Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 2002-77 AGENDA. OF THEJANUARY 28;'2002 . , ...COMMISSION; MEETING i Regular Meeting — 7th Floor ~ County -City Building Monday, January 28, 2002 7:30 PM I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL II. PUBLIC HEARING A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 1. 2002-01049 532 & 534 Carroll Street; Remove exterior stairs, install 1st & 2nd story decks; various repairs. 2. 2002-01099 61601 State Road 331, new pole barn 3. 2002-0118,1001 Hudson Avenue; restore siding, enclose porch III. REGULAR BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes B. Treasurer's Report C. Committee Reports: 1. Local Landmark, First Reading: 806 Leland Avenue, South Bend 2. Nominations Committee D. Legal Matters E. STAFF REPORTS: 1. C. of A. Approvals 2. Leeper Park Beautification Committee 3. Elm Tree Project, Edgewater Historic District 4. Street Light Project. Chapin Park Nat'l. Registry District 5. Historic District Brochures 6. Inspection Report IV. HEARING OF VISITORS V. OLD BUSINESS 1. Enforcement Ordinances and Procedures 2. Ordinance on duration of Certificates of Appropriatenes! 3. Election of Officers VI. NEW BUSINESS 1. Appointment of Standing Committees 2. Preservation Awards 3. Spring Newsletter VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS and MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS VIII. ADJOURNMENT Application - for - Certificate of Appropriateness Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County 227 West Jefferson Blvd - South Bend IN 46601-1830 Phone: 219-235-9798 Fax: 219-235-9578 e-mail: historic@ntichiana.org A Certified Local Government OFFICE USE ONLY»»»DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS SOX«««(TFFICE USE ONLY Date Received i f t% 20 Q1.,,,_ Past Reviews: YES 1rU760FtASTRSM" Staff Approval authorized by: PLW� Application Number. 2011, O/O t/ ❑ NO Title:lf . Historic Commission Review Date: I 11-A02- ❑ Local Landmark ❑ National Landmark ❑ National Register District (Name): R1Local Historic District(Nem-): -r(— Certificate ( Certificate of Appropriateness: ❑ Denied ❑ Approved and issued ❑ Tabled ❑ Sent To Committee 20 Address of Property for proposed work:b' E 4 \ div00 ! 64--. �dea Number eeulSre.rN e) City; )C)k r�-�r._C� Owner's Phone No: Name of Property Owners):mRm {i ` ifiQ�i- 1 t—� —"r .A— r Address of Property Owner: L? 1 lZ 1,�1 ME uta DSS Con#ractor(s)Name: Contract Company Name: R -,(,\/,1S \Ao' Contractor Address: C. -M \1? -x City: Contractor's Phone No( f �Yi " n�Ci s Current Use of Building: 5i1- `U_— Sa (Single F +�,y�•_Hu Family • Cnmmerdat • ernment - /nduetrid - ('�Icnnt• da Type of Building Construction:_„ xx7c1�'or, (Wood F}eme+Brio -Blau. Steil-Conuete-C7lhn) Proposed Work: ❑ Inkind ❑ Landscape LLI New ❑ Replacement(naeln-kid) (more than one bar maybe checked) De olitian Description of Proposed rk:()rpsE lc~ tIL d t �at 1 Garr 5 ifs (e & +,herr/ 60 e Q/�/lti d d t if? -2 AVC(9nr i,Wrs oo/ �t"`ar ',� w >ftfM )5a1kS1fcc{!S °t S1^ per/ r,, IS . r S}ti j/ Wvn &r leer �tcKS QcS� t �,�uS(fcoGf, 5k+�tcfl�t/�S R+ta`rf5 �e�Jb+itb% C�+t�tP tv q n ,' 12`Xza' �nelC�ontrattor✓. F I:� w !n�"� a -mail: k4 (Thu oJfin will corrmpond with only one designee) Signature of Owner X--. - - � /5" , /.//, "' Signa re of ontracto J� � -'� '7 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE. STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFIATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Number: 2002-0104 Property Location: 532 & 534 Carroll Street Property Owner: Domus Properties; Mark Kramer Landmark or District Designation: Local Historic District — Taylor's Field Rating: S-11 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT From 1982 until 1992, Southhold Heritage Foundation owned this property. In 1992 it was transferred to Nigel Hawman, and sold to Domus Properties in 1995. Various well-to-do business owners bought and sold this property between 1872, when it was platted, and 1920. In 1920, Mr. and Mrs. Hillier had the then -existing house torn down, and had the present structure built, designed by the architecture firm of Wandell & McErlain. The Hillier's daughter, Edith H. Kreighbaum, and her husband, Hiram C. Kreighbaum, lived there from 1921 to 1929. Following the deaths of Hiram and of Edith's mother in 1928 and 1929, Edith and her siblings sold the property to Joseph Burke, who used it as rental property. The Webster family bought it, and also used it as a rental property, from 1979 until Southold Heritage Foundation acquired it. The house is a large duplex, with a symmetrical shape, and with some neoclassical elements (grouped Doric porch columns, strong horizontal lines, double front gable returns), and some Free Classic or Queen Ann styling (projecting side gables, corbelled chimney, complex roof line, exposed rafters, open soffit in main roof). (1) Staff has already staff -approved those Application items, which fall within our authority to approve. These include: (1) In-kind roof replacement; (2) In-kind roof gutter and downspout replacement; (3) In-kind replacement of damaged or missing cedar shake siding. (2) The soffit and fascia will also require repair or replacement. The soffit and fascia board are key design elements for this house. While repair or replacement may well be necessary, staff recommends that the character defining elements of the original appearance of the soffit and fascia be retained. The contractor, Rick's Home Improvement, is researching what may be best, and intends to bring samples to the meeting Monday. This contractor, though new in town, has previously done an excellent job of locating appropriate replacements. (3) At some point, this duplex was turned into a four -unit apartment house, and sets of outside stairs were run up each side of the building to the upper units. One of those stairs has been removed already, and the owner would like to remove both, incident to returning the house to a duplex. Staff recommends approval of the removal of both sets of outside stairs to the second story, and restore the clapboards to their original appearance. (4) Construction of two new first floor decks adjoining the two rear doors. The decks are proposed to be roughly 12' by 20', and to be roughly 3' off the ground, with turned balustrades, shaped rails, stairs to the ground, and lattice skirts. Staff recommends approval of the first floor back decks, contingent upon (1) use of appropriate balustrades and rails, consistent in style with the rest of the house, and (2) the ends of the balustrade should be anchored to the deck, and not to the wall of the house. (3) Installation should not damage the house. (5) Construction of two new second story decks where windows have previously been made into exterior doors to the stairways that are now being removed. This will prevent having two doorways to nothing, without the expense of restoring windows. The decks are proposed to be about 4'by 4' , with turned balustrades and shaped rails. Staff would like to see the original windows restored, but would not oppose the second -floor decks, provided that installation merely makes use of the modifications previously made for the stairways, and does not further alter or damage the exterior walls of the house. r, } =1 I �14� _ �yP j T Irw.'t�? ,k t it I� •—.I+.+ 7 IMI ■ +! ,, 0e�, R i I If 14 ago ..Ww� top it STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFIATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Number: 2002-0109 Property Location: 61601 Bremen Highway, State Road 331 Mishawaka, IN 46544 Property Owner: Christine & Thomas Rupard Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark, Crofoot Farm Rating: S-13 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT, The house on this property is considered by many to be the one of the best examples of wood frame Italianate architecture in Indiana, and the existing bank barn is, likewise, considered to be one of the very best of its kind. The Crofoot family settled on this land in 1832, and Henry Crofoot purchased it from his parents in 1855. The year following his return from the Civil Way (1866), he contracted Jacob Kelley to build the barn for $500, all lumber to be selected from the farm, on the stump. Ten years later, in 1876, Henry built the house. He had ten children, hence the, size of the 12 -room house. Incidentally, nearly half the house retains its original zinc roof. The same year that Henry Crofoot built the house, he planted 16 maples and two cedars around it.As far as we know, those are still standing, in spite of the recent storms. Karl V. Crofoot received the farm from his parents in 1963, and owned it at least through 1983. Thus, it stayed in the same family at 156 years. The Rupards bought the farm bought the farm from Elizabeth Crofoot in 1988, and still use it for its original purpose. Christine Rupard has known that farm since girlhood. State archeologists have expressed interest in the site of the original house, Southwest of the bank barn. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed new barn. The site plan does not appear to locate the barn in the area of the pre -1860 house, where archeologists expressed interest. It does not threaten any trees of historic significance to the property, nor to destroy any views, vista, or important visual relationships. Additionally, staff is aware that modem fanning probably requires accommodations not available in a barn built in 1866, and hope that the availability of a new barn for some functions will actually make it easier for the family to preserve the treasured old barn. Application for - Certfflicate of Appropriateness Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County 227 West Jefferson Blvd - South Bend IN 46601-1830 Phone: 219-235-9798 Fax: 219-235.9578 e-mail: Mstoric@niic ana.org A Certified Local Government OFFICE USSEE ONLY>»»>DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX«««OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received / — 20 Oe,, Application Number: 20q ol0(7 Past Reviews: ❑ YES (DATEOFLASTREVIEln ❑ NO Staff Approval authorized by: Title: Historic Commission Review Date: —1200-2- 0 20020 Local Landmark ONational Landmark ❑ National Register District Qv.,): ❑ Local Historic District (Name): lertificate of Appropriateness: ❑ Denied ❑Tabled Sent To Committee ❑ Approved and issued 20 Address of Property for proposed work: 1 lv O 1 5�R . 3 3 1 Street Number m d Street Nome) city: Owner's Phone No: 21 R - 25&- O 5Z'Z Name of Property Owner(s):(PRmT) -H1 o 1 -Aa S `2u Pa r-4 Address of Property Owner • &14001 S 331 kwkV-A IN 4toS 4+ Contractor(s) Name: A Cei i1I'ii-%io n #o,nc, be),arJ G' o r- 1 Grua �� c� r-4 .1 .1 If -70-1 IV A f - 101ed , US Z- ;Zz� 11, TI us r-4 .1 .1 If -70-1 IV A f - 101ed , 4. 1-1-T 7,!-JA-aT-17, .1111N...I.I.I...... ..'. 17� wav�. �nT NORZN EI.EVA11vN ,� Vpa 4 , U 50UTN tc�,E�lA�101� °" STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFIATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Number: 2002-0118-1 Property Location: 1001 Hudson Street, South Bend Property Owner: Carole Streeter Landmark or District Designation: Local Historic District, River Side Drive Rating: Non -Contributing (Note: The home is a lovely home; this rating refers to historic character, not quality of design or construction.) STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT The house was built in 1942, in an eclectic style blending elements of Prairie architecture, Craftsman detailing, and American Foursquare design. Previous surveyors have determined it to partake primarily of American Foursquare style. Not only was the house architecturally designed for this specific spot, but also the yard and gardens were designed and laid out by a landscape architect at the same approximate time. At some point prior to this area's designation as a historic district, the house was re -sided, and the original wood trim around the windows covered or removed. A slight plywood knee -wall was added to the open side porch, which previously had floor -to -ceiling screens. In 1995, this Commission approved vinyl shutters for the first story windows. RECOMMENDATION (1) Mrs. Streeter's contractor/son has determined that the original wood siding and original exterior trim is in sufficiently good condition that the aluminum siding can be removed, and the original siding restored. It may also be possible to restore the original fascia trim and the exterior window and door trim; if it is not, Mr. Streeter proposes to replicate the original. Staff recommends approval of the proposal to restore the original wood siding and trim, and also replacement of the original fascia and window and door trim with replica trim, should that be necessary. (2) Mrs. Streeter proposes to replace the gutters on her roof with substantially similar gutters. This should be approved. (3) Mrs. Streeter proposes to enclose her side porch, according to the drawing attached. This includes building a permanent wall where the plywood knee -wall now is, siding it to match the rest of the house, and installing windows where there are now screens. Some of those windows are proposed to be Pella double -hung sash windows, and others are proposed to be fixed panes of thermal insulated glass. The cost of installing Pella windows in every opening would be prohibitive, given the scale of other renovations. The only part of the proposal with which staff has any disagreement is the size of the almost 18" pillars between the windows. Reducing the pillars by using standard 48 -inch wide windows would better preserve the character of the structure. Staff recommends approval of the porch enclosure, including the knee -wall sided to match the house, and the installation of 48" wide double -hung or fixed pane windows, in any combination pleasing to the owner. Application - for - Certfflieate of Appropriateness Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County 227 West Jefferson Blvd - South Bend IN 4660I-1830 Phone: 219-235-9798 Fax: 219-235-9578 c -mail: historic@tnichiana.org A Certified Local Government OFFICE USF: 0N1.Y»»»n0 N(yr (*o%tPI.F.TF ANY F;N'rRIF:S CONTAINED IN THIS n01'«««OFFICE USEONLY Date Received % i &-, 20 a7 Z /j Application Number: 20Q- 52/1P Past Reviews: YES (cur[ofWTAEt•tEw7GGt, I 111`/%Jr ❑ NO Staff Approval authorized by: Title: Historic Commission Review Date: 1 `�2 &- --Z6 -.- ❑ Local Landmark �(❑ National Register District (N-): Local Historic District (Nam ): Certificate of Appropriateness: ❑ Denied ❑ Approved and issued ❑ National Landmark ❑ Tabled ❑ Sent To Committee 20 Address of Property for proposed work: 101 Litt 4Px0- City: - City: Owner's Phone No: o2;� r%-- '�Q 0 y Name of Property Owner(s):(rRiAT) 0" /, e I e Y Address of Property Owner :_16171 4a14L,, 7, .fid tl_7� Contractor(s) Name: cot arse. �C.r Contract Company Name:`(oep" �ht a t? Contractor Address: oL s&n A?ottd City: of 2Ltd Contractor's Phone No: ;?,`1 X1-15- Y'7 Current Use of Building: �,;J4 -(-�_ uyr rk r 1/'-Uidti-Faraify-(Pinmercia(-Government.Industrial-Vacant-etc. Type of Building Construction: Wdd{I qu4n p (Wood Fiume- Brick - Stone - Steel - Conade - Other) Proposed Work: Inkind ❑ Landscape ❑ New ❑ Replacement(notin-kind) (mart than one box may be checked) ❑ Demolition Description of Proposed Work:'7yYl�l QL J� ''UI LO&I PC s y ( a 51rta 61 �ioug"p- �hew Owner/Contractor: Fax: a -mail: Sh r_to r i* /0 1,1.&n (This office wit correspond with only one designeeeej)� � �„ (/ 4.�LG/Lb"'�it..�+ ; ..Gi-.tom Signature of Owner Signature of Contractor APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE. luul UUDNUN STREET 1/17/2002 Fo slo ,m vI ►UV1 January 175 17, 2002 _ Proposal South Bend Sash and Door Co., Inc. Z6_ The The Pella Window Store 1421 N. Ironwood Drive South Bend, Indiana 46635 Phone: (574) 271-5600 Fax: (574) 271-5652 Customer ! Project/ Ship- l'o Proposal l:reenspring Lonstructton Streeter, Larol _ gate inti /ltuut No. STREETER 415 Lamonte Terrace 1001 Hudson + Alternate No. 0 South Bend, IN 46616 South Bend, IN 46616 Need Date SJ I ST JOS Sales Rep. Name RANDY PETERSON Prepared by Charleen Will Streeter Owner: Payment Terms Deposit/C.O.D. Bus. Phone: (219) 246-0744 Bus. Phone: Architect Bus. Fax:( ) - Home Phone: CelIuIar: Comments: COMMON ATTRIBUTES: Unless otherwise noted under "Description" all units contain the following attributes. Fixed units to not contain screens or hardware. Product brand: ProLme I Prime Wass: W8" Llear !h ! Jereen: cull bcreen I k ins: tins (per design) Exterior Mat'l: Clad ; DGP Color/Glass: ; Muntin: j Brickmould: Color: White j Shade: ; Hardware:White Lock & Sash Lift Outside View Item Qty. Item# 10 Qty: 1 Location: R.O: 3' 1-3/4" X 4'5-3/4" F 1 Jamb Depth: 6-9/16" Notes: Item# 11 Qty: 0 Location: R.O: 3' 1-3/4" X 4'5-3/4" r— Jamb Depth: 6-9/16" Notes: Description Unit Price Extended 3753 Vent -Equal Sash 50:50 Top:Bot Sash Split Double -Hung, Frame:37 239.66 239.66 X 53: Model 2 3753 Vent -Equal Sash 50:50 Top:Bot Sash Split Double -Hung, Frame:37 259.56 0.00 X 53: Model 2, PreFinished White Propasat -Page -i—o(2 r,osal for Customer Greenspring Construction Project: Streeter, Carol Quote No.: STREETER Alternate No.: 0 Outside View Item Qty. Description Unit Price Extended Thank You For Your Interest In Pella Products PLEASE CHECK CAREFULLY. This itemized Proposal represents our understanding of your requirements based on verbal and/or written information and/or drawings provided by you. If you have any questions, please call your sales representative. Errors in quantities, descriptions, and/or extensions will be corrected and alter the total amount. Prices are protected for a minimum of thirty (30) days from the Proposal date. laxable Subtotal 239.0b Customer signature Pella Sales Rep�sentave ignature { 1N 1 AX ! at :).UU% I 11.96 ! None ! at U.UU% U.UU { None ; at U.UU"/o U.UU { Non-taxable Subtotal U.UU , Total ! :S 1J 1.64 Vate lla I veposit Keceivea i U.UU -----P_oposal - Page 2 of 2 THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND & St. JOSEPH COUNTY MONTHLY MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 2001 7TH Floor, Commissioner's Conference Room County -City Building, South Bend, IN. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Oxian, President, Catherine Hosteler, Vice - President, Mary Jane Chase, Martha Choitz Richard Morrison, Joann Sporleder, Gerald Ujdak, Secretary, Jerry Weiner, Treasurer, Richard Helmus MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Rhonda Saunders, Director Karen Hammond -Nash, Assistant Director Thomas Bodnar, City Attorney Wayne Doolittle, Inspector ALSO PRESENT: I. CALL TO ORDER Dennis Whittaker, Luther Taylor, Nancy E. Doyle, Marialyce Riedle, Sarah W.;.'! -:ens Zouch, Amy M. Jones. Don Sporleder JOHN OXIAN, PRESIDENT: Called the meeting to order at 7:35. II. PUBLIC HEARING A. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS -- 1. 2001-1205; 900 Block of Riverside Drive, South Bend, Indiana KAREN HAMMOND-NASH: The location of the broken streetlight is directly in front of the home where George Cutter of the Cutter Light Company used to live. The broken light was one of the original "Parkview" lights, which the Cutter Light Coiiipany designed specifically with this neighborhood in mind, though the lights were then marketed generally. During its years of operation, the Cutter Light Company was an important part of the South Bend community and economy. The company's designs, innovative for their time, still typify what most people think of as decorative or pedestrian -friendly lights Almost a year ago, an unidentified car struck the historic cast iron "Parkview" stre--tlight outside the George Cutter house at 916 Riverside Drive. The pole shattered about give feet up. The Sibley Foundry has an example of the original "Parkview" pole, anda,�e City Public Works Department can, additionally, make the remaining piece of this�ole available to any appropriate foundry or artisan. One or more exact replies �<ul be Bast, . but would cost an estimated $1,500 to $20,000 per pole, depending upon th�umber made and methods used. Similar, but not identical, cast iron or cast aluminu�r, replacements might be somewhat less expensive. The Neighborhood Association has done some independent research regarding duplicate or replica poles, and began fundraising for purchase of a pair of cast iron "ParkvieV' poles from the Sibley Foundry. I believe they are not presently in a position to purchase at full cost, but might be able to make a contribution to maintain George Cutter's original design in front of this historic house. Octagonal concrete poles of the same era, but a totally different style are readily available in the Public Works Department inventory. The lights on Riverside Drive and in the Chapin Park — Park Avenue neighborhood have octagonal concrete poles. The Public Works Department seeks permission to use one of these concrete poles. I understand that., might be acceptable to some of the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: The city seeks permission to substitute a different type of concrete pole commonly in use at the same period as the original cast iron pole, and to use a luminary identical to the one destroyed. KAREN HAMMOND-NASH: Staff recommends approval as to the luminary. ' JOHN OXIAN, PRESIDENT: Moved for the denial of the Application as to the type of pole, pending further efforts to obtain a cast iron pole that replicates the original. Recently, wind damage necessitated the replacement of another luminary on a streetlight at the corner of Park Avenue and Riverside Drive. The Public Works Department accidentally installed a slightly different luminary from the one previously existing. JOHN OXIAN: The reason why I feel that this cast iron pole should be put back into its original place is because these were the original cast iron poles that were on Riverside Drive. The concrete poles are some that have come later from previous administrations. This is the only example of a cast iron pole on this street. I have said whether on windows or anything else that one example of what the original streetlight on a street or the building behind it is so the public could know what the original ones looked like. I myself recommend that the luminary can be, but, I feel that there is cast iron poles and that they do make cast iron poles, and there are cast iron poles that are very close to the Cutter pattern. 2 I have made three landmarks of cast iron poles. Two of them are on the west side of South Bend. They are in a precarious situation and we need to set precedence for them in case anything should happen. KAREN HAMMOND-NASH: It was fractured about five feet above the base so the bottoms five feet are essentially intact and the engineer said that the pieces are too small and shattered to be reassembled. The city would like to know who hit the pole; because, they could hold that person financially responsible. DAVID KOPPANA: The poles are in such a very brittle state that just by knocking them over and depending on how they land a lot of them at the bottom of the base will all be broken and the parts will be too small to reassemble. JOHN OXIAN: I disagree with you; years ago they used to break cast iron poles on California and Diamond Streets; the cast iron poles used to be broken sometimes three or four different places by different cars. The cast iron poles that were shattered what happened is they break. Something very very big and very powerful had to hit it; because, cast iron poles don't shatter I don't care how brittle they are. Those poles never shatter. DAVID KOPPANA: I have no idea what the pieces look like; but, I never saw them. I went to pick them up and they were gone. There may be more pieces still over there and they threw them away. JOHN OXIAN: I think you should checkup on that; because, I don't believe that and until I see it I won't believe it. I remember on cast iron pole on the corner of Diamond and California that was broken in five different places and welded back together. JOHN OXIAN: Says that I am going to make a motion to reject the city's proposal in the C. of A. and that the city find a duplicate of the pole that was broken. There was some brief discussion on the subject. Those in favor of the first point on the cast iron poles signify by saying aye. Then I will make the second one. The second one being that the identical replica of the luminary that was knocked down by a storm be replaced as stated in the C. of A.. The luminary will be on top of a concrete pole on the corner of Park Avenue and Riverside. B. LOCAL LANDMARK 1. 2520 Mishawaka Avenue, South Bend, which is the Fire Station No. 9; in the River Park Neighborhood KAREN HAMMOND-NASH: Fire Department Engine Company No. 9 was a result of a merger agreement in 1919 between Independent Town of River Park and the City of South Bend, sits on lots of 120 and 121 of Horne and Dunn first subdivision in River Park. It was actually constructed in 1926 by the Smoger Lumber Company for $14,643. It is a classic bungalow style, with craftsman -inspired elements. The unique feature of its large fire -truck door recessed under the porch as to blend in with the rest of the residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF: Is that the site and structure be recommended to the Common Council for its designation as a local landmark. The local historic value of the building is immense, as it's very on is the result of a unique merger between cooperative neighboring communities, during a period of great growth, urbanization, immigration, and cultural change in our community. Similarly, the way in which government and public safety functions were merged cooperatively with the daily life of the residential neighborhood has a cultural significance that is increasing as public safety forces across the United States are returning to that tradition. This building has educational value both from an architectural aspect, and from a firefighting history aspect. Its architecture, as discussed above, is unusual, elegant, and distinctive More importantly, the building has served an active company from the days when horse drawn fire engines were just being phased out, to the present day, when the computer room is an important part of the stations' rapid -response team that can serve and assist the whole city. A tour or study of the building illustrates this history better than any book or video could do -and it is still in the neighborhood of schools and homes. For the reasons set out in the Ordinance, this building merits the landmark status that its neighbors request it. III. REGULAR BUSINESS Discussion was held in regards to the minutes on how to make the minutes easier for someone to pick out motions. A suggestion was presented that a asterisk be presented before the motion. B. Treasurer's Report: RHONDA SAUNDERS: Concerning contractual services we have done in-line transfer of $19,000.00 out of printing is to be carried over till next year. JOHN OXIAN: Do you want to make an approval now or wait until next month. 4 RHONDA SAUNDERS: The commission members have always accepted them. JOHN OXIAN: We always vote on the Treasurer's Report. Then a discussion was held with commission members concerning payment and approval of bills to be paid. JOHN OXIAN: We have never approved the payment of bills. RICHARD MORRISON: It's more of a legal question. KAREN HAMMOND-NASH: In context to contractual services with Mr. Doolittle contract I believe that the Commission should approve giving him the year's contract. Which would mean that the money, actually the spending of the money, on the contract for our inspector has been approved. It just requires a purchase order to be sent to the auditor's office to put into effect the decision by the board to hire an inspector for a year; beginning, in July. JOHN OXIAN: Why don't we make a motion to hire an inspector. Those in favor say aye. The motion carried unanimously. C. Committee Report Standards & Maintenance Committee Discussion was held by Commission about the reservoir lights in Leeper Park East pertaining to security for that area. John Wiltrout, Superintendent of North Pumping Station, did not appear before the Commission, pertaining to the discussion on a C. of A. for the security lights or any other type of security for the reservoir. .Since he was not present; questions on the proposed security lights could not be asked or answered. MARTHA CHOITZ: Made the motion to table the C. of A. for one month GERALD UJDAK: Seconds the motion. JOHN OXIAN: Those in favor of tabling the motion for the reservoir security lights for one month signify by saying aye. The motion passed unanimously. E. Staff Report Staff approved applications; there were six. Most of them were for in-kind replacement roofs. There were only two that were for anything other than in-kind replacement roofs. As noted in two cases the applicant both directly or through staff checked with commission officers and got some guidance as to whether or not these matters are appropriate to be staff approved. 5 IV. . OLD BUSINESS JOHN OXIAN: The packets you have on the problems we have had at Franklin Street is ongoing. The end result to decide here is that Code Enforcement has stepped into it; we have notified Code Enforcement; they are now following up on this. I think our staff should work with Code Enforcement. V. NEW BUSINESS 1. Appointment of Architectural Historian JOHN OXIAN: Let's make a motion to reappoint Joann Sporleder for a new three year term. Those in favor say aye. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Election of Officers JOHN OXIAN: What we do is have a Nominating Committee that is appointed I would like to appoint Gerald Udjak as Chairman; and Mary Jane Chase as a member of the committee. 3. Inspector Contract renewal RHONDA SAUNDERS: Wayne Doolittle's contract runs to July of next year. MARY JANE CHASE: Makes a motion to approve Wayne Doolittle's contract as presented. Several members seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 4. Year End Report JOHN OXIAN: I would like to state that I feel that the year-end report should be withdrawn. I have quite a few additions that should be added on to it. Look at your year- end report if you see anything that is missing. I turned in eight areas which I feel had mistakes and information missing. We should always do year-end reports; because of the monies we are getting now and everything else. Year-end reports are good. I always keep a file of them. If you want to look up something fast it is easier than going through your minutes. 5. Review enforcement procedures & proposed new ordinance JOHN OXIAN: Look at and read the proposal on the C. of A.'s procedures. This is an area, I would like to add to the Preservation Plan with the approval of the Common Council. We will set aside this proposal on C. of A.'s procedures until next month. RHONDA SAUDERS: Presented the proposed enforcement ordinance. G Discussion was held. It was tabled until next meeting. Tom Bodnar was also going to review the ordinance. Meeting was adjourned. 7 STAFF APPROVED APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS December 21, 2001 2001-1221 Mrs. Nancy Ickler 1430 East Wayne Street South Bend, IN 46615 (1) Repair deteriorated porch, replacing deteriorated materials as necessary & maintaining identical appearance; (2) Replace deteriorated porch roll=out windows & full view door with vinyl roll-out windows and full view door, all having identical muntons, & maintaining same appearance as original. January 4, 2002 2002-0104 Domas Properties 532 & 534 Carroll Street South Bend, IN (1) In-kind roof replacement, asphalt shingles; (2) In-kind replacement of roof gutters; (3) Repair and replace cedar shake siding, also in-kind. January 18, 2002 2001-0118-2 Carol & James Anderson 229 Navarre Street South Bend, IN Replace deteriorated concrete front porch steps with new concrete steps, maintaining essentially identical appearance and character. John Oxian, President January 22, 2002 South Bend and St. Joseph County HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Office Address - 125 S. Lafayette Mailing Address - 227 WEST JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601-1830 Phone: 219-235-9798 Fax: 219-235-9578 e-mail: historic@michiana.org TO: John Oxian & Gerald Ujdak FROM: Rhonda Saunders RE: Leeper Committee Mtg. A Certified Local Government MEMO Rhonda Saunders, Director The Committee being put together to spend the $50,000.00 Memorial has dog eared for Leeper Park will have their first meeting February 4, 2002 at 5:00pm, 14th Floor County -City Bldg., Mayors Conference Room. At- tending should be DLK, Mayor, Ted Foti, Phil St. Clair, Jim Aranowski, Karen Ainsley & Amy Jones of Pana, Julia DesLaureirs & Michelle Gelfman of River Bend, Laura Smith of N. St. Joseph, John Oxian, Gerald Ujdak and Rhonda Saunders of HPC. HPC will be co-chairing this committee with Phil St. Clair. Saving The History Of South Bend & St. Joseph County By Protecting The Irreplaceable COMMISSIONERS Martha Choitz Richard HelmusJerry Wiener (Treasurer) Mary Jane Chase Catherine Hostetler (Vice -President) Gerald Ujdak (Secretary) Richard Morrison Joann Sporleder (Historic Architect) Thomas Bodnar(Attorney) HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES The following are procedures, as adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission, for enforcing HPC Code, Standards and Guidelines. Definition of Terms Code = All powers given to Historic Preservation Commission by the City of South Bend and St. Joseph County. Standard = Mandates set forth by the Historic Preservation Commission setting levels pertaining to minimum maintenance of Local Historic Districts and Local Landmarks. Guidelines = Mandates that stipulate the dos and don'ts with in Local Historic Districts and Local Landmarks, as set forth by the Historic Preservation Commission. HPC = Historic Preservation Commission CoA = Certificate of Appropriateness Action to be taken when work commences with no CoA: 1) Inspector will go to site. a) Inspector will decide if there is a violation and what type. b) Inspector will either tag the violation or issue a stop work order, both of which shall carry a penalty of fine for failure to comply. 1) Tags and stop work orders will clearly state the violation, pertinent fines and the course of action to be followed by the property owner. c) Inspector will copy the Building Department and or Code Enforcement. 2) HPC Staff will send notice, via certified mail to the property owner. a) Notice will include the following: 1) Detailed description of violation. 2) How it violates either HPC Code, Standards and/or Guidelines. 3) The owner will be required to file an application for the proposed project by a designated date. 4) No work can commence until said application is annroved, by either HPC Staff or HPC. 5) List of fines that can be imposed if the owner fails to comply with any mandates set forth by the HPC and/or HPC Staff. 6) Cite City and County ordinances that pertain to HPC's powers. 7) Copy Building Department and or Code Enforcement. 3) If an application is received it will be reviewed following the CoA procedures outlined in the Preservation Plan. a) If an application is approved work may immediately commence and fines will either be waived or imposed per the circumstances. b) If an application is denied the owner will receive notice of the denial detailing the reasons for such action. The notice will also outline the HPC's mandates pertaining to the project. The owner will be given a set time frame to complete the mandates. The HPC Staff will have the power to extend the deadline, per their discretion, but not to exceed one year with out HPC approval. 1) The HPC, HPC President and/or HPC Staff will decide if any fines should be waived or implemented. 2) The owner may contest HPC's finding by appealing to the appropriate council. d) If the owner fails to comply and does not receive an extension then the HPC Staff shall send notice of failure to comply and will instruct the City Legal Department to seek the imposition and collection of all pertinent fines through the local courts. e) If the maximum allowable fine is sought and the owner has not complied then HPC will take the appropriate legal action. 4) Owner fails to respond. a) Notice will be sent by HPC Staff of failure to respond and the impending consequences. b) HPC, HPC President and/or HPC Staff will immediately instruct the City Legal Department to seek an injunction to stop all work and the imposition of all pertinent fines up to the maximum allowed by Code. c) Owner refuses to comply then HPC will take the appropriate legal action. Action to be taken when work violates existing CoA 1) Inspector will go to site. a) Inspector will decide if there is a violation of the existing CoA and to what extent. 2 b) Inspector will either issue the appropriate tag or a stop work order for either the entire project or the portion of the project that is in violation. The type and extent of the notice will be chosen at the discretion of the HPC Staff, unless otherwise instructed by the HPC. All cited work will cease immediately. 1) Tags and stop work orders will clearly state the violation, pertinent fines and the course of action to be followed by the property owner. c) Inspector will copy the Building Department and/or Code Enforcement. 2) HPC Staff will send notice, via certified mail to the property owner. a) Notice will include the following: 1) Detailed description of violation. 2) How it violates the existing CoA. 3) The owner will be required, by a set date, to; a) submit in writing actions to be taken to bring the violation into code with existing CoA; b) submit a new CoA application requesting approval of changes. 4) Stipulate that no work may commence until the matter is resolved and all proposed work is approved. 5) List the fines that can be imposed if the owner fails to comply with any mandates set forth by the HPC and/or HPC Staff. 6) Cite the ordinance that pertains to the HPC's powers. 7) Copy Building Department and/or Code Enforcement. 3) Owner complies by removing the violation and complying with the existing CoA. a) The owner will submit in writing exactly what actions will be taken to correct the violation, bringing it into agreement with the existing CoA. b) The HPC Staff will determine if the document submitted and the course of action purposed by the owner is acceptable. c) If the proposal is accepted by the HPC Staff work may commence. The HPC and/or HPC Staff, with the HPC President as overseer, will decide if any fines should be imposed or if existing fines should be rescinded. 1) The Inspector will visit site regularly to ensure work is done according to the approved proposal and existing CoA. 2) Copy Building Department and or Code Enforcement. d) If the proposal is not accepted the owner will work with HPC Staff and/or the HPC Standards and Maintenance Committee to resolve the points of contention. e) If no resolution can be afforded then the owner has the right to bring the proposal before the HPC as a whole, for review. The decision issued by the HPC will stand as the course of action to take. 1) .The HPC, HPC President and/or HPC Staff will decide at this time if any fines should be imposed or if existing fines should be rescinded. 2) The property owner can contest the decision made by HPC by petitioning the appropriate council. f) If the owner does not comply with HPC and/or HPC Staff mandates the imposition of appropriate fines will be sought from the local courts. g) Inspector will visit site regularly to ensure no further violations occur. h) Copy the Building Department and/or Code Enforcement. 4) Owner complies by submitting a new CoA. a) Owner will submit a new application, by a set date, for a CoA which will encompass the violation. b) The application will be heard by the HPC, following the regular CoA procedures. 1) If the application is approved by the HPC then the owner may commence with the project. a) HPC will decide if any fines should be imposed or rescinded. 2) If the application is denied the owner will receive a notice of the denial detailing the reasons for such action. Notice will also include HPC's mandates pertaining to the application and project along with a date for completion. c) If the owner does not comply with HPC mandate then imposition and collection of the appropriate fines will immediately be sought through the local court system. d) Inspector will visit site regularly to ensure no further violations occur. e) Copy Building Department and/or Code Enforcement. 4 5) Owner does not respond. a) Notice will be sent of failure to respond stating that the HPC and/or HPC Staff have instructed the City Legal Department to seek imposition of the necessary fines through the local courts. b) Owner will continue to be fined until such time the violation is brought into compliance. If the maximum allowable fine is sought and the owner has still not complied then the HPC will seek the appropriate legal actions. Action to be taken for minimum maintenance violations 1) Inspector will evaluate site to determine if the minimum maintenance standards have been violated. a) Inspector will tag properties that are in violation. b) The tag mill list the violations, pertinent fines and the appropriate action to be followed by the property owner. c) Inspector will copy Code Enforcement and Building Department. 2) The HPC Staff will send a notice, via certified mail to the property owner. a) The Notice will include the following: 1) A list of violations. 2) How the issues violate the standards. 3) A mandate that the owner must submit, in writing, a response identifying specifically the corrective and remedial steps that are to be taken to correct the violations. The owner will have twenty days from the date the notice is received to respond. 4) Owner will be informed of which violations will require a permit before work can commence. 5) Notice will include an application and information regarding the CoA process. 6) HPC Staff will copy the Building Department as well as Code Enforcement. 4) Owner complies by submitting corrective measures. a) HPC Staff will review corrective measures. 1) HPC Staff approves of measures. a) Owner will be asked to submit an application for items which require one. b) HPC Staff will approve all in-kind corrective measures and the HPC .will review all other applications per the standard CoA procedures. 5 c) HPC Staff, HPC President and/or the HPC will decide if fines should be imposed or rescinded. d) HPC Staff will copy Code Enforcement and the Building. Department. e) Owner may commence with approved work. f) Inspector will visit site to ensure compliance. 5) Owner attempts to comply with out working with HPC. a) Owner corrects matters that do not require a CoA in a manner acceptable by the HPC. 1) HPC Staff will submit a letter to the owner recognizing the corrections but stipulating that in the future a notice will have to be submitted in writing outlining the corrective measures to be taken prior to the work commencing. a) HPC Staff, HPC President and/or HPC will decide if fines should be imposed or rescinded. 2) If it is the owners second violation HPC Staff will notify owner that a written response outlining the measures taken will still have to be submitted in order for the matter to be considered closed.'_ a) Upon receipt of the written response HPC, HPC President and/or HPC Staff will decide if fines should be imposed. b) Owner corrects matters that require a CoA with out a CoA. 1) This is to be handled according to procedures laid out under the section entitled "Action to be taken when work commences with out a CoA". 6) Owner fails to respond or comply. a) Notice of failure to respond and/or comply will be sent by the HPC Staff. b) HPC Staff will instruct the City Legal Department to seek imposition of all pertinent fines through the local courts. c) Fines will be sought until such time the violation is brought into compliance with HPC Code, Standards and/or Guidelines. d) If the maximum allowable fine is sought and the owner has yet to comply then HPC will seek the appropriate legal actions. e) HPC Staff will copy Code Enforcement and Building Department. 6 Non -Compliance All property owners who violate tags and/or stop work orders or who fail to comply with HPC mandates will be levied the appropriate fines. HPC Staff will send notice and immediately seek the appropriate fines from local courts and the appropriate actions from the City Legal Depart- ment. Fines can be sought for any violations of HPC Code, Guidelines and/or Standards. All HPC mandates that require the removal of violations will require that it be done so at the owners expense. Failure of an owner to comply will result in HPC instructing the City Legal Department to seek all fines and any further required legal action. Fines In order to impose fines the HPC and/or HPC Staff must instruct the City Legal Department to seek the appropriate fines from the local court system. HPC can impose fines of not less then fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first day of violation, a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the second day of violation and a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200.00) for every day of violation thereafter. No fine, however, shall exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00). Fines may be adapted, applied and/or rescinded at the discretion of the HPC and/or HPC Staff. FINE SCHEDULE 1) The act of committing.a violation $50.00 2) Continuing work despite a tag and/or stop work order. $50.00 for the first day work is continued, $100.00 for the second day, $200.00 for the'third day and every day thereafter, up to the maximum of $2,5100.00: 3) Failure to comply.- $50.00 omply:$50.00 for first-day of non-compliance, $100.00 for second day, $200,.00 for the third day and every day thereafter, up to the maximum of $2,500.00. 7 Staff Rescinding Powers HPC Staff may rescind fines, at their discretion, based on the following criteria: 1) First offence a) HPC Staff can rescind initial $50.00 fine. HPC Rescinding Powers HPC may rescind any fine at the discretion of a majority vote of the Commission during a pub- licly announced meeting. HPC policy pertaining to fines should be as follows: waive all fines if first offence and there is complete compliance of citation; immediate implementation of fines if second offense or lack of compliance. Tat! Tvoes and Stop Work Orders . - There are two different types of tags and a stop work order notice. A Stop Work Order will consist of a notice the size of a building permit, it shall be posted at the violating property and if possible hand delivered to violators. It shall be issued when a viola- tion is in process. The two tags will have different purposes and different colors to differentiate them. 1) Red Tag—will be issued for violations that have occurred where all the work is already done. 2) Blue Taa - will be issued for all minimum maintenance violations. (Red tag and Stop work order willbe used for both violation of an existing CoA and no CoA) 8 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 6.5 OF CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE DIRECT ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND MINIMUM MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT The present version of Article 6.5, Chapter 21, of the Municipal Code does not provide means for direct enforcement by Historic Preservation Commission staff to enforce Historic Preservation Ordinances. Rather, it requires the Historic Preservation Commission to rely on the staff of other departments. Consequently, a property in violation of this article of the mu- nicipal code is reviewed by our inspector who then notifies either Code Enforcement or the Building Department, whose staff then inspect the property again, before tagging it themselves. This wastes man hours and delay�''s the stoppage of unapproved work. This proposed amend- ment would afford the Historic ,Preservation Commission staff the ability to' enforce the munici- pal code directly by granting the HPC Staff authority to "tag" or issue "stop work orders" for violations. It would also grant the Commission authority to petition the courts to levy specified amounts as fines for violations. It will also clarify Article 6.5, Chapter 21 of the Municipal Code by creating a procedure for handling violations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Chapter 21,';Article 6.5, of the South Bend Municipal Code shall be amended to add a new Section 21-1.17.4 entitled Enforcement Procedures, to read as follows: Section 21-117.4. Enforcement Procedures. The Historic Preservation Commission, by its Staff. shall have the rower to enforce the provisions of this article by means of: A. "tats" or "stop work orders;" served by HPC staff either directly to violator or by posting at premises where violation of this article is occurring, and B. Petitionine the appropriate Court for the levvina of a fine upon anv propertv owner who violates this article. Fines levied by a court pursuant to this article shall be eaual to those defined in Section 6-37. Article 8(h) of the South Bend Municipal Code. i.e., not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first day of violation, a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the second day of violation and a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200.00) for every day of violation thereafter with each day of violation constituting a separate violation for which a citation may be issued. No fine. however. shall exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2.500.00). Section II. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor and publication of any required notice. Member of the Common Council •'fib; ;'s ``:•°:' INS �wn�m..ar...x-wa..r..mswwr..�.-v«,x.. ..- ar..�uro.wva _ .-, •4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS CRITERIA 1. Nominations are accepted in 3 categories which are defined as follows. a. Preservation - The building or the site has been maintained in a manner to protect its historical and architectural integrity. Little "restoration" work would be necessary if the building changed hands. Example: Oliver Inn, 630 W. Washington. b. Restoration - the building or site has undergone major work to bring it back to its architectural integrity. Example: the Chapin House, 601 Park Avenue. c. Adaptive Re -Use - the use of the building has been changed without compromising the architectural or historical integrity. Usually the buildings in this category have been endangered and the new use has saved them. Example: Tippecanoe Place, 620 W. Washington. 2. Buildings should be at least 50 years old. 3. Buildings throughout St. Joseph County, Indiana are eligible. 4. Because the awards are given to people and organizations, the current owner of the buildings should have been the person responsible for the work. 5. Buildings that have been sandblasted or cleaned using other abrasive methods will not be considered. 6. The decision of -the Awards Committee will be submitted -to the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission decision is final. r•..z�,"d,"„ t;'aY �; n,�rv� - :-.e.>x�.e� 9�.� �.•,� w.:.� k.So amt":,itR• r.,.+.� x� �,.vr«. �,. rte^,� �',�', �^ � "�� } �2 Y ..� {� a�. �� +4 *�%Y.Xo ,2�'" �, �k � �• � ����� ,,.. _ _ _,,... , .. . Ga•w•.r..'.uw.wt:umwaew:asa,c "--- .,.wm..s+r..w....-. .. ..,'wa..�w.- � �_.. �.--�..-._ ..�„ ..-.. r ..d HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS The Historic Preservation Commission has inherited the enjoyable task of bestowing Historic Preservation Awards upon selected properties from the former Southhold Restoration Group. Between now and July 4, 2002 the Historic Preservation Commission will be accepting nominations for awards in three categories: Preservation, Restoration and Adaptive Re -Use. Nominations must be made in writing (using the appropriate form and any necessary attachments) and will be passed on to the awards selection committee for consideration. The committee will narrow the nominations to two per category and will submit -a - - ---- ---- ---- findings to the HPC for final selection. The winners will be announced August 19, 2002 and plaques will be awarded during a press conference to be held no later then September 20, 2002. Historic Preservation Commission Office Address: 125 S. Lafayette Mailing Address: 227 W. Jefferson Bend IN 46601 - - -- - - -- Phone: 574 (219) 235-9798 Fax: 574 (219) 235-9578 Email: historic@michiana.org 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND & ST. JOSEPH COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS NOMINATION FORM PRESERVATION AWARD: Historic Name- Address- This ame•Address• This building deserves an award because: RESTORATION AWARD: Historic Name: Address: This building deserves an award because: ADAPTIVE RE -USE AWARD: Historic Name: Address: This building deserves an award because: SUBMITTED BY: Name: Address: Phone - Email: Fax- Jan.21. 2002 9:38AM NORTHWESTERN MUTAL LIFE Na.4521 P. I/I ` 1 Bartlett Street Changes: What's New? A few months ago, Mayor Steve Luecke shared a possible plan for re -configuring Bartlett Street with neighborhood residents. The Mayor's plan was a response to an earlier plan proposed by Memorial Hospital as part of the re -design of its front entrance. So, where are we now? You are invited to join Near Northwest Neighborhood, Inc. for a Community Forum on the Bartlett Street Re-configuratlon Wednesday, January 30, 2002 7:00 — 8:30 p.m, Muessel School Cafeteria This Forum will provide x background information about the proposals for re -configuration, an opportunity for residents and representatives from the City, Memorial Hospital, and Madison School to share what they need/want from any eventual re -configuration, and �» a chance for participants to evaluate the existing proposals and give their own suggestions for reconfiguration. As part of our preparation for the Forum, NNN is gathering Input from neighbors regarding their needs/wants related to the re -configuration. For example, many residents have expressed concern about issues like traffic flow on Riverside Drive, Please send us your needs and wants regarding any eventual re -configuration. Your input will be compiled and presented at the Forum. Send us your input by January 28 • E-mail nnnorganizer@kconline.com or • Phone Kareemah @ 232-9182 • Write Kareemah @ NNN, 1007 Portage Avenue, South Bend, IN 46616 This Forum will be an occasion for all involved to meet and share ideas in a structured environment. We hope It will be the first of many opportunities for dialogue and constructive conversation as we work together to make our neighborhood strong. Questions: call Rita at 232-9182 NO. 878P . /17 '2� i5 2- 3 5' ,. Create Healthier Communities Enhance High Value Services Expand Our Integrated Delivery System Improve Quality of Work life Memorial Health systemm, Welcome to a new era in Emergency Carel Memorial' All Memorial Hospital & Health System staff, physicians, board members and volunteers are invited for an open house at the new Memorial Famergency Gage Center today, Thursday, Janu- ary 10, from 3-7 p.m. (there will be a dedication at 6 p.m.) or tomorrow, Friday, January 11, from 7-10 a.m. Tours of the new facility will be offered as well as refresh- ments. Be sure to stop by to see the beginning of the new era in emergency care! The Facts About Memorial's Campus Planning . Many of you have probably read some negative editorials in the newspaper about campus expansion planning. There is an important error in what has been mentioned in these letters that you should know about and share with your friends and family. Memorial's proposal to the City Administration neves involved Leeper Park. Our master campus plan boundaries are clear and easily understood by those who take the time to review the public documents. When members of the City Adminstration reviewed our plan, they said they wanted to come up with an alternative plan that involved a land swap with Leeper Park: No one at Memorial designed this or proposed this plan. Mayor Luecke has stated in meetings with the neighbors that the alternate plan was his idea and not Memorial's. This fact has been missed in,the recent newspaper editorials in spite of the fact that the news article about our campus that ran on December 17 did accurately report the difference between Memorial's plan and the City's alternative. We hope that the original plan will be approved by the City and we continue to commit not to move beyond the historical district or the park land. Martin Luger King Jr. observance On Tuesday, January 15, in observance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday, a celebration will be held in the Hospital Auditorium, starting promptly at noon. Our Hospital and community family will be displaying their talents in song, readings and prayer. Featured participants: Donna Gruber, HW! Kids' Museum; Barbara Wilson, Spiritual Care; Bertha King; Benito Zalasa; and Kareemah EI -Amin. Main Street Cafe closed temporarily Main Street Cafe will be closed until father notice due to a renovation project. A completion date is not set, but please watch for updates. in the meantime, please visit the Cafeteria. Thank you!