Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 2002AGENDA OF THE AUGUST 7,''2002 : . COMMISSION MEETING ._ . `OW ,Mt551pry ERS J sA V � H 0 c Special Meeting — 7th Floor — County -City Building s ` ` Wednesday, August 7, 2002 4:30 PM I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL Introduction of new member H. PUBLIC HEARING A. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS H ' ° 1.2002- 0717 -924 West Indiana Avenue, The Oliver School: Removal of hazardous materials; Salvage of artifacts & antique building materials; Demolition of remaining portions of building; Restoration of site & preservation of mature trees. 2. 2002- 0725); 1619 East Wayne Street; Roof & enclose porch. ►*-� B. LOCAL LANDMARKS 1. 53117 Olive Road, South Bend, The Old German Schoolhouse 2. 1820 Portage Avenue, South Bend C. HEARING OF VISITORS D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ANNOUNCEMENTS & MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS, A. Underground Railroad Summit " B. Kessler historic landscape tour & seminar „ R4nq` VI. ADJOURNMENT i e 0 O " J TA C� SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2002 MEETING GUESTS: PLEASE SIGN THIS LIST SO YOUR PRESENCE CAN BE NOTED FOR OUR MINUTES A-IA-AltE OXAV� c1rY( GJAL)::'� r. gr2t1DT t zwr 736 E. BR©tn so e S� ?3� D2vtvLis Y�urpl�"1 I�,Utv►� � LP�n. �lhc -. ' (�.ovt-�- Tw.� C.�w�-}�v,v� SLSr�,a�v I r m ro %I BA C CL - 146c.1- 4 oaY Pr oP -cti*T-isr STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFIATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Number: 2002 -0717 Property Location: 900 - 924 West Indiana Avenue, South Bend Property Owner: St. Joseph County & City of South Bend Landmark or District Designation: Local Historic Landmark, designated 1982 Rating: S-12 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT The oldest part of this building, the present West wing, was built in 1905. In 1922, architects Austin and Shambleau designed and built the present building, incorporating the 1905 building into the much larger structure. Thaddeus Nethercutt was the superintendent of construction for the architects, and H.G. Christman was the contractor. The superintendent of the school corporation was W. W. Borden. In the twenties, Oliver School was one of the most advanced intermediate school buildings in Indiana, offering learning facilities not available in some colleges of the day. It was particularly known for its vocational arts facilities for art, sewing, domestic science, machining, drafting, printing, carpentry, and — cutting edge in those days, but appropriate for an automobile manufacturing town — auto repair. The auditorium has a seating capacity for 800, as does the cafeteria, and there was an area of the building known as the "fresh air section" where the windows were to be left open at all times. The foundation is stone and concrete. The walls are dark red brick with decorative terra cotta trim, and a terra cotta belt course above the second floor windows. There are projecting pavilions at the entrances and pilasters between window groups. The windows, built tall enough to light classrooms without artificial lights, are built in groups of three. The first floor windows were four over four double hung with elongated lower panes, and the second floor windows were four over one double hung. Three leaded and stained glass transoms with medallions are above each set of front entrance doors. The roof is flat, with a brick parapet and terra cotta coping. For 77 years, from 1905 until 1982, Oliver School was still considered one of the finest school buildings in the Midwestern United States. Declining enrollment and shifting population patterns, and perhaps some other factors, caused the school corporation to decide that the building was "excess to the school corporation's needs" (See letter from Thos. Reidy, 4- 20- 1982). At that time, the roof was in need of some routine maintenance and repair, but the corporation decided to give the building away essentially for free, rather than to fix the roof and sell the building for money. Mr. Dwight Macon, doing business as the Michiana Academy for Performing Arts, received the building from the school corporation, and has owned it for most of the last twenty years. During that time, there is no evidence of any repairs or maintenance being performed whatsoever. If the owner has ever given consideration to the fact that his neighbors and the whole city are much greatly harmed by the gradual "demolition by neglect" of this once lovely and majestic building that is not apparent in the buildings present neglected and bedraggled state. At one time, houses built in view or easy walking distance of Oliver School were more valuable because of being in Oliver's neighborhood; vacant and neglected, the opposite has become true. Educators from around Indiana and neighboring states once toured Oliver to study its excellent building design. Now months go by with no one entering it but thieves and vandals. The people of the City of South Bend, including the Olivers, reached into their pockets to build the city school corporation one of the best buildings in the state, and the school corporation, neglecting even to keep it in basic repair, when repair would have been cheap, not only threw away this magnificent building, but threw it away in such fashion that the same city that built it now has to pay to clean up what was trashed. ,c 1 RECOMMENDATION There are five parts to the City's Application, but they must be considered all at once in order to make sense. 1) Removal of asbestos and other "hazardous materials." Specifically, this means insulation, underground storage tanks, and florescent lights. Staff recommends approval. 2) Salvage of artifacts for use in the community center that the city proposes to build or have built on the site, or for use in associated buildings in that site. Specifically, the artifacts could include terra cotta, art tiles, sinks, hardware, vent grills, granite, slate, and limestone, millwork including doors, cabinets, and woodwork, and even some furniture, 1920 -era light fixtures, hardwood flooring, and rose - colored interior windowsills. Salvage of these materials is an excellent idea for many reasons. First they allow the city, on behalf of the community, to preserve at least some traces of this piece of South Bend's local history. Second, the re -use at least some of these materials will allow the construction of a much more magnificent community center than would otherwise be affordable. Salvage is not cheap, but materials like these would be phenomenally expensive today, and salvage intelligently managed could provide very expensive materials at less cost than the purchase of the same materials new. For instance, windows such as the leaded and stained glass transoms above the doors would cost ten or twenty thousand dollars to purchase new, and the city may save them with a couple men on ladders and an ordinary toolbox. Preservation of the terra cotta and the other stone elements would require a condition survey of the specific elements to be salvaged, which cost perhaps $12,000 for the whole building, and those costs would be more than recovered in value recaptured with the salvage. 3) Demolition of the remaining portions of the building. Kil Architecture has performed a study for the city, concluding that restoration of the building is not feasible at this time, and the city relies upon this conclusion in making their request. 4) Preservation of all mature trees on the site. Staff recommends approval of this, especially with reference to the two very large trees in the front of the building. �G �- 5) Restoration of a clean and level site, leveled with soil (clean fill) and grass, for future redevelopment of the site to support community and residential uses. The position of the City is that Oliver is already being demolished by neglect, and that this unsightly death by inches must stop. It is the city's belief that the process has already proceeded so far that restoration of the entire building is no longer in the city's power, and that salvage and reuse of artifacts or important elements, with clean and swift demolition of the rest in the only remedy in their power. Staff notes the irony that Slatile bid a mere $40,000 to repair the roof in 1997 (See letter from Gerald Longerot, Slatile President, 9 -30- 1997), and now five years later, because that wasn't done, the city expects to spend $450,000, eleven times as much, to tear it down. 't Or- P- Staff recommends app oval of all five parts of this Application, with the condition that an engineering firm of the City% choice perform a condition survey and salvage plan substantiall similar to that presented by Arsee Engineering in this regard, and that the final salvage plan be approved by the Commission XCommission staff. /�' v ��,, 0 r a n d u SOUTH 6�. Community & Economic Development Division of Community Development 1200 County -City Building, 227 West Jefferson, South Bend, Indiana 46601 -1830 * Phone 574219/235 -9660 * Fax 574219/235 -9697 To: John Oxian From: Tonya Zozulya Subject: Oliver School Project Date: July 18, 2002 Dear John: Attached you will find the Certificate of Appropriateness accompanied by a letter from the Mayor, a copy of the Oliver School building demolition schedule, as well as a letter of support from a Rum Village Neighborhood resident. In preparation for the Oliver School building demolition, the City is in the process of preparing engineering specifications. The environmental specifications have been already completed. The $450,000 of reprogrammed CDBG funds necessary for the demolition have received a public comment period and have been approved by the Common Council. The use of funds is contingent upon HUD's approval. Moreover, the City's Legal Department is in the process of drafting a resolution requesting a transfer of the building from the County to the City. The transfer will be finalized once we have received demolition approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. The Oliver School building is slated for demolition in October 2002. Please refer to the attached schedule for more information on current and future project tasks. I request that you call a special meeting of the Historic Preservation Board the week of August 5 to expedite the process. If you have questions or require additional information, please contact me at 235 -5827. Thank you. Enclosure Application for - �° Certificate of Appropriateness t7 W •c�c� y �• � • •`.��. Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County =� a 125 South Lafayette Boulevard 1865 Mailing address: 227 West Jefferson Blvd - South Bend IN 46601 -1830 Phone: 219- 235 -9798 Fax: 219 - 235 -9578 e-mail: historic@michiana.org A Certified Local Government OFFICE USE ONLY» » »DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX <<< <<< OFFICE USEONLY Date Received 2002 Application Number. 2002 - ❑ NO Past Reviews: ❑ YES (cu 10FL srl+anewl Staff Approval authorized by: Historic Commission Review Date: ❑ Local Landmark ❑ National Register District (T' 1: ❑ Local Historic District (rm.): Certiilcate of Appropriateness: ❑ Denied ❑ Approved and issued Title: ❑ National Landmark ❑ Tabled ❑ Sent To Committee 2002 Address of Property for proposed work: 92 I t W, ln6t°iQaQ ��++ SneMMe -1w dStnnN- 0 City : JOCXt 4 Qf, H4f Owner's Phone No: �± Name of Property Owner(s):rrlutm 94. 1 WL�l� Address of Property Owner: /3 Ct-[lt- — t 1, v ,BGU��di vt q Contractor(s) Name: /0//0//4 V � v J Contract Company Name: NIA Contractor Address: / IA City: Contractor's Phone No: /t' /,4 Current Use of Building-, 1/0e- ,42aft (Smsia Family - Muhi- Family - Commerdal - Government - industrial- Vae-nt - etc. Type of Building Construction: 6h eK (Wood Frame -Brick - Stone -Steil - Conaete- Other) Proposed Work: ❑ Inkind aLandscape ❑ New ❑ Replacement(narin -kind) (more rhan one box maybe checked) FT Demolition/ S4Z lj/aq� Description of Proposed Work: /) 1�2<tt:d 0 � aSde4s F aW,,tr la2Q.-WOtGS ma.".t see A*d. -,e q) , 'z) SQ /jVo of a: 4 i4z.eA 19- & use 7i' asSoer2> &"; / set&,O ;4S 0 � 4e �PSSr2i.u: Qce4� as� t, 76 X &,rWt;W . ' f) �tsrE. -a t�o� ,0 1W 9 (u SS SeeaQ 9 - aai� -rd- AdiLcK OrP yke" sih zi+ secl Ae - si 0.1 Owner /Contractor: Fax: e-mail: (This o ffice will carnayond with only one designee) (?Ay ?dZLWI C, Ok etlOY a( &/or Signatu of Owner S' � (�' Signature of Contractor APP�T N REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE. CITY OF SOUTH BEND STEPHEN J. L,UECKE, MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR July 18, 2002 Mr. John Oxian, President Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County 227 Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, IN 46601 -1830 Dear John: The purpose of this letter is to express my sincere regret that the former Oliver School located at 924 W. Indiana Avenue (Tax ID 18- 8032 -1418) in the Rum Village Neighborhood must be demolished and to request that the Historic Preservation Commission grant approval for its demolition per the attached Certificate of Appropriateness. It is always with deep sadness that we watch historic landmarks of the Oliver School caliber cease to exist. The school was once a neighborhood asset and a source of pride for the City, the School gradually became a community eyesore and is currently beyond the scope of any reuse. As noted in the recently completed Oliver School Site Re -Use Plan, the condition of the building and the level of its deterioration make preservation and reuse an unattainable goal. From a number of conversations I have had with my staff, my understanding is that the Historic Preservation Commission would be willing to consider granting approval for the School demolition but would like the City to preserve a number of artifacts from the building. Prior to building demolition, the City will direct a salvage company to remove certain artifacts to be used in the redevelopment of the site. A preliminary list of items to be preserved appears on the Certificate of Appropriateness. Please also know that the demolition project has the full support of Rum Village neighborhood residents (see attached letter of support). Once permission to demolish the Oliver School is granted by the HPC, the City will complete the transfer of ownership process, which has already started and received preliminary approval from the County. Our intention is to proceed with the demolition in October of 2002. COUNTY -CITY BUILDING • SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 PHONE 574/235 -9261 • FAx 574/235 -9892 • TDD 574/235 -5567 Mr. John Oxian July 18, 2002 Page Two We urge you to act favorably on this demolition request and to adopt a resolution allowing the City to demolish the building. This will enable the redevelopment of the entire site in accordance with the Oliver School Plan. Should you have questions or require additional information, please contact Tonya Zozulya at 235 -5827. Sincerely, Stephen . uecke Mayor cc: Jon Hunt Pamela Meyer Marco Mariani Tonya Zozulya Encl. July 1, 2002 Mr. John Oxian President Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County 227 Jefferson Blvd South Bend, IN 46601 Dear Mr. Oxian: I am writing on behalf of Rum Village residents and business owners to express our full support for the demolition of the Oliver School. I am a long -time resident of the Rum Village Neighborhood and an active member of the Rum Village Neighborhood Association and the Rum Village Partnership Center Committee. I have enjoyed working hard for the benefit of my neighborhood by beautifying it and eliminating blight and disorder. One of the things that, in my opinion, is still pulling our neighborhood back is the former Oliver School building. It is located on a main street in the neighborhood; and is a major hazard for the safety of our residents, business owners, and guests. Our neighborhood no longer attracts people because they view the neighborhood as an unsafe place to live. This is partly due to the presence of the dilapidated Oliver School. While we appreciate the historic value of the building, we are convinced that in its present state it is nothing more than a nuisance. We have participated in shaping the future of the Oliver School through numerous public meetings and are aware of the City's plans to demolish the building, and work with one or more developers on redeveloping the site. We believe this would be good for the whole neighborhood. Therefore, we strongly encourage you to understand our concerns and permit the City to demolish the building. Sincerely, Kay Blo er Rum Village Resident A ftacAwuQwk A Grauvogel & Associates r . jut, June 10, 2002 City of South Bend Community and Economic Development 1200 County -City Building South Bend, IN 46601 Attention: Ms. Tonya.Zozulva Subject: Agreement for Environmental Services - Oliver School Demolition Dear Tonya: Thank you for this opportunity to submit our Agreement for professional engineering and industrial hygiene services in connection with the demolition of the former Oliver School on Indiana Avenue. Under this agreement we propose to prepare technical specifications for the management and removal of asbestos, PCB's and the underground storage tank identified in our previous contract in preparation for the demolition of the building and associated underground utilities. We propose to provide our standard scope of asbestos survey services for the IDEM Renovation/ Demolition Notification form completion, technical specifications and project review during the removal work. As for previous projects of this scope, we understand that the City will prepare the administrative portions of the bidding documents and that our asbestos, PCB and UST related technical sections will be inserted into these documents, as needed. Alternately, we can prepare the entire specifications and bid documents package, if requested, but our fees presented here would need to increase. SCOPE OF SERVICES Grauvogel & Associates has provided Phase I services in documenting the locations and quantities of asbestos, PCB's, the underground storage tank and its contents. For the demolition of the building we propose to provide the services of a qualified Professional Engineer, Indiana - accredited asbestos inspector, environmental technicians and support staff to perform the following for each of these categories of hazardous materials: Asbestos Abatement Phase II ❑ prepare technical specifications for asbestos abatement, to be incorporated into the Contract Documents for the project ❑ provide an estimate of the probable construction costs for removal and disposal of the ACM for bidding purposes Phase III ❑ provide assistance concerning the technical specifications to prospective bidders and review the bid proposals 17660 Fall Creek Drive . Granver. Tnriiana 46530 - (219) 277 -4770 Agreement Oliver School Demolition Environmental Services 6/10/02 Page 2 ,I ❑ provide post- abatement inspection and air sampling for final release of each area to the demolition contractor ❑ review the contractor's procedures and operations for compliance with the Contract Documents and USEPA, IDEM and DOT regulations, to include: worker training, respiratory protection, equipment, containment barriers, EPA/IDEM notifications and waste material manifests ❑ provide documentation of the asbestos abatement activities to the Owner for record purposes PCB's & Fluorescent Bulbs The building contains a limited number of fluorescent light fixtures with their associated PCB - containing ballasts and mercury- containing bulbs. Our work will complete the following: Phase II • develop technical specifications for the collection, shipping and disposal of PCB- containing and mercury- containing items • provide an estimate of the probable construction costs for remediation and disposal of the PCB's for bidding purposes Phase III ❑ provide technical assistance during the decontamination and removal of the equipment ❑ provide the Owner with documentation of decontamination, removal and disposal, as appropriate Underground Storage Tanks The tank was used for heating oil, so the appropriate analysis would be the TPH (total petroleum hydrocarbon) screen. We propose to collect the minimum four soil samples at each location now required by IDEM for clean closure and manage the analysis and reporting of the results. The specific elements of the UST management for this project are as follows: Phase II ❑ prepare technical specifications for UST site testing to be incorporated into the Contract Documents for the project ❑ provide an estimate of the probable construction costs for the UST location testing Phase III ❑ collect samples of soil sufficient to meet the Clean Closure requirements of IDEM; or if gross contamination is discovered, collect no more than this number to provide needed information; provide analysis by an IDEM recognized laboratory ❑ provide documentation records of the Clean Closure in accordance with current IDEM requirements to the Owner In the event that extensive soil and or groundwater contamination resulting from the UST's is encountered, a revised scope of services will be prepared to define the extent of the contamination and design a._remediation plan for cleanup and closure of each affected site. COMPENSATION For providing this Scope of Services, Grauvogel & Associates will be paid on a Lump Sum basis for Labor allocated according to the following schedule, plus reimbursable expenses at the stated Agreement Oliver School Demolition Environmental Services 6/10/02 Page 3 unit costs. Reimbursable expenses will consist of laboratory charges and sample shipping /handling charges. Phase II LABOR FEE Asbestos Abatement Technical Specifications /Cost Estimate $ 760.00 UST's Technical Specifications /Cost Estimate $ 760.00 PCB's & Fluorescent Bulbs Technical Specifications /Cost Estimate $ 570.00 Phase II Total S 2,090.00 Phase III LABOR FEE Asbestos Abatement Bidding Assistance $ 760.00 Clearance Sampling & Project Review $ 4,240.00 UST's Field Sampling $ 760.00 Closure Report/Documentation $ 1,520.00 PCB's & Fluorescent Bulbs Project Review /Coordination $ 760.00 Phase III LABOR Subtotal $ 8,040.00 REIMBURSABLES (Estimated) Number Unit Cost Total Laboratory Analyses ACM PCM: 20 $20.00 $ 400.00 UST's TPH /Diesel -Fuel Oil 6 $125.00 750.00 Phase III REIMBURSABLES Estimated Subtotal $ 1,150.00 Phase III Total $ 9,190.00 Total Proposal Fee $11,280.00 ' G� This fee for Labor will be invoiced on an hourly rate basis for progress to date and will not be. exceeded without prior written justification and approval. Analytical costs will be billed on the unit cost basis shown with the actual numbers of samples needed to complete the work. The UST's estimated fees are based upon the minimum number of samples required by IDEM and the assumption that no soil contamination has occurred. This fee may need to be revised as the investigation proceeds if contaminated soil is found. The Phase III asbestos estimated fees are based on a project duration of five weeks (25 working days). For additional or fewer days jur fee will be increased or.decreased by $120.00 per day. The actual number of asbestos air samples needed for project acceptance depends upon the Contractor's scheduling. The actual number of samples will be invoiced at the stated unit rate. Agreement Oliver School Demolition Environmental Services 6/10/02 Page 4 ADMINISTRATION y We trust that this Agreement adequately sets forth the terms and conditions between us. If so, please sign, date and return one copy of the Agreement to us as our official Notice to Proceed. If you prefer to issue a purchase order, please reference this Agreement. Thank you for your confidence in Grauvogel & Associates. We look forward to serving you on this project. Please direct any questions you may have concerning this matter to the undersigned at your convenience. Sincerely, Grauvogel & Associates O L uv'bgel, PE,CIH,CSP APPROVED AND ACCEPTED City of South Bend, Indiana 2-fi Title: Date: APPROVED Board of Public Works Attachment B Artifacts Could Include: Terra cotta Art tiles Sinks Hardware Vent grills Granite, slate, limestone Millwork: doors, cabinets, woodwork, furniture 1920s light fixtures l Hardwood flooring Rose -color Marble windowsills i v � r COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS Effective Anril 15. 2002, throueh December 31. 2002, or until new committees are elected, whichever occurs later BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE Mary Jane Chase, Treasurer / Chair Gerald Ujdak/ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE John H. Oxian, President Gerald Ujdak, Vice President Mary Jane Chase, Treasurer Catherine Hostetler, Secretary FACADE EASEMENT COMMITTEE Chair: r. John Oxian J HISTORIC DISTRICTS COMMITTEE Martha Choitz, Chair Catherine Hostetler, Vice Chair Mary Jane Chase Gerald -Ujdak &Q AA' P v �(� s LANDMARKS COMMITTEE John Oxian, Chair Richard-Helmus 1j� Y ,;, LEGAL COMMITTEE John Oxian, Chair Member: Ic SOUTHHOLD AWARDS COMMITTEE Martha Choitz, Chair Mary Jane Chase Catherine Hostetler, Member: STANDARDS & MAINTENANCE COMMITTEE Catherine Hostetler, Chair / - John-0xian �f k fit �a / 2- Joanne Sporleder Gerald Ujdak • Committees2002- PROPOSED LOCAL LANDMARK THE OLD GERMAN TOWNSHIP SCHOOLHOUSE 53117 OLIVE ROAD GERMAN TOWNSHIP SOUTH BEND, INDIANA ok Historic Preservation Commission Of South Bend and Saint Joseph County August 7, 2002 THE OLD GERMAN TOWNSHIP SCHOOLHOUSE 53117 OLIVE ROAD GERMAN TOWNSHIP, SOUTH BEND INDIANA HISTORIC CONTEXT - The local historic value of this building is immense, as it is one of the oldest public buildings remaining in the County. Not only was it built at a period significant to the formation of the County, it was also built at a place and time when there was still substantial overlap between the new settlers on the county, and the indigenous peoples. The land attached to and immediately surrounding the old schoolhouse are believed by long time residents who are descended from original settlers to be native American burial grounds. The first school building built on this site was built in 1878. A schoolmaster's house was built next door, at 53081 Olive Road, at the same time. Then about twelve years later, in 1890 one or both building were substantially amended, of possibly re -built or replaced. In particular, the foundation of the frame schoolmaster's house, which was probably a rubble foundation originally, and is now rock -faced cast brick, may have been an 1890 modification. When the building ceased to be used as a school, it passed into private hands and an addition was built onto the back. In 1949 and 1950, private owners made several significant changes, including building an addition onto the North side of the old school, which nearly doubled the size of the building. The character of the addition is completely unlike that of the original structure, and in many ways even more highly unusual and even more representative of a unique historic period than the remarkable old schoolhouse itself. A fountain and outdoor pond on the property date to the same period as the 1950 addition, and are likewise distinctively characteristic of the post World War II period. There is also a non - contributing shed, or perhaps two, on the property. The total property is about 62 percent of an acre, with a fence defining the front edge of the property, along Olive Road. This fence is an excellent example of a Civil War era fence. It has a foundation and regularly spaced piers built of brick and cast concrete, with holes in the piers to receive poles running between the piers. Presently, and for at least the last forty years, those poles have been wooden. However, pictures of other such fences from the 1860s through the very early nineteen hundreds typically show large cast iron poles running between the piers. It is known that Saint Joseph County residents donated large amounts of household and farmyard iron to scrap metal drives during World War II, so it is possible that original iron poles were replaced with wood at that time. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The original building is a Greek - Revival style one and a half story brick rectangle, facing Olive Road on the East. The original front of the house had a gable front, and a slightly offset double door, and a smaller door or window. In the gable peak are a pair of narrow arched windows. The original doorway opening, topped by hand - carved dentil molding, remains, though it has been converted into a window and its shape much altered. The North and South walls of the school had three tall arched windows that possibly lit not only the classroom on the main floor, but the half -floor above as well. Those have now been converted into first -floor windows only, and dormers have been added to light the second floor. Architectural elements remaining from the original structure, in addition to the walls, with their clear outlines of the original windows and front door, are the wide, plain frieze, wide eaves, the boxed cornice, and all of the original stone sills except those removed for the addition. Also, some of the wooden storm windows in the smaller windows appear to date from a period between 1890 and 1930. The owner has retained them in remarkably good condition. The 1950 addition, though also brick, is clearly differentiated from the original structure, which assists in observing the history of the building, and differentiating the separate areas of historic significance. It has a number of features unique to or typical of the post -World War II period, including glass block windows along most of the North face, many built -in interior elements, a great deal of tile, and a fish -pond in the kitchen. It was featured in a home - design and decorating magazine shortly after the addition was completed. It would be highly interesting on its own even if it were not attached to a historic school, and would be worthy of landmark status for its architectural interest alone. RECOMMENDATION This site and structure should be recommended to the Common Council for designation as a Local Landmark. The Saint Joseph County Municipal Code, provides that: "The Historic Preservation Commission shall have the following powers and duties: (d) ... Survey, identify, plan for and advise the Common Council concerning the designation of historic landmarks. (1) The Historic Preservation Commission shall recommend the designation of historic landmarks and the establishment of historic preservation districts on the basis of historical and cultural significance, educational value and suitability for preservation." The historic and cultural significance of this, the oldest surviving schoolhouse in German Township, and a relic of German Township's earliest days, is immense, and the original massive fence preserving the structure's historic relationship to the roadway makes it even better. The neighborhood of the adjacent believed Native American burial grounds and the original schoolmaster's house, though these are not now included in the landmark designation, add additional context and value to the schoolhouse site. There is substantial educational value to the old schoolhouse and original schoolyard fence as well, in that they serve to illustrate both the manner in which education was conducted in the late nineteenth century, and the importance which German Township citizens attached to it, since the architecture of this two room schoolhouse was so fine. The 1950 addition, while not so rich in historic significance or educational value (except to architectural students) as the main building, is of substantial cultural significance. Both the original building, and the addition, are very well kept, having been used and inhabited continuously since their construction, and are well suited for preservation. Thus, the original building and its site has historic and cultural significance, has educational value, and is suited for preservation. The addition has cultural significance, and is suited for preservation. Furthermore, there is great support in the neighborhood for the historic designation of this structure and its site. For the reasons set out in the Ordinance, the Old German Township School merits the landmark status that its neighbors request for it. 1 ! STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFIATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Number: 2002 -0717 Property Location: 900 - 924 West Indiana Avenue, South Bend Property Owner: St. Joseph County & City of South Bend Landmark or District Designation: Local Historic Landmark, designated 1982 Rating: S-12 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT The oldest part of this building, the present West wing, was built in 1905. In 1922, architects Austin and Shambleau designed and built the present building, incorporating the 1905 building into the much larger structure. Thaddeus Nethercutt was the superintendent of construction for the architects, and H.G. Christman was the contractor. The superintendent of the school corporation was W. W. Borden. In the twenties, Oliver School was one of the most advanced intermediate school buildings in Indiana, offering learning facilities not available in some colleges of the day. It was particularly known for its vocational arts facilities for art, sewing, domestic science, machining, drafting, printing, carpentry, and — cutting edge in those days, but appropriate for an automobile manufacturing town — auto repair. The auditorium has a seating capacity for 800, as does the cafeteria, and there was an area of the building known as the "fresh air section" where the windows were to be left open at all times. The foundation is stone and concrete. The walls are dark red brick with decorative terra cotta trim, and a terra cotta belt course above the second floor windows. There are projecting pavilions at the entrances and pilasters between window groups. The windows, built tall enough to light classrooms without artificial lights, are built in groups of three. The first floor windows were four over four double hung with elongated lower panes, and the second floor windows were four over one double hung. Three leaded and stained glass transoms with medallions are above each set of front entrance doors. The roof is flat, with a brick parapet and terra cotta coping. For 77 years, from 1905 until 1982, Oliver School was still considered one of the finest school buildings in the Midwestern United States. Declining enrollment and shifting population patterns, and perhaps some other factors, caused the school corporation to decide that the building was "excess to the school corporation's needs" (See letter from Thos. Reidy, 4 -20- 1982). At that time, the roof was in need of some routine maintenance and repair, but the corporation decided to give the building away essentially for free, rather than to fix the roof and sell the building for money. Mr. Dwight Macon, doing business as the Michiana Academy for Performing Arts, received the building from the school corporation, and has owned it for most of the last twenty years. During that time, there is no evidence of any repairs or maintenance being performed whatsoever. If the owner has ever given consideration to the fact that his neighbors and the whole city are much greatly harmed by the gradual "demolition by neglect" of this once lovely and majestic building that is not apparent in the buildings present neglected and bedraggled state. At one time, houses built in view or easy walking distance of Oliver School were more valuable because of being in Oliver's neighborhood; vacant and neglected, the opposite has become true. Educators from around Indiana and neighboring states once toured Oliver to study its excellent building design. Now months go by with no one entering it but thieves and vandals. The people of the City of South Bend, including the Olivers, reached into their pockets to build the city school corporation one of the best buildings in the state, and the school corporation, neglecting even to keep it in basic repair, when repair would have been cheap, not only threw away this magnificent building, but threw it away in such fashion that the same city that built it now has to pay to clean up what was trashed. RECOMMENDATION There are five parts to the City's Application, but they must be considered all at once in order to make sense. 1) Removal of asbestos and other "hazardous materials." Specifically, this means insulation, underground storage tanks, and florescent lights. Staff recommends approval. 2) Salvage of artifacts for use in the community center that the city proposes to build or have built on the site, or for use in associated buildings in that site. Specifically, the artifacts could include terra cotta, art tiles, sinks, hardware, vent grills, granite, slate, and limestone, millwork including doors, cabinets, and woodwork, and even some furniture, 1920 -era light fixtures, hardwood flooring, and rose - colored interior windowsills. Salvage of these materials is an excellent idea for many reasons. First they allow the city, on behalf of the community, to preserve at least some traces of this piece of South Bend's local history. Second, the re -use at least some of these materials will allow the construction of a much more magnificent community center than would otherwise be affordable. Salvage is not cheap, but materials like these would be phenomenally expensive today, and salvage intelligently managed could provide very expensive materials at less cost than the purchase of the same materials new. For instance, windows such as the leaded and stained glass transoms above the doors would cost ten or twenty thousand dollars to purchase new, and the city may save them with a couple men on ladders and an ordinary toolbox. Preservation of the terra cotta and the other stone elements would require a condition survey of the specific elements to be salvaged, which cost perhaps $12,000 for the whole building, and those costs would be more than recovered in value recaptured with the salvage. 3) Demolition of the remaining portions of the building. Kil Architecture has performed a study for the city, concluding that restoration of the building is not feasible at this time, and the city relies upon this conclusion in making their request. 4) Preservation of all mature trees on the site. Staff recommends approval of this, especially with reference to the two very large trees in the front of the building. 5) Restoration of a clean and level site, leveled with soil (clean fill) and grass, for future redevelopment of the site to support community and residential uses. The position of the City is that Oliver is already being demolished by neglect, and that this unsightly death by inches must stop. It is the city's belief that the process has already proceeded so far that restoration of the entire building is no longer in the city's power, and that salvage and reuse of artifacts or important elements, with clean and swift demolition of the rest in the only remedy in their power. Staff notes the irony that Slatile bid a mere $40,000 to repair the roof in 1997 (See letter from Gerald Longerot, Slatile President, 9 -30- 1997), and now five years later, because that wasn't done, the city expects to spend $450,000, eleven times as much, to tear it down. Staff recommends approval of all five parts of this Application, with the condition that an engineering firm of the City's choice perform a condition survey and salvage plan substantially similar to that presented by Arsee Engineering in this regard, and that the final salvage plan be approved by the Commission or Commission staff. M. • • SOUTH d Community & Economic Development Division of Community Development r , 1865 1200 County-City Building, 227 West Jefferson, South Bend, Indiana 46601 -1830 * Phone 574219/235 -9660 * Fax 574219/235 -9697 To: John Oxian From: Tonya Zozulya Subject: Oliver School Project Date: . July 18, 2002 Dear John: Attached you will find the Certificate of Appropriateness accompanied by a letter from the Mayor, a copy of the Oliver School building demolition schedule, as well as a letter of support from a Rum Village Neighborhood resident. In preparation for the Oliver School building demolition, the City is in the process of preparing engineering specifications. The environmental specifications have been already completed. The $450,000 of reprogrammed CDBG funds necessary for the demolition have received a public comment period and have been approved by the Common Council. The use of funds is contingent upon HUD's approval. Moreover, the City's Legal Department is in the process of drafting a resolution requesting a transfer of the building from the County to the City. The transfer will be finalized once we have received demolition approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. The Oliver School building is slated for demolition in October 2002. Please refer to the attached schedule for more information on current and future project tasks. I request that you call a special meeting of the Historic Preservation Board the week of August 5 to expedite the process. If you have questions or require additional information, please contact me at 235 -5827. Thank you. Enclosure Application -for - Certificate of Appropriateness 4 Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County 125 South Lafayette Boulevard Mailing address: 227 West Jefferson Blvd - South Bend IN 46601 -1830 Phone: 219 - 235 -9798 Fax: 219- 235 -9578 e-mail: historic@michiana.org A Certified Local Government OFFICE USE ONLri » » >DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX «« «OFFICE USEONLY Date Received 2002 Past Reviews: ❑ YES (WHOptwsraeVIES7 StaRApproval authorized by: Historic Commission Review Date: ❑ Local Landmark ❑ National Register District (ue,w: ❑ Local Historic District (,v„ -): Certificate of Appropriateness: Application Number: 2002- ❑ NO Title: ❑ National Landmark ❑ Denied ❑ Tabled ❑ Sent To Committee ❑ Approved and Issued 2002 Address of Property for proposed work: atm . �(++ SwaM.ek-ra,dSreNNwd City: JOLF-k ,8?,,k4� � Owner's Phone No: �± Name of Property Owner(s):rrwNn Address of Property Owner: /3 0.1,6/ — C tBtu10r h e Contractor(s) Name: /U //4 V V J Contract Company Name: NM Contractor Address: / V //q City: Contractor's Phone No: /t' 1, Current Use of Building: 1 cwtt (Slnyle F—* -Huib- Family- Commerdel- Covernma-t- Industrial. Vacant -ea Type of Building Construction: Zrl CK (Wood Frame. Brick - Stone -Sled - Conoete- Other) Proposed Work: ❑ Inkind aLandscape ❑ New ❑ Replacement(naa.4i -d) (more than one box may checked) Demolition / .CcZ /V� l�2it�l Description of Proposed Work: /) 0 �`t c2 Se,S7t7S q atZr -' 1-a-z , S 11) , - 1) SQ /Gao of a,-AS & 4, Ae use A i l! 7i' QcHCr�ctuu assoe�a� i�ct�e�iHgs Qat��c� ��. L 4 T 4 /iSoh op .ass, a:,u:,4 Acs ->�' ar o, 76 .l&4r i;w . - 4/) /uSS Z,,0 ajl h e0,s,,,.�t •ct,l� u t-eJi , 5, p/K Gtttrt�'i a.t.� o,F ...aa�t.,�.e �k-�d . Owner /Contractor: Fax: e-mail: (rho — � o ffice mH eorreepond uuh only one denynee) /dIl!/Q �dL(Jf dN BI�W� P� &for Signatu of Owner SC��t Signature of Contactor APP IC TI ' REQ�UIRE d MENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE. CITY OF SOUTH BEND STEPHEN J. LUECKE, MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR July 18, 2002 Mr. John Oxian, President Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County 227 Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, IN 46601 -1830 Dear John: The purpose of this letter is to express my sincere regret that the former Oliver School located at 924 W. Indiana Avenue (Tax ID 18- 8032 -1418) in the Rum Village Neighborhood must be demolished and to request that the Historic Preservation Commission grant approval for its demolition per the attached Certificate of Appropriateness. It is always with deep sadness that we watch historic landmarks of the Oliver School caliber cease to exist. The school was once a neighborhood asset and a source of pride for the City, the School gradually became a community eyesore and is currently beyond the scope of any reuse. As noted in the recently completed Oliver School Site Re -Use Plan, the condition of the building and the level of its deterioration make preservation and reuse an unattainable goal. From a number of conversations I have had with my staff, my understanding is that the Historic Preservation Commission would be willing to consider granting approval for the School demolition but would like the City to preserve a number of artifacts from the building. Prior to building demolition, the City will direct a salvage company to remove certain artifacts to be used in the redevelopment of the site. A preliminary list of items to be preserved appears on the Certificate of Appropriateness. Please also know that the demolition project has the full support of Rum Village neighborhood residents (see attached letter of support). Once permission to demolish the Oliver School is granted by the HPC, the City will complete the transfer of ownership process, which has already started and received preliminary approval from the County. Our intention is to proceed with the demolition in October of 2002. COUNTY -CITY BUILDING • SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 PHONE 574/235 -9261 • FAX 574/235 -9892 • TDD 574/235 -5567 Mr. John Oxian .�� July 18, 2002 Page Two We urge you to act favorably on this demolition request and to adopt a resolution allowing the City to demolish the building. This will enable the redevelopment of the entire site in accordance with the Oliver School Plan. Should you have questions or require additional information, please contact Tonya Zozulya at 235 -5827. Sincerely, Stephen p uecke Mayor cc: Jon Hunt Pamela Meyer Marco Mariani Tonya Zozulya Encl. July 1, 2002 io Mr. John Oxian President Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County 227 Jefferson Blvd South Bend, IN 46601 Dear Mr. Oxian: I am writing on behalf of Rum Village residents and business owners to express our full support for the demolition of the Oliver School. I am a long -time resident of the Rum Village Neighborhood and an active member of the Rum Village Neighborhood Association and the Rum Village Partnership Center Committee. I have enjoyed working hard for the benefit of my neighborhood by beautifying it and eliminating blight and disorder. One of the things that, in my opinion, is still pulling our neighborhood back is the former Oliver School building. It is located on a main street in the neighborhood; and is a major hazard for the safety of our residents, business owners, and guests. Our neighborhood no longer attracts people because they view the neighborhood as an unsafe place to live. This is partly due to the presence of the dilapidated Oliver School. While we appreciate the historic value of the building, we are convinced that in its present state it is nothing more than a nuisance. We have participated in shaping the future of the Oliver School through numerous public meetings and are aware of the City's plans to demolish the building, and work with one or more developers on redeveloping the site. We believe this would be good for the whole neighborhood. Therefore, we strongly encourage you to understand our concerns and permit the City to demolish the building. Sincerely, Kay Blo er Rum Village Resident A - ftac Aivuzw+ A 0 Grauvogel & Associates June 10, 2002 City of South Bend Community and Economic Development 1200 County -City Building South Bend, IN 46601 Attention: Ms. Tonya.7ozulva Subject: Agreement for Environmental Services - Oliver School Demolition 1 1) , 1 12002 Rh Dear Tonya: Thank you for this opportunity to submit our Agreement for professional engineering and industrial hygiene services in connection with the demolition of the former Oliver School on Indiana Avenue. Under this agreement we propose to prepare technical specifications for the management and removal of asbestos, PCB's and the underground storage tank identified in our previous contract in preparation for the demolition of the building and associated underground utilities. We propose to provide our standard scope of asbestos survey services for the IDEM Renovation/ Demolition Notification form completion, technical specifications and project review during the removal work. As for previous projects of this scope, we understand that the City will prepare the administrative portions of the bidding documents and that our asbestos, PCB and UST related technical sections will be inserted into these documents, as needed. Alternately, we can prepare the entire specifications and bid documents package, if requested, but our fees presented here would need to increase. - SCOPE OF SERVICES Grauvogel & Associates has provided Phase I services in documenting the locations and quantities of asbestos, PCB's, the underground storage tank and its contents. For the demolition of the building we propose to provide the services of a qualified Professional Engineer, Indiana - accredited asbestos inspector, environmental technicians and support staff to perform the following for each of these categories of hazardous materials: Asbestos Abatement Phase II ❑ prepare technical specifications for asbestos abatement, to be incorporated into the Contract Documents for the project ❑ provide an estimate of the probable construction costs for removal and disposal of the ACM for bidding purposes Phase III ❑ provide assistance concerning the technical specifications to prospective bidders and review the bid proposals 17660 Fall Creek Drive - Graneer. Tndiana 46530 - (219) 277 -4770 Agreement Oliver School Demolition Environmental Services 6/10/02 Page 2 N. P. �ilY'f p w J ❑ provide post- abatement inspection and air sampling for final release of each area to the demolition contractor ❑ review the contractor's procedures and operations for compliance with the Contract Documents and USEPA, IDEM and DOT regulations, to include: worker training, respiratory protection, equipment, containment barriers, EPA/IDEM notifications and waste material manifests ❑ provide documentation of the asbestos abatement activities to the Owner for record purposes PCB's & Fluorescent Bulbs The building contains a limited number of fluorescent light fixtures with their associated PCB - containing ballasts and mercury- containing bulbs. Our work will complete the following: Phase II ❑ develop technical specifications for the collection, shipping and disposal of PCB- containing and mercury- containing items ❑ provide an estimate of the probable construction costs for remediation and disposal of the PCB's for bidding purposes Phase III ❑ provide technical assistance during the decontamination and removal of the equipment ❑ provide the Owner with documentation of decontamination, removal and disposal, as appropriate Underground Storage Tanks The tank was used for heating oil, so the appropriate analysis would be the TPH (total petroleum hydrocarbon) screen. We propose to collect the minimum four soil samples at each location now required by IDEM for clean closure and manage the analysis and reporting of the results. The specific elements of the UST management for this project are as follows: Phase II ❑ prepare technical specifications for UST site testing to be incorporated into the Contract Documents for the project ❑ provide an estimate of the probable construction costs for the UST location testing Phase III • collect samples of soil sufficient to meet the Clean Closure requirements of IDEM; or if gross contamination is discovered, collect no more than this number to provide needed information; provide analysis by an IDEM recognized laboratory • provide documentation records of the Clean Closure in accordance with current IDEM requirements to the Owner In the event that extensive soil and or groundwater contamination resulting from the UST's is encountered, a revised scope of services will be prepared to define the extent of the contamination and design a plan for cleanup and closure of each affected site. COMPENSATION For providing this Scope of Services, Grauvogel & Associates will be paid on a Lump Sum basis for Labor allocated according to the following schedule, plus reimbursable expenses at the stated Agreement Oliver School Demolition Environmental Services 6/10/02 Page 3 , !A unit costs. Reimbursable expenses will consist of laboratory charges and sample shipping /handling charges. Phase II LABOR FEE Asbestos Abatement Technical Specifications /Cost Estimate $ 760.00 UST's Technical Specifications /Cost Estimate $ 760.00 PCB's & Fluorescent Bulbs Technical Specifications /Cost Estimate $ 570.00 Phase II Total S 2,090.00 Phase III LABOR FEE Asbestos Abatement Bidding Assistance $ 760.00 Clearance Sampling & Project Review $ 4,240.00 UST's Field Sampling $ 760.00 Closure Report/Documentation $ 1,520.00 PCB's & Fluorescent Bulbs Project Review /Coordination $ 760.00 Phase III LABOR Subtotal $ 8,040.00 REIMBURSABLES (Estimated) Number Unit Cost Total Laboratory Analyses ACM PCM: 20 $20.00 $ 400.00 UST's TPH /Diesel -Fuel Oil 6 $125.00 750.00 Phase III REIMBURSABLES Estimated Subtotal $ 1,150.00 Phase III Total $ 9,190.00 Total Proposal Fee $11,280.00 This fee for Labor will be invoiced on an hourly rate basis for progress to date and will not be. exceeded without prior written justification and approval. Analytical costs will be billed on the unit cost basis shown with the actual numbers of samples needed to complete the work. The UST's estimated fees are based upon the minimum number of samples required by IDEM and the assumption that no soil contamination has occurred. This fee may need to be revised as the investigation proceeds if contaminated soil is found. The Phase III asbestos estimated fees are based on a project duration of five weeks (25 working days). For additional or fewer days jur fee will be increased or decreased by $120.00 per day. The actual number of asbestos air samples needed for project acceptance depends upon the Contractor's scheduling. The actual number of samples will be invoiced at the stated unit rate. Agreement Oliver School Demolition Environmental Services 6/10/02 Page 4 . ADMINISTRATION We trust that this Agreement adequately sets forth the terms and conditions between us. If so, please sign, date and return one copy of the Agreement to us as our official Notice to Proceed. If you prefer to issue a purchase order, please reference this Agreement. Thank you for your confidence in Grauvogel & Associates. We look forward to serving you on this project. Please direct any questions you may have concerning this matter to the undersigned at your convenience. Sincerely, Grauvogel & Associates O Lawrence W. G uvbge1, PE,CIH,CSP APPROVED AND ACCEPTED City of South Bend, Indiana By: Title: Date: APPROVED Board of Public Works Attachment B Artifacts Could Include: Terra cotta Art tiles Sinks Hardware Vent grills Granite, slate, limestone Millwork: doors, cabinets, woodwork, furniture 1920s light fixtures Hardwood flooring Rose -color Marble windowsills South Bend and St. Joseph County HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 227 WEST JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 -1830 Phone: 574-235-9798 Fax: 574-235-9578 e -mail: historic @michiana.org John Oxian, President A Certified Local Government Karen R. Hammond -Nash, Director Wednesday, August 07, 2002 TO: FELLOW COMMISSION MEMBERS FROM: JOHN H. OXIAN RE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING OLIVER SCHOOL While I am in agreement with the staff recommendation for an engineering study regarding fea- sibility, cost, and optimal salvage plans, I believe that HPC should reserve the right to assist in the selection of the study engineers, and to participate in the study as it is performed. I do not agree with the staff recommendation that the engineers selected to perform the salvage study should be anyone the city chooses, with no participation by HPC, because that could result in the existence of unanswered questions at the end of the study, and possible untoward delay. COMMISSIONERS Martha Choitz Diane Wrobel -Illes Mary Jane Chase Catherine Hostetler (Secretary) Virginia O'Hair Joann Sporleder (Architectural Historian) Gerald Ujdak (Vice President Thomas Bodnar(Attomey) County of St. Joseph, Indiana BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS SOUTH BEND. INDIANA 46601 TEL:(574) 235 -9534 FAX:(574) 235-7849 CYNTHIA A. BOOLE PRESIDENT BEVERLY D. CRONE VICE-PRESIDENT MICHAEL J. HAMANN August 1, 2002 MEMBER Mr. John Oxian, President Historic Preservation Commission Of St. Joseph County 227 W. Jefferson South Bend, IN 46601 Dear John: The purpose of this letter is to express the Board Of Commissioners's support -for the City's request to demolish the Oliver School building lo_ cated at 924 - W. Indiana Avenue in the Rum = - Village Neighborhood (Tax ID 1880321418). As you are well aware, over the last twenty years, due to deferred maintenance and neglect, the Oliver School has gradually deteriorated and became a community eyesore. The building in its present condition represents a safety hazard not only for Rum Village residents, but also its visitors. Moreover, it damages the image of the area as an attractive place to live and do business and may discourage people from moving into the area. Recognizing the pressing need to improve the Oliver School site, the City of South Bend has recently completed the Oliver School Reuse plan based on community input. It was determined that because of its extreme deterioration and structural unsoundness, the building is beyond the scope of reuse. To ensure maximum and best use of the property, the Plan calls for the School to be demolished with a view to redeveloping the site into a combination of residential and community service uses. The preparations for the demolition of the Oliver School are under way. The reprogrammed CBDG funds in the amount of $450,000 were appropriated by the Common Council following the public comment period. The demolition is scheduled to begin in late September or early October 2002. We would appreciate your support for this high - priority project and your favorable consideration of the demolition request at the August 7 public hearing. Sincerely, 2 ynthia A. Bodle, President St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners LEGAL DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FROM: THOMAS L. BODN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY RE: STANDARDS FOR REJECTING OR MODIFYING CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS DATE: July 31, 2002 Upon review of the minutes which were provided to us, I see a potential problem occurring in situations in which the Commission modifies a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness ( "COX). The problem arises from the fact that §21- 117.2(e)(5) mentions only two options for the Commission when considering a COA. The options are either to issue the COA or deny the application, stating in writing the reasons for such denial. Modification, particularly where the petitioner does not indicate consent at the hearing, is a denial of part of the application. - The factors which the Commission shall consider, - as set forth in that subsection, are: - "1. Appropriateness of the proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition or moving to the preservation of the historic landmark, specifically, and/or the Historic Preservation District, generally; 2. The detriment to the public welfare if the proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition or moving is permitted even though it is not deemed appropriate; and 3. The potential hardship that the denial of a certificate of appropriateness would cause the applicant." These being the factors, I move that the Certificate be issued as proposed except for the roof shall remain tile rather than asphalt shingles, as the material is more in accordance with other buildings in the district. A related problem is the timeliness of the notice of the denial. While the Commission apparently has 45 days to consider the application, your attention is called to §21- 117.2(e)(5)b which states the Commission may:: "Deny the application, stating in writing the reason(s) for such denial. Upon such denial, the applicant may appeal said denial to the Common Council which shall make a final determination of the application. Failure of the Historic Preservation Commission to take such action within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application by the Commission shall constitute approval of the application. The corresponding section in the County ordinances ( §6.78.070E1B) has a 45 day limit, but otherwise identical language. It is my opinion that the phrase "take such action" includes stating the reasons in writing for any denial. Even if the petitioner was at the meeting and was told the reasons, there still needs to be a written record. Of course, the minutes could constitute the written denial, but these would almost certainly not be done within the appropriate time limit. It would be appropriate for the president of the Commission to send this letter (at least drafted by staff, of course) giving the reasons in writing as to the petitioner. JUL -25 -2002 15:10 CITY OF SB MAYORS OFFICE 574 235 9892 P.01i01 BASER & DANIELS EST, 1863 FIRST BANK BUILDING • 205 W. JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, SUITE 2s0 • $GUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 (674) 234.4149 -FAX (574) 239.1900 • wwwmakardanlela.— IDWARD A. SM -L1VAN III DIRECT (674) 2s9 -1980 *.Mail: eaaulllubdakaftl.40M July 25, 2002 Sincerely, VIA IIAND DELIVERY Thomas L. Bodnar Assistant City Attorney 1400 County — City Building South Bend, IN 46601 RE: Leeper Park Dear Mr. Bodnar: Thank you for your recent letter and proposal regarding parking at Madison School and Leeper Park. We have reviewed your proposal with officials from the South Bend Community School Corporation (the "School Corporation "). The School Corporation believes that the plan you offered fails to provide an arrangement that meets its needs. Thus, we do not believe that it can be the basis for any alteration of the current use of the Leeper Park parking area. As you may recall, at our last meeting (attended by all panties to the litigation and by representatives from the neighborhood), we expressed the School Corporation's need for at least 92 dedicated parking spots. Your proposal does not meet that minimum. In addition, nearly all the proposed parking is located on public streets. This is not an option for the School Corporation since under its collective bargaining agreement with the teacher's union it must provide "adequate off street parking." In addition, we believe you cannot guarantee the passage of a required city ordinance restricting the general public from using those spots. If you would like to discuss these issues further, please feel free to call me at your convenience. EAS /sys SBIM AN 1129267v2 SOUTH SEND INDIANAPOLIS PORT WAVNE aLKHART WA5HINGTON, D.C. QlN60A0, P.R. CHINA Ire BAKER & DANJ ELS Edward A. Sullivan III TOTAL P.01 r� LEGAL DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DATE July 26, 2002 FROM THOMAS L. BODNAR q ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY RE: LEEPER PARK PARKING LOT LITIGATION Attached you will find the following: 1. A letter from Ed Sullivan dated July 25, 2002; 2. My letter to Steve Eslinger with attachments. Unless some unforeseen objection is raised, there shall be a dismissal of the lawsuit by our next regularly scheduled meeting. I think the documents are self - explanatory. The phrase "with prejudice" means it cannot be refiled. Having the attorney sign (a common practice) it would avoid unnecessary delay if a party is out of town or otherwise unavailable. Attachments H: \WPDATA\TLBNMcrnoMPC Leeper Park fim BAKER &. DANIELS EST. 1863 FIRST BANK BUILDING • 205 W. JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, SUITE 250 • SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 • (574) 234.4149 • FAX (574) 239.1900 • www.bakerdaniel3.c0m EDWARD A. SULLIVAN III DIRECT (574) 239 -1930 e -mail: easuiliv ®bakerd.com July 25, 2002 SOUTH BEND INDIANAPOLIS FORT WAYNE ELKHART WASHINGTON, D.C. QINGDAO, P.R. CHINA VIA HAND DELIVERY Thomas L. Bodnar Assistant City Attorney 1400 County — City Building South Bend, IN 46601 RE: Leeper Park Dear Mr. Bodnar: Thank you for your recent letter and proposal regarding parking at Madison School and Leeper Park. We have reviewed your proposal with officials from the South Bend Community School Corporation (the "School Corporation "). The School Corporation believes that the plan you offered fails to provide an arrangement that meets its needs. Thus, we do not believe that it can be the basis for any alteration of the current use of the Leeper Park parking area. As you may recall, at our last meeting (attended by all parties to the litigation and by representatives from the neighborhood), we expressed the School Corporation's need for at least 92 dedicated parking spots. Your proposal does not meet that minimum. In addition, nearly all the proposed parking is located on public streets. This is not an option for the School Corporation since under its collective bargaining agreement with the teacher's union it must provide "adequate off street parking." In addition, we believe you cannot guarantee the passage of a required city ordinance restricting the general public from using those spots. convenience. EAS /sys SBiMAN 1 129267v2 If you would like to discuss these issues further, please feel free to call me at your Sincerely, BAKER & DANIELS Edward A. Sullivan III 1400 Coum -Cmr BUILDING SourH BEND, INDIMA 46601 -1830 CM OF SOUGH BEND STEPHEN J. LUECKE, MAYOR DEPARTMENT OF LAW CHARLES S. LEONE CTIYATroRNEY Stephen L. Eslinger, Esq. 517 Trigon Building 224 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, IN 46601 Re: Leeper Park Litigation Dear Mr. Eslinger: Some of my Board members have conferred with some of your Board members, and I am advised that there is a willingness to dismiss the South Bend Historic Preservation Commission from the case and to let the case proceed against the other two defendants. In hopes of speeding such a process along, I am enclosing a Form of Order and Motion. If it meets with your approval, and after you have had a chance to confirm my understanding the position of your clients, please file with the Circuit Court and serve copies on the other two parties. If there are questions or problems, please let me know at once. Very truly yours, Thomas L. Bodnar Assistant City Attorney TLB /jl Enclosure July 26, 2002 PHONE 574 / 235 -9241 FAx 574/235 -9892 TDD 574/ 235 -5567 ALADEAN M. DEROSE CHIEF ASSISTANT CIIYATToRNEY HAWPDATA\II BSI euai�FsIinga.wpd T HOMAS L. BO DNAR JEFFREY M. JANKOWSIG CHERYLA. GREENE ROBERT C. RosENFELD JOHN E. BRODEN ANN -CAROL NASH J STATE OF INDIANA ) ) SS: ST. JOSEPH COUNTY ) PARK AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, NANCY DOYLE, TIM SCOTT and KAREN AINSLEY, and MICHAEL JONES and AMY JONES Plaintiffs V . SOUTH BEND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, and SOUTH BEND CONBVIUNTTY SCHOOL CORPORATION Defendants IN THE ST. JOSEPH CIRCUIT COURT CAUSE NO. 71COI-CP-01 11-02639 MOTION TO DISMISS Come now the Plaintiffs, by counsel, and move that South Bend Historic Preservation Commission be dismissed from this case with prejudice. The City of South Bend, Indiana, and South Bend Community School Corporation shall remain as defendants. Stephen L. Eslinger #7951 -71 Attorney for Plaintiffs 517 Trigon Building 224 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, IN 46601 219 - 233 -9604 CONSENT The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County, which is denominated here as the South Bend Historic Preservation Commission, and consents to the i dismissal with prejudice of the case against the South Bend Historic Preservation Commission. Tomas L. Bodnar #2807 -71 Attorney for South Bend Historic Preservation Commission 1400 County -City Building South Bend, IN 46601 574 -235 -9241 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .I certify that a - copy of the foregoing pleading was served upon the following attorneys /parties of record by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on the day of July, 2002. Chuck Leone, Esq. 227 West Jefferson Blvd. 1400 County -City Building South Bend, IN 46601 Ed Sullivan, Esq. 205 West Jefferson Boulevard Suite 250 South Bend, IN 46601 Stephen L. Eslinger F..IDATA�SHARE'l- gaAWp&uM dOaffl-mgauml,cqw p"MMOU= Oo D= iss WC pd L STATE OF INDIANA ) ) SS: ST. JOSEPH COUNTY ) PARK AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, NANCY DOYLE, TIM SCOTT and KAREN AINSLEY, and MICHAEL JONES and AMY JONES Plaintiffs V. SOUTH BEND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, and SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION Defendants IN THE ST. JOSEPH CIRCUIT COURT CAUSE NO. 7 1COl-CP-01 11-02639 Plaintiffs, by counsel, having moved to dismiss the Defendant South Bend Historic Preservation Commission with prejudice, and said Defendant filed its Consent, WHEREFORE, Defendant South Bend Historic Preservation Commission is dismissed from this lawsuit with prejudice. The lawsuit remains in force against the other Defendants. Date: Judge, St. Joseph Circuit Court BAKER & DANius EST. 1863 FIRST BANK BUILDING • 205 W. JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, SUITE 250 • SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 • (574) 234 -4149 • FAX (574) 239 -1900 • www.bakerdaniels.com EDWARD A. SULLIVAN 111 DIRECT (574) 239 -1930 e -mail: easulliv @bakerd.com July 25, 2002 SOUTH BEND INDIANAPOLIS FORT WAYNE ELKHART WASHINGTON, D.C. QINGDAO, P.R. CHINA VIA HAND DELIVERY Thomas L. Bodnar Assistant City Attorney 1400 County — City Building South Bend, IN 46601 RE: Leeper Park Dear Mr. Bodnar: Thank you for your recent letter and proposal regarding parking at Madison School and Leeper Park. We have reviewed your proposal with officials from the South Bend Community School Corporation (the "School Corporation "). The School Corporation believes that the plan you offered fails to provide an arrangement that meets its needs. Thus, we do not believe that it can be the basis for any alteration of the current use of the Leeper Park parking area. As you may recall, at our last meeting (attended by all parties to the litigation and by representatives from the neighborhood), we expressed the School Corporation's need for at least 92 dedicated parking spots. Your proposal does not meet that minimum. In addition, nearly all the proposed parking is located on public streets. This is not an option for the School Corporation since under its collective bargaining agreement with the teacher's union it must provide "adequate off street parking." In addition, we believe you cannot guarantee the passage of a required city ordinance restricting the general public from using those spots. If you would like to discuss these issues further, please feel free to call me at your convenience. EAS /sys Sincerely, BAKER & DANIELS Edward A. Sullivan III SBIMANI 129267v2 I F Special Meeting — 7th Floor — County -City Building Wednesday, August 7, 2002 4:30 PM I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL Introduction of new member II. PUBLIC HEARING A. 'CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 1.2002- 0717 -924 West Indiana Avenue, The Oliver School: Removal of hazardous materials; Salvage of artifacts & antique building materials; Demolition of remaining portions of building; Restoration of site & preservation of mature trees. 2. 2002 - 0725); 1619 East Wayne Street; Roof & enclose porch. B. LOCAL LANDMARKS 1. 53117 Olive Road, South Bend, The Old German Schoolhouse 2. 1820 Portage Avenue, South Bend C. HEARING OF VISITORS D. APPROVAL OF N— UTES Special Meeting — 7th Floor ~ County -City Building Wednesday, August 7, 2002 4:30 PM I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL Introduction of new member II. PUBLIC HEARING A. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 1.2002- 0717 -924 West Indiana Avenue, The Oliver School: Removal of hazardous materials; Salvage of artifacts & antique building materials; Demolition of remaining portions of building; Restoration of site & preservation of mature trees. 2. 2002 - 0725); 1619 East Wayne Street; Roof & enclose porch. B. LOCAL LANDMARKS 1. 53117 Olive Road, South Bend, The Old German Schoolhouse 2. 1820 Portage Avenue, South Bend C. HEARING OF VISITORS D. APPROVAL OF 1. UTES Special Meeting N 7th Floor , County -City Building Wednesday, August 7, 2002 4:30 PM I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL Introduction of new member II. PUBLIC HEARING A. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 1.2002- 0717 -924 West Indiana Avenue, The Oliver School: Removal of hazardous materials; Salvage of artifacts & antique building materials; Demolition of remaining portions of building; Restoration of site & preservation of mature trees. 2. 2002 - 0725); 1619 East Wayne Street; Roof & enclose porch. B. LOCAL LANDMARKS 1. 53117 Olive Road, South Bend, The Old German Schoolhouse 2. 1820 Portage Avenue, South Bend C. HEARING OF VISITORS D. APPROVAL OF 1` UTES THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND & ST. JOSEPH COUNTY MONTHLY MEETING MINUTES August 19, 2002 7 Floor, Commissioner's Conference Room County -City Building, South Bend, IN MEMBERS PRESENT: Joann Sporleder, Diane Wrobel - illes, Martha Choitz, Gerald Ujdak, Vice - President, John Oxian, President, Mary Jane Chase, Treasurer, Catherine Hostetler MEMBER EXCUSED: Virginia O'Hair STAFF PRESENT: Karen Hammond -Nash, Director Thomas Bodnar, City Attorney Wayne Doolittle, Inspector ALSO PRESENT: Melanie Gray - Valley City Sign, Walter Berndt, Titus Rodes- Unique Siding Co., Dennis Murphy - Lehman & Lehmas Inc., Timothy Baker- Halladi -i j Properties. I. CALL TO ORDER GERALD UJDAK: Called the meeting to order at 7:35. II. PUBLIC HEARING A. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 1. 2002 -0617; 1512 East Wayne Street; re- install center front windows. GERALD UJDAK: Is someone here to speak on this matter? KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: I don't see the owner here, and the contractor sent a note saying he was unable to attend. Mr. Chairman, due to the length of the matters on the agenda, may I waive the reading of the history and go directly to the recommendation? GERALD UJDAK: Yes, you may. A KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: Earlier this summer the center front second story windows in this house were replaced by a contractor who failed to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness before proceeding, and whose application was subsequently denied. While I believe that the owner recovered the original casement sashes for the windows and the original jambs remain in place; the carpenter that took over the job believes that neither the existing jambs nor the sashes are in a condition that merits reinstallation of the original. The owner and the carpenter propose to remove the offensive smaller window with patched -on double jambs and to install new replacement windows which they believe will duplicate the originals in appearance. Even though the owner and the contractor could not be here; the submitted notes with his application describing the color of the windows they intend to have there. Staff recommends approval on this matter. GERALD UJDAK: Are there any questions or comments from commission members? JOANN SPORLEDER: I am curious about the term true divided light. KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: Means that the mutton dividers will be on both the inside and the outside of the window.' They won't only be in between the glass, or just on the inside, or just on the outside; but, will be on both the inside and the outside of the window. GERALD UJDAK: Are there any other questions? JOHN OXIAN: On application 2002 -0617, I make a motion that staffs' recommendation be approved. MARY JANE CHASE: I second the motion. GERALD UJDAK: All those in favor say aye. All those against say nay. Motion carries unanimously. KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: I am not sure if the owners of 1332 East Wayne Street South are present. If not, than I ask that it be dropped to the bottom of the agenda. JOHN OXIAN: I make a move that it be tabled until the end of the Certificates of Appropriateness agenda. GERALD UJDAK: I will second that motion. GERAD UJDAK: All those in favor say aye. All those against say nay. Motion carries unanimously. GERALD UDJAK: 2002 - 0731 -1; Rohrer Cemetery; 500 block of E. Ireland Road; Sign to be installed. KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: The Township Advisory Board seeks to install a stone sign to inform the passing public of the cemetery's name and location. The contractor is to be responsible for insuring that no burial remains are in the proposed sign location. The staff believes the sign informing the public as proposed is an excellent idea. We do however proffer two additional suggestions -they are as follows: 1. The contractor seek the assistance of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Archaeologist specializing in historic cemetery research in determining the proper location for the sign. 2. That the back or the side of the sign record when and by whom the sign was installed, to ensure that it communicates an accurate view of history to visitors. (Perhaps a small metal plaque could be affixed to it in some convenient place). Staff recommends that this application be approved, if conditions one and two are met. Discussion was then held among commission members; the important points of this discussion.were as follows: 1. Where the sign is to be located. 2. Whether to have an archaeologist from (I.D.N.R.) come in and have a survey done to insure that there are no burial plots where the sign is to be located. DENNIS MURPHY: I am Dennis Murphy from Lehman and Lehman, Inc. The advisory board has hired us to put together a sign. We went through both sites. The first one is at Ironwood Road and Roosevelt Road. When the cemetery was first built the roads were only a dirt path. Today with the way the right -of -ways go through, the sign couldn't fit anywhere else except for where we had placed it. The reason we had placed it in this spot was because, the entire Advisory Board -there is group of about seven of us -went through the entire cemetery and we had a professional help us mark Cut where some body would be buried from all the lines of the cemetery to the stores. That location is the only spot that had no stone remnant or a base of a stone remnant because it was next to a very large tree; and that is where the one sign is going. For the other site the sign is going to go adjacent to the parking lot driveway, so that it will be out of the way. Discussion was held among commission members about whether there is an official record or list of the individuals that are buried in the cemetery and what procedures should be taken to insure that there are no burial plots marked or unmarked in the location where the sign is to be installed. JOANN SPORLEDER: I move that 2002 - 0731 -1; Rohrer Cemetery,the location that is located on the provided map for the sign, be approved. JOHN OXIAN: I second the motion. GERALD UJDAK: All those in favor say aye. All those against say nay. Motion carries unanimously. 3 JOANN SPORLEDER: 2002 - 0731 -2; The Van Buskirk Cemetery; I propose that the application be approved for the location of the marker as presented on the map, and with all other conditions being met as described. MARTHA CHOITZ: I second the motion GERALD UJDAK: All those in favor say aye. All those against say nay. Motion carries unanimously. GERALD UJDAK: 2002 -0801; 345 Sunnyside Avenue; replace windows, shutters, front door and garage door, repair siding, and re -model roof over stoop. KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: This application contains fourteen items; eight of which I have staff approved. The remaining six items before the commission for consideration are as follows: 1. Adding a curve to the little gable roof over the front stoop. 2. Replacement of windows. 3. Replacement of shutters. 4. Replacement of wood front door. 5. Replacement of garage door, to be "Sunnymede Style," with vertical muntons dividing the window lights. 6. Repair of deteriorated siding, replacing rotted boards as needed, and possibly reconfiguring some of the siding in the addition between the main part of the house and the garage, so as to reduce likelihood of future rotting. All of the replacements are items of significantly higher quality than the items proposed to be replaced. The character defining elements of this house are its shape, proportions, the placement of its doors and windows, the one interesting diamond -pane true- divided light window in the center of the front, and, to some extent, its unusual multi - directional siding. These will all be retained by the proposed changes. At last word, Mr. Smith was still consulting with his workmen and suppliers regarding exact specifications of the replacement items listed above. However, based on the information submitted so far, staff recommends approval of all tie six remaining items on the application. Staff also recommends that, effective January 1, or when renovations and repairs are completed, this house is re -rated from a 5 or 8, to a 9, on the architectural scale of 0 to 13. ROGER SMITH: Karen did a fine job, but, I would like to add that I have some conclusions on what I think we will have as a final window. We would like to have a diamond front on all the windows so that it would presently reinforce that design element that you spoke of. Also the columns -I think I designed them to carefully match with the six -inch diameter composite wood ruled column with six -inch square block at the top and the bottom. If you would like to see the windows, I have a brochure of the company "Nasco" that makes the windows. There are two styles of windows. The one style is single pane casement windows and there is single pane for the upstairs. There was an Y inspector who stopped by the property that indicated that we should have a single pane that would be large enough for egress and that would be on the north wall. There is another size window on the front of the house and that is a much larger window and that would be a single two - casement on the outside of a single thick pane. A discussion was then held between Mr. Smith and commission members regarding the repairs that are to be completed in the C. of A. for the property located at 345 Sunnyside Avenue. (There was also a detailed discussion on the type, style, and location of the windows that are to be installed at this property) JOANN SPORLEDER: On application 2002 -0801, I would recommend approving the following: (1) Adding a curve to the little gable roof over the front stoop. (2) Replacement of windows all except the diamond windows on the top; and the windows are to be plain vinyl clad windows without muttons. (3) Replacement shutters of the owner's choice. (4) Replacement of the wood front door to a more substantial door. (5) Replacement of the garage door to the "Sunnymede Style" with vertical muntons dividing the window lights; and I would recommend a steel door as John suggested, because it is insulated and will give you less trouble. (6) Repair of deteriorated siding, replacing the rotted boards as needed, and reconfiguring the area around the bay window which is going to be removed and replaced with plain flat windows and the siding on either side will be done to match the other existing vertical siding. CATHERINE HOSTETLER: I second the motion. GERALD UJDAK: All those in favor say aye. All those against say nay. Motion passes unanimously. JOHN OXIAN: I would like to make a motion that the house rating be increased from 8 to 9. MARY JANE CHASE: I second the motion. GERALD UJDAK: All those in favor say aye. All those against say nay. Motion carries unanimously. KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: Item number 2002 -0806; 119 LaPorte Avenue. The application is to build an 8 by 8 utility shed. There is no garage on the property. The property is fairly sizeable, and it is necessary to store a lawn mower and possibly some other equipment there. We have not received a site plan showing exactly where on the property Mr. Berndt proposes to locate this shed. Staff would recommend approval of this shed, provided that Mr. Berndt provides a site plan that is acceptable to the commission. Mr. Berndt is not here to speak on this matter. He has already started to build it without a C. of A. and it was red tagged. Joann Sporleder: I make a motion to table it until September, and when it is no longer red tagged we can figure out what to do next. MARY JANE CHASE: I will second the motion. GERALD UJDAK: All those in favor say aye. All those against say nay. Motion carries unanimously. KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: 2002 -0815; 217 West Washington Street Tower Building; install a rooftop sign. KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: This application is for the installation of a sign on the top of the Tower Building. While I received this application on August 16 I included it in agenda anyway; because, the officials from this bank had ongoing discussion with the commission for approximately a month regarding the sign. The application was mailed on August 2 "d . The application was apparently lost in the mail; because, we didn't receive it. The proposal is to put a 6' x 42' sign on the top of Tower Bank Building facing towards the river. The staff's overriding concern would be with the effect of the sign on architectural integrity, and structural integrity of the building given the wind load that it would catch off the river. Valley City Sign has delivered a letter from an engineer stating that they believe it would be safe to do this. Staff would recommend seeking the advice and opinion of our own architect. Staff has no recommendation regarding the historic accuracy of the sign on the top of the bank. We have been able to find nothing that indicates that there were such signs on the top of a 12 or 13 story building; but, neither have we been able to find anything to indicate that they were not there. So it is submitted without recommendation. GERALD UJDAK: So what you are saying is that you have not found any evidence that there ever was a similar sign on top of this building in the years past. KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: That is correct. MELANIE GRAY: I am from Valley City Sign and we are the sign company for Fifth Third Bank. We were also the sign company for Old Kent Bank. Old Kent Bank did go through all the approval process and get the approval and then as we were going to go forward with producing the sign the Third Bank situation came in and they said they did not want to spend the money to put the Old Kent Bank sign up there temporarily. So we are now back looking for some more approval. Our problem is the lettering is white for Fifth Third Bank, so for us to put white letters up there during the day it would not be visible without some kind of background; plus that is their standard background for their sign. That is where we came up with a background with letters on it. The background is a very dark navy blue, we call it blue- O black. There is also a stripe that goes beneath that color. The sign is open face lettering. The neon is exposed there; is no cover across the top of it. The red strip would have internal lumination, and the lettering is open face. I do not know what the weight of the sign is off hand; but the structural engineer did do the calculations. She came down and actually did an inspection of the building and figured the weight of the sign -how it would affect the roof attaching it to the roof and how to have no problem with any damage to the building with putting up this sign. The main structure of the sign would be aluminum and maybe some reinforced steel parts at the attachment points. The sign will be shown above the parapet. We will be installing the sign on top of the building so that we do not disturb the face of the building. After commission members discussed the fact that even though engineers do extensive stress tests on buildings before signs are allowed to be installed, members still had an immediate concern about putting a sign of this size on top of the Tower Bank Building, due to the fact that the wind structure down Washington Street is like a wind tunnel and the force has been so intense that it has actually blown out windows in certain corners of buildings that are located in this area in the past. MELANIE GRAY: That is why we had our structural engineer go up on the roof and do the necessary stress tests that needed to be done before we have our sign installed. She is from a company we use all the time when we install signs on buildings, and our company has every confidence in the report that she has done for this project. The lettering portion of the approved sign for Old Kent Bank was 133.66 square feet. Our logo and letters for the Fifth Third Bank are a 137.73 square feet. Our company also looked at how they could put up white lettering and still be able to have our sign readable. The only solution our company could come up with was that we needed a background behind our white lettering in order for it to be readable during the day. TIM BAKER: I am from Halladay Properties. Halladay owns several buildings downtown. Two of the older buildings our company owns are similar to the Tower Bank Building. One of these old buildings is the old Ameritech Building on Main Street and the old I &M Building on Colfax Street. Recently we had a tenant that wanted to move into the building and obviously signage in some applications is very important in the Colfax Building. We had to go before a committee because of the size of the sign and there are some city ordinances or some city guidelines that say specifically size requirements. The total area of a permanent sign on a building face including window signs, wall signs, projection signs, and hanging signs shall not exceed thirty -six square feet per building face or forty -five square feet per building face as used in conjunction with a freestanding sign. The sign we wanted to put on the side of this building was actually thirty -six square feet; but, because we had a small directional sign on the bottom we actually had to go before the committee and show photos and present this and it was approved because the sign below was very innocuous honestly we really are opposed to a lot of building signs that are making buildings look horrible. I look at this sign and that this sign and that is thirty -six square feet and we had to get a variance because it was in a seven story building not quite as tall, but probably the face of the building is almost the 7 f same because it has a bigger floor plate. This sign is two hundred and fifty square feet. When I look at the size of that building, I would say that if it were going to maybe go on the west side where you have a flat face it might be architecturally ok; but, this is a very scallop and a very fine architectural building, and I just don't think that it would be architecturally desirable. I also look at the size of the sign, and look around the city, and don't find anything that resembles this sign; I don't think so anyway. Because of Halladay's position within the community -- specifically with the buildings downtown —we, as building owners, can understand the need to sign buildings some times because of the need for recognition of a specific tenant. We can also be sympathetic with Fifth Third Bank on this matter; but, I just think for Fifth Third Bank to have a sign of two hundred and fifty square feet, when the code is saying thirty -six to forty -five square feet is just not right. Now there are provisions where it can be accepted at larger sizes; but, these are the standards and that is eight times the size of what would be considered standard on a face. MELANIE GRAY: Last week we did receive a variance for the sign. We have kind of a hard logo to work with if you look at it. We tried to make it similar to the Old Kent Bank size letters. Because we have Fifth Third Bank instead of just Old Kent Bank, it had to be larger; because, their standard logo includes the 5/3 logo box. When the bank and I met with the structural engineer, we even talked about doing weighted connections with the sign possibly. If there is some kind of specific connection that you want us to adhere to, I am sure we would be open to that. JOHN OXIAN: I think that it is foolish to put a sign like this on top of an architecturally superior building. I also think that doing this is not going to make one bit of difference to attract customers to Fifth Third Bank no matter what direction the sign faces. The bank already has two smaller signs with the bank's name on them. This is a complete waste of money and it does a great injustice to the architectural design of this building. Maybe if this were a square plain modern office building, I might want to consider it, but, if you put this sign on the roof of that building, you will completely ruin the architectural style of this building. I am totally against putting this sign on the roof of this building. I would like to make a motion that this C. of A. be referred to the Standards and Maintenance Committee to see if a compromise can be met between both parties regarding this sign. If a compromise can be met between both parties, than I expect you to come back to this commission with that recommendation. If a compromise can not be met between both parties, than I expect you to come back and state that we recommend that this C. of A. be rejected. That one of these recommendations be presented at the upcoming September's meeting MARTHA CHOITZ: I second that motion. GERALD UJDAK: All those in favor say aye. All those against say nay. Motion carries unanimously. 9 JOHN OXIAN: I will make a motion that application 2002 -0711 be tabled until the September meeting. MARY JANE CHASE: I second the motion. GERALD UJDAK: All those in favor say aye. All those against say nay. The motion carries unanimously. B. HEARING OF VISITORS John Oxian, as chairman of the meeting, noted that visitors were present and had signed their names on the sign -up sheet so that they would be able to speak. When it came time for hearing of the visitors, John not seeing the visitors in the room, the chair then asked Tom Bodnar to look and call for the visitors in the hallway. When the visitors were not found, the chair decided to go on to the next item on the agenda. III. A. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES JOHN OXIAN: This is the complete copy for the May minutes. Discussion was held among commission members about the length, content, and accuracy of the minutes. Members also discussed what would be the best way to have the minutes condensed in length and content and still have an accurate account of the meeting each month. CATHERINE HOSTETLER: I want to make a correction on page three of the minutes. Karen did not make a motion on this item; because, Karen can not make a motion on anything in our meetings. So this mistake needs to be corrected. I move that we accept the minutes as amended. MARTHA CHOITZ: I second the motion. JOHN OXIAN: All those in favor say aye. All those against say nay. Motion carries with Joann abstains. B. TREASURER'S REPORT JOHN OXIAN: Mary Jane is going to give you a list of corrections, and what she feels should be from now on through in the budget preparation that she wants you to give to her. She will make up recommendations and you will follow them. MARY JANE CHASE: This is the middle of a year, and it was just what was spent. It does not give an adequate account of information on many, many things. I don't think that this ever was done in the past from what I understand. I would like to make a list of what would be important to have on a monthly report and then pass it on to Karen and q John for approval. I think that this would be within jurisdiction and that it would give us more information. So, I would like to prepare some thing and submit it to them. C. LEGAL REPORT TOM BODNAR: I have written again to the attorney for the Neighborhood Association. I sent him over the form to sign and file with the court and I have not got a reply back yet. So I will make a phone call earlier this week, and see if he is at least in town or what. The Franklin Street Apartments is just falling through the cracks. I have been waiting to hear from Code Enforcement on what they have found out and if they have had a change there. I had made a call into them today; but, have not heard back from them yet. JOHN OXIAN: Code Enforcement has not done anything on the C. of A.'s that we have approved for them. All three of the properties have been up for sale for about three weeks now. The porch is very dangerous and I am surprised that no one had been hurt yet on that deal. TOM BODNAR: On West North Shore Drive, Karen has some news on that. KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: I have spoken on a number of occasions with a couple of different contractors who had put in estimates for this repair of painting. I spoke today with Mr. Hill and today he submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness giving us a description of the proposed work of the molding of that roof's overhang on the west side and part of front side approximately fifteen feet and then he checked the replacements not in kind. The contractor named is Custom Construction. The owner of the company is Mr. Don Coley. He is one of the individuals that I met with a few weeks ago. I gave Mr. Coley then a list of approximately twenty companies that make custom knoll -work. Their knoll -work has been acceptable in other applications in other homes in historic districts in St. Joseph County or in South Bend. I understand from Mr. Hill that he anticipates that scraping down to the bare wood should be completed around the end of August, and painting was named after that. Replacement molding would be installed as soon as the contractor receives it. I then called the contractor and told the contractor that we would need to approve the molding for it to actually be installed. I called Code Enforcement on Friday and asked for the date of the hearing and was informed by their scheduling secretary that a date has not been set. Code Enforcement does not intend to set another hearing for this property until they have reinspected the property on August 30 GERALD UJDAK: I went to see Fred Thon on this matter and I spent about half an hour with him regarding the code problems with this property and expressed our position on this matter and he promised to give it some priority. He also agreed with us that this has gone on for entirely too long. I also think someone will be contacting the owner very soon D. STAFF REPORTS /0 1. Director's Report KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: The I.U.S.B. class project has been completed. Professor Cunningham gave all of her thirty -two students that participated grades of A +. The students have resurveyed the houses along three blocks of LaSalle Street. The project regarding Mishawaka Avenue Facade, the application for tax credits has not proceeded much further since the last meeting. We did have a meeting with one business owner of the River Park Theater. We have sent letters to fourteen of the business owners along that street offering to assist them with applications for National Registry Status for tax credits. 2. Inspector's Report WAYNE DOOLITTLE: We managed to finish the German Township Survey and we have more than half of the Clay Township is now done. In Clay Township most of the homes that were listed on the original tour are still there. The Remedy Building is now up on wheels, so it should be moving down the street some time in the very near future. I also paid a visit to 117 last week and I talked to Gerry Kline about how the scraping of the wood is proceeding. They are scraping right down to the bare wood. Even on the wood shingles most of the paint has been removed. What I found out from Mr. Kline is that the work is not being done very efficiently; but there has been some progress made in getting the job done. They hope to have this done before winter. From what I could tell without going on the property the siding looks like it is in good condition. KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: Now that we have an application on the property, it gives an open invitation for our inspector to actually go on the property. WAYNE DOOLITTLE: Now that we have the application on the property, I will go and take a closer look and take some close up pictures of the work that is being done. IV. OLD BUSINESS KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: ' Having been asked by neighborhood liaison members to follow up on the erosion control efforts in Leeper Park and along Leeper Island; I contacted Lawson Fisher Associates -the commission may remember that we gave Lawson Fisher Associates a Certificate of Appropriateness in February of 2001, and renewed it on May 23` 2002 for the erosion control work; which has not yet begun. Mr. Chris Jeeter, the engineer in charge for Lawson Fisher Associates told me that the reason for the stoppage was that only part of what they applied for was approved by the Department of Natural Resources. The Department of Natural Resources approved the work as regarding Leeper Island; but as regarding the other portions of the St. Joseph River Bank, they were of the opinion that the proposed plan relied too heavily upon riff - rack and concrete blocks, and too little upon some more flexible and therefore more durable erosion control methods consisting of natural vegetation. The matter was referred back to Lawson Fisher Associates and to the Army Core of Engineers. I spoke to the engineer in charge from the Army Core of Engineers Office and I understood from him that there are several projects for the City of South Bend that they are working on. The list of priorities that they have been given from the City Engineering Office is tied for first place is Leeper Island and the I.U.S.B. Bridge and that the St. Joseph River Bank erosion control was third or fourth on the list. I asked Mr. Chris Jeeter for a note explaining to me the progress from his point of view so that I could share it with the individuals from the Neighborhood Association who had made inquiries. I presented that report with a copy of our most recent Certificate of Appropriateness to the commission. A brief discussion was then held among commission members about what method would work better as an erosion device; natural vegetation versus riff -rack and concrete blocks. The amount of trees they were considering on removing in order to put their erosion device plan into effect. V. NEW BUSINESS KAREN HAMMOND -NASH: I have a current update report on the Dismas House and I believe everyone has gotten a copy in their packet. (See attached memorandum dated Friday, August 16 regarding maintenance and repair plans for the Dismas House at 521 South St. Joseph Street). The commission has been aware that there has been some difficulty with the 1850's court house. Some of the blocks in the original building were accidentally sandblasted. There were also some problems with the way the old mortar was ground out. The county commissioners have been in negotiations with the insurance and bonding representatives for the contractor. The bonding company has hired a contractor who would like to have an opportunity to meet with the Standards and Maintenance Committee perhaps Thursday at 4:00, if that's convenient with them. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS & MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS A. Special meeting regarding Oliver School. JOHN OXIAN: If there are no upcoming changes, we are going to have a special meeting on Tuesday, September 3, 2002. The committee did have a meeting regarding suggestions for what we would like to see saved from the building. We would like to save the facade of the building or maybe even part of the building. There were a lot of suggestions that were discussed at the meeting. After the meeting, I turned over all of the suggestions that we had discussed at the meeting to the director. The director then passed these suggestions on to Gregg Kil and to the city. Due to a last minute request from the city, Karen went on a tour of the building. Karen did an interior tour of the building. There were six individuals that attended the meeting, and they broke up into to two groups and went through the building. We turned in a recommendation for only the exterior of the building and not the interior; because, our jurisdiction only allows us to cover the exterior of the building. If you have any suggestions on the interior of the building we would like to see them. For those of you who have not had a chance to turn 0 in any of your suggestions on the exterior of the building should turn them in as soon as possible so that these suggestions may also be sent in. Discussion was then held among commission members as to what can and should be salvaged from the building. What would be the best way to go about saving these salvageable pieces? VII. ADJOURNMENT GERALD UJDAK: I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. The time is 10:00. CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Seconds the motion. Meeting is adjourned. 13