual" line -item in the Budget.
2. Frinee Benefits. Fringe benefits for paid personnel are an allowable cost. To facilitate the budget process, fringe
benefit expenses are often expressed as a percentage of the "Personnel" cost.
6
3. Volunteer Personnel. This category refers to persons who donate their time towards the completion of the grant -
assisted project. Volunteer time is valued at minimum wage ($5.15/hour) unless other arrangements are made in ^�
advance with the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. While volunteer time can make up the entire
matching share amount, it cannot exceed that amount. Note that, in general, the State prefers to fund projects that
include little or no Volunteer Personnel time, since it is often difficult for the Project Sponsor to keep volunteers
working on a set schedule.
4. Travel. Travel expenses may not exceed the Indiana State Auditor's rate of $.2$ per mile. If the project involves
travel outside the State of Indiana, please note this in the budget and provide a justification in the Project
Description.
5. Sunnlies. Only those items necessary for the completion of the project may be purchased under this grant.
Documentation for each purchase (in the form of invoices and canceled checks or similar documents) will be
required in order to receive reimbursement. Note that any single item costing more than $250 is considered to be
equipment, and not a supply item. Historic preservation grant funds cannot be used to purchase equipment without
advance written permission from the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology.
6. Contractual. This category refers to the cost of professionals engaged to work on the project on a contractual basis.
Note that federal regulations require an open selection process in the hiring of all consultants and contractors
connected with a federally -funded project. The grant recipient must either advertise the position or distribute
a request for proposals to a reasonable number of qualified individuals and/or firms, and must receive back at least
three bona fide written bids ("No bid" replies do not count as bids). After the open selection process, the Division
of Historic Preservation and Archaeology must approve of the selected consultant or contractor before they may be
hired by the grant recipient. No person employed as a consultant (or volunteering their professional services) may
be paid (or valued at) more than $60.29 per hour. When hiring consultants or contractors for a grant project, the
subgrantee must also provide evidence that:
► The fee is appropriate considering the qualifications of the consultanttcontractor, the fees which the
consultant/contractor ordinarily charges, and the nature of the services to be provided; and,
► That no consultant/contractor with equal experience and qualifications is available for a lesser amount.
The Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology reserves the right to reject consultants and contractors
selected by grant recipients to work on grant projects. Consultants who have failed to perform adequately on past
preservation projects will not be approved (whether the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology either
funded the project or merely reviewed the project in the course of administering state and federal preservation
programs in Indiana). The grant applicant is warned not to make any commitments to any parties
prematurely, as this could make the applicant ineligible for grant funding. Additional information on
contracting with consultants may be found in the DHPA Grants Manual, which will be supplied to grant recipients
with their award letter.
7. Other. Costs which do not fall into any of the above categories should be entered on this line. Examples of items
often accounted for here include printing and publishing expenses. Please indicate the nature of any expenses listed
in this category.
Note: Only direct project costs are allowable -- indirect costs are NOT allowable expenses under this program.
The DHPA Staff will automatically eliminate indirect costs from project budgets whenever they appear. This may
severely alter a proposed project's budget, and may jeopardize its ability to be properly executed should grant
funding be awarded. The grant recipient must also keep accurate records of all expenditures. These records must
be able to satisfy the requirements of a federal audit.
F. Matchin Share
hare
The matching share is the amount of funding that the Project Sponsor is responsible for having "up -front," equal to 50%
of the total project cost (or 30% for survey projects). Please indicate the source of the matching share. If elements of
the matching share are being provided by entities other than the sponsoring organization, attach copies of letters from
those entities showing a firm and binding commitment to provide the promised donation. The "Certification of Matching
Share" must be signed by the person legally authorized to commit the sponsoring organization and its funds.
7
There are three categories of Matching Share:
Cash. When grant recipients use their own funds to purchase goods or services specifically for the grant project (i.e.,
goods or services which recipients would not otherwise be purchasing as part of their own on-going programs), or
when a third party donates cash to the grant recipient for the same purpose, it is considered to be a cash donation
to the grant project. This would include situations where grant recipients use their own funds to hire a temporary
employee or a consultant solely and specifically to work on the grant project, where they use their own funds to
purchase supplies for use on the project that are not ordinarily stocked in their own supply room, or where they
receive cash from a third party to help them do either of the preceding activities.
2. In -Kind Services and Goods. When grant recipients arrange to perform some or all of the grant work by using their
existing staff and by drawing supplies from their own supply room, or when a third party draws on its own existing
staff and supplies to assist the project, it is considered to be an in-kind donation to the grant project.
Volunteer Services. When the grant recipient arranges to have individuals perform work on the project without any
remuneration, it is considered to be a volunteer services donation to the grant project. Establishing the value of
volunteer services can be difficult. If the volunteer is normally a paid professional in a given field of endeavor, and
is providing free services in that same field, then it is usually possible to value the volunteer's time using their
regular hourly rate of pay. However, such an arrangement must be approved in advance by the Division of Historic
Preservation and Archaeology. Ordinarily however, volunteer services are valued at minimum wage ($5.15/hour).
Accurate time sheets must be kept to document the amount of volunteer services performed.
G. Signed Federal Forms (4 total).
The (a) Statement of Understanding, (b) Part V -- Assurances, (c) Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension,
Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion, and (d) Assurance of Compliance must be signed by the person who is legally
authorized to commit the applicant organization. Review these statements carefully before signing them, and contact
the DHPA if any questions arise. Executive Order 12549 (as given in 43 CFR Part 12, Section 12.510) states that entities
debarred or suspended from participation in transactions with any federal department or agency are likewise debarred
from transactions with other federal departments or agencies. Because federal historic preservation grant funds are
passed on to grant recipients through the state, grant applicants must sign and return the Certification Regarding
Debarment, to insure that they do not involve parties who are debarred in this proposed project. To determine whether
an organization or entity has been debarred or suspended, contact the DHPA, or the General Services Administration
at (202) 501-4873. A grant application cannot be considered for funding unless ALL of these documents have
been executed and submitted.
H. Letters of Sunnort
The DHPA strongly encourages grant applicants to supply letters of support from local elected officials, historical
societies, community groups, business people, or other interested parties in order to demonstrate broad-based popular
support for the proposed project. Letters of support must be drafted and dated so as to demonstrate that they concern
a current and specific grant proposal. Ordinarily, copies of old support letters that were written for other purposes or
for previous grant applications will not be counted by the DHPA. Note that the total number of current support letters
accompanying the proposal earns points in the grant evaluation process.
I. Resumes
Please submit one (1) copy of the resume of the person who will act as Project Coordinator. If the grant -assisted project
will include a Principal Investigator who is already a member of the Project Sponsor's staff, please include one (1) copy
of this person's current resume with the project application. If no Principal Investigator will be used, or if a consultant
will be hired later to serve as the Principal Investigator, it is not necessary to submit a resume for this position.
tCK:).Submitting the Analication
Once the application is submitted to the DHPA, the Grants Staff will log -in the application and will verify that all of the
required component parts are included. If any of the required parts of the grant application packet are missing,
incomplete, or insufficient, the DHPA Staff will notify the applicant immediately. The applicant will then have seven
(7) days to submit any missing or incomplete parts. Applications that remain incomplete at the time of Staff Review will <�
have their scores reduced accordingly, or may be rejected altogether.
ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL PROJECT
PROPOSAL COVER SHEET
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUNDS
Administered by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology: 402
West Washington Street, Room W274, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. Phone (317) 232-1646, FAX (317) 232-0693.
1. Project Title
2. Project Sponsor
Address
Telephone #
3. Federal Employer's Identification #
4. Congressional District #
5. Project Coordinator
Address
Telephone #: Daytime FAX
6. Principal Investigator
Address
Telephone #: Daytime FAX
7. Project Budget Breakdown:
a. Total Project Cost $
b. Amount of Federal Funding Requested $
C. Amount of Non -Federal Match $
8. Proposed Project Schedule:
Beginning Date (must be later than 4/1/00)
Ending Date (must be no later than 6/30/01)
N
9. Supply the information requested below (as appropriate) regarding the products to be created by this project.
a. For Architectural and Historical Survey Projects:
Estimated number of square miles in the survey area.
Estimated number of hectares in the survey area.
(I hectare = 2.5 acres = .004 square miles)
Estimated total number of sites to be documented on state survey forms.
Estimated number of these sites that will be newly added to the state inventory.
(Only in cases of resurvey should this number differ from the "total number" requested above.)
b. For National Register Nomination Projects:
Estimated number of properties which would be listed in the National Register of Historic Places as
a result of this project. Each contributing building within a district counts as one. For district
nominations, include a rough sketch map showing the proposed district boundaries as part of the
Project Description.
C. For Projects Resulting in the Preparation of Historic Structure Reports, Feasibility Studies, or
Architectural or Engineering Plans and Specifications:
Is the property currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places?
Is the property designated as a National Historic Landmark?
Property Owner's Name
Address:
Telephone #: Home Work
Is the project within a federally -designated flood area? Na - Yes - If yes, attach a
copy of the flood insurance policy coverage or other proof of insurance.
d. Other products that will result from this project:
This application prepared and submitted by:
Name/Title
Address
Phone# FAX #
Sianature Date
11
ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL
GRANT APPLICATION CHECKLIST -�
Please submit this completed checklist with the grant application. For proper staff consideration, the grant application
MUST include the following:
* Proposal Cover Sheet
* Grant Application Checklist
* Project Description and Timetable
* Statements on Meeting State Priorities (Administrative and Categorical)
* Project Budget and Breakdown
* Signed Matching Share with Letters of Commitment
Signed Federal Forms (4 total):
► Statement of Understanding
► Part V -- Assurances
► Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion
► Assurance of Compliance
Letters of Support
Resume(s)
Instructions for assembling the grant application:
A. Combine all of the original documents into one application packet that is assembled following the order of the
checklist above. This one application packet should contain each of the items listed on the checklist.
B. Make four (4) photocopies of each of the items on the checklist above marked with an asterisk (*). Assemble
these documents into four application packets following the order of the checklist above. Note: Applicants are
encouraged to make an additional copy of all documents to retain for their records.
C. Submit the five (5) sets of the grant application (one original and four copies) to the DHPA prior to the deadline
of 5:00 pm Friday, October 8, 1999. Applicants are encouraged to submit their applications early.
The DHPA will log -in each application, and will notify the applicant if any of the required parts of the grant application
are missing, incomplete, or insufficient. The applicant will then have seven O days to submit any missing or incomplete
parts. Applications that remain incomplete at the time of Staff Review will have their scores reduced accordingly, or
may be rejected altogether.
12
FY99 ADMINISTRATIVE PRIORITIES
Instructions. Provide complete but concise answers for each of the priority statements below. Please be as specific as
possible in your answers, and explain exactly how the proposed project will meet the priority issues. Most projects will
adequately address several priorities, while only partially addressing others, and will be scored accordingly. No project
will address every priority statement. When a proposed project does not address a specific priority, mark "NA" as the
response.
Max.
Score: Priority will be given to.
16 pts 1. Projects which have clear and measurable goals and will result in the creation of valuable products for the
State. Note that the scope of work must be realistic and commensurate with the amount of grant funding
requested. Carefully describe the project methodology and the products which will be created by the
grant -assisted project. Be specific.
12 pts 2. Projects whose sponsors have an individual capable of grant administration to act as Project Coordinator.
Provide the name of this person, list their qualifications and grant -administration experience (f any), and
submit their resume with the project proposal.
12 pts 3. Projects whose sponsors have not received funding through the DHPA's grants program within the last
three fiscal years. Indicate whether or not the project sponsor has ever received funding in the past from
the DHPA, and list the years in which any grant assistance was received
12 pts 4. Projects which have realistic timetables. Include a detailed timetable which shows the approximate
amount of time (days, weeks, or months) that will be devoted to each of the various phases,' tasks, or
components of the project. Simply providing begin and end dates for the project does not constitute an
acceptable timetable.
12 pts 5. Projects which have realistic and reasonable budgets. Include a detailed budget breakdown, indicate
exactly how the various budget figures were computed, and include copies of any estimates received
Provide a justification for any items which are unusually expensive, or inexpensive (such as discounted
or donated goods or services). Upon review of the proposal, the DHPA reserves the right to adjust the
scope of work or the grant request in cases where the project budget is out of line with the products to be
created.
10 pts 6. Projects which will be undertaken by a governmental agency that has been designated by the State as a
Certified Local Government (CLG) for the purpose of carrying out historic preservation 'activities.
Currently there are nine CLGs in Indiana: Bloomington, Elkhart, Fort Wayne, Huntington, LaPorte,
Mishawaka, Muncie, Nappanee, and South Bend & St. Joseph County. Indicate whether or not the project
sponsor is a Certified Local Government.
I0 pts 7. Projects whose sponsors can show evidence of broad-based community support by submitting letters
endorsing the proposed project. These letters ofsupport must be original, project -specific, and current,
and should not be from any person or organization associated with the applicant. Support letters should
be sought from historical societies, neighborhood organizations, elected officials, local businesses, and/or
any other groups or individuals which might have an interest in the project. Submit these letters along
with the project application, or have the authors forward them directly to the DHPA. The number of
points awarded for this item depends on the number of letters of support submitted.
10 pts 8. Projects whose sponsors and/or Project Coordinators have successfully completed a DHPA grant -assisted
project or other special project within the last seven years. Describe the accomplishments of any special
projects undertaken during the last seven years. If grant funds were involved, provide the name of the
granting agency and the dollar amount of the grant assistance received. If funds were raised locally,
13
describe how this was done. If possible, supply samples of any products created under previous grants.
If the quality of previous grant administration was unsatisfactory, or if reporting or products were
delinquent and time extensions were required to complete the project, points for this priority will be
reduced accordingly.
8 pts 9. Projects for which the applicant has 100% of the matching share on -hand and documented. Provide bank
statements or other documentation to demonstrate that all of the matching share funds are available.
Partial credit will be given to applicants that can document at least half of the matching share.
8 pts 10. Projects for which the applicant will use a matching share consisting of any combination of cash and in-
kind services, with volunteer services not to exceed 10% of the total amount of the matching share.
Describe the match to be used and provide a breakdown if two or more match types are to be included.
Maximum points will be given for a total cash or in-kind match, or a combination match using less than
H % volunteer services. Projects using H% to 25% volunteer services will receive partial credit.
6 pts 11. Projects whose sponsors are a minority or disadvantaged organization. Explain how the sponsor qualifies
as a minority (ethnic background, language, culture, religion, or gender) or otherwise disadvantaged
organization.
6 pts 12. Projects that tie into local Millennium Initiatives. To claim credit for this priority, a local Millennium
Committee must exist, and a set ofgoals/objectives/priorities must have been adopted. Explain how this
project ties into local Millennium Initiatives, and document it with a letter from the local Millennium
Committee.
4 pts 13. Projects for which the applicant has submitted a complete application. The application must contain all
of the completed forms and required information, and must be submitted to the DHPA prior to the
deadline. Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit their applications early so that the DHPA Staff
can verify that they are complete. Applications missing any parts after the application deadline will not
receive these points, and may receive reduced scores for other priorities.
126 Points Possible
14
FY99 ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL PRIORITIES
Instructions: Provide complete but concise answers for each of the priority statements below. Please be as specific as
possible in your answers, and explain exactly how the proposed project will meet the priority issues. Most projects will
adequately address one or more priorities, while only partially addressing others, and will be scored accordingly. No
project will address every priority statement. When a proposed project does not address a specific priority, mark "NA"
as the response.
Max.
Score: Priority will be given to:
20 pts 1. Projects which will assist the DHPA in carrying out its responsibilities dealing with National Register
or environmental review and compliance issues. Examples of projects that meet this priority are
county or city surveys and National Register historic district nominations. This priority is for the
DHPA to evaluate and does not require an answer.
20 pts 2. Projects which will survey one of the following priority counties: Bartholomew, Crawford, Dekalb,
Elkhart, Floyd, Howard, LaGrange, Martin, Orange, Steuben, Sullivan, Switzerland, Washington, or
Whitley; or projects which will publish a recently completed survey. State whether or not the area
to be surveyed (or resurveyed) is one of the above counties, a portion (township) of one of these
counties, or an area (city) within one of these counties. For survey publication projects, provide only
the name of the county and the date that the survey was completed. (This priority is part of the State's
on-going efforts to survey all of Indiana's 92 counties, and to update older surveys. County survey
records and publications are some of the most valuable tools used in preservation.) (Counties
removed from this list for FY2000 are Scott, Spencer, and Wayne.)
16 pts 3. Projects which will produce National Register nominations for commercial or residential historic
districts that have been identified in State-sponsored surveys, or which will produce National Register
nominations for districts within heritage areas that have been identified by the State. Describe how the
geographic boundaries and temporal limits of the historic district were established, or describe the
significance of the heritage area and provide a justification for the delineation of its boundaries. If
the product is to be an historic district nomination, cite the survey in which the district was identified,
and offer some justification for why the district is to be nominated to the National Register.
12 pts 4. Projects which will produce a multiple property National Register nomination and the associated
context study and survey information for an endangered resource type, especially one of the following:
rural one- and two -room schools; consolidated public schools built before 1945; Carnegie libraries;
Underground Railroad -related resources; or county social welfare institutions, such as public or private
orphanages, guardian homes, sanitoria, and county homes (excluding hospitals). Describe the project
and how it will provide a multiple property nomination and the historic context for one of the
resource types listed above, and list the threats that make this an "endangered" resource type. Also
note how many of the resources will be included in the nomination; note that this number must be
significant in relation to the total number of resources inventoried.
12 pts 5. Projects which will encourage financial reinvestment in National Register -listed properties through
the preparation of feasibility studies, historic structure reports, or plans and specifications for future
rehabilitation projects, or which will provide some form of needed technical assistance. Describe how
the products created under this project will be utilized, such as in a planned rehabilitation project.
12 pts 6. Projects which will make a significant contribution toward meeting the State's preservation goals and
objectives. This priority is for the DHPA to evaluate and does not require an answer.
15
10 pts 7. Projects which have as their primary purpose efforts to promote public awareness and knowledge of
preservation. Explain how the project will promote preservation in Indiana, and ident fy the audience
and geographic areas that will be targeted by such efforts. Products may include, but are not limited
to, educational brochures, survey publications, conferences, and workshops.
8 pts 8. Projects which will make special efforts to include minority (in terms of ethnic background, language,
culture, gender, or religion) or disadvantaged organizations and resources. Describe how the minority
or disadvantaged organizations or resources will be included in the project, either as sources of
information or as types of resources to be included in a study.
110 Points Possible
16
ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL
PROJECT BUDGET
Please indicate the proposed budget for the project. The figures on this page, when totaled, should equal the Total
Project Cost given on Line 7-a of the Proposal Cover Sheet.
COST CATEGORY AMOUNT REQUESTED
Personnel -- Paid: This Category refers Administrative
only to persons on the direct payroll of the Professional
sponsoring organization. Clerical
Fringe Benefits: Fringe Benefits for paid personnel are allowable.
Volunteer Personnel -- Unpaid: Volunteer time is valued at
minimum wage ($5.15 per hour).
Travel: (Calculated @ $0.28 per mile)
Supplies: (Including photographic expenses)
Contractual: (See Instructions for Applying for Funds)
Other: (Describe)
Other: (Describe)
Total Project Cost S
Funding Level -- 50% or 70% X %
*Grant Amount Requested 5
*Note: This figure cannot exceed $30,000 for Architectural and Historical project proposals. AIso note that the figure
representing the Grant Amount Requested should be rounded down to the nearest whole dollar, and must be the same
as that recorded on Line 7-b of the Proposal Cover Sheet.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit a further breakdown of costs, or `Budget Justification Page," on
a separate sheet following this form. Please note that proposals submitted without a further budget justification
page WILL NOT receive full credit for the budget criteria under the Administrative Priorities.
17
CASH
MATCHING SHARE
Donor:
Source:
Total Cash Amount: $
IN-KIND SERVICES
Donor:
Source:
Total In -Kind Services Amount: $
VOLUNTEER SERVICES
Donor:
Source:
Total Volunteer Services Amount: $
TOTAL MATCHING SHARE: $
Nate: This amount should equal that given on Line 7-c of the Proposal Cover Sheet.
CERTIFICATION OF MATCHING SHARE
I certify that the matching share funds/goods/services identified above are available, and that they will be allocated
only to the Historic Preservation Fund project described in this application and titled:
Project Title
Name and Title of Authorized Representative
Signature Date
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit appropriate documentation of the matching share (copies of bank
statements, etc.) following this form. Please note that proposals submitted without documentation WILL NOT
receive full credit for the matching share under the Administrative Priorities.
18
STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND SUBGRANTS
With respect to any grant received from the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and
Archaeology (DNR-DHPA), the applicant indicates by his/her signature that he/she has read, understands, and agrees
that:
I. This is a request for consideration for a grant, and not a promise for funding, from the National Park Service HPF
program administered by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
2. The individual submitting this grant request on behalf of the applicant has the necessary authority to request
consideration of this project by the Department of Natural Resources.
3. This is a matching grants program in which only a portion of the total project cost can be supplied by the grant
funds; the matching share will be supplied by the grant applicant in the form of cash, donated or volunteer labor,
and/or donated supplies in accordance with state and federal regulations.
4. No work covered in this application is to begin until the applicant has been notified in writing that funds have been
awarded, and has accepted in writing the terms and conditions of the grant.
5. If a grant is received, all obligations for material or work are to be paid by the applicant, who will then receive
reimbursement from the National Park Service through the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, based on
prior agreement and approval. The applicant will be required to supply all necessary financial documentation
which must include copies of accurate personnel time sheets indicating the effort expended on the project, canceled
checks, invoices, and other data as required by the DHPA, unless special arrangements are made.
6. Grants will be administered in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, policies,
requirements and guidelines, including OMB Circular A-102 and A-110 (as applicable), policies and procedures
of the Historic Preservation Grant -in -Aid Program, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, non-discrimination on
the basis of handicap (Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), and equal employment opportunity and labor
law requirements of federal grants.
7. Procurement actions will be conducted in a manner that provides for maximum open and free competition in
compliance with program requirements, including OMB Circular A-102 and A-110 (as applicable).
8. All costs charged to the grant project will be in payment of an approved budget item during the project period and
will conform to the cost principles of (Federal Management Circular 744), now OMB Circular A-87 and A-21 (as
applicable).
9. In accordance with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (P.L. 88-325), the Department of Natural Resources
requires that grant applicants not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment on a historic
preservation project because of race, color, sex, national origin, or ancestry. All employees must be advised of
equal opportunity and benefits. Any complaint of discrimination must be reported to the State Historic Preservation
Officer.
10. Adequate financial resources will be available for performance (including necessary experience, organization,
technical qualifications, and facilities) to complete the proposed project or a firm commitment, arrangement or
ability to obtain such will be made.
11. An adequate financial management system (and audit procedure when deemed applicable) will be maintained which
provides efficient and effective accountability and control of all property, funds and assets.
12. The matching share will not consist of funds from the federal government under another assistance agreement
unless authorized.
19
13. The project, if funded, will be carried out in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the Division of Historic
Preservation and Archaeology, Department of Natural Resources, and will be completed within the allotted time.
14. The applicant shall participate in the grant project and shall submit copies of archaeological/architectural data and
survey, study, and planning materials to the Department of Natural Resources with the condition that specific site
data including site addresses be withheld from public access in accordance with federal law and the regulation and
access policy adopted by the Natural Resources Commissions. This condition is necessary to protect property
owners from unwanted destruction, risk, or disruption of their property and to protect valuable scientific data,
cultural materials, and artifacts which might otherwise be lost or harmed.
15. The applicant will cooperate with the staff of the Department of Natural Resources in meeting all the above
requirements, as well as other federal requirements that may apply.
16. Additional administrative requirements and project -specific conditions maybe made apart of any grant offer made
by the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology as a result of this application.
17. Any breaking of the conditions set forth in this Statement of Understanding may mean cancellation of the grant.
The applicant recognizes and agrees that any federal financial assistance will be extended in reliance on the
representations and agreements made in this assurance, and that the United States shall reserve the right to seek judicial
enforcement of this assurance. This assurance is binding on the Applicant, its successors, transferees, and assignees, and
on the person or persons whose signature(s) appears below and who is/are authorized to sign this assurance on behalf
of the Applicant.
Name of Applicant/Project Sponsor
Date
Name and Title of Authorized Representative Signature
20
PART V -- ASSURANCES
The Applicant hereby assures and certifies that he/she will comply with the regulations, policies, guidelines, and
requirements including OMB Circulars Nos. A-87, A-95, and A-102, as they relate to the application acceptance and
use of federal funds for this federally assisted project. Also the Applicant assures and certifies with respect to the grant
that:
I. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant; that a resolution, motion or similar action has been duly adopted
or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body, authorizing the filing of the application, including
all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the
official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional
information as may be required.
2. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) and in accordance with Title VI of the
Act, no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, or ancestry, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity for which the applicant receives federal financial assistance and will immediately take any measures
necessary to effectuate this agreement.
3. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) prohibiting employment
discrimination where (1) the primary purpose of a grant is to provide employment or (2) discriminatory
employment practices will result in unequal treatment of persons who are or should be benefiting from the grant -
aided activity.
4. It will comply with requirements of the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisitions Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provides for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a
result of federal and federally assisted programs.
5. It will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act which limits the political activity of employees.
6. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act,
as they apply to hospital and educational institution employees of State and local governments.
7. It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that is or gives the
appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others, particularly those with whom
they have family, business, or other ties.
8. It will give the grantor agency or the Comptroller General through any authorized representative the access to and
the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant.
9. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the Federal grantor agency concerning special requirements for
law, program requirements and other administrative requirements approved in accordance with Office of
Management and Budget Circular No. A-102.
10. It will insure that the facilities under its ownership, lease or supervision which shall be utilized in the
accomplishment of the project are not listed on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) list of Violating
Facilities and that it will notify the Federal grantor agency of the receipt of any communication from the Director
of the EPA Office of Federal Activities indicating that a facility to be used in the project is under consideration for
listing by the EPA.
11. It will comply with the flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973, Public Law 93-234, 87 Stat. 975, approved December 31, 1976. Section 102(a) requires, on and after
March 2, 1975, the purchase of flood insurance in communities where such insurance is available as a condition
for the receipt of any Federal financial assistance for construction or acquisition purposes for use in any area that
has been identified by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development as an area having
special flood hazards. The phrase "federal financial assistance" includes any form of loan, grant, guaranty,
21
APPENDIX A
36 CFR PART 61
Section 61.5 -- Professional Qualifications
In the following definitions, a year of full-time professional experience need not consist of a continuous year of full-time
work, but may be made up of discontinuous periods of full-time or part-time work adding up to the equivalent of a year
of full-time experience.
A. History
The minimum professional qualifications in history are a graduate degree in history or a closely related field; or a
bachelor's degree in history or a closely related field plus one of the following:
1. At least two years of full-time experience in research, writing, teaching, interpretation, or other demonstrable
professional activity with an academic institution, historical organization or agency, museum, or other
professional institution; or
2. Substantial contribution to the body.of scholarly knowledge in the field of history through research and
publication.
B. Archaeology
The minimum professional qualifications in archaeology are a graduate degree in archaeology, anthropology, or a
closely related field, plus:
1. At least one year of full-time professional experience or equivalent specialized training in archaeological
research, administration, or management; and
2. At least four months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American archaeology; and
3. Demonstrated ability to carry research to completion.
In addition to these minimum qualifications, a professional in prehistoric archaeology shall have at least one year
of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of archaeological resources of the prehistoric
period. A professional in historic archaeology shall have at Ieast one year of full-time professional experience at
a supervisory level in the study of archaeological resources of the historic period.
C. Architectural History
The minimum professional qualifications in architectural history are a graduate degree in architectural history, art
history, historic preservation, or closely related field, with course work in American architectural history; or a
bachelor's degree in architectural history with a concentration in American architecture; or a bachelor's degree in
architectural history, art history, historic preservation, or a closely related field plus one of the following:
1. At least two years of full-time experience in research, writing, or teaching in American architectural history or
restoration architecture with an academic institution, historical organization or agency, museum, or other
professional institution; or
2. Substantial contribution to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field of American architectural history
through research and publication.
26
E. The Review Board determines funding allocations.
1. The Board allocates funding to applicants who are Certified Local Governments based on point score until
the minimum amount targeted for CLGs is reached.
2. The Board allocates funding for Architectural and Historical projects to all eligible applicants based on
point score until the amount targeted for this category is exhausted.
3. The Board allocates funding for Archaeological projects to all eligible applicants until the amount targeted
for this category is exhausted.
4. The Board allocates funding for Acquisition and Development projects based on point score to all eligible
applicants until the amount targeted for this category is exhausted.
F. The Board determines how to dispose of any excess funds.
1. The Board may elect to shift funds targeted for one category to a different category in order to allocate
excess funds, or
2. The Board may direct the staff to conduct a second grant round in order to allocate the excess funds.
ig,
-.°f ,. hi;.,i rR4,"r ya.,: i'ir4Yt;Y.-• x i'r.}qR w,.»,- m.i .pis _.<a
.. •'� C �F s. � "� A^,"°e
{ Lw Tr 's'z'•-,l'"+a' t '4e'' a`f,."�.,..�r" a{4 ;,'S:y fi3;. �,5�.1'' . e':
',,ry of y"Pt.:- ayI •i*.t�1`.o-w y.i'�,+ , A ;t i+_..!S
ta". twh': :�,n.,7i.tK',... ,t.'�w,•�" ak '"d �� E d"r•s+,�' � ;,a" ''3 r�,.t f � i `-�,,t, -i` �, f
.ca
.tw C "-'k C,.,.1
tn,, t�. r--';s�,;i ,t; Sr;!•r .tt.w� N��{J."rls u. �a?"*-ti•+�,c:. r" r,'°: 'tee ":,•x� • �: n;�.... ,, $r .f +.'� .. ,'.t„�>:,'{ ,:r,,�,J�,',•
1 �.,. Vit. t -?a`,. Y y'•^•E S r
'•.i�'.Q�,1S; ,,;�. ?. .I�Cj°d J•a .a, t.. 'Y,".,J• •y,cc��deY.5`", -jai' rt'+><'!�iw•W*.,:.-r; �'F e�::;;:,;:q.. f•,
r �,"�'°j.`i'>r'��„ _{r :',�w.r rw,}. ,r„.. J, ..'C,I,>�5. Fax.yw'..a?�,,.n„�'Y'S"w_.,�•,".n°.i".`Y iM�.,S;.,(':n;;.�7'.H?'�'kti:'y1'�.kJ, „Fr. 'i,: •�. ,.i-.
. 1'.•* �"d'=,.�`?`•,p�,';,f-•Sii:"c' ;'fie 5" f .r A,•.,,.:d..,ra:t„�ar,�tt'...�,:,,,x;,l l'va.;,,:' ,,y i;�+
FO►R.
COMPLIN
yj `:•+`;Pv ,,,vY_ f • rr^, a .M,.,...< �F '•w^ w _ ,F r. r�.:r}t='.'°,:,,ex,5',,,. ,m a'6;. "r;W:
-„k;.,i'°?•+;:T'..t„%,r.("it"�,�;:d''''.�p(.WP. a�%mt7 «.i':Zf•iY.r'ry 3•a ^,�,>vsv4 gi. `•:fR -:rxs '>.al;.�-i r.r"4 ,;xy. e. y,, f: F( q_,,, v•r••.r ;w-.y"�.,`. YY',.
i'r. i".R =•r -c ,':Y�w�'�iR"� ^S^.,,ry >;.';}rs'�` H �; •��p yam,, µ, 1 y'w-*M +.'jraa d<) ,x ,yrr^+• pbi s% tvy. L��k Y 5��_
:'4i, .,,^: '.-tt':" - �i.e,_ t, ...F t .Y•n`�a.4 t,: ,a , ,t T, y,s�t` •x .: �k'L1 �,,,y .ii .. y.aC _r.L��!s?:fi a'�:.'ihd x. ;i% -s �':.•`.:'�"', .Fyp' �.� i::.*. Esr. {„_'21..'�?r - .vi:'�;:ir'.S�s .r'=3-.1
-+:�. �.x�ey `: Y'' ;#,r, iY- u'k .�`r.,"jF. y�".: 1�., aG.. ;1:,.�'-S:' S,uK. Y.. -f !tr•a ,:q.; ^,Y:rr „YSt. r,�s�L r,�,
•�"i r���v ...�-?. i Jtt' ,fr:"r ytn; f�y�r#" •,lM. `` 'f"`.o {�y g'1; .rt ;tq�9 t`�}y, rr ,S•.-. � #,6 .. /P n' r'F.x, q,:.. � .:;:"4 - .i rra+l a J.v"r', r ".'�.':4„'w'i, r�s: 7i:
:d,','4vi.E 4. �H9,f` YS%",fbsi''igs:tf"t'•g .r�-#,•�i i#f J v..1,1ty>. T4, �.,' S S a: ♦ gg �rt°r'✓>',,,: se rS"i 1. +oy,, w gq ;"r r.:;`: -.Pr.:"'::., a fin, o,
3 ) �` k3'R..•rA•.. IW.F•a .'r..w a,.i i%%.Y+' ,: ,+.7F,^...��y.�...e�; 1:. ... "(..;r�;q �.;�., ,•r: ,' �".'.
''^t`.::• `;�W^' "'i+. 4 . �,, yyyy pp, h. +)yy tfi5 :G!' x - .Pf.` s -v+ 4+,' x:,-- , Y' `"+'',�}'�,{ 4, [ { ,R?'' -Y d ,•C.o- , .t� h •,er,� •f,
f'#i"r ,..¢,:S ,/„P'ivt�r.$ • -, h.:....v �.: '�. �,r _ L.�. P ur'i 2.. j,+ '✓r. �'r, r+_,.. �`t. h' wta x.y� �,w,y�b °
:The follow adv _ r s'i.'. -� ..:t>.: fi ..ti; -•;,.',k
uig ice fo`r'.'IPappi�carats bias been prepared'.by the DSA Gracits Sta:}<,These: ouits cover;tbe
:;ttMi orp y 1 's : t S ' asal' ai�Y ~that ar6m0 0 •isy x a : zn: b p,; s!*' yn`' t, • , f �'TT r „t ✓a:
Paitsof e ,gran ,prop rt. .r,at, ,$ stite�z.fouzidta.i weak„Incomplete;:ar�nadequate�,Byf6116 n
J.Pt..v'+Y'',•,. °Y.<,..,rn: •tri>,'a yy ,vr .:t•�'": .+„p-r;"•^.r..
:the. advice S sled out el W n ., , a ;9r szr: ... , w w., e .wh•. r ., S
b a. itis 1ikelX4tiiat yourproposal;wllltbe'.better:prepared and velli score mare m as. a result:6`;,':
Pe" p4 ?`r{° t .✓ s
.'.�.,.''.� ,,_�-•. :t,:i- v•A"i t.'., •,d".✓P., "r Y' 4C-1 `.J xt,{�• .i
_ :N r
`Rem6nibir'the HI'F:matchln �s'. ra ,.., .. -��• r
g:gran p grain is"extremely}competztive in.;1999:There:was well over;$1-30Q 4QQ=# :�:` �,, .e .
";�• - .,'s«� ^•�..a:�a �',,; "<tt.: :z. ..�,v �nrn^.,.._ rev,,
-'i u,•, .K.r.°... _ t.i',^m�'""':fia"�rt"Y�S:,de..:: ,
e e;wasonly 40 ,Q04:" vai I distriliutionyirithe"form'ofsub tsk`.'� ,;�': -Y e- ,f,
.,..'t,.-'grequeste, Whitt $ 0 t a lab e'for. �`
�:,.;'�,,� #:+ ,.S-., Yy,,,, :a.t., :,,,,..a.,•aro1r, S., .ta' .•.., .Z:a.,�•..' :z, , c'• r.-, :y1«aj,,;•>:
-3`; ! • .Yk , '``U:" :�l"r7', a'a^ •f,�W .(a..wl' � . l:" 1..µ"rc....h•, . . �'r+•.''::;:«
- w�';4<`.. 'w:�' vue,•:: "'iw n.Y•°' av,-r, ; '+' ., 5,' ^?'.. ..t,, IY .z,,.
•. y; _h - . ,.y .,"-�n+�-:�T^' «Rw�'a,.}''3}' %#''pA 'i" ��..if' + Z -v. .isw`S!'�- S':'i�•�„'Iftic^;.+t"f�i��#l«+y -_6:�-4risf, ,2JS7 a4t''kI'.' .t .„w3�'F".0a"lTy$s�-1�C,.+iI',S2;l`yY�.xr'ay•A.:.d':; Ny'n�r,z.`ArD J�trD,_;(ti:O'(?j�}rX�}•�^-•e.iT,c.,..'..ryT.�' -.+�S"l:.% -�"wyir";v''�+r>R.,<`X'..'YtE3q,_kryi 4y�t'ev,�Y,; , , �5PP`ti,e,.i::`f''M': pv`#"b�.t., ,rk='»..%i-y-ni,�. h.+�N'"r`,i"I-,�� +i.bi .�-iizi'�'�.'. .M~y''^�`i.'��x�y:,,t�:+��om'�` �- �'ka5i. Yy�.ki'd.<,.t...if•'�^.R.•:;.1r;y✓rp.Kt"'y = 4..
;iLaP<tP RINGTHE PROP.OSAL-iOME-BA
,
f'
_�,, .-{�. r•+.. - ,. � ick-�'�tSf �...;} �''".efz',
`•S' . A.}`i'., "'fy 'Ili'.° ♦.i '- ';,.` ..; , :G`- ,.4.''` - P ^i::,. ":#; w-3: `..::..r,,.,, •;•{.::
-MH'� �d"' ` "ai`,• "t: �. ..p+,,}•`..'+, k - d�.,' . t '` t�.•.:a,°, � : t . , a v. ;���.:;%': r+e �^',•.t
s wi, 4+•. w.'Si7:..G °'t„,r it ' `_tr .ix • i fk' " i P ''t; > i -k ;'+`'',,., u'f .d`«xr. 'unw '` •�r'z ,� ;�' .�. ••
�,.�. r.€E,,f$, ��,:.{•,t�.€.•t. w• ak�M�:_.,4.<7f y. r��'�.r,•,�;��e"�ta � ari`�!a:'Iu�>i .,'::��.t -i,F" sr ''"fit• rvi3`�
t.'�i.�%�•:tf ..�h ytlb§��?s J<i't''�`' '.; +i°•x�'`
,z - �} •"%' "�i t,Try= rt.:^ti--:y, ; y' v, ,�t"rs= _,. - :'•tt't.r^.
Do`rz ; r:r,i,:Consiilt` n;
th Grants Staff�I�eYTIIVIE ouhave uestionsabout' re aring- a ro osaI' articularl •.whe �; •.�:
e--: .�.. -Y�- :q - P�P g,. ,P .P.,.,..,a'1?, Y.}--.
,4,.. there are 'estions'irivo'lvin �`tiie`'riori°ties the' ro'ect�biid `e �or•the`inatchin 'fundsll�"
.,�N.s ,•.. g'. aP f. _P J .g � g
^� ;.:. v., •;..:,",.,; r.... :='-ti.�:.','T'"'+;-� �»t'i r'�`; :Ce', t.}, r.1t'yr:.- rx r.Irv. ^�•f.. .:^. rr',:..:
• ,-�':t , w'-" - 'i'K• F y".'` --,+� .-r:,�yk d; �i ., ..�•. - , @:,', ��.,;. , .,i, :, r" �' :�:�;.+y ' �t�;tiA7�.«k+ f,t� T'.�'.4,,# � .is�.,'., . yy�F1
�
f .�. �•� �r ; t
Y a
`Asserriiile�thefive'co ie�:u'"th�
s f e'� `ra •oral �carefull � fatlowin� � the order ' iven is the Grant A � lication -
fP. P. P. g g �p
u . {^ Che&list: M'aily tilries, proposals sie assembled mcorrectlyrequiring the Grants' Staff to take'th6ni apart f
°' r,;;,f ;� �., , , ,,,,.., "r' } ♦ : �" • «i . -
,,. -and- reasseinble them Is" much easler'f
It`" or'the`I)HPA,Stafftoreviewr"propasals':wheii`ihey'aie a11_
'f'. .C'. ''�:•i '}'^'»m.j fy.' 'V4'.' .•.5,,,;ihh m;.# •:�,,;,{..'A' .'r. ,, _r a -
-'asse_ mbled Tri the Baine manner: this makes'it to com s another of to fixid ickI r "-tr
' easy pare`onepropd alio /'fid
.vr,^+,• ".,i, - - .7^� •tirt... ,..y,.t."1." y��'
,y�,g' ecific part '3 'e-' t„t
sP P P g m:any'inclividuatpro� "sal. ,�.�:��..,.. >I��:;;:3.,;�s ..� ..a�•::K�• i.��,.."�,. .,.�•;,.
' 4: .! .�: .,.. 1< "1 f � Y'; m. :,xy •�.; +f..;y �r . ='.:`sr:. ,�-i:s`.`,s.-••,',-=•r.•^":.:': ._, , .. r,"
r: �,..d k.,,.,.,r,�. :.tt„,r t �. ._F:z c• N3 ,n ii:i:�' K'ifl;e;v..,; ;•-:;... v'�,.:.
cw.„�.,«s. ,x�v'."S,.F";'�T;:>x..�:''fii3r.%.r�,.r'+'x'hf.�a.<S.�'YY��r�",r r.•.i',. s r'.%,,t-.,.c � :� •J;' `�;
. "'l:i> 7r.. .3, , tt;i:rV,-,M:..:,;°:.1 .,�;'>�.;a•-C�S�!''z�";'..i;;"� ,f.:��/x.%e a,y .:.>",:••,.>.,
. rxr ^^,�•, ate:-. ,.Yr,!i „,.y, ,,.,, ';y_... .r +�.. .. -{t: - �C�``'"x
{;lv,•,>n .'t` `r .'tom ':li r
Do' ►.- rwrGive our: osal totsomeone+else to read! roofreaii before subnittiri' t4't'
Y , ProP , p g IIs often advisable' -to have
�'t�l'a lr, r� Y ••. - _ ' ✓-,..F.:: a, ;.d&. • :.;;n,..
F ,w someone NC3T conn`e"cted'vvitli the: ro ect read'aver the m+ osal:Iftfie are tefl.witii' ` estioas abort
..P,.J .P,TP.;::>+•. --�'= ,yam tN :t:,,..,...
theiithe ri `ectdes tioribrtl ere
PJe P, .3 cpP, sponse'stgthe pnonties Iitay,iie too briefor too vague:You
R.+. - .H r.ln� uy.w .iii •:i.; L: ntrx^_ �d v .,'r.rr: 6'i
�tkfY �+ ..5�'',�'p�"yz*4^rN p. •t�'r .hi11'M i''y' ''i. ?•y!
- :seM'111i1 tlien:revisethe o�tiie' r8l al',.._
vVt-
M1�,
`Y
o r-
l'
�.r
�Do Submit oiir' :-'a "e''
� Y Propos l arly, Ifpossible:"-This=ail°oivs°fhe`Grants»Staffto�-check .our �roosat and make 9
"sure that everytfiing+:'is iii order: Ifr"`arts"are' missin' orrmcom Mete
p the Grants'Staff;virill'nohfy.you A•, .:f
''r•s%, _ - - 'g .,�� i'
== ' "• r ilnmediateIyw=If you proposai'is sulamitted`early fou will have extra tune to iriake the:n'ecess�t V chaiiOres
.. t< - = . .,�,. - �,...�,„.�v.."4vt,,. ...y;,J ..,, b ,.•s
-or additions; otherwise; you wl�tha}vfe oilIyseven days after the grifir eadline toaput ev mg `in order::
`fJ ti3S :.f., al�.,y , y.:Y"�i+3 (:++tt 4:.'i. iF' vatt't Y.; •'.�#}j'S-1•F.'•.0 rJVS<'.' :C.>,.x K`e. alert', i n•P: :�,,: :S.i 4�4' .i ir''r*i a.' �1. - �;...
4 . ..,,f . '.Gy.. {`..r,.• i...r ,i,_� 4ie�i .i.r,., t`"S � 'y,5 t � Y'. 1` ?
Da`== >” ► =r+ Ask far letters afsupport from loc@':people andeorganizations'who support your project.1f, It is#tiesf if these x R"
letters can be submittediiirecilyveith the prop 4; .�,w•<°'.:zV=
osaI,:however,, they may: be submmitted`separately:,f:Pl '
be' sure that letters being submitted separate from the proposal are maileii in time to'reach`the DHPA
thea pplication cieadline:^�'Le_tteii receive^d'afterthe' first evaluation session WILIrNOT.be considered:
r'fy.F+-e:. _ iY.t,.t,niq."'<^.,`if"y.a` a t..',F<w .; `C. - --`,Av•° -"t'�
-K' 'xi.r :• ".r .i'. .d.•$i' int' "r` EF .:rwt 3 ^r r,•`1n .i 4a;arNt `. rr'y..re.C.�
+•i<.C;'<'`t'.',Zp;�•„.ts;a..,i':tJf.-.'1,._.+.,L}d-*:(.» it�'.t:,:Jt.S•.tC4"'«.'T,r..l'.�-'`:i%�':�`::':f`�156:,. f-xT!'a`j.�.;J::.:�f.
tYl'l.. fa�. i^fi•P S-., 't' 1 +t- *'�tA'**:' „�`�' ,.µ+ •�Y-
.. .i ;e:s. +.ta'Irin•,. ,1.5 a .i�.l'Si�*,t .:a 3'�f3.`�":.�' :i i. ,�;�.:,.� i;'.:'�'+^r�"'e�+.`:i � �"''Y f. �%~r;,ra � �+..:';•.
t a. ,.:i s'•��,, x #: .S,rr,i%� . .#x..i;„k-tY .ir"„ l",a..r,„.,.a d '�`t eJn,. �:,SA�' ?�„^ .'�,,,
- 'ir- t �R'',cN-y. 'Y'r.h.+.-... ni.' r, ;2• Tc - 3?Yi ..i.i- _ _ '• y 't-.,..:...
,� S.,vf,�r: !'4: 1 +.: < 2t t ,i", °ry':' .tE'- MY,�. !r '•{'"�e;y i=t „n•,��",A. ?•«'.> r,- x^•,r .s:rtrt
�:,k f''-
Dau't 1k ►'' Walt until the last
. • , -. ` , .� F
astminute"to'begifi prepanng'your;proposat C,Supponing'docunientatio Is e77
Po A Xtiem8ly
Z. important and may take several weeks to'collectorput togeiher,'especially'budgei information;=matching ,
r r`y P ` �4� L ",q„tr � i • .' ..:. ., ?� : , . -.r,.,•.; . f.n .;. c
-r r� shale: documentation, 'w'ritten estimates'fof &oposed work,, `and letters of su ort.' Pro osals; re 'areiI at k
en. ac e ` ` ` � v #'
th necessary details and documentation, and° �enerall ":do not"score very .;t. tl , x'k � t'J.irJ • a � . h'tr:. Y_ �'i, fi;. X.'; � if
u' b ca _
6.
e use'"of"'it_ r Remember � thism is an .extremel � e ;���:�:
,. yKcoin titive• ro=.take'the`tiulenecess� `"to' ut
..•,�;, ,�. ...�,:.+.,:.. ,.. r...,,;�y',,•, ," _ ,.. :'y7•}•,� r.i�: 'if.r "j1,'; '>fi; --,t,^•-. *'r`J..� :q "'�5,..., x. _
I""�e.r � 5�r,, i,: ..vi"x. v�^', ..F+d°2 •rk•,• ^.,,^, Y,�a.' �+.+i �'..
th a.. •uali "ro r osal_ .,:�. , .y... _`� r; °' -� �. �:'a. .<' rf�t.: " � +. ��,..,,, .
'•moi ",Nt ,, .
-'r'�� .d`t'." ',� :•� ,Sp>• ,��,i,.:;d. ,wJt`,•»,. .k'r..aw.^}..i �. .i� f ,..ts f•„'" ,..��.-�++ti'1 ^P'•i�4 X::%` .Cr3 ,..,� ., �',f. �, ti �.'�*fi„ �:�v.'a .-,�«;:#':..5).,;
'.'s.' ,,v.;5' 't?'w''. .;j,n,. t. -x,'a, •r. a�;t, ?..>,i,C;•c..4".i��;,s,,..-r.,:d..�:i.,. ;;�::�lt.d,_,ar"�+�i✓c.ty-•,""�,�a.t.k.:i3��•S.a•.l�''�;`�;:�;'r�"„ a r.�.
.',ny, ^ai .'i. :;�'a:„ o4�i#.f,a,„":s^.';';.,�, "'Z:,td,. ..,, ,.}„ ,+2. :r„t ," a»i.�;.t.....:. =�.x�„ ,S', tta',:N...,,t�,,.✓*'
�'f F`.. _ _ i i:'= cw..,a «.t : a+4'''> `.:y, •rs. ,..� r ,.a �i,�s�' h�, ,>L ,. 2.- ,,t�..jf•... F": .. a..,,,
�: +, :;E._t.•'�ilnn�f i.',i''►"!•e3 Cr•5:..::t................:,:..;:i...i.'�N...,... ...�»L.'�1:,'�_.__�f_� me.,*�.t !___ _ �.-x r-.-�r�'+r=t'�..tl.-•-b'.� _,_ -r�t_-wi`}^'-: ,.:,.,: i':SS.
t,L:irahossible
., -^ •`r, ,:e:: "Y A" ;zi �r,h.:t-
.. ... `'%r� .. ., i#' ;r .i.., 4�:.• '7;`, srr ,,t `4'Pr ',r; a '+s t'+v+.•.;:"^i '-
v,4 .,r.��k - • —"t. m., .t..+r :i 'er..uY•..ra +. n. y...t»t.
v a
1 t s
FIVE EASY WAYS TO MAKE YOUR PROPOSAL SCORE MORE POINTS•
L Include a thorough and detailedprojectdescription This project description should cover every item or task
to be completed under the `grant -assisted project. 'If the proposed grant'project' is'a part, component; or phase of
a much larger or comprehensive project, briefly describe the overall project and how the proposed grant pro,Iect fits
into the big picture: -Then describe the proposed grant project in detail.' List abd describe every product that will
result from the grant project, and,discuss any' potential spin-off benefits of the'project A' thorough and detailed
project description generally should notexceedthreetype-written pages;.:'. °:::' , '. '• ,
2. Include a detailed timetable for the proposed grant'project.' This timetable should allow time•for the project
initiation by DHPA Staff, procurement of goods and services (bidding), and should address every task,'aspect, or
component of the'pir`oject: ,Break`down the;timetable by the; number, of days,`'weeks, or months•necessary to
complete each task or phase of the project. The timetable should set forth a clear, realistic, and reasonable schedule
for the completion of the grant project. Simply providing begin and end dates for the project does not constitute
an acceptable timetable., Proposals with vague, poorly detailed, or unrealistic timetables often score fewer than half
of the points possible for this evaluation criteria.
3.. Include a detailed and documented project budget. The budget should be broken down in detail on a separate
page after the budget form. This breakdown should follow the budget categories or line -items on the budget form,
and should show how the total amount for each line -item was calculated. Be certain to include.,all project costs in
the.appropriate budget Iine-items. If grant funding is offered, reimbursements will only be made for those items
included in the original project budget.. Whenever possible, include written estimates from consultants or
contractors for the goods and services to be used in the proposed project --_ this is especially critical for Acquisition
and Development proposals.. This kind of documentation proves that the budget is reasonable and accurate. While
submitting a budget breakdown page and other project cost documentation is not strictly required, including these
items greatly improves the quality of the project budget and guarantees a higher score for the budget criteria.
1
.4. Include documentation to support the applicant's matching share. Obtaining copies of bank statements, written
pledges or commitments, or other financial documentation may take several days or even weeks, so be sure to allow
enough time to accomplish this task prior to the project deadline_ While submitting supporting documentation for
the matching share is not required, submitting this documentation proves that the required funds are on -hand and
available and that the project may begin immediately. Because HPF grants are "reimbursement grants" where the
subgrantee is reimbursed for project costs (grant money is NOT distributed up -front), without the required matching
share in place to leverage the grant funds, the project cannot move forward.
S. , Include detailed and accurate responses to the priorities. There are two sets of priorities: Administrative and
Categorical. The applicant's responses to these priorities are what the DHPA Staff uses to evaluate and score the
proposal, so you should pay particular attention to this part of the proposal. In general, more clear and detailed
responses will score better than vague or unclear responses. Please provide clear, thorough, and detailed responses
,whenever required by the wording of the priority statements. However, take note that many priorities require only
simple and concise answers.., Whenever a proposed project will not meet a specific priority, mark "NA" asthe
response and move on to the next item. No project will meet every single priority statement; however, providing
adequate detail where necessarywill give the DHPA Staff the best possible understanding of your particular project,
which should result in the best possible score for your proposal.
By carefully following the advice given above, a grant applicant should be able to avoid the most common pitfalls of
preparing a grant proposal.' :A quality grant proposal is the sum of many quality,parts_ One or two,weakparts of the
proposal may the difference of several points; which in turn may mean the difference between the proposal being
funded and not being funded , If you have. questions, don't be afraid, to, ask'for advice or giiidancel
_; Questions should be'directed to the DHPA GY-atits~Staff by caliing317=232=1646
b faacin 317-232=0693 ,or; Ii A.,wiritin to: `Grak a f "Division` uttisto '
xe,y. g s ` St f .�.. ric :;�..`
Preservation and .,AichaeoIo~ 442 .v e 4
gy,, W st .Washington Street, i)toom - W2'74,
Indianavolis ;Indiana 46204,
i '
CORNELIUS O'BRIEN CONFERENCE
ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
The 31st Annual Cornelius O'Brien Conference on Historic Preservation is sponsored by Indiana
University and the Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA). The DHPA,
a part of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, administers the state's historic preservation
and archaeology programs. The Conference honors the memory of Cornelius O'Brien (1883-1953) —
banker, farmer, industrialist and preservationist. He was among the
first to recognize the need for preserving Indiana's historic buildings
I Among i I ion
and sites. Am his many interests was the restoration of a port'
of the Whitewater Canal near Metamora, and the enlargement and
74
preservation of Veraestau, home of the Holman, Hamilton, and
O'Brien families. Through the support of Mr. O'Brien's daughter,
4�
Mrs. John Timberlake Gibson, the Cornelius O'Brien Conference on
Historic Preservation continues to reaffirm its goal of providing an
annual statewide forum for a critical examination and discussion of
historic preservation issues and for increasing public awareness of
Cornelius O'Brien historic preservation:
CORNELIUS O'BRIEN LECTURE SERIES
Indiana University's Cornelius O'Brien Lecture Series provides funding to assist organizations
throughout the state with the costs of paying for speakers to address subjects related to historic
preservation. Indiana University is proud to sponsor the Cornelius
O'Brien Lecture Series as part of its commitment to education and
service to the people of Indiana. For more information, or to apply for
funding, write to Cornelius O'Brien Lecture Series, Department of
History, 425 University Boulevard, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46202;
phone, 317-274-5840. The lecture series was established by Mr.
O'Brien's daughter, Mary, (Mrs. John Timberlake Gibson), of Wash-
ington, D.C., from whom it has continued to receive generous support
and permanent endowment since 1984. For many years the series
enjoyed special assistance from the late Mrs.Cornelius O'Brien as well.
Mrs. John Timberlake Gibson
Brochure Designed by: Janice Sorby, Sorby Design Studio
FUNDING
This conference has been funded in part by Department of the Interior funds administered by the
Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Regula-
tions of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in federally
assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age or handicap. Any person who believes
he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility operated by a recipient of
federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program, U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, P.O. 37127, Washington, D.C. 20013-7127.
This conference has been financed in part with federal funds from the National Park Service,
Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior.
Kosciusko County Courthouse, Warsaw, Indiana. The Kosciusko County Courthouse was completed in 1884
and renovated in 1996. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, it is made of Indiana limestone with
a domed clock tower rising three and one half stories. It is connected to the modern new Justice Building by
a tunnel.
CONFERENCE INFORMATION
Conference Location
The Cornelius O'Brien Conference for 1999 meets in Winona Lake/Warsaw, Indiana. Events on
Friday, September 24 will take place in Winona Lake, and activities on Saturday, September 25 will be
in downtown Warsaw. This conference offers the chance to experience the lakeside setting of Winona
Lake and revitalized Warsaw, county seat of Kosciusko County. Most sessions will take place in
historic spaces.
Who Should Attend?
The Cornelius O'Brien Conference features presentations by local, regional and national experts
on various aspects of historic preservation and archaeology. Most talks are slide -illustrated and are
aimed at a broad audience interested in historic preservation. The conference provides an opportunity
for novices and practitioners (preservationists, teachers, county historians, municipal and county
planners) to meet each other and the speakers in a congenial setting.
Special Events
An interpretation of Billy Sunday is scheduled for Friday evening. This promises to be a fun filled
evening reminiscent of the inspired preachings of Billy Sunday during the early 1900's. The tour on
Saturday afternoon will feature the Billy Sunday Home, the Village at Winona, the Buyer Hotel and
much more. Saturday evening, the Closing Reception will be held on the S.S. Lillypad Cruiser on Lake
Wawasee.
Acknowledgments
The Indiana University Committee on Historic Preservation and the Indiana Division of Historic
Preservation and Archaeology would like to acknowledge the support and assistance of the following
organizations:
• Ball State University, College of Architecture and Planning
• Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, Inc.
• Indiana University Conferences
• Indiana Main Street Program
Indiana Historical Bureau
Indiana Historical Society
GENERAL INFORMATION
Accommodations
A block of rooms is being held at the Ramada Plaza Hotel at a rate of $74/night, plus taxes.
Please make your reservation by calling (219) 269-2323 or by fax (219) 269-2432. Mention that you,
are with the Indiana University/Cornelius O'Brien Conference. Rate and availability cannot be guaran-
teed after September 13, 1999. The Ramada Plaza Hotel will hold your reservation until 6:00 pm the
day of your arrival without a credit card; to guarantee later arrival, they require credit card information.
Cancellations must be received 24 hours prior to your arrival or you will be charged for one night.
Early Bird Registration � Speciak-
On September 9;1999; Indiana University Conferences" will randomly draw a name from
among those who are registered. by that date. The winner twill get two free nights lodging in
the. Ramada PIaza Hote[during rhe.Conferenee.:You must be registered by September 9, 1999
to win.`.
4.
Registration Fees
The full registration fee is $30 and includes registration materials, admission to all sessions on
Friday and Saturday, and a tour on Saturday. Students may register for $15. There are also program
fees for Friday or Saturday only (see registration form). Those registering after September 17, 1999,
may pick up confirmation materials during on-site registration at the Ramada Plaza Hotel.
Food Service
The food service package is $60.00. This includes an opening buffet lunch, banquet and break
refreshments on Friday; buffet lunch and break refreshments on Saturday. Single -day packages are also
available (see registration form).
Travel/Parking
Warsaw is about a 2 1/2 -hour drive from Indianapolis. It is approximately 35 minutes from South
Bend and 45 minutes from Fort Wayne. Bus transportation will be provided during the conference to
and from Winona Lake and Warsaw for all sessions and events, for anyone who does not wish to drive.
The Ramada Plaza Hotel provides complimentary parking for all guests.
For More Information
For more information about the content of the conference, please contact Frank Hurdis, Indiana
Division of Historic Preservation & Archaeology, at (317) 232-1646, or Philip Scarpino, IUPUI
Department of History, at (317) 274-5983 or e-mail at pscarpin@iupui.edu. For registration ques-
tions, contact the Registrar at 1-800-933-9330 or (812) 855-4661. You may also contact Jennifer
Gentry, the Conference Coordinator, at (812) 855-4661. For a full refund, cancellations must be
received on or before September 17,1999.
CONFERENCE PROGt
FRIDAY,
SEPTEMBER 24, 1999
8:00 am - REGISTRATION - Ramada Plaza Hotel - Warsaw, Indiana
5:00 pm
ALL SESSIONS ON FRIDAY ARE IN WINONA LAKE.
BUS TRANSPORTATION PROVIDED.
9:30 am - OPENING CONCURRENT SESSIONS:
11:00 am SESSION A - Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology
Jon C. Smith, Director
The yearly update from the Indiana State Historic Preservation Office with a focus on the
new Indiana Freedom Trails program.
SESSION B - Historic Preservation for the Beginner
Frank D. Hurdis, Jr., Chief of Registration and Survey, DHPA
Suzanne Stanis, Education and Information Coordinator, HLFI
David Baker, Director, Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission
Neal Carlson, Kosciusko County Historical Society
Each of these individuals represents a different type of preservation organization or agency.
They will offer a little background about their organization to help the person new to historic
preservation put the players and the pieces together.
11:30 am - LUNCHEON AND OPENING ADDRESS
12:45 pm "Oh Bran (Wnr. Jennings), How Corn E U R"
Brent Wilcoxin, President, Winona Restoration Partners
1:15 pm - OPENING PLENARY SESSION
2:45 pm THE CHAUTAUQUA IN AMERICA
"The Independent Chautauqua, Then and Now
David T. Glick, formally with The Edison Institute (Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield Village)
"Chautauqua: A Middle Landscape of the Middle Class"
Thomas J. Schlereth, Ph.D., Professor of American Studies, University of Notre Dame.
-They've Been Fraoted Architectare and Preservation in Midwest Chautauquas"
Ted J. Ligibel, Ph.D., Director, Graduate Historic Preservation Program, Eastern
Michigan University
3:00 pm - CONCURRENT SESSION
4:15 pm SESSION A - LOCATING AND PRESERVING ARCHITECTURAL RECORDS
-Hunting Architectural Doutnlents Arnong Public Records
John J. Newman, Director, information Management, Indiana State Court Administration
"The Care. Preservation and Access of Architectural Drawings"
Larry Lafollette, Preservation Officer, Indiana Commission on Public Records
SAM AND SPEAKERS
SESSION B - THE UNERGROUND RAILROAD INITIATIVE
Introductory Remarks: Jon C. Smith, Director, Indiana Division of Historic Preservation
and Archaeology
-Ohio Network to Freedom -
Cathy Nelson, State Coordinator, Ohio Underground Railroad Association
4:30 pm - Enjoy Winona Lake!
6:30 pm Shops will be open until 6:00 pm especially for conference participants.
6:30 pm BANQUET
Cornelius O'Brien Lecture
Ellen Weiss, Ph.D.
"City in the lVloods: Camp Meetings on Martha's Vineyard and Elsewhere
Dr. Weiss is a Professor in the School of Architecture, Tulane University. She is the author
of An Annotated Biblios-,ravhv on African American Architects and Builders (Society of
Architectural Historians, 1993) and City in the Woods. The Life and Desian of An American
Cama Meetiniz on Martha's Vinevard (Oxford University Press, 1987, reprinted Northeastern
University Press, 1998).
*The lecture following dinner is free and open to the public.
8:15 pm BILLY SUNDAY!!
An interpretation of Billy Sunday by Dr. Steve Grill, Dean of Community Education,
Grace College.
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1999
ALL ACTIVITIES ON SATURDAY ARE IN WARSAW.
BUS TRANSPORTATION PROVIDED.
8:00 am - REGISTRATION - Kosciusko County Courthouse, Warsaw - Indiana
11:30 am
8:00 am - BREAKFAST
9:15 am Indiana Alliance of Historic District Commissions
"The Corporate Visual Responsibility Initiative"
Ronald Lee Fleming, ACIP, Founder and President of the Townscape Institute
Saturday, September 25, 1999, Continued
9:30 am - PLENARY SESSION
10:45 am THE IMPORTANCE OF "PLACE" IN AMERICAN CITIES
"Placemaking Strategies in Urban Design: Working with Artists to Enrich Place"
Ronald Lee Fleming, ACIP, Founder and President of the Townscape Institute
"The Challenge of Restoring the Kosciusko County Courthouse"
Mary Ellen Rudisel, Scarce-Rudisel Architects, restoration architect for the Kosciusko
County Courthouse
11:15 am - PLENARY SESSION
12:30 pm THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC DESIGNED LANDSCAPES
"Philosophies of Historic Landscape Restoration"
Charles Birnbaum, Coordinator, Historic Landscape Initiative, NPS
'Inscribed Afeauing: the Restoration of California Afission Landscapes"
Elizabeth Kryder-Reid, Director of Museum Studies, IUPUI
"The Ball Nurser Garden and Convalescent Park on the IUPUI Campus"
Kevin Osburn, Associate, Rundell Ernstberger Assoc., Indianapolis
12:30 pm - LUNCHEON AND ADDRESS
1:45 pm Presentation of the Wilbur Peat Award by the Central Indiana Chapter of the Society of
Architectural Historians.
Presentation of the Maude Anderson Award, Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana.
"Winona Lake, A Vacation Utopia"
Kipp Normand, Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission
2:15 pm - TOUR
4:00 pm Highlights: Billy Sunday Home, the Village at Winona, the Buyer Home and much more.
6:00 pm - CLOSING RECEPTION - Aboard the S.S. Lillypad Cruiser
7:00 pm Cash Bar and Serious Snacks - This picturesque cruise around Lake Wawasee will provide
an opportunity to meet the speakers and socialize in an informal, relaxed setting.
Cornelius O'Brien Conference on Historic Preservation
September 24-25, 1999
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE AND FILL IN ALL APPROPRIATE ITEMS.
Name
Additional Participan*-
Addresq
City/State/Zip
Day Phone
SS# for each participant
(Required by the Tax
Relief Act of 1997)
TOUR:
Yes, I plan to attend Number attending
No, I won't be attending Number NOT attending
MEAL PACKAGES:
Full conference (includes opening buffet lunch, banquet
on Friday; lunch on Saturday, all breakout refreshments)......
REGISTRATION:
Full Conference (Friday & Saturday) •..•......•...
$30.00 x
people = $
Full Conference—Student....................................
$15.00 x
people = $
Friday Program Only ....
$20.00 x,
people = $
Friday Program—Student ....................................
$10.00 x
people = $
Saturday Program Only •••••..•••••.••••••.............••.•••
$20.00 x
people = $
Saturday Program—Student .................. .....•....••
$10.00 x
people = $
TOUR:
Yes, I plan to attend Number attending
No, I won't be attending Number NOT attending
MEAL PACKAGES:
Full conference (includes opening buffet lunch, banquet
on Friday; lunch on Saturday, all breakout refreshments)......
$60.00 x
people =$ ❑ Vegetarian
Friday meals only (includes opening buffet lunch,
banquet, and breakout refreshments) ..........................................
$40.00 x
people = $ ❑ Vegetarian
Saturday meals only (includes buffet lunch and
breakout refreshments) ...................................
$20.00 x
people = $ ❑ Vegetarian
Saturday breakfast, Indiana Alliance of Historic District
Commissions (NO ON-SITE Registrations accepted) .................
$10.00
people = $
Closing reception (Limited aaailabilit}t —first-served basis)
$15.00 x
people = $
TOTAL ENCLOSED = $
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR PAYMENT OPTIONS.
PAYMENT OPTIONS
Credit Card Payment: (Choose t}pe of card.)
❑ VISA ❑ MasterCard ❑ Discover ❑ American Express
Account Number: - -- --- ---- ----_- ----- - - ---.-- --
Expiration Date:
Authorized Signature: -- -- - --- - -- - - - - - _ --
-or-
El Check payable to Indiana University #104-99
Send payment and registration form to:
Conference Registrar
Indiana University Conferences
P.O. Box 249
Bloomington, IN 47402
FAX: (812) 855-8077
PHONE: (812) 855-4661 or (800) 933-9330
A limited number of registration scholarships are available. For further information, contact Paul Diebold at
(317) 232-1646.
SPECIAL NEEDS:
Please list any special needs for our attention(dietary, transportation, housing):
Cancellations must be received by September 17, 1999 to receive full refund.
Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Chinworth Bridge, built in 1897, is located west of Warsaw
at the Tippecanoe River Rest Park owned by the Kosciusko County Historical Society. it is one of the few remain-
ing iron bridges in the country.
Indiana University Conferences Pre -Sort First Class
110 One City Centre U.S. Postage
Bloomington, IN 47404 PAID
U.S.A. Bloomington, IN
PERMIT #2
4
IC 36-7-11. Historic Preservation (Burns)
(as amended: 1981, 1982, 1987, 1992)
CHAPTER 11
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
36-7-11-1. Applicability of chapter -- Exceptions. -- This chapter applies
to all units except:
(1) Counties having a consolidated city; -
(2) Municipalities in counties having a consolidated city; and
(3) Townships.
36-7-11-2. Exclusive method for operation of historic preservation
agency -- Exception -- Power of municipality concerning
commission for preservation of historic street. -- (a) If before July
1, 1977, a unit established by ordinance a commission for the purpose
of historic preservation, that commission may continue to operate,
regardless of whether that ordinance is subsequently amended or is
consistent with this chapter. If the unit wants to operate an historic
district board of review under this chapter, it must adopt an ordinance
under section 4 of this chapter, and this chapter then provides the
exclusive method for operation of an historic preservation agency in
the unit.
(b) If a unit did not establish a commission for the purpose of historic
preservation before July 1, 1977, this chapter provides the exclusive
method for operation of an historic preservation agency in the unit.
(c) Subsections (a) and (b) do not limit the power of a municipality to
establish a commission for the preservation of an historic street area
under IC 14-3-3.2-23.
36-7-11-3. Legislative intent -- Conflict between regulations of
zoning district and historic district. -- The historic district regulation
provided in this chapter is intended to preserve and protect the historic
or architecturally worthy buildings, structures, sites, monuments,
streetscapes, squares, and neighborhoods of the historic districts.
Zoning districts lying within the boundaries of the historic district are
subject to the regulations for both the zoning district and the historic
district. If there is conflict between the requirements of the zoning
district and the requirements of the historic district, the more restrictive
V requirements apply.
36-7-11-4. Establishment of historic district board of review. -- (a)
A unit may establish, by ordinance, an historic district board of review
(referred to as "the board" in this chapter), with 'an official name
designated in the ordinance. The board must have not less than three
(3) nor more than nine (9) voting members, as designated by the
ordinance. The voting members shall be appointed by the executive of
the unit, subject to the approval of the legislative body. Voting
members shall each serve for a term of three (3) years. However, the
terms of the original voting members may be for one (1) year, two (2)
years, or three (3) years in order for the terms to be staggered, as
provided by the ordinance. A vacancy shall be filled for the duration
of the term.
(b) The ordinance may provide qualifications for members of the
board, but members must be residents of the unit who are interested in
the preservation and development of historic areas. The ordinance
may also provide for the appointment of advisory members that the
legislative body considers appropriate.
(c) the ordinance may:
(1) Designate an officer or employee of the unit to act as
administrator;
(2) Permit the board to appoint an administrator who shall serve
without compensation except reasonable expenses incurred in the
performance of his duties; or
(3) Provide that the board act without the services of an
administrator.
(d) Members of the board shall serve without compensation except for
reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of their duties.
(e) The board shall elect from its membership a chairman and vice
chairman, who shall serve for one (1) year and may be reelected.
(f) The board shall adopt rules consistent with this chapter for the
transaction of its business. The rules must include the time and place
of regular meetings and a procedure for the calling of special meetings.
All meetings of the board must be open to the public, and a public
record of the board's resolutions, proceedings, and actions must be
kept. If the board has an administrator, he shall act as the board's
secretary; otherwise, the board shall elect a secretary from its
membership.
(g) The board shall hold regular meetings, at least monthly, except
when it has no business pending.
(h) A decision of the board is subject to judicial review under IC 4-
21.5-5 as if it was a decision of a state agency.
36-7-11-5. Elements of board's concern -- Limitations -- County
board prohibited from action affecting property Iocated in
municipality. -- The board shall be concerned with those elements of
development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and preservation that
affect visual quality in the historic district. However, the board may
not consider details of design, interior arrangements, or building
features if those details, arrangements, or features are not subject to
public view, and may not make any requirement except for the purpose
of preventing development, alteration, or demolition in the historic
district obviously incongruous with the historic district. A board
established by a county may not take any action that affects property
located in a municipality.
36-7-11-6. Surveying and mapping historic districts. — (a) The board
shall conduct a survey to identify historic buildings, structures, and
places located within the unit. Based on its survey, the board shall
submit to the Iegislative body a map describing the boundaries of an
historic district or historic districts. A district may be limited to the
boundaries of a property containing a single building, structure, or site.
The map may divide a district into primary and secondary buildings.
(b) The board shall also classify and designate on the map all
buildings and structures within each historic district described on the
map. Buildings and structures shall be classified as historic or non -
historic, in the following manner:
(1) Historic buildings and structures must possess identified
historic or architectural merit of a degree warranting their
preservation. They may be further classified as:
(A) exceptional;
(B) excellent;
(C) notable; or
(D) of value as part of the scene.
In lieu of the further classifications set forth in subdivisions (A)
through (D), the board may devise its own system of further
classification for historic buildings and structures.
(2) Nonhistoric buildings and structures are those not classified
on the map as historic.
36-7-11-7. Approval by ordinance of historic districts map. -- The map
setting forth the historic district boundaries and building classifications
must be submitted to, and approved in an ordinance by, the legislative
body of the unit before the historic district is established and the
building classifications take effect.
36-7-11-3. Additional surveys and maps authorized. -- The board may
conduct additional surveys, and draw and submit additional maps for
approval of the legislative body, as it considers appropriate.
K 36-7-11-9. Provision of assistance to board by proper official
mandated. -- (a) Each official of the unit who has responsibility for
building inspection, building permits, planning, or zoning shall provide
any technical, administrative, or clerical assistance requested by the
board.
(b) The attorney for the unit is the attorney for the board. However,
the board may employ other Iegal counsel authorized to practice law in
Indiana if it considers it to be necessary or desirable.
36-7-11-10. Certificate of appropriateness prerequisite to issuance of
permit or initiation of work. -- Except as provided in sections 19 and
20 of this chapter, a certificate of appropriateness must be issued by
the board before a permit is issued for or work is begun on any of the
following:
(1) Within all areas of the historic district;
(A) the demolition of any building;
(B) the moving of any building;
(C) a conspicuous change in the exterior appearance of
historic buildings by additions, reconstruction, alteration, or
maintenance involving exterior color change; or
(D) any new construction of a principal building or accessory
building or structure subject to view from a public way.
(2) Within a primary area of the historic district:
(A) a change in wails and fences or the construction of walls
and fences along public ways; or
(B) a conspicuous change in the exterior appearance of
nonhistoric buildings subject to view from a public way by
additions, reconstruction, alteration, or maintenance involving
exterior color change.
36-7-11-11. Prerequisites for application for certificate of
appropriateness. -- Application for a certificate of appropriateness
may be made in the office of the board on forms provided by . that
office. Detailed drawings, plans, or specifications are not required.
However, to the extent reasonably required for the board to make a
decision, each application must be accompanied by sketches, drawings,
photographs, descriptions, or other information showing the proposed
exterior alterations, additions, changes, or new construction.
36-7-11-12. Advice to applicant for certificate of appropriateness --
Procedures upon approval or denial of application. -- (a) The
board may advise and make recommendations to the applicant before
acting on an application for a certificate of appropriateness.
(b) If an application for a certificate of appropriateness:
(1) is approved by the board; or
(2) is not acted on by the board;
within thirty (30) days after it is filed, a certificate of appropriateness
shall be issued. If the certificate is issued, the application shall be
processed in the same manner as applications for building or
demolition permits are required by the unit, the applicant may proceed
with the work authorized by the certificate.
(c) If the board denies an application for a certificate of
appropriateness within thirty (30) days after is filed, the certificate
may not be issued. The board must state its reasons for the denial in
writing, and must advise the applicant. An application that has been
denied may not be processed as an application for a building or
demolition permit and does not authorize any work by the applicant.
(d) The board may grant an extension of the thirty (30) day limit
prescribed by subsections (b) and (c) if the applicant agrees to it.
36-7-11-13. Preservation of historical and architectural character upon
alteration or relocation mandated. — (a) An historic building or
structure or any part of or appurtenance to such a building or
structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, paving,
and signs may be moved, reconstructed, altered, or maintained only in
a manner that will preserve the historical and architectural character of
the building, structure, or appurtenance.
(b) An historic building may be relocated to another site only if it is
shown that preservation on its current site is inconsistent with
subsection (a).
? 36-7-11-14. Purpose of section — Procedure for demolition upon denial
of issuance of certificate of appropriateness. — (a) The purpose
of this section is to preserve historic buildings that are important to the
education, culture, traditions, and economic values of the unit, and to
afford the unit, historical organizations, and other interested persons
the opportunity to acquire or to arrange for the preservation of these
buildings.
(b) If a property owners shows that an historic building is incapable of
earning an economic return on its value, as appraised by a qualified
real estate appraiser, and the board fails to approve the issuance of a
certificate of appropriateness, the building may be demolished.
However, before a demolition permit is issued or demolition proceeds,
notice of proposed demolition must be given for a period fixed by the
board, based on the board's classification on the approved map but not
less than sixty (60) days nor more than one (1) year. Notice must be
posted on the premises of the building proposed for demolition in a
location clearly visible from the street. In addition, notice must be
published in a newspaper of general local circulation at least three (3)
{
times before demolition, with the first publication not more than fifteen
(15) days after the application for a permit to demolish is filed, and the
final publication at least fifteen (15) days before the date of the permit.
(c) The board may approve a certificate of appropriateness at any
time during the notice period under subsection (b). ,If the certificate is
approved, a demolition permit shall be issued without further delay,
and demolition may proceed.
36-7-11-15. Standard of maintenance of historic buildings. — Historic
buildings shall be maintained to meet the applicable requirements
established under statute for buildings generally.
36-7-11-16. Compatibility of nonhistoric buildings with other buildings
in historic district. -- Except as provided in section 20 of this
chapter, the construction of a new building or structure, and the
moving, reconstruction, alteration, major maintenance, or repair
involving a color change conspicuously affecting the external
appearance of any nonhistoric building, structure, or appurtenance
within the primary area must be generally of a design, form,
proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and
location on a lot compatible with other buildings in the historic district,
particularly with buildings designated as historic, and with squares and
places to which it is visually related.
36-7-11-17. Visual compatibility factors. — Except as provided in section
20 of this chapter, within the primary area of the historic district, new
buildings and structures, as well as buildings, structures, and
appurtenances that are moved, reconstructed, materially altered,
repaired, or changed in color, must be visually compatible with
buildings, squares, and places to which they are visually related
generally in terms of the following visual compatibility factors:
(1) Height. The height of proposed buildings must be visually
compatible with adjacent buildings.
(2) Proportion of building's front facade. The relationship of the
width of a building to the height of the front elevation must be
visually compatible to buildings, squares, and places to which it is
visually related.
(3) Proportion of openings within the facility. The relationship
of the width of the windows to the height of the windows in a
building must be visually compatible with buildings, squares, and
places to which it is visually related.
(4) Rhythm of solids to voids in front facades. The relationship
of solids to voids in the front facade of a building must be visually
compatible with buildings, squares, and places to which it is
visually related.
(5) Rhythm of spacing of buildings on streets. The relationship
of a building to the open space between it and adjoining buildings
must be visually compatible to the buildings, squares, and places
to which it is visually related.
(6) Rhythm of entrances and porch projections. The relationship
of entrances and porch projections to sidewalks of a building must
be visually compatible to the buildings, squares, and places to
which it is visually related.
(7) Relationship of materials, texture, and color. the relationship
of the materials, texture, and color of the facade of a buildings
must be visually compatible with the predominant materials used
in the buildings to which it is visually related.
(8) Roof shapes. The roof shape if a building must be visually
compatible with the buildings to which it is visually related. _
(9) Walls of continuity. Appurtenances of a building, such as
walls, wrought iron fences, evergreen landscape masses, and
building facades, must form cohesive walls of enclosure along the
street if necessary to ensure visual compatibility of the building to
the buildings, squares, and places to which it is visually related.
(10) Scale of building. The size of a building and the building
mass of a building in relation to open spaces, windows, door
openings, porches, and balconies must be visually compatible
with the buildings, squares, and places to which it is visually
related.
(11) Directional expression of front elevation. A building must
be visually compatible with the buildings, squares, and places to
which it is visually related in its directional character, including
vertical character, horizontal character, or nondirectional
character.
✓ 36-7-11-18. Penalties authorized. — Ordinances adopted under this
chapter may provide for penalties for violations, subject to IC 36-1-3-
8.
36-7-11-19. Establishment of historic district — Phases. -- (a) In an
ordinance approving the establishment of a historic district, a unit may
provide that the establishment occur in two (2) phases. Under the first
phase, which lasts three (3) years from the date the ordinance is
adopted, a certificate of appropriateness is required only for the
activities described in section 10(1)(A), 10(1)(B), and 10(1)(D) of this
chapter. At the end of the first phase, the district becomes fully
established, and, subject to subsection (b), a certificate of
appropriateness must be issued by the board before a permit may be
issued for or work may begin on an activity described in section 10 of
this chapter.
(b) The first phase described in subsection (a) continues and the
second phase does not become effective if a majority of the property
owners in the district objet to the board, in writing, to the requirement
that certificates of appropriateness be issued for the activities
described in section 10(1)(C), 10(2)(A), and 10(2)(B) of this chapter.
The objections must be received by the board not earlier than one
hundred eighty (180) days or later than sixty (60) days before the third
anniversary of the adoption of the ordinance.
36-7-11-20. Paint colors. — In an ordinance approving the establishment
of a historic district, a unit may exclude changes in paint colors from
the activities requiring the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness
under section 10 of this chapter before a permit may be issued or work
begun.
36-7-11-21. Cause of action for interested parties in historic districts.
-- (a) As used in this section, "interest party" means one (1) of the
following:
(1) The executive of the unit.
(2) The legislative body of the unit.
(3) The agency having land use planning jurisdiction over a
historic district designated by the ordinance adopted under this
chapter.
D,EMOLITION DENIAL
Pennsylvania Court Upholds Denial of
Permit to Demolish Victorian Hotel
The Court of Common,
Pleas in Lycoming County,
Pennsylvania, has upheld the
City of Williamsport's denial
of an application for a permit
to demolish a historic Victo-
rian hotel. Among other
things, the court ruled that
the property owner, a nonprof-
it home for the aged, had not
met its burden of proof in
establishing that the City's
action resulted in an unlawful
taking of property. The court
also ruled that the Williams-
port Historic District Ordi-
nance is not void for vague-
ness and that the City
Council had not acted arbi-
trarily and capriciously in
denying the permit.
The decision in this case
was issued just one month
before the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania reversed its 1991
ruling that the historic desig-
nation of Philadelphia's Boyd
Theater violated the takings
clause of the Pennsylvania
Constitution. See "Pennsyl-
vania Supreme Court Reverses
Itself in United Artists; Rules
Philadelphia Preservation
Ordinance is Constitutional."
Nonetheless, the Court of
Common Pleas determined
that the original United Art-
ists decision did not apply to
ordinances enacted pursuant
to the Local Historic Districts
Act. (The Park Home v. City
of Williamsport, No. 92-01,607
(Ct. of Comm. Pleas Oct. 21,
1993).)
This case involves a challenge
to the City of Williamsport's
denial, pursuant to its histor-
ic district ordinance, of an applica-
tion to demolish a historic struc-
ture known as the Park Home.
The Park Home, also known as the
Herdic House, was designed by
Eber Culver as a four-story, brick,
Victorian hotel which opened to
the public in 1865. The building
was converted into a licensed per-
sonal care boarding facility for el-
derly woman in 1940 and has since
been operated as a home for the
aged. Although two of the build-
ing's top floors were removed in
1938, the building otherwise retains
its original integrity.
The Park Home is located in
the Williamsport Historic District,
a locally designated historic district
which is also listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. Accord-
ing to the court, the architectural
character of the Park Home is
"unique and one of the more out-
standing examples of Nineteenth
Century structures in the Historic
District" and constitutes "the cor-
nerstone of the Williamsport His -
12 111,R 1190 —servation Law Reporter December I qcil
toric District."
Supreme Court had ruled that th
The building is owned by Park
designation of a theater as a histol
Home, a Pennsylvania non-profit
is landmark under the Philadelphi,
corporation established in 1930
historic preservation ordinance wa:
whose corporate purpose is to es-
an unlawful taking under the Com
tablish and maintain a home for
monwealth's constitution. Parl
the aged. It currently houses twen-'
Home argued that, under Unitet
ty elderly women. The organiza-
Artists, designation of any propero
tion would like to demolish the
without the consent of the own'
building to construct a larger facili-
er—regardless of whether under
ty.
authority of a historic district of
On January 21, 1992, the Board
historic landmarks ordinances—is
Ounconstitutional.
of Directors of the Park Home ap-
Finding that
plied to the Williamsport Historical
reading of the decision to be overly
Architectural Review Board (the
broad, the court determined that
"HARB") for a demolition permit.
the original United Artists decision
Under local law, the HARB is re-
did not apply to historic districts.
sponsible for advising the City
In distinguishing United Art -
Council regarding the issuance of
ists, the Court of Common Pleas
Certificates of Appro-
observed that the Wil-
priateness for the de- The court deter- liamsport ordinance
molition of structures mined that the was enacted pursuant
located in the Wil- original United to the Local Historic
Ink
liamsport Historic Dis-
trict. On February 3, Artists
Districts Act while the
decision
Philadelphia ordinance
1992, the HARB voted did not
apply to was adopted under
unanimously to rec- historic
dis- separate procedures.
ommend the denial of triCts.
The court also noted
the permit. The City
that the United Artists
Council thereafter
case involved the designation of the
voted to deny the application, 6-0,
interior of a theater, while the Park
with one abstention. Park Home
Home designation only governed
ultimately appealed the City Coun-
the exterior of a building. Lastly,
cil's decision to the Court of Com-
the court stressed that in United
mon Pleas.
Artists there was substantial dis-
Park Home raised several argu-
agreement over the historical sig-
ments before the court in seeking
nificance of the designated struc-
to overturn the City's decision.
ture, while the Park Home is un -
Among other things, the organiza-
questionably significant.
tion argued that the City's historic
The court next rejected the
district ordinance was unconstitu-
organization's argument that the
tional under United Artists The-
denial of the demolition permit in
ater, Inc. v. Philadelphia Historical
this case amounted to an unlawful
Commission, 595 A.2d 6 (Pa.
taking of property. The court
1991)[10 PLR 1109] and that the
found that the organization had not
City's action in denying the permit
met its burden of proof in establish -
amounted to an unlawful taking.
ing that a taking had occurred.
In that decision, the Pennsylvania
in reaching Mnclusion, tr
mart turned to the Lommonwealth
ourt's decision in First Presbyteri-
rr. Church of York v. City Council
the Cite of York, 25 Pa. Cmwlth.
:. -4, ,360 A.2d 257 (1976) in analyz-
,ng Park Home's taking claim. The
-'()urt first restated the test set forth
:n �'ouk for determining whether a
.aktng has occurred. Under this
,cst, the court determined the key
Issue is "whether the refusal of the
,)crmit to demolish went so far as
to preclude the use of the Park
Home for any purpose for which it
was reasonably adapted." The court
then identified several factors con-
sidered in York for evaluating a
takings claim. These factors in-
clude: (1) whether the
sale of the property in
question is impractica-
ble; (2) whether com-
mercial rental could
provide a reasonable
return; and (3) whether
other potential uses of
the building were fore-
closed.
In applying these
factors to the case at
hand, the court determined that
Park Home had not met its burden
of proof. The court found that Park
Horne had not explored the option
of selling the building. In addition,
the court cited testimony by Park
Home's Board of Directors that the
organization was in "good financial
circumstances." While the court
observed that Park Home had em-
phasized "the poor structural condi-
tion of the building," it also noted
that all of the engineers and archi-
tects who toured the building had
found that it was "basically struc-
turally sound." The court also
1 found it significant that Park Home
had not indicated that it could not
continue its operation in the pres-
ent facility, despite the fact that
experts had found that reinforce-
ment beams and flooring were re-
quired to correct a sloping second
floor.
In describing the Board's testi-
mony, the court stated:
The Board's decision to demolish is
based on a "best use" theory. Quite
simply the Board believes that demo-
lition of the building is the most
economical, profitable choice for the
Park Home. It is apparent that little
consideration was given to the Park
Home's historical value when the
Board reviewed the options available
to it. Mr. Hoff admitted on cross-
examination that it was possible the
Park Home could carry
out its mandated purpose
(a home for aged people)
in another location and
market the Park Home
building, but this idea
was not explored by the
Board.
The court found
it significant
that Park Home
had not indicat-
ed that it could
not continue its
operation in the
present facility.
1
The court sum-
marily rejected several
alternative arguments
that had been raised by
the Board in seeking to overturn
the City's decision to deny the
permit. The court determined that
the Pennsylvania statute and Wil-
liamsport ordinance were not void
for vagueness, finding that "the
statute and ordinance contain rea-
sonable standards to guide prospec-
tive conduct." The court also con-
cluded that the laws did not violate
a prohibition against retroactive
laws, observing that the historic
preservation laws did not prevent
Park Home from operating a home
for the aged, as mandated by its
corporate charter.
The court also readily dis-
missed the Board's claim that the
•
X_
City Council's action in denying
the demolition permit was void for
failure of the HARB to comply with
specific procedural requirements.
Under the Williamsport ordinance,
if the Board decides to recommend
against granting a certificate of
appropriateness, it must identify
suggested changes that would he
consistent with the historical char-
acter of the district. If the owner
agrees to those changes, than the
Board must submit its advice in
writing to the Council. In the pres-
ent case, the HARB had merely
attached the minutes of its meeting
with the Board to its
recommendation to the
City Council.
The court rejected
the organization's pro-
cedural claim finding
that there had been
.,no harm or prejudice
to the applicant." The
court based its decision
on the fact that Park
Home had filed a Local
Agency Law Appeal
challenging the City
Council's denial of the
permit and did not ob-
ject to the procedures
employed by the HARB in making
its recommendation to the City
Council.
Lastly, the court found that the
City Council's action in denying
the demolition permit was not
"arbitrary and capricious" although
the City had permitted the demoli-
tion of other buildings within the
district. In rejecting Park Home's
argument on this issue, the court
stated:
Park Home's JR11 for a demolition
permit are individual to the Park
Home itself. The record does not
indicate the city acted in an arbitrary
or capricious manner in denying this
request.
Analysis. The court's ruling in
this case, upholding the denial of
an application for a demolition
permit by the City of Williamsport,
illustrates the significant burden of
proof that property owners must
meet in seeking to overturn a deci-
sion pursuant to a well -drafted
historic preservation ordinance.
Under Pennsylvania law, a property
owner seeking to char-
acterize such a deci-
sion as a taking must
establish that the
building may not be
used for any purpose
for which it was rea-
sonably adapted. Tes-
timony that demoli-
tion and new construc-
tion is preferable to
renovation is not suffi-
cient to support a tak-
ing claim where the
evidence establishes
that the building is
structurally sound, rehabilitation is
a feasible and economically viable
alternative, and no effort has been
made to sell the building.
It should also be noted that
United Artists Theater Circuit, Inc.
v. City of Philadelphia, at issue in
this case, has been reconsidered by
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,
and a new decision issued. The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled
unanimously on November 9, 1993,
that the designation of a building as
historic without the consent of the
property owner is not a "taking"
requiring just compensation. See
The decision
illustrates the
significant bur-
den of proof that
property owners
must meet in
seeking to over-
turn a decision
pursuant to a
well -drafted his-
toric preserva-
tion ordinance.
Obviously each circumstance is dif-
ferent and cannot be used as a stan-
dard. The reasons for denying the
J
"Pennsylvania Supreme Court Re-
MINIMUM M A I N T E N A N C 1
verses Itself in United Artists;
Rules Philadelphia Preservation
Ordinance is Constitutional," 12
Maine Court Rules Enforcement of
PLR 1165 (1993). Thus, the Court
to Repair Historic Property Would F
of Common Pleas's ruling that the
original decision of the Pennsylva-
in Unlawful "Taking"
nia Supremc Court does not apply
to historic districts is no longer at
issue. The regulation of both his-
The District Court of
Minimum mai
toric districts and individual build
Maine has ruled that enforce-
provisions to protec
ings in the Commonwealth of
ment of an order by the City
structures are an essc
Pennsylvania is unquestionably
of Portland directing a proper-
of historic preserva
constitutional.
ty owner to repair a deterio-
grams. Without a i
rated historic building, pursu-
maintenance requir
ant to a minimum mainte-
property owner cou
nance provision in the Port-
fect, destroy, his or i
land historic preservation
ing simply through
ordinance, would result in an
maintenance. Whil,
unconstitutional taking. Rely-
instances, such as
ing on the owner's assertion
reported below, enj
that it would not be able to
of a minimum ma_
•
sell or rent the building even
requirem en t m ay n o
after expending more than
ble if a genuine
$100,000 for its repair, the
hardship may be es:
court determined that compli-
in general such prov
ance with the order would
regarded as fully cor-
deny the owner all reasonable
al. City of Portland
beneficial use of its property
Causer Associates,
in this case. The court, how-
91-LU-006 (Me. Dist
ever, affirmed the constitu-
20, 1993).)
tionality of the minimum
maintenance requirement on
his case involves
its face. Furthermore, the
iled by the Citycourt
To
found that a separate
compel comp
order directing the owner to
an order issued pursuan
secure the vacant building
mum maintenance prov
against entry and remove all
Portland historic preser-
vegetation around the build-
nance. The ordinance c
ing would not result in a un-
owner of the Tracy-Ca
lawful taking and thus direct-
ing, .Tracy-Causer Ass
make certain repairs t(
ed the owner to comply with
building. Tracy-Causer
its terms.
refused to comply wits
r.,.,. Rn nnrrvr necember19�
December 1993 Preservation
Lai porter
11
0i 4
Federal District Court Upholds Denial of
Permit to Demolish Chicago Landmarks
in Broad-based Lawsuit
The U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illi-
nois has upheld the denial of
a permit to demolish, in part,
two historic mansions and
their coach houses, located on
Chicago's Lake Shore Drive.
In a decision by judge john F.
Grady, the court rejected sev-
eral constitutional claims
brought under the U.S. and
Illinois Constitutions, includ-
ing charges that the Commis-
sion on Chicago Landmarks,
in denying the demolition
permits, had violated the own-
ers' due process and equal
protection rights and had un-
lawfully "taken" their proper-
ty. The court also upheld the
Commission's action against a
separate administrative law
claim, finding that the mani-
fest weight of the evidence
supported the Commission's
denial of relief on economic
hardship grounds. In ruling in
favor of the City, the court
addressed a wide range of
issues that should be useful to
other preservation commis-
sions in seeking to protect
historic resources within their
own communities. (Interna-
tional College of Surgeons v.
City of Chicago, No. 91 C.
1587 (N.D. I11. Dec. 30, 1994).)
his case involves a challenge
to the designation of, and
subsequent denial of a demo-
lition permit for, two historic man-
sions located on Lake Shore Drive
on the Near North Side in Chicago,
Illinois. The buildings in question
are among the few remaining ele-
gant mansions constructed for Chi-
cago's wealthiest citizens on Lake
Shore Drive around the turn -of -the
century. The City of Chicago
sought to protect these mansions
and others through the creation of
a thematic historic district referred'
to as the "Seven Houses on Lake
Shore Drive," ("Seven Houses dis-
trict") in June 1989.
Two buildings within the dis-
trict, the Edward T. Blair House
and the Eleanor Robinson Countiss
House, are owned by the Interna-
tional College of Surgeons, a non-
profit organization with 14,000
members (the "ICS.") The Blair
House, a four-story mansion com-
pleted in 1914, was designed by
William Kendall of the renowned
architectural firm of McKim, Mead
& White. The Countiss House,
constructed in 1917 and modeled
"after the Petit Trianon, a three-
story Versailles mansion built in
1770 for Louis XV's paramour, Ma-
dame de Pompadour," was designed
permits on a wide range of consti-
by architect Howard Van Doren
tutional and administrative claims.
Shaw. ICS purchased the Blair
In International College of
House in 1947 for $85,000 and the
Surgeons v. City of Chicago, Nos.
Countiss House in 1950 for
91 C 1587 and 91 C 5564 (N.D. Ill.
$185,000. The Blair House serves as
Jan. 10, 1992)] 11 PLR 1106 (Jan.
office space and the Countiss
1992)], the U.S. District Court of
House contains the "International
the Northern District of Illinois
Museum of Surgical Science." Both
dismissed several of the constitu-
mansions have rear coach houses.
tional claims raised by the owners.
ICS entered into a contract in
In that decision, the district court
February 1989 with Robin Con-
upheld the Chicago landmarks ordi-
struction Corp., a co -plaintiff, for
nance against a facial challenge
the sale and development of. the
under the Fifth and Fourteenth
site, with the expectation of realiz-
Amendments to the U.S. Constitu-
ing a return of $17 million. (For
tion. The court determined that the
purposes of discussion, the ICS and
ordinance was constitutionally
Robin Construction Corp. are re-
valid "on its face," finding that the
t- ferred to hereinafter as "the own-
City, through its ordinance, did not
ers.") As part of the redeyelopmen-r_']unlawfully "take" property without
project, the owners proposed to
compensation or violate the Equal
demolish the rear and side portions
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
of the mansions and their respec- -
Amendment. The court also upheld
tive coach houses to construct a 41-
the ordinance's interim protection
story, mixed -used condominium
provision against several due pro -
tower on the site, leaving only the
cess claims and ruled that the
facades of the existing structures.
Commission had properly refused
On October 10, 1990, the own-
to consider evidence on proposed
ers applied to the Commission on
redevelopment plans in its review
Chicago Landmarks (the "Land-
of the owners' application for a
marks Commission") for the requi-
demolition permit. The district
site demolition permits. In actor-
court, however, granted leave to the
dance with its rules, the Landmarks
owners to amend their complaint
Commission issued a "preliminary
to support an allegation of bias and
disapproval" on October 23, 1990,
directed the Commission to re -
and conducted a public hearing on
spond to specific charges that the
December 18, 1990. The Land-
Commission had denied them
— marks Commission denied the
equal protection by "acting solely
�1% demolition permits on January 9,
to stop their proposed develop -
1991, and subsequently denied a
ment."
separate application for an econom-
The federal district court has
is hardship exception on July 3,
now addressed the remaining issues
1991, after holding a public hearing.
raised by the owners in their law -
The owners then filed suit chal-
suit against the City, its Commis-
lenging (1) the preservation ordi-
sion on Chicago Landmarks, indi-
nance on its face; (2) the designa-
vidual members of the Commis -
tion of the Seven Houses district;
sion, and the North State, Astor,
and (3) the denial of demolition
Lake Shore Drive Association. In a
14 PLR 1088 . Preservation
Lain Reporter May 1995
complete victory for the defen-
l dants, the court rejected the own-
ers' federal and state equal protec-
tion and due process claims, a
number of state law claims, includ-
ing a takings claim under the Illi-
nois constitution, and a separate
administrative law claim that the
manifest weight of the evidence did
not support the Commission's deci-
sion to deny the owners' request for
an economic hardship exception.
Each of these issues is discussed
below.
Federal and State Equal Protection
and Due Process Claims
Ruling in favor of the City, the
court easily rejected
the owners' equal pro- The C01
tection claim under
the federal constitu- rejeetei
• tion. The owners had owners
argued that the City, protect
in establishing the under i
"Seven Houses" land-
mark district, had "un- al cons
fairly singled out the
ICS and treated its properties differ-
ently than similarly situated prop-
erties," by, in essence, creating a
class of one. Relying on the Sev-
enth Circuit's ruling in Albright v.
Oliver, 975 F.2d 343 (7th Cir.
1992), aff'd., 114 S. Ct. 807 (1994),
that "the state's act of singling out
an individual for differential treat-
ment does not itself create (a]
class," the district court concluded
that the issue of whether the City
had singled out the owners' proper-
ties was "immaterial." The court
also stated that "[elven if that ques-
tion (was] material, there is no
genuine dispute that the city did
not single out the Blair and Coun-
tiss houses or treat them differently
than other similarly situated prop-
erties through the designation ordi-
nance."
Probing the owners' equal pro-
tection claim further, the court
specifically rejected charges that
the City had infringed on the own-
ers' constitutional rights by protect-
ing every facade of every building
in the Seven Houses district while
protecting only portions of build-
ings visible from a "public way" in
a nearby historic district, and by
denying the demolition permits
while allowing changes to other
houses in the Seven Houses dis-
trict. In responding to these argu-
ments, the court explained that
several of the facades of the Blair
and Countiss Houses
in easily at issue were visible
from a "public way"
i the and that changes al-
' equal lowed to other build-
�on Claim ings within the district
he feder- "were relatively minor
interior and exterior
Itution. changes, and nothing
on the order of the
demolition of all but the front fa-
cades."
The court likewise rejected the
owners' argument that the City,
through its designation ordinance,
had arbitrarily grouped seven non-
contiguous buildings together, fail-
ing to include other "similarly situ-
ated" landmark quality buildings
within the designation. Deferring to
the Commission on this issue, the
court explained that expert testimo-
ny that the district could be shaped
differently does not "create a genu-
ine issue as to whether the Desig-
nation Ordinance was arbitrary."
The court stressed that no one
"genuinely disputed" that the hous-
es included in the district, both
May 1995 Preservation Lain Reporter 14 PLR 1089 }
individually and collectively, be- court referred to its previous deci-
longed in the district. sion in which it had stated that the
Relying on essentially the same Commission's position was "entire -
grounds, the district court also ly justified" because under its rules,
rejected the owners' claim that the demolition permits may be ap-
City, through its designation ordi- proved only if the property does not
nance, had violated their federal . contribute to the character of the
substantive due process rights and district or the redevelopment is
state constitutional rights to due approved by the Commission.
process and equal protection. The Significantly, the court also
court determined that disparate ruled that the Landmarks Commis -
treatment of property does not in- sion's retention of two expert wit-
voke a "fundamental" right for pur- nesses who testified at the demoli-
poses of analyzing an equal protec- tion hearing did not "render the
tion claim, and that a "rational proceeding unfair so as to deny
relationship" existed between the (ICS] due process," explaining that
historical significance "it is well-established
of the houses and the The court also under federal and state
City's actions to pre- ruled that the law that in the admin -
serve them.Corrunission,s istrative setting, some
Bias and Other retention of two mixture of judicial and
Due Process Claims. prosecutorial function
The district court simi- expert Witnesses is acceptable and does
larly rejected the own- who testified at not, without more,
ers' claims that their the demolition violate due process."
state and federal due hearing did not The court stated that
process rights had been ICS had not overcome
violated by the Com render the pro- a presumption that the
mission's alleged bias. ceeding unfair Commission's mem-
The court determined s0 as to deny bers are persons "of
that "the Commis- due process." conscience and intel-
sion's knowledge of lectual discipline, capa-
plaintiffs' redevelop- ble of judging a partic-
ment plans does not in itself sup- ular controversy fairly on the basis
port the inference that the Com- of its own circumstances," and
mission or the city deliberately set noted that the owners had failed to
out to destroy those plans." The present any evidence that the
court also found that the evidence "Commission members, who actu-
did not support the owners' allega- ally ruled on the demolition per -
tion that they had failed to receive mits, themselves performed any
adequate notice of the City's con- quasi -prosecutorial role." Moreover,
sideration of the designation ordi- the court observed that the Com-
nance, or that the Commission had mission had "allowed counsel for
violated their due process rights by ICS to conduct a vigorous cross -
refusing to consider evidence con- examination of one of the Commis-
cerning ICS's redevelopment plans sion's witnesses, Howard Decker,
at the demolition permit hearings. on the issue of bias."
In addressing the latter issue, the The court similarly rejected the
14 PLR 1090 Preservation Lain Reporter May 1995
owners' argument that the Com-
the district court rejected several
mission had violated their due pro-
"interested
other state law claims, ruling,
cess rights by granting
: among other things, that the ordi-
party" status to neighborhood orga-
--.nance was not vague and did not
nizations at its hearings. The court
"'violate the state constitutional
ruled that the Illinois Supreme
provisions governing the separation
Court's decision in Landmarks
of powers by unlawfully delegating
Preservation Council of Illinois v.
legislative authority. The court also
City of Chicago, 531 N.E.2d 9
concluded that the owners did not
(1988)(7 PLR 20531, that two private
have vested rights in the issuance
preservation organizations lacked
of demolition permits.
standing to bring a lawsuit, did not
Unlawful Delegation Claim. At
support the ICS's due process and
the heart of the owners' unlawful
bias claims and did not "bar the
delegation claim was the argument
Commission from granting 'inter-
that the criteria for designation and
ested party'status to such organiza-
review of economic hardship claims
tions during public
were unlawfully
hearings 'as a tool to The court char- "vague." Rejecting this
assist the municipality acterized the argument, the court
in performing its legis Commission as characterized the Com-
lative function."' mission as "a sort of
a sort of expert
Lastly,the
e court
expert panel," and con -
determined that the panel,"
and con- cluded that the ordi-
Landmarks Commis- eluded that the nance sets forth "an
had
sion not violated ordinance
sets intelligible set of stan-
due process by failing forth "an
intelli- dards for the Commis -
to write its own find-
ings of fact as required gable Set
sion to consider in
of Stan- determining whether a J
by the City's preserva- dards for the structure warrants
tion ordinance. The Commission to landmark protection."
court explained that consider. According to the court,
the fact that the staff
"the nature of the ordi-
rather than the Com-
nance's objectives and
mission drafted the findings does
the complexity of the problems
not violate due process or the Ci-
with which the ordinance is con-
ty's ordinance. According to the
cerned negate the need to set more
court "(o)nce the Commission adop-
precise standards." The court like -
ted the findings, they became the
wise concluded that the standard
findings of the Commission." (The
for the issuance of an economic
court opined, however, that adop-
hardship variance—that denial of
tion of findings prepared by an in-
the permit would deprive an appli-
terested party could raise a ques-
cant of "all reasonable and benefi-
tion of bias.)
tial use of or return from the prop-
erty"— is not "subject to a myriad
Remaining State Law Claims
of interpretations," but rather "de-
scribes a relatively technical con -
In addition to the owners' equal
cept in the field of land use."
protection and due process claims,
Takings Claim. Turning to the
May 1995 Preservation
Lau, Reporter 14 PLR 1091
I
merits of the owners' takings claim
under the Illinois Constitution, the
court ruled that the owners had
failed to establish that a taking
occurred under Chicago's landmark
ordinance, both facially and as ap-
plied. (As noted above, the court
rejected identical claims raised
under the Federal constitution in
its initial decision.) While acknowl-
edging that "the Illinois Constitu-
tion provides greater protection to
landowners than does the federal
takings clause," in that it includes
a prohibition of uncompensated
"damage" to property, the court
found that "roughly the same analy-
sis" used in federal
takings Iaw would ap-
ply since ICS had not
presented any evidence
showing "any direct
physical disturbance to
their property rights."
In reaching its
decision, . the court
determined that the
owners' facial chal-
lenge failed because
the ordinance allows
an economic hardship .
exception to be granted if the per-
mit denial prevents a landowner
from having any viable economic
use for his or her property. The
court likewise concluded.that the
owners' "as applied" claim failed
because ICS "still ha]s] an economi-
cally viable use for the Blair and
Countiss houses as a corporate
headquarters or museum," observ-
ing that ICS "pays no property taxes
on the buildings and owns them
free and clear of any mortgage."
Of special interest is the court's
discussion regarding whether the
owners could afford to maintain the
buildings. According to the court,
"testimony from (ICS's) own wit-
nesses showed that the lack of
funding for the property's upkeep is
not due to the Landmarks Ordi-
nance, but to plaintiff ICS's unwill-
ingness to provide the money."
Moreover, the court stressed that
evidence that the owners could not
afford to maintain the buildings
'would probably establish only that
the impediment to an economically '
viable use stemmed from ICS's own
particular financial situation or its
strategy in maintaining the build-
ings, and not from any action by
the defendants under the Land-
marks Ordinance." According to the
court, "]o]therwise, a
property owner could
deliberately neglect its
property, or even dam-
age it, and then claim
that land -use regula-
tions effect a taking
because the property is
so far gone—for rea-
sons unrelated to the.
regulations—that the
owner's proposed rede-
velopment is the only
remaining viable use."
The district court also conclud-
ed that the U.S. Supreme Court's
recent decision in Dolan v. City of
Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994)113
PLR1103 (June 1994)], did not
change its analysis. In distinguish-
ing Dolan, the court conceded that
the Supreme Court in Dolan "rec-
ognized that a taking can occur
even if the government's confisca-
tory action- leaves the owner with
'some economic use from her prop-
erty.'" However, the district court
found the present case distinguish-
able on the basis that the Dolan
Court "was speaking of a situation,
not present in this case, in which
The court con-
cluded that the
owners' "as ap-
plied" takings
claim failed be-
cause ICS still
has an "econom-
ically viable
use" for the pro-
perties.
a
the government actually confiscates
a portion of the property, leaving
the owner with a usable remnant."
Vested Rights. Next, the court
determined that the owners were
not entitled to relief under the Illi-
nois doctrine of vested rights. The
court concluded that in negotiating
its 1989 contract with Robin, ICS
could not have relied in good faith
on the probability of permits being
issued for the proposed develop-
ment even though a 1988 staff re-
port indicated that only features
visible from a "public way" would
be protected. The court.explained
that a June 1988 letter
from the Commission
advising ICS that des-
ignation was under
consideration, com-
bined with its prelimi-
nary designation of the
Seven Houses district
in July 1988, "unques-
tionably raised a cloud
over plaintiffs' devel-
opment rights" and
that "representations
to plaintiffs would not
lead a reasonable per-
son to rely on the issu-
ance of the necessary
demolition permits."
pricious or "against the manifest
weight of the evidence." Pursuant
to the standard of review for eco-
nomic hardship exceptions in Chi- ,--�
cago's preservation ordinance, the L/
Commission had specifically found
that the denial of the permits
would not deprive the owners of
"all reasonable and beneficial use of
the Blair and Countiss houses" and
that the owners "were not deprived
of all reasonable and beneficial
return from the property."
Viable Use. In reviewing each
of the Commission's individual
findings, the court initially deter-
mined that the evi-
dence supported the
Commission's determi-
nation that the land-
mark designation of
the properties did not
prevent the owners'
traditional use of the
property. According to
the court, there was
"ample evidence in the
record to support the
conclusion that land-
mark status is not an(_SI)
impediment to the
continued use of the
property as a headquar-
ters and museum" and that "the
Commission -did not err in consid-
ering ICS's poor stewardship as part
of that calculus."
The court likewise concluded
that the Commission's finding that
the properties could be improved by
ICS for a reasonable amount of
money was not against the mani-
fest weight of the evidence and that
several feasible alternative uses to
the property existed. Unsympathet-
ic to the owners' argument that
"]t]he forced sale of a property can-
not possibly be'considered a reason -
The court up-
held the Com-
mission's finding
that the proper-
ties could be
improved at a
reasonable cost,
and that feasible
alternative uses
—including sale
to a third par-
ty—existed.
Economic Hardship
In addition to rejecting the
owners' constitutional challenges
to the denial of demolition permits,
the court separately upheld the
Commission's action under the
Illinois Administrative Review
Law. The court concluded that the
decision of the Landmarks Com-
mission to deny the owners' appli-
cation for an economic hardship
exception was not arbitrary or ca -
14 PLR 1092 Preservation Law Reporter May 1995 May 1995 Prese
able and feasible alternative use,"
the court observed that the owners'
own proposal, "which they advance
as the only reasonable use, also
calls for the sale of the property."
Probing this issue further, the court
made the following observations:
If both buildings were sold as sin-
gle-family homes or consulates, ICS
would have to move elsewhere. But
in that vein, the question becomes
whether the economic hardship ex-
ception depends on the property
owner's ability to have a particular
use it wants, as opposed to another
use that is still reasonable. The Land-
marks Ordinance provides that eco-
nomic hardship exceptions are grant-
ed "on the basis that the denial of a
permit will result from the property."
It does not state that a "reasonable"
or "beneficial" use must be one that
is suited to the desires of the particu-
lar owner. If the buildings still may
be used as single-family homes or a
consulate despite the denial of the
demolition permits, "all reasonable
and beneficial use" of the buildings
has not been lost.
(Citations omitted.)
Lastly, the court determine
that the Landmarks Commission
finding that the owners had ignore
or failed adequately to explore p
tentially viable sources of funds t
allow the continued use of the pr
perry was not against the manife
weight of the evidence. Rejectin
the owners' argument that th
funding sources identified by t
Commission were too speculativ
the court cited several examples
viable funding alternatives ident
fied by the Commission whi
supported its determination.
Economic Return. Turning
the second basis for denying t
owners' application for an econo
is hardship exception, the cou
determined that the Commission
conclusion that the owners were
not deprived of "all reasonable and
beneficial economic return" from
the property was not against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
Rejecting the owners' argument
that the Commission had erred in
finding that the contract between
ICS and Robin to redevelop the
Blair and Countiss Houses was not
the controlling factor, the court
observed that "the Commission's
rules specifically provide that eco-
nomic hardship is not established
solely by proof of an actual loss or
a lost opportunity to gain increased
return from the property." Accord-
ing to the court, this argument
"ignores the fact that the contract
is void unless the city grants the
Y permits necessary to allow the re-
development to go forward." The
court thus concluded that the Com-
mission had properly considered
the buildings' appraised value as
single-family homes, and that sub-
stantial evidence supported "the
Commission's decision that a rea-
d sonable economic return was possi-
s ble through the sale of the build -
d ings."
o- The court similarly ruled that
o the Commission's determination
o- that the contract did not establish
st a value for the properties was not
g against the weight of the evidence.
e The court observed that "liln light
he of (the expert's appraisal and testi-
e, mony] that the Robin contract was
of highly speculative under current
i- market conditions, plaintiffs have
ch not established that the Commis-
sion went against the manifest
to weight of the evidence when it
he found that the contract did not
m- establish the value of the property."
rt The court specifically addressed
's the relevance of the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision upholding the
New York City preservation ordi-
nance against a takings challenge in
Penn Central Transportation Co. v.
City of New York, 438 U.S. 104
(1978). The court rejected the own-
ers' allegation that the Landmarks
Commission had wrongly applied
Penn Central in this particular
case.
Even if the Commission's rules do
not call for economic hardship excep-
tions to be considered in terms of the
legal issues that arise in a takings
context, there is nothing to prevent
? the Commission from drawing upon
the common law of takings as a part
of its thoughtful consideration of
whether the landmark designation
and permit review process is treating
the landowner with fundamental
fairness.
Concluding that the manifest
weight of the evidence supported
the Commission's finding that sev-
eral other reasonable and feasible
alternatives exist that would allow
the owners to realize a reasonable
return on the ICS property, the
court stated that it could not "re -
weigh" the testimony or "re-evalu-
ate" the credibility of the witnesses
relied upon by the Commission
making its determination on this
issue.
Analysis
The district court's decision in
International College of Surgeons
v. City of Chicago, provides useful
analysis on a wide range of consti-
tutional issues in the context of a
well-written and adroitly applied
ordinance. The court's deference to
the Chicago Landmarks Commis-
sion's determinations reflects high-
ly on the careful manner in which
the Commission and its staff ad-
dressed the issues in this case.
In addressing each of the own-
ers' constitutional and administra-
tive claims, judge Grady touched
upon several issues important to
preservation efforts but rarely ad-
dressed in caselaw, including the
ability of a preservation commis-
sion to retain its own expert wit-
nesses in considering an economic
hardship claim, and the distinction
between an owner's unwillingness
and his or her inability to maintain
property as a factor in considering
a request for an economic hardship
exception. Among other things, the
court underscored that economic
hardship is not established solely
by proof of an actual loss or lost
opportunity, and that it is proper to
consider "poor stewardship" in eval-
uating a hardship claim. According
to the court, alleged economic
hardship may result more from an
owner's conscious decision not to
maintain a building rather than any
particular action of a commission
to protect that resource pursuant to
a preservation ordinance.
lRichard J. Brennan, Esq., of Win-
ston & Strawn and Daniel L. Houli-
han, Esq., bath in Chicago, repre-
sented the International College of
Surgeons and Robin Construction
Corporation. Kelly Raymond
Welsh, Esq., Sheila A. Owens, Esq.,
Ruth M. Moscowitz, Esq., and
Craig J. Hanson, Esq., of the Chica-
go Corporation Counsel represented
the City of Chicago, the Commis-
sion on Chicago Landmarks, and its
individual members. Thomas J.
Murphy, Esq., and James Michael
Scanlon, Esq., both in Chicago,
represented the North State, Astor,
Lake Shore Drive Association.}
14 PLR 1094 Preservation Law Reporter May 1995 May 1995 Preservation Lain Reporter 14 PLR 1095
E". G = ..�,
_ ._. U11A�T OR
�Y
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reverses
Weinberg, Rejecting Takings Claim
Upholds Pittsburgh's Refusal to Permit Demolition of
Historic House
The Supreme Court of Pen-
nsylvania has reinstated a
decision of the Pittsburgh
Historic Review Commission
denying permission to demol-
ish the historic Howe -Childs -
Gateway House, a two and
one-half story frame house
built around 1860 in the
Gothic Revival style. In a
unanimous decision (one jus-
tice declining to participate),
the high court stated that it
"disagree[d] with the lower
courts that the record does not
support the Commission's
decision to deny a certificate
supported the Commission's
finding that the owners failed
to meet their burden of proof
in establishing that sale of the
property "as is" would be "im-
practicable or impossible" or
(2) that they had been "`de-
prived of any profitable use' of
their property."
In reaching its decision,
the Pennsylvania court placed
particular emphasis on the
importance of examining the
specific factual circumstances
surrounding a dispute in rul-
ing on takings claims. The
court attached particular sig -
of appropriateness." ' .niticance to the fact that the
Drawing from three-impor- 6, `owners knew the property had
tant decisions on the issue of been designated as a land -
regulatory takings, Penn Cen- mark before purchasing the
tral nazisportation Co. v property; that they had failed
City of New York, 438 U.S. to engage an architect or con -
104 (1978), United Artists tractor to estimate the cost or
Theater Circuit v. City of feasibility of renovating the
Philadelphia, 635 A.2d 612 house before its purchase; and
(Pa. 1993)[12 PLR 1165] and that the house had been pur-
First Presbyterian Church v. chased by the owners, in part,
City Council of York, 360 as consideration for a release
A.2d 257 (Pa. Commw. Ct. from a contract to purchase a
1976), the Pennsylvania Su- townhouse.
preme Court concluded that The Pennsylvania Supreme
(1) the evid—i i in the record Court's ruling is important not
ion Law Re orter May 1996
only for the Commonwealth
l of Pennsylvania but for other
jurisdictions as well. The high_
court's decision should help to
bolster commissions in exer-
cising their responsibilities in
ruling on applications for cer-
tificates of appropriateness
based on economic hardship.
The decision both underscores
the general rule that the bur-
den of proof rests on the prop-
erty owner—not the commis-
sion --in establishing econom-
ic hardship, and that commis-
sions should be afforded defer-
ence in ruling on both the
sufficiency and the compe-
tence of the evidence present-
ed.
The Pennsylvania court's
ruling also highlights the im-
portance of "reasonable invest-
ment -backed expectations,"
the second prong of the two-
part test for consideration of
regulatory takings set forth by
the U.S. Supreme Court in
Pend Central. In assessing the
economic impact of a particu-
lar action, both commissions
and reviewing courts should
closely examine the circum-
stances giving rise to the con-
troversy at issue, (City of
Pittsburgh Historic Review
Commission v. Weinberg, 676
A.2d 207 (Pa. May 21, 1996).)
This case involved a chal-
lenge by Alvin and Shirley
Weinberg (the Weinbergs) of
the decision of the Pittsburgh His-
May1996 Preservation
toric Review Commission to deny
a certificate of appropriateness i0
demolish the Howe -Childs -Gate-
way House (Gateway House). The
structure, originally a gatehouse
along Pittsburgh's "Millionaire's
Row," was designated by the City
as a historic landmark in April
1986,
The Weinbergs purchased the
Gateway House from Greystone
Associates, a townhouse developer,
in 1988, under the terms of an
agreement releasing them from t
contract to buy a townhouse built
by Greystone. Although the Wein-
bergs paid $175,000 for the house
the property was assessed at a rate
representing a fair market value o.
$160,000. At the time of purchase
the Gateway House was in a dilapi
dated condition, requiring extensivf
repairs.
After purchasing the property
the Weinbergs sought and obtaine(
permission from the Historic Re
view Commission to begin restora
tion work on the property. Howev
er, the Weinbergs' contractor re
ported that he could not perforr-
the agreed-upon work because c
"serious structural problems" an
their bank would not finance th
rehabilitation work without othc
collateral because the house did nc
meet its collateral requirement:
Accordingly, the Weinbergs applie
to the Commission for a certificat
of appropriateness to demolish &
property and replace it with a ne-
brick house.
At the hearings before ti -
Commission, the Weinbergs pr
rented testimony to establish th
it was not economically feasible
renovate the property. An archite
testified on behalf of the Weinber
that the G y House was
Lava Repo
r i) 15 PLR 10
poor condition but could be restor-
ed for $600,000, and that a replace-
ment house on the lot would cost
in the range of $570,000 to
$600,000 to build. Another realtor
testified, also on behalf of the
Weinbergs, regarding the value of
the property before and after resto-
ration. He opined that the Gateway
House, if renovated, would sell for
$500,000 to $600,000 while a new
house built on the site would be
worth $800,000. He also stated that
he believed the house could be sold
in .its- current condition in the
$200,000 range, but that it would
be impossible to know "without
trying to market [the
property] full tilt."
The Commission
ultimately ruled
against the Weinbergs,
finding that the house
could be renovated for
an amount between
$650,000 to $700,000,
or alternatively, that
the house could be
sold "as is." The Com-
mission also noted that
"the purchase price
should not be used as an element of
the hardship argument, since a
mistakenly high payment for the
building was a matter under the
control of the owners."
The Weinbergs thereafter ap-
pealed the Commission's decision
to the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County. The trial court,
in Weinberg v. City of Pittsburgh
Historic Review Commission, No.
SA 981-1990 (C.P. Alleg. Cty. Nov.
29, 1993)[13 PLR 10681 reversed the
Commission, ruling that the record
did not support the'ssion's
determination that einbergs
had failed to meet t i urden of
proof showing that the sale of the
Gateway House was "impractica-.
ble." The court found that the
Commission had erred in conclud-
ing that the realtor's testimony on
the value of the house after renova-
tion was equivocal and therefore
incompetent. The trial court con-
cluded, based on the realtor's testi-
mony, that it was not economically
feasible to renovate the house be-
cause the cost of renovations would
exceed the fair market value of the
property upon renovation.
The Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed the trial
court decision. See Weinberg v.
City of Pittsburgh
Historic Review Com-
mission, 651 A.2d 1182
(Pa. Commw. 1994)[13
PLR 11971. The appeals
court found that "there
was no substantial
evidence that the cost
of renovating the prop-
erty would not exceed
the value of the proper-
ty after renovation."
Agreeing with the trial
court, the Common-
wealth Court concluded that reno-
vation was not economically feasi-
ble.
The Commission
ruled that the
house could be
renovated for
approximately
$650,000 to
$700,000, or al-
ternatively, that
it could be sold
"as is. It
The Court's Decision
The Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vania ruled in favor of the Commis-
sion, finding that both lower courts
had erred in concluding that the
evidence did not support the Com-
mission's determination that the
Weinbergs had failed to establish
economic hardship. Reinstating the
Commission's decision denying its
permission to demolish the Gate-
way House, the court stated, in an
opinion written by Chief Justice
Nix, that "it is apparent that both
the trial court and Commonwealth
Court failed to consider the circum-
stances surrounding [the Wein-
bergs'] purchase of the Gateway
House."
Drawing from the first prong of
a three-part test set forth in.First
Presbyterian Church v. City Coun-
cil of York, 360 A.2d 257 (1976),
which requires the owner to estab-
lish "that the sale of the property
was impracticable," the Pennsylva-
nia Supreme Court determined that
the evidence in the record support-
ed the Commission's determination
that the Weinbergs had failed to
establish that "it would be imprac-
ticable or impossible to sell their
property." Deferring to the judg-
ment of the Commission, the court
�>
found it reasonable for the Com-
mission to have concluded that the
property could be sold "as is."
In upholding the Commission's
decision, the court specifically re-
jected the Commonwealth Court's
finding that the realtor's testimony
was incompetent with respect to
his conclusion that the property
could be sold for between $200,000
and $300,000. The Commonwealth
t
Court had rejected his testimony
on the basis that he had indicated
that "there were no comparable
properties upon which he could
'
base an expert opinion." The Penn-
t
sylvania Supreme Court, however,
stated that the Commission "obvi-
t
ously gave greater deference to Mr.
Goldblum's experience than to the
t
fact that there were no properties
i
comparable to the Gateway House
s
when Mr. Goldblum rendered his
opinion."
Importantly, the high court also
=% attached significance to the fact
i
that the Weinbergs had "received an
t
inducement to purchase the Gate-
way House in the form of a release
from a preexisting obligation to buy
a townhouse from Greystone." The
court stated that "[a]lthough it is
impossible to ascribe a monetary
value to this benefit, it must none-
theless be considered when evaluat-
ing the economic impact of the
Commission's actions."
In conclusion, the Court stated
that it saw "no reason to delve any
further into the Commission's deci-
sion in this matter." According to
the court:
[The Weinbergs] purchased the Gate-
way House for $175,000 and spent
approximately $36,000 on exterior
repairs. The unrefuted testimony of
their own expert suggests that the
house could be sold for $200,000 to
$300,000. That, together with the
release from the obligation to pur-
chase the townhouse from Greystone,
suggests that [the Weinbergs] could
conceivably realize a profit if they
sold their property.
Citing to its prior decision in Unit-
ed Artists' Theater Circuit v. City
of Philadelphia, 635 A.2d. 612
1993) (also authored by Chief Jus -
ice Nix), the Pennsylvania Su.
preme Court added that "[i]n any
event, [the Weinbergs] have not
demonstrated that they have been
deprived of any profitable use' of
he property."
In closing, the court turned to
he issue of the Weinbergs' "reason-
able investment -backed expecta-
ions." Declining to address the
ssue head on, the court simply
tressed that its ruling in this case
was "bolstered" by the fact that the
Weinbergs knew the. Gateway
House had been desi a histor-
c landmark priortime of
heir purchase andtiftey "were
aware of the consequences of such
a designation." The court further
stated that "[t]he fact that they did
not engage the services of an archi-
tect or contractor to estimate the
cost or feasibility of restoring the
Gateway House cannot serve as a
basis for their claims of economic
hardship after the fact."
Analysis. The decision of the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in
Pittsburgh Historic Review Com-
mission v. Weinberg represents a
major victory for the authority of
local governments to protect histor-
ic resources under local preserva-
tion laws. The high
court's ruling under-
scores the general rule
that the burden of
proof in a hardship
claim lies on the appli-
cant rather than the
commission: generally
the applicant must
establish, by credible
evidence, that he or
she has been deprived
of all reasonable or
beneficial use of. the
property. The decision
further highlights the
importance of affording
commission members deference in
ruling on applications for certifi-
cates of hardship.
The Pennsylvania Supreme
Court's adherence to the three-part
test for assessing economic impact
set forth in Maher v. City of New
Orleans, 516 F.2d 1051 (5th Cir.
1975), and adopted by the Pennsyl-
vania Commonwealth Court in
First Presbyterian, also helps to
clarify that a property owner, at
least in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, must establish that
the sale of therty is impracti-
cable. Contrary to the lower courts'
rulings, property owners may not
demolish historic property unless
they are able to demonstrate that
the property cannot be sold "as is"
without economic hardship.
Finally, the decision under-
scores the important role strong
judicial precedent can play in sup-
porting efforts to preserve historic
property. In reviewing the Commis-
sion's appeal, the court drew from
three important and controlling
cases on the issue of regulatory
takings with respect to historic pro-
perty—Penn Central Transporta-
tion Co. v City of
New York, 438 U.S.
104 (1978), united
Artists Theater Circuit
v. City of Philadelphia,
635 A.2d 612 (Pa.
1993)[12 PLR 1165],
and First Presbyterian
Church v. City Coun-
cil of York, 360 A.2d
257 (Pa. Commw. Ct.
1976). These cases
continue to provide a
strong foundation upon
which commissions
can rely in exercising
their judgment in rul-
ing on requests to demolish proper-
ty or applications for economic
hardship exceptions.
.In considering
the Weinbergs'
"reasonable in-
vestment -backed
expectations,"
the court noted
that they had
purchased the
property with
full knowledge
of its landmark
status.
[Sidney Baker, Esq., of Pittsburgh,
represented the Weinbergs.Jacque-
line Morrow; Esq., and George
Specter, Esq., represented the City
of Pittsburgh. Elizabeth Merritt,
Esq., and Alexandra Acosta, Esq.,
represented amicus curiae National
Trust for Historic Preservation;
Brenda Barrett, Esq., represented
amicus curiae Pennsylvania Histor-
ical and Museum Commission.]
15 PLR 1090 Preservation Law Reporter May 1996
��
the Washington court's analysis of
its own constitution does not nec-
essarily comport with other court
decisions involving free exercise
claims. Note, for example, in Hayes
v. Fowler, -473 S.E.2d 442 (N.C.
App. 1996), (reported below), the
North Carolina Court of Appeals
rejected a comparable argument,
advanced by the City of Pinehurst,
that all property owned by religious
organizations, including communi-
ty centers, must be deemed permis-
sible uses under a zoning ordinance
by virtue of the Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
[Michael De Grasse, Esq. of Walla
Walla represented the appellants,
Frank Munns, et. al. Timothy Don-
aldson, Esq. of Walla Walla and
Michael Geraghty, Esq. of Spokane
represented Robert C. Martin, De-
velopment Services Manager of the
City of Walla Walla, the City of
Walla Walla, and the Catholic Bish-
op of Spokane. The National Trust
for Historic Preservation, Washing-,
ton, D.C., and the Washington
Trust for Historic Preservation,
Seattle, WA, represented by Law-
rence Watters, Esq. of White Salm-
on, and Elizabeth S. Merritt, Esq.
and Laura S. Nelson, Esq., National
Trust for Historic Preservation,
Washington, D.C., participated as
amicus curiae.]
//y' ;yam/ ^/��-/�-(`} '//�• � y�y� (/��,� � /�.�,• ry`
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Denial
of Permit to Demolish Historic Building
The Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania has upheld the
decision of the City of
Williamsport denying its per-
mission to demolish a four-
story Victorian building used
as a home for the elderly.
Adhering to its recent decision
in Pittsburgh Historic Review
Commission v. Weinberg, 676
A.2d 207 (Pa. 1996)[15 PLR
1086 (May 1996)], the high
court ruled in this case that
the owner had failed to estab-
lish that the City's action
resulted in an unlawful taking
where it testified that the
building had not been offered
for sale since 1989. In Wein-
berg, a case also involving a
challenge to the denial of per-
mission to demolish a historic
building, the Pennsylvania
Supreme court determined
that a taking had not oc-
curred, in part, because the
owners had failed to demon-
strate that it would be "im-
practicable or impossible to
sell their property."
The Pennsylvania Supreme
Court also determined that
the Commonwealth's enabling
law for historic preservation
and the Williamsport Historic
District ordinance were not
unconstitutionally vague.
Among other things, the court
determined that the laws con-
tained the "requisite degree of
specificity" to avoid arbitrary
or discriminatory enforce-
ment." (Park Home v. City of
Williamsport, 680 A.2d 835
(Pa. 1996).)
This case involves a challenge
to the City of Williams -
port's denial of an applica-
tion to demolish a historic struc-
ture known as the "Park Home."
The building, a four-story, brick,
Victorian hotel, was first opened to
the public in the 1860s. It was con-
verted into a licensed personal care
boarding facility for elderly women
in 1940, and has since been operat-
ed as a home for the aged. Al-
though two of the building's top
floors were removed in 1938, the
building otherwise retains its origi-
nal integrity.
The Park Home is located in
the Williamsport Historic District,
a locally designated historic dis-
trict. It is also listed on the Nation-
al Register of Historic Places.
The building is owned by the
Park Home, a "non-profit corpora-
tion engaged in the business of
maintaining a personal care home
for elderly women in Williams-
port." The owner would like to
demolish the building to construct
a larger facility, and accordingly
applied to the Williamsport Histon.
cal Architectural Review Board
("the Board") for a demolition per-
mit.
The Board, on February 3, 1992,
voted to recommend to the City
Council to deny the application.
The City Council, in turn, rejected
Park Home's request for a demoli-
tion permit on July 16, 1992.
Park Home subsequently filed a
lawsuit in� state court challenging
the City's action, arguing that the
City's denial of the demolition
permit resulted in an unlawful
taking, that the City's preservation
ordinance was unconstitutionally
vague, and that the Board's actions
in denying the permit were arbi-
trary and capricious. The Lycoming
Court of Common Pleas, in a de
novo hearing, ruled against the
property owner, upholding the Ci-
ty's action. See Park Home v. City
of Williamsport, No. 92-01,607 (Ct.
Comm. Pleas Oct. 21, 1993[[12 PLR
1190 (Dec. 1993)]. The Common-
wealth Court, in Park Home v.
City of Williamsport, No. 2742
(Commw. Ct. 19931, affirmed that
decision.
The Court's Decision
The Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vania affirmed the City of Wil-
liamsport's denial of permission to
demolish the Park Home, finding
that the owner had failed to meet
its burden of proof in establishing a
regulatory taking. The court also
determined, in a decision by Chief
justice Nix, that the state's en-
abling law and the City's preserva-
tion ordinance were not unconsti-
tutionally vague, and that the
Board's failure to include a written
report of its findings to the Coun-
cil, although required by the ordi-
nance, amounted to a "minor proce-
dural defect which was subsequent-
ly remedied."
Takings Claim. In ruling in
favor of the City of Williamsport,
the court first determined that the
City's denial of the demolition
permit did not result in an unlaw-
ful taking. In support of its claim,
the owner had argued that a taking
resulted because it would have to
either refurbish the building "at
great expense" or sell the structure
at a "depressed fair market value
due to the historic designation of
the building."
The court, however, found that the
owner had failed to meet its burden
of proof, as set forth in Pittsburgh
Historic Review Commission v.
Weinberg, 676 A.2d 207 (Pa. 1996)
115 PLR 1087 (May 1996)].
In Weinberg, the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania ruled that in
order to establish that the denial of
a permit to demolish a historic
building resulted in an unlawful
taking, the owner must demon-
strate "that it would be impractica-
ble or impossible to sell their prop-
erty." In the present case, however,
the President of the Board of Direc-
tors of The Park Home testified on
cross-examination that "the Park
Home had not been offered for sale
since the time that he was a board
member in the late 1980's" and that
"it was board policy that the build-
ing not be sold and that it had pub-
licly stated that the property was
not for sale." According to the
court, "these statements clearly
indicate that the Board of Directors
did not even consider the possibili.
ty of selling the property as an al-
ternative to demolition" and there-
fore the trial court had properly
LAW
0
cod that the owner had failed
to establish that "it has been denied
any profitable use of the property."
Vagueness Claim. The Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania likewise
determined that Pennsylvania's
enabling statute and the Williams-
port Historic District Ordinance are
not unconstitutionally vague. In
support of this claim, the owner -
had argued that the lack of specific- a
ity and definite standards in the
statute and ordinance fail to give
property owners fair notice whether
certain uses of their property are
permissible and "invites 'arbitrary
and discriminatory acts as well as
uneven and unpredictable enforce-
ment.'" The court,
however, found that
both laws "possess[ed]
the requisite degree of
specificity such that
they are not unconsti-
tutionally vague."
Turning first to
Pennsylvania's en-
abling law for historic
preservation, 53 Pa.S.
§ 8004, the court ob-
served that "[a] review of the en-.
abling statute sets forth a limited
number of factors that a governing
body may consider in determining
whether or not to certify a struc-
ture for alteration or demolition."
For example, the court stated that
a governing body may consider only
exterior architectural features seen
from a public street or way. More-
over, the court reasoned, factors for
consideration by the governing
body such as the "general design,
arrangement, texture, material and
color of the building or structure
and the relation of such factors to
similar features of buildings and
structures in the district," provide
sufficient notice to property owner—
as to what will guide a governinu
body's decision-making process.
The court likewise determined
that the Williamsport Historic Dis-
trict Ordinance was not unconstitu.
tionally vague or applied in an arbi.
trary manner. The court found that
the distinctions between the Wil-
liamsport ordinance and the en-
abling statute were minimal and
therefore did not justify differing
results and that the owner's "un-
substantiated allegations" failed to
"demonstrate the vagueness of the
provisions at issue or the arbitrari-
ness of the Board's actions."
Procedural Error. Finally, the
Pennsylvania Supreme
court rejected the own-
er's argument that the
Board's decision had no
legal effect since the
Board had failed to file
a written report of its
findings with the
Council as required
under the ordinance.
Agreeing with the trial
court on this issue, the
supreme court observed that the
owner, had failed to object to this
error when the matter was remand-
ed to the Council and that the
owner had "suffered no prejudice in
light of the fact that it was afforded
the opportunity to fully present its
case at a de novo hearing before the
trial court."
Analysis. The Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania's most recent preser-
vation decision, Park Home v. City
of Williamsport, underscores its
prior ruling in City of Pittsburgh
Historic Review Commission v.
Weinberg, 676 A.2d 207 (Pa.
1996)[15 PLR 1087 (May 1996)],
that the burden of proving a regula-
The Board of
Directors did
not even consid-
er the possibility
of selling the
property as an
alternative to
demolition.
reservation Law Reporter Jan. -Mar. 1997 Jan. -Mar. 1997 Preservation Law Reporter 16 PLR 1009
tory taking rests on the property
owner. To establish a regulatory
taking, the owner must show that
sale of the property "as is" would be
"impracticable or impossible" and
that he or she has been "deprived of
any profitable use" of his or her
property.
The decision also further dem-
onstrates the difficulty of succeed-
ing on vagueness claims with re-
spect to historic preservation laws.
Courts have consistently found
preservation laws to meet constitu-
tional standards despite claims to
the contrary. For specific examples,
see "A Survey of State Cases Ad-
dressing the Vagueness Issue," 15
PLR 1155 (Oct. 1996).
I
4 4
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rejects
Segmentation of Property Interests to
Assess Takings Claims
Rules Courts Must Look at the "Parcel as a Whole"
In a case considered by
many land use experts to have
wide spread significance, the
Supreme Court of Wisconsin
ruled that the rezoning of a
portion of property for conser-
vation use did not result in an
unlawful taking requiring
compensation under the Unit-
ed States and Wisconsin con-
stitutions. Overturning an
appeals court ruling, the state
supreme court concluded that
the entire parcel must be con-
sidered in determining wheth-
er a regulation has denied "the
landowner all or substantially
all practical uses of a property
in order to be considered a
taking for which compensa-
tion is required."
The question of whether
courts may "segment" property
interests in conducting takings
assessments has received con-
siderable attention in recent
years. The principal precedent
in this area is the U.S. Su-
preme Court's decision in
Penn Central Transportation
Co. v. City of New York, 438
U.S. 104 (1978), a landmark
decision upholding the consti-
tutionality of historic preser-
vation ordinances in this
country. The Court ruled that
"`taking' jurisprudence does
not divide a single parcel into
discrete segments and attempt
to determine whether rights in
a particular segment have
been entirely abrogated."
However, in a subsequent
decision, Lucas v. South Caro-
lina Coastal Council, 505 U.S.
1003 (1992)[11 PLR 11851,
Supreme Court justice Scalia,
in writing for the majority,
commented in footnote 7 on
the difficulty of determining
the property interest at stake
for purposes of undertaking a
takings analysis.
Significantly, the Supreme
Court reaffirmed the non -seg-
mentation principal of Penn
Central in a subsequent deci-
sion, Concrete Pipe and Prod-
ucts v Construction Laborers
Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602
(1993)[12 PLR 1085].
The "parcel as a whole"
theory has long been consid-
ered important to historic
Jan. -Mar. 1997 Preservation Law Re orter 16 PLR 1011
preservation. If, for example,
property owners are able to
divide their property interests
into discrete segments, then it
would be virtivally impossible
to protect historic estates from
being subdivided and devel-
oped on the basis of separate
taking challenges for each
property segment. (Zealy v.
City of Waukesha, 548 N.W.2d
528 (Wis. 1996).)
The controversy in this case
centered on the rezoning of
a 10.4 acre parcel of land
owned by Alfred Zealy. The parcel,
once part of a larger, 250 acre tract
of land, was originally zoned as A-
3, allowing for agricultural use. In
1967, the City of Waukesha an-
nexed the property and rezoned it
as R-1, allowing for residential use.
Later on, the City rezoned a small
area of the parcel as B-4, allowing
for business use.
Mr. Zealy continued to use his
property for farming until 1981, at
which time he began to sell off his
property, leaving 10.4 acres in his
possession. Zealy used his remain-
ing property for peat mining. In
1982, the City established a Con-
servancy District, rezoning approxi-
mately 8.2 acres of Mr. Zealy's
property as C-1. The C-1 designa-
tion allows for agricultural use. The
remaining acres continued to be
zoned for residential and business
use. After designation of the proper-
ty as a conservancy district, the
City reduced the assessed value of
Mr. Zealy's 10.4 acre parcel from
$81,000 to $57,000.
Mr. Zealy never sought to de-
velop his property or to have it
rezoned. Rather, he filed an inverse
condemnation action in state court
alleging that the City's rezoning of
his property constituted a regulato-
ry taking. He also argued that the
City should be equitably estopped
from rezoning his property based on
earlier representations made to him
by the City concerning the develop-
ment of his land for residential use.
The trial court dismissed the
lawsuit on both grounds. The Court
of Appeals subsequently reversed
the trial court with respect to the
takings issues. In ruling in favor of
Mr. Zealy, the Court of Appeals
reasoned that the trial court had
erred by considering the parcel as a
whole in assessing Mr. Zealy's tak-
ing claim. The appeals court, ac-
cordingly, reversed and remanded
the trial court's decision, directing
the trial court to determine the
degree, of interference with the
"landowners's anticipated and dis-
tinct investment opportunities."
See Zealy v. City of Waukesha, 534
N.W.2d 917 (Wis. App. 1995).
The Court's Decision. The Su-
preme Court of Wisconsin reversed
the Court of Appeals and reinstated
the trial court's decision. The high
court ruled that the trial court had
properly determined that the prop-
erty interest, for purposes of assess-
ing whether a taking has occurred,
is the entire 10.4 acre parcel. Since
Mr. Zealy could continue to use
the 8.2 acres of his property for
agricultural use and the remaining
land for business and residential
use, the court determined that Mr.
Zealy was not deprived of "all or
substantially all practical use of his
property."
As a preliminary matter, the
Wisconsin Supreme Court observed
that it could dismiss this case on
Transportation Co. v. New York
City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978).
Before determining whether a
taking of property has indeed oc-
curred, the Wisconsin court ex-
plained, a court must determine the
property at issue. Upon examina-
tion of U.S. Supreme Court prece-
dent on this issue, the court con-
cluded that the landowner's proper-
ty should be considered as a whole
rather than as discrete segments.
Citing specifically to Penn Central,
the Wisconsin court stated:
"Taking'" jurisprudence does not
divide a single parcel into discrete
segments and attempt to determine
whether rights in a particular seg-
ment have been entirely abrogated. in
deciding whether a particular govern-
mental action has effected a taking,
this Court focuses rather on the
character of the actions and on the
nature and extent of he interference
with rights in the parcel as a whole."
In exploring this issue further,
the Wisconsin court observed that
the U.S. Supreme Court had previ-
ously rejected efforts to segment
property for purposes of establish-
ing a regulatory taking in Penn
Central (cited above) and Keystone
Bituminous Coal Assn v. DeBene-
dictis, 480 U.S. 470 (1987). While
justice Scalia, in writing for the
Supreme Court, voiced concern
regarding the application of the
"parcel as a whole" rule in certain
circumstances in footnote 7 of
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal
Council, 505 U.S. 1003,1016-17, n7
(1992), the Wisconsin court noted
that justice Scalia's observations
were mere "dicta," since the issue
of whether property should be seg-
mented was not before the Lucas
court. (In Lucas, the Supreme Court
ripeness grounds since Mr. Zealy
1
had never sought to have his prop-
erty rezoned or attempted to Bevel -
op his property. However, the court
concluded that "addressing the mer-
its of the case at bar would best
serve the interests of justice" by
settling issues "presently unclear in
our law of regulatory takings."
Turning to the merits of Mr.
Zealy's takings claim, the court
then proceeded to identify the stan-
dard for determining whether a
taking has occurred. Relying on
U.S. Supreme Court precedent for
guidance, the Wisconsin court stat-
ed that to establish a regulatory
taking, the "regulation must deny
the landowner all or substantially
all practical uses of a property in
order to be considered a taking for
which compensation is required."
In addressing this issue, the
`
Wisconsin Supreme Court initially
.
observed that its approach to regu-
latory takings is consistent with
that of the United States Supreme
Court. The court noted that in
Wisconsin, a takings analysis essen-
tially involves the resolution of two
competing concerns: "respect for
the property rights of individuals"
and "recognition that the govern-
ment retains the ability, in further-
ance of the interests of all citizens,
to regulate an owner's potential
uses of land." While there is no set
formula for measuring a takings
claim, the court stated that it gen-
erally involves consideration of
several factors, namely: (1) "the
character of the governmental ac-
tion;'" (2) "'the economic impact of
the regulation on the claimant;'"
and (3) "'the extent to which the
regulation has interfered with dis-
investment
tinct -backed expecta-
tions,'" (quoting from Penn Central
Transportation Co. v. New York
City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978).
Before determining whether a
taking of property has indeed oc-
curred, the Wisconsin court ex-
plained, a court must determine the
property at issue. Upon examina-
tion of U.S. Supreme Court prece-
dent on this issue, the court con-
cluded that the landowner's proper-
ty should be considered as a whole
rather than as discrete segments.
Citing specifically to Penn Central,
the Wisconsin court stated:
"Taking'" jurisprudence does not
divide a single parcel into discrete
segments and attempt to determine
whether rights in a particular seg-
ment have been entirely abrogated. in
deciding whether a particular govern-
mental action has effected a taking,
this Court focuses rather on the
character of the actions and on the
nature and extent of he interference
with rights in the parcel as a whole."
In exploring this issue further,
the Wisconsin court observed that
the U.S. Supreme Court had previ-
ously rejected efforts to segment
property for purposes of establish-
ing a regulatory taking in Penn
Central (cited above) and Keystone
Bituminous Coal Assn v. DeBene-
dictis, 480 U.S. 470 (1987). While
justice Scalia, in writing for the
Supreme Court, voiced concern
regarding the application of the
"parcel as a whole" rule in certain
circumstances in footnote 7 of
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal
Council, 505 U.S. 1003,1016-17, n7
(1992), the Wisconsin court noted
that justice Scalia's observations
were mere "dicta," since the issue
of whether property should be seg-
mented was not before the Lucas
court. (In Lucas, the Supreme Court
addressed allegations that a categor-
ical taking had occurred because
the owner had been denied all use
of his property.) Moreover, the Wis-
consin Court observed, the U.S.
Supreme court adhered to the par-
cel as a whole rule in the context
of a subsequent regulatory takings
decision in which Justice Scalia
joined, Concrete Pipe and Products
v. Construction Laborers Pension
Trust, 508 U.S. 602 (19931.
Turning specifically to the
Court of Appeals' decision in this
case; the court observed that appli-
cation of the lower court's ruling,
that courts should consider a land-
owner's "anticipated and distinct
investment opportunities" in defin-
ing the property, may prove diffi-
cult. The court stated:
Looking to a landowner's anticipated
use of various parcels and sub -parcels
off land in order to determine the
extent of the parcel at issue would
require ascertaining a landowner's
subjective intent before being able to
evaluate a possible takings claim.
This would confuse both the agencies
responsible for zoning and the courts
called on to adjudicate such claims,
and increase the difficulty o an al-
ready complex inquiry.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court also
determined that the lower court's
reliance on two cases where seg-
mentation of property was allowed,
Ciampatti v. United States, 22 Cl.
Ct. 310 (1991) and Loveladies Har-
bor, Inc. v. United States, 28 F.3d
1171 . (1983), was misplaced since
those cases are distinguishable on
the facts.
Upon determining that the
property at issue is Mr. Zealy's
entire 10.4 acre parcel, the Wiscon-
sin Supreme Court proceeded to
examine the record to determine if
a taking had occurred in this case.
Significantly, the court rejected Mr.
Zealy's argument that loss of value
should be based on what the land is
worth rather than its value in its
"natural state." Quoting from its
previous decision in Just v
Mariette County, 201 N.W.2d 761
(1972), the court stated:
[The landowners] argue their property
has been severely depreciated in
value. But this depreciation of value
is not based on the use of the land in
its natural state but on what the land
would be worth if it could be filled
and used for the location of a dwell-
ing. While loss of value is to be con-
sidered in determining whether a
restriction is a constructive taking,
value based upon changing the char-
acter of the land at the expense of
harm to public rights is not an essen-
tial factor or controlling.
Ultimately, the court ruled that it
could not "conclude that the City's
rezoning deprived Zealy of all or
substantially all of the use of his
land." The court observed that Mr.
Zealy can continue to use the 8.2
acres zoned as C-1 for farming, and
the balance of his property for busi-
ness and residential use.
Analysis. The Supreme Court of
Wisconsin's ruling in Zealy v. City
of Waukesha, may be viewed as
just one court's response to the
issue of how to define the property
interest in determining whether a
regulatory taking has occurred.
However, many experts view Wis-
consin's takings law as an impor-
tant reaffirmation of the basic prin-
ciples of takings jurisprudence set
out by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Penn Central—principles that con-
tinue to be critically important to
the effectiveness of local landmark
laws across the country.
4 `
3
V
11
ViAll
r<
w
Seventh Circuit Ruling in Chicago
Landmarks Case Limits Right of Local
Governments to Remove Preservation
Challenges to Federal Court
International College of Surgeons
Reversed and Remanded to State Court
The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit has
reversed the decision of the
U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in
International College of Sur-
geons v. City of Chicago, No.
91 C 1587 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 30,
1994). The Seventh Circuit
ruled that the federal district
court had improperly deter-
mined that it had subject
matter jurisdiction in. this
case, concluding that an ac-
tion seeking judicial review of
a state administrative agency
decision may not be removed
from state to federal court
under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(a),
even though the lawsuit in-
cludes federal constitutional
claims. According to the
court, removal is appropriate
only if all actions before the
court can be characterized as
"civil actions," and that ad-
ministrative appeals do not
constitute such actions.
The plaintiff's lawsuit
against the City included two
actions which involved "appel-
late review" of the final deci-
sions of the Commission on
the Chicago Architectural and
Historical Landmarks under
the Illinois Administrative
Review Act. Because the fed-
eral district court did not have``
"original" jurisdiction over
these claims, the Seventh Cir-
cuit concluded that the entire
case must be remanded to the
Cook County Circuit Court as
a matter of law.
The Circuit Court's deci-
sion sets aside a well-written
federal district court decision
that provided important
guidelines on a wide range of
constitutional and administra-
tive issues affecting Iocal his-
toric preservation programs.
See, "Federal District Court
Upholds Denial of Permit to
Demolish Chicago Landmarks
in .Broad-based Lawsuit," 14
PLR 1087 (May 1995). The
district court had addressed
several questions important to
preservation but rarely consid-
ered, such as the ability of a
preservation commission to
retain its own witnesses in
considering an economic hard-
ship claim and the distinction
between an owner's willing-
ness to maintain historic prop-
erty and his or her financial
ability to do so.
Perhaps more significantly,
however, the circuit court
adapted an extremely narrow
interpretation of federal court
removal jurisdiction over
court actions that contain a
mix of state and federal
claims, ruling that if "even
one claim" in such an action
is in the nature of an "admin-
istrative review," the action
may not be removed to federal
court.
On April 14, 1997, the U.S.
Supreme Court granted a re-
quest by the City of Chicago
to review the case. [Interna-
tional College of Surgeons v.
City of Chicago, 91 F.3d 981
(7th Cir. 1996), cert. granted,
117 S.Ct. 1424 (1997)(No. 96-
910).]
This case involves a challenge
by the international College
of Surgeons (the College) of
the decision of the Commission on
Chicago Historical and Architectur-
al Landmarks (the Landmarks Com-
mission), to deny the College's
application to demolish two histor-
ic mansions designated as historic
landmarks pursuant to the Seven
Houses Lake Shore Drive District
Ordinance. The College had sought
to demolish the buildings, located
on Lake Shore Drive, to construct a
forty-one story, mixed-use condo-
minium tower on the site. For de-
tailed discussion on the facts sur-
rounding this case, see "Federal
District Court Upholds Denial of
Permit to Demolish Chicago Land-
marks in Broad -Based Lawsuit," 14
PLR 1087 (May 1995).
The College filed three separate
lawsuits against the city in the
Circuit Court of Cook County. The
first lawsuit sought judicial review
of the Landmarks Commission's
decision to deny its application for
a certificate of appropriateness to
demolish the historic buildings,
alleging both state and federal law
claims. The second lawsuit, in
turn, sought judicial review of the
Commission's decision to deny the
owners' request for an exception on
economic hardship grounds, also
alleging both state and federal law
claims. In its third lawsuit against
the City, the College challenged
the City Council's rejection of its
application for permits under Chi-
cago's "Lake Michigan and Chicago
Lakefront Protection Ordinance."
The College's three lawsuits
against the City were removed by
the City of Chicago to federal dis-
trict court and then consolidated
into a single lawsuit. The College's
action under the City's Lakefront
Protection Ordinance was stayed
pending the outcome of its two
other claims. In an order dated
January 10, 1992, the court granted
in part and denied in part the City's
motion to dismiss the College's
claims against the City under the
City's landmark ordinance. See
International College of Surgeons
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). This provision
v. City of Chicago, Nos. 91 C 1587
states in relevant part:
and 91 C 5564 (N.D. W. Jan. 10,
1992)[11 PLR 1106 (Jan. 1992)].
Except as otherwise provided by Act
The College, thereafter, filed an
of Congress, any civil action brought
amended "Consolidated Complaint
in a State court of which the district
for Administrative Review," once
courts of the United States have
original jurisdiction, may be removed
again alleging both federal and state
by the defendant or the defendants, to
law claims. On December 30, 1994,
the district court of the United States
the federal district court entered
for the district and division embrac-
summary judgment in favor of the
ing the place where such action is
City on all claims, affirming both
pending.
the decision of the Landmarks
Commission to deny the demoli-
Emphasis added. Under the Seventh
tion permits and the City's decision
Circuit's interpretation of this pro -
to deny relief on economic hardship
vision, removal is appropriate only
grounds. See Interna-
if all of the claims
tional College ofA state action
seek - before the court in -
Surgeons v. City of volve "civil actions."
Ing judicial review
Chicago, No. 91 C
In other words, a
1587 (N.D. 111. Dec. Of a state
adminis- -state action seeking
30, 1994)[14 PLR tratiVe agency's de -'—,'judicial review of a
1087 (May 1995)]. tennination is not - ,. state administrative
The . court also dis• e, i f the agency's determina
removable, -
.•
missed as moot the tion is not remov-
court Would be re-
College's remaining
able, if the court
claim under the Chi- quired to
perforin would be required to
cago Lakefront Pro- an "appellate" func- perform an "appel-
tection Ordinance,rr late" function rather
tion rather than de
but granted leave to
than "de nova" re -
reinstate the claim if novo review. view.
the court's decisions
In reaching its
on the two other claims should be
determination on this issue, the
reversed.
Seventh Circuit initially looked to
The U.S. Court of Appeals nev-
the U.S. Supreme Court for guid-
er reached the merits of the parties'
ance. The Seventh Circuit observed
arguments on appeal. Rather, the
that in two decisions, Chicago,
Seventh Circuit determined that
Rock Island & Pacific Railroad v.
the district court lacked subject
Stude, 346 U.S. 5 74 (1954), and
matter jurisdiction and therefore
Horton v. Liberty Mutual Insur-
reversed the district court's deci-
ance Co., 367 U.S. 348 (1961), the
sion with instructions to remand
Supreme Court determined that
the matter to the Cook County
removal jurisdiction over state
Circuit Court.
court actions was appropriate be -
r
The Court!s Decision
cause de novo review of a state
administrative agency decision was
l
Removal of state court actions
involved. Although the Supreme
to federal court is authorized under
Court did not address the question
of whether removal is appropriate
when "the state administrative
review scheme provides for deferen-
tial review of a state agency's deci-
sion," the Seventh Circuit noted
that the First and Fourth Circuits
have interpreted the Supreme
Court's ruling to mean that "dis-
trict courts do not have jurisdiction
to entertain such actions."
Accordingly, upon considering
the question of whether a state
action is removable, the Seventh
Circuit concluded that "the focus
must be upon the character of the
state proceeding and upon the na-
ture of the review conducted by the
state court." The court explained:
If the state administrative review
process provides for a trial de novo,
removal of the action to federal court
does not require the district court to
perform an appellate function that is
inconsistent with the character of the
court of original jurisdiction. Under
those circumstances, the state pro-
ceeding can be termed a "civil ac-
tion." If, however, the state adminis-
trative review process requires the
state court to proceed on the basis of
a more deferential review of the state
agency's findings and determinations,
removal of the action to federal court
would require the district court to
perform an appellate role with re-
spect to the decision of the state
administrative agency.
Emphasis added.
Turning to the state actions at
issue in this case, the Seventh Cir-
cuit proceeded to analyze what the
scope of judicial review would be
had it been exercised by the Cook
County Circuit Court, i.e., whether
the actions could be characterized
as a "civil action" or actions confer-
ring appellate review. First, the
court noted that the Illinois Ad-
ministrative Review Act (IARA)
"provides the exclusive method by
which an aggrieved party may ob-
tain judicial review of decisions
made by certain administrative
agencies in Illinois." The court then
observed that the "judicial function
performed by an Illinois court when
it is exercising statutory ... juris-
diction" is expressly limited by the
IARA. While Illinois courts have
interpreted this provision to allow
consideration of constitutional
claims in conjunction with IARA
claims, the Seventh Circuit stated
that the court is "bound by the
record made at the administrative
hearing" and "when the record is
insufficient to permit a ruling on
the constitutional claim, the court
may remand the matter to the a-
gency for further evidence."
The Seventh Circuit thus con-
cluded that "the scope of judicial
review accorded by the IARA" in-
volves a "deferential" rather than
"de novo" standard of review and
that "although the state trial
court's review extends to 'all ques-
tions of law and fact presented by
the entire record,' it may not hear
new evidence and must accept the
agency's findings and conclusions
on questions of fact as 'prima facie
true and correct.'"
Judicial review under the IARA
is an "appellate proceeding" and "as
such, it is not a 'civil action of
which the district courts ... have
original jurisdiction' within the
meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)." By
way of comparison, the Seventh
Circuit determined that removal
would be permissible if a separate
§ 1983 claim were brought before a
state court since review under such
claims is not confined to the ad-
ministrative record.
4) 0
0 .0
Finally, the Seventh Circuit
determined that the fact that the
lawsuit involved both federal and
state law claims did not alter its
ruling. Since, under the court's
analysis, the College's state law
claim could not be characterized as
a "'claim' in an 'original action',"
the case "removed to the district
court cannot be termed a 'civil
action' ... of which the district
courts ... have'original jurisdiction'
within the meaning of section 1441
(a)." Accordingly, the court ruled
that removal of the College's law-
suits to federal court
"is barred" and its
"claims must be
remanded to the
Circuit Court of
Cook County for
determination."
Analysis
The U.S. Su-
preme Court's• re-
view of the Seventh
Circuit's recent deci-
sion in International
College of Surgeons
should be closely
watched. Although
the issue before the Court does not
directly involve a historic preserva-
tion issue, affirmation of the circuit
court's decision could be harmful
to historic preservation, to the ex-
tent that it limits a jurisdiction's
ability to remove a case to federal
court when defending a lawsuit
that includes a number of constitu-
tional claims, an important right in
cases where the state courts do not
follow established federal jurispru-
dence. If the Seventh Circuit's rul-
ing is affirmed, property owners
could preclude federal court review
simply by raising their federal
claims in the context of an admin-
istrative review.
[Richard J. Brennan, Esq. of Win-
ston & Strawn, Chicago, Ill., David
B. Love, Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fair-
weather & Geraldson, Chicago, Ill.,
and Daniel L. Houlihan, Esq., Hou-
lihan & Associates, Chicago, Ill.,
represented the International Col-
lege of Surgeons, United States Sec-
tion of the International College of
Surgeons, and Robin
Construction Corp.
collectively. Susan S.
Sher, Corporation
Counsel of Chicago,
Illinois, along with
Lawrence Rosenthal,
Deputy Corporation
Counsel, Benna Ruth
Solomon, Chief As-
sistance Corporation
Counsel, and Anne
Berleman Kearney,
Assistant Corpora-
tion Counsel, repre-
sented the City of
Chicago, Commis-_
cion on Chicago
Landmarks, the Plan Commission,
and individually named defen-
dants.]
Affirmation of the
decision could be
harmful to historic
preservation, to the
extent that it limits
a municipality's
ability to remove a
case to federal
court when defend-
ing a lawsuit that
includes a number
of constitutional
claims.
-_ =G=AA ff rAtiND:T S
D.C. Court Affirms Denial of Application
for Rear Rooftop Addition
The District of Columbia
Court of Appeals has affirmed
the denial of an application to
construct a third floor deck
and roof top addition to a
townhouse in the Dupont
Circle Historic District, up-
holding the District of Colum-
bia's -determination that the
proposed changes were not
consistent with its historic
preservation law. Amongother
things, the court found that
the Mayor's Agent had not
erred in concluding that, un-
der D.C. law, the applicant
must establish _ that the pro-
posed changes are consistent
with not just the frontal view,
but "all vistas if effects."
The court's ruling under-
scores the high level of defer-
ence generally accorded to
administrative agencies in
applying historic preservation
laws to particular cases. Pres-
ervation commission or review
board decisions are generally
upheld unless the findings of
fact are not supported by "sub-
stantial evidence" and the
conclusions of law do not
"flow rationally" from those
findings. The decision also
highlights that requirements
of general compatibility can
rationally be interpreted to
require compatibility with all
viewpoints within a historic
district, not just with the
street on which the structure
abuts. [Reneau v. District of
Columbia, 475 A.2d 913 (D.C.
App. 1996.]
paul Reneau purchased a
three-story townhouse in
the Dupont Circle Historic
District, and hired architects and
contractors to convert the single-
family townhouse into condomini-
ums. Three months later, a stop
work order was issued for failure to
obtain necessary permits as re-
quired under several laws, includ-
ing the District's "Historic Land-
mark and Historic District Protec-
tion Act."
In response, Mr. Reneau initiat-
ed the process for review by the
Historic Preservation Review Board
(the "HPRB"). He simultaneously
submitted two applications, both of
which the HPRB rejected while
providing recommendations for
modifications that would reduce
the visibility, and intrusion of a
fourth floor roof top addition "as
perceived from the front facade."
Other proposed changes, including
the construction of rear decks, were
found consistent with the Act and
upheld.
Mr. Reneau subsequently pre-
sented the HPRB with a new appli-
4
Cl
cation, which included plans to
modify the proposed rooftop addi-
tion. Upon consideration of staff
comments, however, Mr. Reneau
withdrew is rooftop proposal from
consideration and instead requested
consideration of a rear deck. Upon
review of the evidence, the HPRB
voted to deny the rear deck and
sent official notification to Mr.
Reneau that his applications for the
roof top addition and proposed rear
deck had not been approved.
Mr. Reneau, accordingly, ap-
pealed the HPRB's decision to the
Mayor's Agent. After holding a
public hearing on the
matter and consider-
ing all the evidence,
the Mayor's Agent
denied the permit
and dismissed the
application with
prejudice. The agent
found that the prop-
erty owner had failed
to establish that the
proposed additions
were either compati-
ble with the historic
district or necessary
to "encourage their
adaptation for use."
In making its finding of facts
and conclusions of law, the Mayor's
Agent noted that no permit could
be issued under D.C. law unless the
addition was "compatible with the
historic district." In considering the
meaning of this requirement, the
agent determined that "the test of
compatibility must be measured
not just from the view immediately
in front of a structure but from the
entire historic district." The agent
also stressed that while "the charac-
ter in some neighborhoods may be
affected by a change in visibility
from directly across the front fa-
cades," the "neighbors of this com-
munity, as well as presumably the
majority of most Historic neighbor-
hoods, are concerned about their
views from all streets."
The Court's Decision. The D.C.
Court of Appeals upheld the May-
or's Agent decision, finding that it
was "supported by substantial evi-
dence in the record considered as a
whole" and that its conclusions of
law "flow[ed] rationally" from those
findings. In reaching its decision,
the court observed that "[a]lthough
the decision is not a model of clari-
ty, a close reading
reveals that it con-,
tains a cogent analy-
sis of the record evi-
dence, flows ratio-
nally from the find-
ings of fact, and con-
tains no erroneous
interpretations of
law." According to
the court, the agent's
findings were sup-
ported by "substan-
tial record evidence."
Notably, in up-
holding the Mayor's
Agent's decision, the
court rejected a separate argument
raised by Mr. Reneau that the agent
had erred "because he had failed to
state why he [rejected] the uncon-
tradicted expert testimony offered
[on Mr. Reneau's behalf at the hear-
ing.]" The court, however, dis-
missed this claim, noting that the
agent was only required to give
some indication as to why he re-
jected expert testimony and he met
that requirement. According to the
court, the agent had properly noted
that the applicant's expert failed to
indicate which of the additions she
"[A]lthough the de-
cision is not a mod-
el of clarity, a close
reading reveals that
it contains a cogent
analysis of the re-
cord evidence,
flows rationally
from the findings of
fact, and contains
no erroneous inter-
pretations of law."
testified about had been added be-
fore the area had been designated as
a historic district and her testimo-
ny "did not focus on the impact of
the proposed additions on the vistas
being 'affected' in the area."
Finally, the court determined
that the Mayor's Agent had not
committed error as a matter of law
by improperly construing one of the
purposes of the Act. Under the
court's analysis, "no grounds for
setting aside his decision" existed,
since the Mayor's Agent deter-
mined both that the owner was
required to prove under the Act
that the proposed additions were
compatible with the character of
the historic district and that Mr.
Reneau had failed to meet his bur-
den of proof. The court also deter-
mined that the Agent's apparent
combining of two different but
related statutory provisions, by its
statement that the owner had failed
"to show that the proposed changes
were necessary to 'encourage their
adaptation for use,'" could not be
said to be "unreasonable under the
circumstances here."
Accordingly, the court affirmed
the Mayor's Agent's decision, find-
ing that substantial evidence in the
record supported his decision and
the Agent's interpretation of the
District's preservation law was
"reasonable." In closing, the court
stressed that it must "be particular-
ly deferential to the agency's deter-
mination where the decision lies
within the agency's expertise."
Analysis. The decision of the
District of Columbia Court of Ap-
peals in Reneau v. District of Co-
lumbia is important in two re-
spects. First, it underscores the
degree of deference generally ac-
corded to preservation commissions
and review boards in ruling on ap-
plications to alter or add on to pro-
perties in historic districts. Second,
the decision recognizes that in pre-
serving the character of the historic
district, it is important to consider
all views within that district. In
other words, the court's decision
provides important guidance on the
application of compatibility re-
quirements in historic preservation
ordinances to all facades, not just
those facades visible from the street
on which the structure abuts.
[Richard W. Luchs, Esq. of Wash-
ington, D.C. and Jacques B. DePuy,
Esq. represented Paul Reneau.
Charles F.C. Ruff, Corporation
Counsel, and Charles L. Reischei,
Deputy Corporation Counsel, repre-
sented the District of Columbia.
Richard A. Friedman, Esq. of Wash-
ington, D.C. represented the Du-
pont Circle Conservancy, Inc., who
intervened in support of the Dis-
trict in this case.]
-------------
North Carolina Appeals Court Rejects
"Bed and Breakfast" Use by Purchasers
of Church -owned Historic Property;
Allows Continued Use as Meeting Hall
The Court of Appeals of
North Carolina has ruled that
the prospective purchasers of
Maryhurst, a historic house
located in the Pinehurst his-
toric district, may not operate
a "bed and breakfast" on the
premises. The court, however,
determined that the property
could be utilized for meetings
and other social events as a
continuation of an existing,
4 non -conforming use. The
house is zoned for residential
use.
In its "de novo" review of
the case, the appeals court
determined that bed and
breakfasts fall within the
meaning of "guest cottages,"
which are explicitly identified
as a non permissible, accesso-
ry use under the zoning ordi-
nance of the Village of Pine-
hurst. The court concluded,
nonetheless, that the noncon-
forming use of the property by
its current owners, the Catho-
lic Diocese of Raleigh, for
meetings and social events
could be continued by the
purchasers. Under the Vil-
lage's zoning ordinances, non-
conforming uses may be con-
tinued unless discontinued for
a period of 120 days.
Significantly, the court
rejected the argument raised
by the Village that the Dio-
cese's use of Maryhurst as a
meeting hall was not noncon-
forming. The court determined
that although the house was
owned by a church, the house
could not be construed as a
"church," a. permissible use
under the ordinance. In reach-
ing its decision on this issue,
the court stressed that if the
term. "church" was construed
more broadly, then every use
of buildings owned by reli-
gious organizations would be
deemed permissible under the
ordinance. Describing this as
an "absurd" and "illogical"
result, the court stated that it
is "the proposed use of the
land, and not the nature of
the using organization" that
controls in zoning cases.
(Hayes v. Fowler, 473 S.E.2d
442 (N.C. App. 1996).)
This case addresses the issue
of whether a historic house
may be operated as a "bed
and breakfast" or meeting hall un-