HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 2005AGENDA OF THE JULY 189 2005
COMMISSION MEETING
(0
Regular Meeting 4th Floor COUNCIL CHAMBERS
County -City Building
Monday, July 18, 2005 7:30 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL
H. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
1.2005-0620: 714 Forest Avenue, Porch roof modification
2.2005-0707: 930 Riverside Drive, 2 storey addition
B. LANDMARK
1. Third Reading 16977 Adams Landmark 1880 Barn
Report from the Landmarks Committee Chair
I lI. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 16, 2005 and June 20, 2005
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
C. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. President's Report: Executive Committee 7/7
2.
D. STAFF REPORTS:
I. C of A Approvals; Correspondence;
A. Director's Report
B. Assistant Director's Report
2. Legal
IV. OLD BUSINESS
Mini Fair on LaSalle Street/ Large Street Fair Partnership w/ HLFI
Chapin Park Standards and Guidelines—Neighborhood Comments
Brick Street on Lafayette Blvd
513 River Avenue
V. NEW BUSINESS
SOUTHHOLD COMMITTEE MEETING DATE
VI. HEARING OF VISITORS
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS
VIII. Adjournment
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: June 20, 2005
Application Number: 2005-0620
Property Location: 714 Forest, South Bend, IN
Property Owner: Bruno Zovich
Landmark or District Designation:
Rating: C/10
Chapin Park Local Historic District / NRD
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
Samuel Coulter purchased the lots from Edward Chapin in 1889 and William Coulter in 1891. In 1891
Samuel and Nellie Coulter lived in their Folk Victorian home built in 1891 at 714 Forest until 1897.
APPLICATION ITEMS: Shave off 6 inches from edge of porch where it abuts into a tree. Ray Meyers
will be the contractor.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of this method because it destroys the
proportions of the gable of the front porch. Staff recommends that Mr. Zovich's contractor take a rectangular
notch out of the porch roof to accommodate the tree and future growth. This method will preserve the
proportions of the porch gable and allow for easier repair of the roof when the tree dies.
C
ICA
�y>.r
..
;?! i � �' .. —>.e]/: •Jit .. .- r r �.:.� � ni,. _ �f
' "�$�, EYE �```�� � "fit �` A _ '{ •>� • ' MJF c 7 '�'
t ,Qyyr
IF A
IN
>F
�,a �, .w: � .' y,>%;/� _ _ <7� ,•rte'.
i
ti� ` 1
o%
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: July 7, 2005
Application Number: 2005-0707
Property Location: 930 Riverside Dr. South Bend, IN
Property Owner: Shannon and Bill Brewster
Landmark or District Designation: Riverside Drive Local Historic District Chapin Park NRD
Rating: S/11
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
Built in 1908 as a rental property for Jennie L. Sharples who purchased the land from Mary E. Anderson, nee
Chapin in 1901. This is a frame Queen Anne with a brick foundation.
APPLICATION ITEMS: A two-storey addition to the back of the house which faces the St. Joseph
River. Appearance will very closely match existing lines and look of the house. The extension will be 14'8"
wide and 16'8" deep. The base of the addition will be brick to match the original of the house foundation and
the siding will be the same cedar as the house and the windows will be wood. The roofing material will be the
same as roof installed on the house last summer. The computer "drawings" of the addition do not show the
gable returns which will be included in the new construction. Mr. Brad Pontius of Home Works is the
Contractor.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. The addition is to the rear of the home and will not be
visible from the street. The Contractor and Homeowner may wish to incorporate the reuse of the two windows
and gable returns in the new construction.
,OUT& Application •"""r••a
FOR - .-
�y� Certificate of Appropriateness a
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County
9 �
125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiam 46601 s, J•
rats Mailing Address: County -City Building, South (fend, Indiana 46601
Phone:574-2159798 • Fax:574-2759578 • EmaiL• historicumichiana.org
Website. http://mmmunitynikhiaiie.org/historic/
A Certified Local Government
OFFICE USE ONLY>»», no NOT CQWPfETF ANY EA IES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX »»,, OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received
.I06 APP ao Application Number u S - 0707
Past Reviews: ❑ YES (ar,aft.0 Rm a,) ❑ NO
Staff Approval authorized by:
Title:
Historic Commission Review Date: 7-l?
❑ Local Landmark ?(Local Historic District 1Nam4
❑ National Landmark (Tf National Register District W.-,) � ^•'E
Certificate of Appropriateness:
❑ Denied ❑ Tabled ❑ Sent To Committee ❑ Approved and Issued Dan
i ver �l�t z tri �e_
Address of Property for proposed work: 6130
Shen Namtw auud Simi Name
Name of Property Owner(s): (rteauP i -l) 11V 1 it l(AYA ar� hah
(��
Address of Property Owner(s): VI X30 R1 ve'rS (I e- ow-, I ��
Contractor(s) Name:�I j 7�n 1\1j�I�
Contract Company Name- (, Owe- `"l'Yt'5
Contractor Address: Till
A91� ) ti Phone:
City: hrtu.nllll. IN 9hS4-
`a le- i raml l
Current Use of Building: r
(Si Ir Fnmily-Mu,�ltyi��Fpnr ily-
Comnorcial-Coucrnmenf- Indusfrinl- Varanf - eta)
Type of Building Construction: \N MCI 1�r=d Fmnrt-ariak-Sion,-Sim-Concrete-Other)
Proposed Work: ❑ In-kind ❑ Landscape ❑ New ❑ Replacement (not ire --kind) ❑ Demolition
(more tlnn one Lva nary he daet nt)
;nk:h;e (ra vs
Description of Proposed Work:—rWO".>�n1 Orirllhrn7 � i'Xlrk, n_r , -I
lrir.v 6C t-in7ktL nnvJ ate "j,,,S'iTm W II l7• 1w' wrri,� a,4'8'e- �e�.
-nit (1X %, rl 'I IK ar(d, hm w II hr bylf.l� a ni 11� s1a �� will mei
(edar nnR 'Iha vufrrlc,>a5 u/11l I,. i,m�Yl ihL roa�ina M�kritil will oc 1�
—� r vexf/cl vdn k
Jl� f� (�bovg c2 JC Or � ^�- r' r
)lfn� i)vililleGl (Qs+ SEvlsrKf 2� 7 P(�
Owne onteactor. Fax: 2'W. 1�5. n5� email \'a' Aon +P hohmi'LrO.n
,J��l2Alst)�� Ifl Pf 101G'l. .and/or
JIM o} wner Signature of Contractor
N RE UIRENETR5 ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE —
m
.4
0
k'1
f
i I,
r,
t V'.
1 t li
A
1,
SSI LS II
1
1
Ili 1111 1
��
I
� 1
I1111�1'I 11 1
1
�I
F ��
11ll�ii'.w
I•I'l1�i
1
�
y1
s
S t y1
)
/I
f
i I,
ill �
I
A
1,
SSI LS II
1
1
Ili 1111 1
��
I
� 1
I1111�1'I 11 1
1
�I
F ��
11ll�ii'.w
I•I'l1�i
1 M
` I
'I I
Q
4
ja
x\Ml
9
e
m
N
0
3068
3768
CLOSET f
5'4 x TI
2668 Zia -
3068
MASTER BDRM
16'8 x 14'8
2845 2845
Second Floor
316 sq ft
m
N
E
3
FAMILY
16'8 x 14'8
6068
LIVING AREA
265 sq ft
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND & ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
MONTHLY MEETING
May 16, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
4th Floor, Council Chambers, County -City
Building, South Bend, IN
Lynn Patrick, (President)
Martha Choitz, (Vice President)
John Oxian, (Treasurer)
Gerald Ujdak, (Member)
Joann Sporleder, (Architectural Historian)
Mary Jane Chase, (Secretary)
Catherine Hostetler, (Member)
Diane Wrobel-Illes, (Member)
Catherine Hostetler, (Director)
Julie Schutte, (Assistant Director)
John Livingston, (City Attorney)
Timothy Klusczinski, Susan Youens, Rita
Dargis, Joan Downs-Krostenko, Suzanne
Wilson, Lawrence Porter, Daniel Slattery,
Kolin Hodson, Michael Viola, Donald
Sporleder
I. CALLED MEETING TO ORDER
LYNN PATRICK: Called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
LYNN PATRICK: I would like to diverge briefly from our regular agenda and move
item number 3, (Chapin Park Standards/Historic Districts Report), ahead on the agenda.
JOANN SPORLEDER: I will make a motion that item number 3 be moved ahead on the
agenda.
MARY JANE CHASE: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
TIMOTHY KLUSCZINSKI: (Chapin Park Historic District, currently chair of the
Local Historic Districts Standards Committee). We came here this evening to address
two points of business.
1. Due to the controversy in our neighborhood when we were petitioning for a local
historic district not long ago, it is the recommendation of our Standards Committee
as well as, I believe, a consensus of the Chapin Park Neighborhood Association to
endorse a preview of a final document, being the guidebook, when that does
happen, before it is adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission.
2. Due to the complexity of the document I would like to request that we postpone
this and review it at a later date with the Committee of the Whole.
JOHN OXIAN: I will make the motion that the Committee of the Whole meet with the
Chapin Park Neighborhood Association or their district committee to go over the
standards they are proposing.
GERALD UJDAK: Seconds the motion and it passes. Joann Sporleder abstains.
Lynn Patrick stated that she would like the individuals that came to the meeting to sign in
and leave their contact information and let the commission know if they wish to be
i
contacted. They would certainly be welcomed to come to the meeting; which will be
held before the next HPC meeting.
Suzanne Wilson, a member who attended the meeting, expressed her gratitude and thanks
to the HPC for passing their earlier motion. She felt that this action would go a long way
to help the healing in her neighborhood and bring her neighborhood closer together as a
whole.
JOHN OXIAN: I will make a motion that we return back to the official meeting agenda.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATE OF APPRORIATENESS — (none to report)
B. LANDMARK
1. First Reading: 16977 Adams Landmark 1880 barn
John Oxian asked Catherine Hostetler if she had sent a letter to the owner of the property.
Catherine stated that she had sent the letter; but had not received a reply back from the
owner yet. John Oxian then asked Catherine when she sent the letter out; because, he had
not received a copy of the letter. Catherine stated that she had sent the letter out return -
receipt -requested right after the last HPC meeting.
JOHN OXIAN: I talked to Mr. Janowiak last Saturday and he informed me that he was
getting quite a bit of information together and he was also going to go out and look at the
barn again. He said that he would get back in touch with you, Catherine. He is really
anxious to have this done.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Is he going to draft a petition and have neighbors sign
it?
JOHN OXIAN: He told me that he was planning on doing that. I will see him before
the next meeting in June.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Are we doing the historical research and the documentation
that needs to go with this property, or are we expecting him to do that?
JOHN OXIAN: We should really do it.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Actually, Landmarks Committee is supposed to do it,
according to the Preservation Plan. We have the legal description from tax rolls. We
have got the survey card on the structure and I believe when Tim was here last time he
already had the Abstract on the property and he said he was going to bring it in so we
could make a copy of it. We have not had any contact with him since our last meeting.
JOHN OXIAN: I will get in touch with him and get him to bring in the Abstract and any
other information he may have. We can also put something together using the survey
card and any research information that we may have. The staff will then make its
recommendation after the Landmark Committee oversees it. That's the way we have
done it since 1976.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Does the owner realize that there is an interim protection on
the property?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Yes, he got the letter we sent him. We received the
return receipt back in the mail.
JULIE SCHUTTE: We did receive a few phone calls from Abonmarche, which is the
engineering firm that I believe will be doing the subdivision on the property. They were
wondering what protections were placed upon the barn. We sent them the letter
regarding interim protection.
JOANN SPORLEDER: If we make this a landmark; the whole site will in fact be a
landmark so we will be intimately involved with whatever they decide to do.
JOHN OXIAN: No, it depends on what you want to do.
JOANN SPORLEDER: We are only doing the barn; because, usually the landmarks go
with a legal description of the property in question. So if that is the case as it has been in
other cases then we would be quite involved with developers who want to not necessarily
tear down the structure; but put up items that would impinge upon it.
JULIE SCHUTTE: My understanding is that for them to build the three houses that
they want to build on that lot they would have to build a road to get the frontage in. I
don't know if they have actually gone forward with designing a road yet.
JOHN OXIAN: You can either do a legal description or you can go with what we have
done before; pick the specific building and mention that the building and the land that it
is located on will be the sole landmark and anything else around it is not. It depends on
how you want to describe it in the ordinance. In the county, that is what has happened in
the past. You can take either approach on this. I wouldn't take the legal approach
because I don't think we want to get involved with new houses or anything else; because,
it would make it very difficult to pass anything then. I think the only thing we should be
interested in is the barn and the site or the land on which it is located.
Further discussion was held between commission members regarding what further steps
need to be taken regarding the barn and the property located at 16977 Adams.
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —(March 21, 2005)
Due to a typo error on the agenda sheet, Lynn Patrick amends the agenda to reflect that
the minutes being presented are actually the minutes for April 18, 2005; not March 21,
2005.
MARTHA CHOITZ: I move that the minutes be accepted as printed.
DIANE WROBEL-ILLES: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously. John Oxian
abstains.
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
JOHN OXIAN: (Refer to green copy of treasurer's report in HPC meeting binder).
John also asked how far along they were with Julie Schutte's pay increase. Catherine
Hostetler stated that it goes in front of the county commission on Thursday, May 26`h at
5:30. (Bill number 5305; Salaries and Numbers of Employees for Historic
Preservation in bill 54-05; appropriation of $6, 714.00 dollars).
C. COMMITTEE REPORT
1. President's Report — (No report)
2. SouthHold Awards Committee
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: We have around 117 people that will be attending. Our
final count is due by noon on Friday to the Palais Royal. We have a firm commitment
with them for a 110 people. We can't go below a 110 people; however, we can keep
adding people on up until Friday morning. We have our speaker and his wife coming in.
We have the awards ordered. Saint Patrick's is getting a silver Paul Revere bowl that
was left over from last year that we're having engraved. The county is getting a print
photograph of the Jefferson Street Bridge by Lou Sabo that we're having matted and
framed by Radecki's. Doug Gibson is getting an art tile. It is a pottery called Pewabic
1 Pottery. They are located in Detroit and are on the National Register of Historic Places
They have been around for about 100 years. Mr. Gibson lives in an Arts and Crafts type
bungalow styled house; so we figured this would be something that he would like. The
pottery is done in a nice turquoise shade that would go with his interior and he also owns
a cat and this has a cat on it.
LYNN PATRICK: Are we sure that somebody is going to be there to receive each one
of these awards?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Yes, Cynthia Bodle will be there for the commissioners;
Father Chrobot will be there for Saint Patrick's; and Doug Gibson will be flying in and
six of his family members will be here for Saturday.
3. Chapin Park Standards/Historic Districts Report
(Moved to first item on the meeting agenda)
4. Standards and Maintenance Committee — 543 Edgewater
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Mr. Doug Tumock submitted designs for a garage door
and also did a landscaping plan. Joann, Gerry, Martha and I met and approved Doug's
plan. We gave him a C of A and hopefully he can pull a building permit.
John Oxian asked how much of a change was made from what he proposed earlier.
Catherine Hostetler said there was not really much of a change at all; except for the
garage door. John Oxian asked what they decided on for the garage door. Catherine
Hostetler said that he is going to install a garage door that compliments the architecture
of his house and will look like two garage doors; but, will actually be one large garage
door instead.
D. STAFF REPORTS
1. C of A Approvals; Correspondence
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: (Refer to yellow copy of Staff Approved C of A's in
HPC meeting binder).
A. Director's Report
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: (Refer to cream colored copy of director's report in HPC
meeting binder).
JOHN OXIAN: There was an important statement made during the May 11, 2005
meeting that Mary Jane Chase, I, and Catherine attended. Even though we won't be
directly involved, we should give our opinions. There was some discussion about
removing the bricks on Lafayette Street when they put in a new sewer line. Gary Gilot
mentioned that there were three things that he wanted opinions on. I think we as a
commission should give an opinion on whether we want those bricks removed. Gary said
that if they remove the bricks, he will use them in another district to recreate a street; if
he has enough bricks. Some people want the brick streets to remain and some want them
removed. There was also a discussion on whether it should be asphalt pavement there or
concrete. There was an idea for the intersections that they either put the bricks back in or
put in concrete that looks like bricks. The other one is regarding a sidewalk; which they
will be coming in for a C of A. I think we should be interested in this one because at one
time about fifteen years ago we introduced an ordinance in the city council to make all
the brick streets into a landmark. The city said that if we lay off of this then they would
work with the commission on preserving as many of these bricks streets as possible. So
far they have done a pretty good job. We have lost a few streets; but most of them have
not been paved over. I think this is an important issue and we should discuss this or at
least come up with an idea by next month's commission meeting.
They have been around for about 100 years. Mr. Gibson lives in an Arts and Crafts type
bungalow styled house; so we figured this would be something that he would like. The
pottery is done in a nice turquoise shade that would go with his interior and he also owns
a cat and this has a cat on it.
LYNN PATRICK: Are we sure that somebody is going to be there to receive each one
of these awards?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Yes, Cynthia Bodle will be there for the commissioners;
Father Chrobot will be there for Saint Patrick's; and Doug Gibson will be flying in and
six of his family members will be here for Saturday.
3. Chapin Park Standards/Historic Districts Report
(Moved to first item on the meeting agenda)
4. Standards and Maintenance Committee — 543 Edgewater
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Mr. Doug Tumock submitted designs for a garage door
and also did a landscaping plan. Joann, Gerry, Martha and I met and approved Doug's
plan. We gave him a C of A and hopefully he can pull a building permit.
John Oxian asked how much of a change was made from what he proposed earlier.
Catherine Hostetler said there was not really much of a change at all; except for the
garage door. John Oxian asked what they decided on for the garage door. Catherine
Hostetler said that he is going to install a garage door that compliments the architecture
of his house and will look like two garage doors; but, will actually be one large garage
door instead.
D. STAFF REPORTS
1. C of A Approvals; Correspondence
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: (Refer to yellow copy of Staff Approved C of A's in
HPC meeting binder).
A. Director's Report
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: (Refer to cream colored copy of director's report in HPC
meeting binder).
JOHN OXIAN: There was an important statement made during the May 11, 2005
meeting that Mary Jane Chase, I, and Catherine attended. Even though we won't be
directly involved, we should give our opinions. There was some discussion about
removing the bricks on Lafayette Street when they put in a new sewer line. Gary Gilot
mentioned that there were three things that he wanted opinions on. I think we as a
commission should give an opinion on whether we want those bricks removed. Gary said
that if they remove the bricks, he will use them in another district to recreate a street; if
he has enough bricks. Some people want the brick streets to remain and some want them
removed. There was also a discussion on whether it should be asphalt pavement there or
concrete. There was an idea for the intersections that they either put the bricks back in or
put in concrete that looks like bricks. The other one is regarding a sidewalk; which they
will be coming in for a C of A. I think we should be interested in this one because at one
time about fifteen years ago we introduced an ordinance in the city council to make all
the brick streets into a landmark. The city said that if we lay off of this then they would
work with the commission on preserving as many of these bricks streets as possible. So
far they have done a pretty good job. We have lost a few streets; but most of them have
not been paved over. I think this is an important issue and we should discuss this or at
least come up with an idea by next month's commission meeting.
JOANN SPORLEDER: If they take up the bricks for the sewer work, will they take up
the bricks for the entire roadway?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: They're just talking from Navarre down to Riverside
Drive.
JOHN OXIAN: Every brick underneath the asphalt will be removed and then when they
have time they will clean the bricks and store them away like they have done with all of
the other bricks. They currently have 40,000 bricks. They are going to need at least
60,000 bricks. This is going to be a major sewer line. All the sewer lines in that area are
going to be consolidated into one major sewer line.
There was further discussion among commission members regarding this subject.
(The matter concerning the brick street on Lafayette Blvd. will be added to July's
meeting agenda under Old Business).
B. Assistant Director's Report
JULIE SCHUTTE: (Refer to purple copy of assistant director's report in HPC meeting
binder). She also showed proofs of the Historic Districts brochure for the commission's
approval. The consensus of the Commission was favorable. The city survey maps were
also presented to the Commission.
2. Legal — (No report)
IV. OLD BUSINESS
CATHERINE HOSTETLER:. (Refer to yellow colored sheet in HPC meeting binder).
Catherine asked commission members what they would like to do about the fence that is
located at 513 River Avenue that went through the Standards and Maintenance
Committee. " This permit constitutes a variance from district guidelines and is granted
only because of unusual circumstances and shall be valid only during the residence of the
present owners and immediately upon their no longer using this home as their primary
residence they shall remove the fence at their own expense"(COA#2001-0323). They
have moved, there has been a divorce, there have been financial issues, and the house is
up for sale and the fence is still there. The commission would like the fence to come
down because the owners no longer live there; which was a stipulation in the original C
of A. The neighbors are also aware of the stipulation and they would also like the fence
to come down. John Oxian made a motion that this be tabled until next month to give
commission members a chance to look at the property before they make a final decision.
Joann Sporleder seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
Catherine also stated that she still had the original copy of the C of A and had no way of
knowing if the owner ever saw the original C of A. John Oxian stated that the owners
were informed because they were at the meeting when the C of A was approved. John
Livingston stated that the presence of the original C of A in the office did not pose any
legal problems for the commission.
Joann Sporleder talked about a conference she and her husband had attended in
Indianapolis last fall on historic mortars. She passed out detailed information about
historic mortars, a picture of where the International Masonry Headquarters is located, an
article on railroad bridges, and an article about a black town in Illinois that is being
archeologically dug up.
V. NEW BUSINESS
"OLD HOUSE FAIR" HLFI Proposal
Catherine Hostetler briefly spoke to commission members about the "Old House Fair"
HLFI Proposal. The commission consensus on this proposal was favorable. (Refer to
yellow copy of proposal in HPC meeting Binder).
John Oxian also wanted Wayne Doolittle to go out and take pictures of two houses that
are in really bad shape and should have letters sent to the owners. One is 1114 Lincoln
Way West and the other one is 415 Parry Street. John also asked Catherine to send him
copies of the letters.
VI. HEARING OF VISITORS
Don Sporleder said that the Michiana Greenways charette workshop will be held in South
Bend, with the assistance of Memorial Hospital, at Leighton Center on June 9th. In St.
Joseph County this week, which you have probably saw in the paper, the mapping is on
the wall at St. Patrick's Park. The public is invited to come and look and comment. If
there is anything that has been overlooked it should be added. There are some historic
water trails as well.
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS, MISCELLANEOUS, ADJOURNMENT
LYNN PATRICK: At this time I would like to present to our esteemed commissioner,
John Oxian with the Michiana 55 Plus Volunteer Award. Congratulations on your
nomination for the 2005 Michiana 55 Plus Volunteer Award. This was awarded April 26,
2005. Through your contributions to our community you have helped and inspired
others. We thank you for your volunteer efforts and hope you continue as a positive role
model in the many, many, many, years to come.
Lynn Patrick makes a motion to adjourn the meeting. There is a unanimous second.
Meeting adjourned at 9:OOpm.
Historic Preservation Commission
Minutes: May 16, 2005
ATTEST:
3
, Secretary
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND & ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
MONTHLY MEETING
June 20, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
STAFF ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
4`h Floor, Council Chambers, County -City
Building, South Bend, IN
Lynn Patrick, (President)
Martha Choitz, (Vice President)
John Oxian, (Treasurer)
Diane Wrobel-Illes, (Member)
Mary Jane Chase, (Member)
Gerald Ujdak, (Member)
Joann Sporleder, (Architectural Historian)
Catherine Hostetler, (Member)
Julie Schutte, (Assistant Director)
John Livingston, (City Attorney)
Catherine Hostetler, (Director)
Carol Davis, Dan & Diana Philpott, M.
Jamison, Clint Zalas, (Attorney), Janet
Maciulski, (River Park Neighborhood
Organization), Brendan Crumlish, Jane
Molnar
I. CALLED MEETING TO ORDER
LYNN PATRICK: Called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
1. 2005-0526; 13546 Brick Road
JULIE SCHUTTE: (See staff report and pictures attached to C of A in meeting binder).
Homeowner, Michael Humes, was not present nor was any representative from AEP.
Staff has tried to contact the homeowner by phone on May 26`h, May 27`h, June 7`h, and
June 9`h, and still have not heard from the owner.
JOHN OXIAN: I will make a motion that this be tabled until July's meeting.
MARTHA CHOITZ: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
2. 2005-0601; 1021 Riverside Drive
JULIE SCHUTTE: (See staff report, pictures, and drawings, attached to C of A in
meeting binder). Homeowner, Brendan Crumlish, was present.
John Oxian asked who built the addition on the house. Mr. Crumlish stated that he did
not know who built the addition on the house because it was already there when he
bought the house.
MARTHA CHOITZ: I move that application number 2005-0601 be approved as stated
in the staff s recommendation.
MARY JANE CHASE: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
3. 2005-0609;1077 Riverside Drive
JULIE SCHUTTE: (See staff report, pictures, and copies of letters sent by Mark
Temple Tree Service and Daniel Philpott to Catherine Hostetler, Director, attached to C
of A in meeting binder). Homeowners, Diane and Daniel Philpott, were present.
DANIEL PHILPOTT: After we had submitted our initial application and the arborist's
tree report; Temple Tree Service strongly recommended that we also get rid of a second
tree in addition to the first tree that we wanted cut down. It is a cedar tree that is located
on the Riverside Drive side of the house. The tree is quite old and is close to dying on its
own. It is very dried out and needs to be cut down. We agree with their
recommendation and would like that tree cut down as well. We did follow up with a
letter regarding this. (refer to copy of letter sent to Catherine Hostetler, Director,
attached to C of A application in meeting binder). So there are really two trees that need
to be cut down. The first tree is a hemlock, which is right in front of the house. We
would like to have this tree cut down for the following reasons.
1. Aesthetic reasons - it creates too much shade for the house and it obstructs the view of
the house.
2. Structural reasons — the roots are crowding and threatening the foundation, the acid
from the tree corrodes the shingles, the roof, and the paint on the sides of the
house.
3. The needles and the shedding from this evergreen prevents the growth of any ground
cover and grass below it. This is a huge area of dirt that we would really like to fill
in with ground cover and greenery.
4. It is also preventing the growth of two nearby smaller trees; one of which is right
underneath this tree. We would like to give those trees a chance to grow up. We
already have three large trees on that side of the house as you can see in the picture.
We don't think that this would diminish at all the sense of the house being very
wooded.
The second tree is the cedar tree which is on the Riverside Drive side of the house. The
house sits on the comer of Golden Street and Riverside Drive and faces Golden Street.
This is the tree that Temple Tree Service recommended that we cut down because it is
near death anyway and is dried out and needs to be cut down. We also feel that it blocks
the house and is hindering growth beneath it. On that side of the house there is already a
tall tree standing between it and the side walk in the near vicinity. So from the
perspective of a person walking by the house; there is already a tall tree there and it's not
going to create a sense of sparseness.
JOHN OXIAN: In the picture which shows the east side of the house there are three
trees there. The middle tree is the one that you want to cut down that is right up close to
the house, right?
Mr. Philpott showed commission members where the cedar tree and the hemlock tree are
located in the pictures that he presented with his C of A application.
MARY JANE CHASE: I will make a motion on application 2005-0609 that the two
trees recommended on 1077 Riverside Drive be removed as stated.
DIANE WROBEL-ILLES: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
B. LANDMARK
1. Second Reading: 16977 Adams Landmark 1880 Barn
CLINT ZALAS: I am an attorney here in South Bend with the fine of Lee and Groves.
I was contacted this afternoon by the Sieradzkis. They are the landowners whose
property the landmark sits on. They object to the designation of the bam on the property
as a historical landmark. I don't know if you have in your file a copy of the
correspondence that Mr. Sieradzki faxed to Catherine Hostetler on June 20`h. It
essentially expresses their position. If you do not have a copy of this I brought extra
copies with me so that you can have that in your file. (passed out printed copies of the
letter for commission members to keep). I am not sure if you are familiar with this
particular property. You take Hickory Road north into Knollwood. As Hickory Road
dead ends into Adams Road this bam structure is located immediately to the north of
Adams Road. When the Sieradzkis originally purchased this particular piece of property
they did so as an investment. They wanted to divide the land. Jim Sieradzki is a very
well known builder in the area known as Century Builders. He has the land plotted with
six sites that he would like to put homes on. I also brought with me a copy of the site
plan that was submitted to the county plan commission. Presently he has the road going
into this particular area off to the left hand side of the bam. Nothing's been done to the
barn to change it from the state that he received it in when he purchased the property. He
does though believe that designating this bam as a landmark will substantially impair the
value of the property and is going to limit its marketability because anyone that wishes to
purchase the property is going to have to purchase it subject to the restrictions that come
with the landmark designation. He believes that he will be applying to a smaller market
pool of purchasers than if the designation was not assigned. Based upon his experience
he believes there will be a considerable expense in rehabilitating the barn to its original
condition. There are a few noticeable features associated with the barn right now that
leave it in a state that is what I would consider to be unoriginal. The hinged doors on the
front doors of the bam have been removed by the prior landowner and now you have the
sliding doors that you typically see on a pole bam. The west side of the bam has a
different wall than the rest of the bam does and must have been altered at some point in
time in the past. In order to restore this bam to an 1880's condition, considerable
expense will need to be made. It is also the Sieradzki's position that there are much
better examples of bams within the immediate area. They also contend that there are
other bams that are more appropriate displays of architecture for this time period;
however, I can't cite to you were those barns are located. As I mentioned the file came
into me late this afternoon and the Sieradzki had a proceeding that they needed to be at
this evening. I think I have effectively surmised their position and I don't know if I have
enough information in my file to answer your questions; but, I will field them and report
them to the Scieranskies as your concerns here this evening.
JOHN OXIAN: I am Chairman of the Landmarks Committee. We did go out and look
at the bam. When you make a landmark you do not ask the owner to come in and make
any changes to whatever comes in at the time it's a landmark. So if the landmark comes
in and the bam is in that condition it stays in that condition until the owner wants to make
changes. The bam is rated and besides that truthfully in our opinion the whole property
is rated; because, there is history that shows wood was taken off that property to build
bridges in Mishawaka. In my opinion, even though the house is covered with aluminum
siding; I would still include it because the house and the barn are too close together to
separate one from the other. You also have a milk house there which is also significant
as well as other items on the property. An individual lived there that was important
enough in the history of St. Joe County to have contributed to it. We have made a lot of
farms in the county as landmarks. If we were just going to go by one barn instead of
another person's bam then you wouldn't have almost seventy landmarks in the county.
Being that you're new at this I figured you should learn something from it too. The
reason I would like to table this is because now that you're here it might not be a bad idea
to have it tabled and then have the owners come and hear their point of view; since you
will be able to take back more information with you. We can listen to whatever ideas
they have on the property and where they propose to put in six new houses.
CLINT ZALAS: I have brought a copy of the site plan if you would like to see it. I
apologize for having such a vague file. I am not sure you will see me at the very next
proceeding or if their council Ed Hardig will be present. I am not in my normal arena, so
there is quite a bit of newness in front of me this evening; but, I hope that I can
adequately represent the Sieradzkis and then their past council Ed Hardig can come in
and take over where I have left off.
John Oxian stated that he would like to see a copy of the site plan that was brought in.
Lynn Patrick informed Mr. Zalas that nothing was going to be decided tonight and he
would be informed of any future proceedings.
John Oxian stated that, as Chairman of the Landmark Committee, he plans to call a
committee meeting to further discuss this matter.
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — (May 16, 2005)
(Due to a copy error, the last page of the May 16th, 2005 minutes was not copied
and put into the meeting binder).
MARY JANE CHASE: I will make a motion that we tabled the minutes of the May 16,
2005 meeting so that we can read the last page of the minutes.
DIANE WROBEL-ILLES: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously. John Oxian
abstains.
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
JOHN OXIAN: (See green copy of Treasurer's Report in HPC meeting binder).
John also asked Julie if Catherine had gone before the County Council regarding her
salary. Julie stated that Catherine did go before the County Council and it passed. John
asked what the total amount was. Julie said the total plus benefits was about $6, 700.00
dollars.
C. COMMITTEE REPORT
1. President's Report — (No report)
2. SouthHold Awards Committee Follow Up
JULIE SCHUTTE: Catherine was running the numbers and we compared this past
year's SouthHold Awards to the previous year's and we found that we spent probably just
about as much on this year's as last year's with a greater return on our investment. I also
have some correspondence to read which I will read later on in the agenda. We have all
heard favorable comments about the SouthHold Awards. Almost all of the bills are
completed except for the AV that has not come in so we're going to check up on that bill
and then we will have the final numbers.
Martha Choitz suggested that they form a SouthHold Awards Committee for next year
right away and that the preliminary work be done as soon as possible.
Lynn Patrick also made a suggestion that they retain the SouthHold Award Committee
from last year.
Catherine Hostetler — Chair
Martha Choitz
Lynn Patrick
13
Mary Jane Chase
Virginia O'Hair
MARY JANE CHASE: I will make a motion that we retain last year's committee
members for next year's SouthHold Awards Committee and that Julie make a tentative
arrangement with the Palais Royale for next year's SouthHold Awards Meeting.
JOHN OXIAN: Seconds the motion and it pass unanimously.
D. STAFF REPORTS
1. C of A Approvals; Correspondence
Julie Schutte informed commission members that Catherine had printed a list of the C of
A's that have been approved; however, she did not have a copy of it with her. She stated
that she would send or email commission members a copy of the list of C of A's that
have been approved.
Correspondence:
June 2" , 2005
Dear Catherine
I just want you to know that Norm and I enjoyed the annual awards breakfast on May
21". It was so nice to be with neighbors and other citizens who also appreciate Historic
Preservation. Keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
Linda Riley,
East Wayne Street Historic District
Correspondence
May 22"d, 2005
Dear Catherine
I would like to thank you and Julie for a very enjoyable breakfast event yesterday. It was
my first time in the restored ballroom. What a delight it is. The morning light animated
all that took place. I applaud you for the inclusive efforts that obviously were part of the
planning. It was gratifying to be with people from the city and county departments and
the many neighbors. The crafts people on hand were a nice touch. The speaker
challenges us to be creative in saving our past. However will you top this next year? All
the best.
Sincerely,
Philip Schatz
Julie Schutte verbally went through the Director's Report and Assistant Director's Report
with commission members.
A. Director's Report - (See cream copy of Director's Report in
meeting binder)
B. Assistant Director's Report — (See green copy of Assistant
Director's Report in meeting binder)
2. Legal — (No Report)
IV. OLD BUSINESS
513 River Avenue
JULIE SCHUTTE: There was an understanding at the May meeting that the
commission members would visit the house and then make some sort of motion for
guidance regarding the property. This is in regards to the fence that is located on the
property.
JOHN OXIAN: If you follow the C of A then we have to have the fence taken down. If
we leave the fence there then I think we are going to have to justify why we are leaving it
there. Otherwise we are going to be going against what we passed in the C of A. So by
the July meeting we should obtain an official report from the inspector with the help of
the staff to justify either leaving or removing the fence and the reasons why; because, we
may have to take formal action on this.
LYNN PATRICK: When this C of A was granted it was with the stipulation that when
they sold or moved they would restore the fence to its original location. It was moved
forward a foot or so and a different fence was put in. This was to enable a spot for their
dogs. Since that time the property has gone into foreclosure and I believe there was a
bankruptcy that was filed. The couple has moved out and their lease purchase probably
terminated. We in the neighborhood are very concerned that if we have someone new
buy this house and the first thing that they're greeted with is the recommendation that
they have got to move that fence then it's going to give a very negative impression of
both the neighborhood and HPC in general. I have spoken to other neighbors near by and
no one takes issue with this fence on my street. I look at this fence everyday and it is not
historic; but, I do not fmd it that obnoxious either. I really don't have a problem with it.
It is painted a nice color. I would also like a report on this. The next people that move
there could decide that they don't want a fence at all and if they wanted to take it down I
wouldn't have a problem with that either. I would be happy to look at a report on this
since nobody's pushing us either way right now and the house is still for sale. I think my
esteemed commissioner's suggestion that we have a staff report is a good one. Even after
we get the staff report on this, I am still going to move that we just let the fence stand.
We're going to table this until the next meeting when we will have a staff report. Any
commissioner who hasn't been by to see this remarkable fence I encourage them to do so.
Chapin Park LHD Standards and Guidelines
JULIE SCHUTTE: No action needs to be taken. I believe it was all resolved at the last
special commission meeting. Julie Schutte also gave Diane Wrobel-Illes a brief verbal
update on what has been happening. She said that essentially the commission approved
the existing definitions that are basically included in all of the guidelines and approved
those changes which the neighborhood recommended that pertain to the district.
Maintain and repair brick streets with appropriate materials - brick pavers not asphalt
patches or others. Also they clarified tree plantings and few other issues.
JOHN OXIAN: We made a motion to put into the Preservation Plan a letter that Martha
had received from Frank Gilbert.
LYNN PATRICK: We also accepted a new preface which was drafted based on their
revision of the original preface. It was agreed that our next move would be to produce a
final draft which would then be available at three different locations for people to look at
prior to printing.
V. NEW BUSINESS
Mini Fair August 27 on LaSalle Street
Lynn Patrick stated that she had talked to Bob Yapp earlier and advised him not to come
to the meeting because it was going to be a brief meeting and they were not going to have
enough commission members there for a quorum. He will make his presentation at the
next commission meeting instead. No further action was taken on this matter.
N
JULIE SCHUTTE: You have received emails regarding NNN's proposals for Portage
Avenue as well as some possible dates for an executive meeting. I know Martha wanted
to hear from Karen Ainsley. I have not received any dates from Karen yet. Does the
commission have any dates that they would like to set for an executive meeting out of
those four dates listed to set some sort of policy? Lynn Patrick asked that everyone call
or email Julie on what times are best for them so that she can set up a meeting. Julie said
that she would call Karen Ainsley and see when she would be available to meet with
them.
The county council office has also informed us that Diane Wrobel-Illes's term is
up for reappointment in July and Gerald Ujdak's term is up for reappointment this
coming fall. John asked if Julie had received any answer from the letters that were sent
to the two houses concerning maintenance. Julie stated that they have not received an
answer yet. John Oxian then said LaSalle Street should be a priority as a local historic
district over any of the other ones that might still be around. He also asked what is going
on with Sunnymeade? Julie said that she hasn't spoken to any members of the
Sunnymeade neighborhood group in several months now; so she doesn't know what the
interest is. John then stated that he still feels that the historic district committee should
definitely look at LaSalle Street; because, it is twenty years overdue. Too much is
happening on Chapin and Lincoln Way and enough of the houses have disappeared
where you're right now up to the backyard of the houses on LaSalle Street. John said that
he talked to Jeff Gibney, who was going with the suggestion that they go all the way to
LaPorte. John thought they should go all the way to someplace around Cushing. He
also thinks they should start on this because they have enough landmarks there, and they
want to strip two houses. Those things should happen with HPC having some type of
control over that even though it's being done by landmark.
Julie Schutte also said that Connie Tooley who owns those two houses that are
having the siding removed is very interested in having a local historic district on LaSalle.
John also said he has a customer whose house is not a landmark would also like to see a
district there. Lynn Patrick then asked Mary Jane Chase if she would like to come on the
Historic District Committee. Mary Jane Chase said yes she would. Julie also announced
that Historic Landmark Foundation is having their northern regional meeting on Friday,
July 15`h, 2005. It is a movable feast. It starts at the LaPorte Depot at 5:00 pm. moving
to dinner, silent auction, and meeting at the civic auditorium and ending with dessert at
the Old Republic from 9:00-10:00 pm. The cost is $35.00 per member and $45.00 per
non member.
VI. HEARING OF VISITORS
CAROL DAVIS: I have started getting signatures from people to try and save the
greenhouse over in River Park. We find that the greenhouse is on the same property as
the zoo; which is Potowatomi Park and all the park storage. We have started with the
greenhouse; but, we are going to do the park and the zoo at the same time. We need to
know how many signatures we are going to need and whatever else we need to do to get
this done.
JOHN OXIAN: For a public building or public property according to our Preservation
Plan the only thing we have to do is to inform the owner of the property that we are
considering it for landmark status and ask politely if they would like to support it or not.
We do not need the other government bodies' permission to go ahead with it. Getting a
bl
petition with the support of HPC would help. Attending the meeting on a second reading,
if we go to that stage, would also help. Convincing the park department to go along with
this would also help. Historic Preservation does not need permission from the Park
Department.
LYNN PATRICK: Have you spoken to the Park Department?
CAROL DAVIS: I have called; but, nobody has responded. The only people I have
gotten any response from are some of the employees of the Park Department and that is
as far as it goes. I have called and called and haven't gotten any of the hierarchy to
respond to the phone calls. They were supposed to have a meeting today and I got word
that they canceled it.
Lynn Patrick asked Carol Davis if she had tried sending them a registered letter.
Carol stated that she would either send them a registered letter or go see them in person.
John told Carol that she should send a letter to HPC asking them to take action on this
matter. Carol said she would send a letter to HPC. He also told her that she should
mention to either the director or assistant director of the Park Department that she has
approached HPC, she will be collecting a petition, and will be sending a letter that the
commission consider whatever buildings that she has in mind for landmark designation
so that they are so informed; and most likely she will get a reaction or HPC will get a
reaction.
Lynn Patrick asked Carol Davis what her motivation was for doing this. Carol stated that
she likes to see historic buildings and sites preserved for our future generations. As they
get older we can tell them about these sites and buildings and they can see pictures of
them; but, it is not the same as being able to go up there and touch them, see them, and be
in them. Our past is our future to them. If they don't know where they came from then
they don't know where they're headed.
JANE MOLNAR: I have worked at the city greenhouse for three summers back in the
late 1970's to early 1980's. I have studied Horticulture at Purdue; which I graduated in
1980 and at that time there were probably 8 or 9 employees at that greenhouse including
three of us who were seasonal during the summers. I worked with Joseph Gondich who
just retired recently after 43 years. He was there then. He retired May 15th. His son
David Gondich is still working there. He has been there 18 years. There is another
gentleman named Robert Monroe who has been there 11 years. Since I graduated in
1980 with a bachelors degree in Horticulture I moved down to southern Indiana and
greater Louisville area and I have been in the greenhouse landscape nursery business ever
since then. I just moved back here in December. I interviewed at the zoo for the
Horticulture Curator position back in March and I didn't get the position; but, two weeks
ago when they called from the greenhouse and offered me a position as green house
assistant there I jumped at the chance. I agree with Carol about the landmark status. Jane
then gave very detailed historical background information on the greenhouses and the
architectural firm who had them built.
Lynn Patrick asked Jane if she would draw up a two to four page summary of the
information she has on the greenhouse so the commission would have something better to
go on. Jane stated that the greenhouse office has the original building plans, pictures, and
a substantial amount of historical information about the greenhouses. She also said that
Robert Monroe has also offered to share any information he may have as well.
0
JANET MACIULSHI: I am from the River Park Neighborhood Association. I am also
here for the same issue that these ladies are here for. This is something that we had a
motion on the table for at our last board meeting. We unanimously voted to support
saving the greenhouse. We didn't talk about saving the whole zoo; so that's not part of
our motion. We are definitely concerned about the greenhouse. You asked earlier what
the motivation was for doing this. There was an article on when the new conservatory
was dedicated and Mr. Newman said, "If we want the children to appreciate beauty we
must have something of beauty to show them." I think that the greenhouse is an
awesome example of something that's very beautiful. I think there are a lot of people
who just go to the greenhouse and really don't want the zoo atmosphere. The
conservatory has a different kind of atmosphere and I think it should stay where it is right
now.
Lynn Patrick stated that later on down the road a letter from her neighborhood
organization would be nice too. Janet Maciulski said that her neighborhood organization
would definitely write a letter in support of the greenhouse.
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS, ADJOURN
John Oxian makes a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mary Jane Chase seconds the
motion and it passes unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00pm.
Historic Preservation Commission
Minutes: June 20, 2005
ATTEST: , Secretary
Location Budget as of 06-30-2005
Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 01-01-2005.
Fund 001 County General for 01-01-2005 thru 06-30-2005
Loc 037 Historic Preservation
Account
Object Description
11075 Deputy Director
000 General GovT.
11309 Historic Preservation Admin.
000 General GovT.
14800 Fica Contribution
000 General GovT.
14810 P.E.R.F.
000 General GovT.
10000 Totals ............»» ..............................
21030 Office Supplies
000 General GovT.
22010 Gas Oil & Lubricants
000 General GovT.
22120 Garage & Motor Supplies
000 General GovT.
20000 Totals ..............»...,..........................
31070 Other Contractual Services
000 General GovT.
32020 Travel
000 General GovT.
32050 Instruction & Training
000 General GovT.
32053 Public Relations
000 General GovT.
32200 Telephone
000 General GovT.
Appropriation
30,000.00
36.050.00
459.00
255.00
66,764.00
5,512.09
1,000.00
700.00
7,212.09
52,360.00
1,000.00
2,000.00
3,070.00
1,160.00
Encumbrance
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
314.00
0.00
0.00
314.00
8,010.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Expenditure
12,000.04
18,025.02
0.00
0.00
30,025.06
1,517.83
101.83
0.00
1,619.66
20,140.74
0.00
0.00
2,416.12
0.00
Unencumbered
Balance/Percent
17,999.96
60.00
18,024.98
50.00
459.00
100.00
255.00
100.00
36,738.94
55.03
3.680.26
66.77
898.17
89.82
700.00
100.00
5,278.43
73.19
24,209.26
46.24
1,000.00
100.00
2,000.00
100.00
653.88
21.30
1,160.00
100.00
Saint Joseph County
Unexpended
Balance/Percent
17,999.96
60.00
18,024.98
50.00
459.00
100.00
255.00
100.00
36,738.94
55.03
3,994.26
72.46
898.17
89.82
700.00
100.00
5,592.43
77.54
32,219.26
61.53
1,000.00
100.00
2,000.00
100.00
653.88
21.30
1,160.00
100.00
User ID ksoprniq 07/05/2nnr-.1 X51 AM n e 79
Location Budget as of 06-30-2005
Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 01-01-2005
Fund 001 County General for 01-01-2005 thru 06-30-2005
Loc 037 Historic Preservation
Account
Object Description
32350 Postage
000
General GovT.
33010
Publication Of Legal Notices
000
General Gov -r.
33100
Printing
000
General GovT.
37100
Auto Lease
000
General Gov T.
39010
Dues 8 Subscription
000
General GovT.
39750
Data Processing
000
General GovT.
30000
Totals ..............................................
44250
Office Machines
000
General GovT.
40000
Totals ..............................................
Location Totals .................................................
Investment Accounts
Transfer Accounts
Saint Joseph County
0.00
62,161.68
User ID ksobecki 07/05/2005 9:51 AM Page 80
Unencumbered
Unexpended
Appropriation
Encumbrance
Expenditure
Balance/Percent
Balance/Percent
2,160.00
0.00
1,206.88
953.12
953.12
44.13
44.13
500.00
0.00
100.00
400.00
400.00
80.00
80.00
13,774.00
6,700.00
6,272.27
801.73
7,501.73
5.82
54.46
500.00
0.00
0.00
500.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
1,250.00
0.00
85.95
1,164.05
1,164.05
93.12
93.12
3,570.00
0.00
0.00
3,570.00
3,570.00
100.00
100.00
81,344.00
14,710.00
30,221.96
36.412.04
51.122.04
44.76
62.85
800.00
0.00
295.00
505.00
505.00
63.13
63.13
800.00
0.00
295.00
505.00
505.00
63.13
63.13
156,120.09
15,024.00
62,161.68
78,934.41
93,958.41
50.56
60.18
0.00
0.00
62,161.68
User ID ksobecki 07/05/2005 9:51 AM Page 80
DIRECT'OR'S REPORT
JULY, 2005
June 29 Start Up Grant meetings for the Survey work for South Bend and St. Joseph
County in Indianapolis with Shannon Hill, Steven Kennedy, Melanie, and
Frank Hurdis.
June 30 Arranged for paperwork from City for first installment of $12,500.00, part
of this funded Julie's salary increase which went into effect 6/30. Check was
received and receipted by Audit on July 14.
July 7 Submitted Jerry Ujdak's and Diane Wroble-Mes's requests for
reappointment to the County Council's Office. They were approved on
,July 12. Terms will run until July 31, 2008
July 8 Coordinated an interview with WVPE and the city surveyors which took
place on July 12. Met with Jan Maciulski from River Park concerning the
petition for landmarking the zoo, park and greenhouse/conservatory.
Suggested that National Register would be suitable since City could access
grant funds.
July 13 Quarterly meeting with Memorial Hospital and NNN: Attended by Phil
Newbold, Ted Foti, Rebekah Go, Wayne Doolittle and William and
Catherine Hostetler.
Memorial Drive and Bartlett closing project too expensive for City and
Memorial to implement. The free standing Cancer Center will also not be
built at this time. Hospital now plans to build a power plant/receiving dock
in front of the Centcurnial Building which will be a three year project
beginning in 2006. Bartlett Street between Main and Lafayette may be
closed after this. Once the power plant is completed 12 new Operating
Rooms are expected be constructed near the current entrance. Wayne
brought up the noise issue that neighbors believe is emanating From
Memorial. They are circulating a petition. Ted said that their Acoustical
Engineers said it wasn't from the Hospital but agreed to go out with Wayne
to determine the source of the noise.
,July 14 Meeting with Paul Hayden, Todd Zeiger, Julie Schutte with David Fecteu,
Marco Mariani, Pan Meyer, Jose Arevalo and Lt. Dave Woods concerning
redevelopment of Western Ave. area where Relics is located and what
funding was available.
STAFF APPROVED CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
June 2005 — mid July 2005
60I Lafayette Blvd
In-kind roof replacement
I067 Riverside Drive
Storm door with safety feature — to match prairie style of home
85I Park Avenue
In-kind replacement of deteriorated chimney
109 Riverside Drive
Repair/Replace 2 sections of stucco soffit
937 Riverside Drive
In-kind roof replacement
345 S. Sunnyside
Removal of dead ash tree and borer infested white birch
6I2 Portage
Install wooden wheel chair ramp to back porch, rear of house
600 block Edgewater
Remove dead cottonwood from riverbank; and trim dead wood
from other cottonwoods on bank, limbs over the street
2I5 E South Street
In-kind roof replacement
I007 Hudson Avenue
In-kind flat roof replacement; repair of parapet wall of side porch
I043 Riverside Drive
In-kind roof replacement
934 Riverside Drive
In-kind roof replacement
222 East Bartlett
In-kind roof replacement
620 W. LaSalle
Permit extension for fence, arbor, porch repairs
62I Lincolnway East
In-kind roof replacement
STAFF REPORT CONCERNING
5I3 RIVER AVENUE
EDGEWATER PLACE HISTORIC DISTRICT
At the June 2005 Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to review the fence located
parallel with the front porch at S 1 River. In a previous CoA that may not have been delivered to
the applicants by the previous director, the Commission approved the replacement and move of the
fence with the condition that the fence be returned to its original location before or upon the sale
of the property.
The property is now in foreclosure, the owners are in the middle of divorce and bankruptcy
proceedings, and few if any of the residents on River Avenue feel offended by this fence.
The fence is a 4' tall privacy fence; the vertical slates mimic the vertical porch railings. The fence is
the same height as the porch railing, and does not extend beyond the front porch of the home.
The owners removed the lawn behind the fence and installed pea gravel for their large dogs.
Since approval of this fence, the Commission approved a fence in the West North Shore LHD
that does extend beyond the front wall of the house and has obscured their neighbor's sight lines to
the river. The Commission did not require removal of this fence upon the sale of the property.
There are several issues to sort through:
I. Are the past owners responsible for the realignment of the fence? I would answer yes to
this question, but it is complicated by the fact that we are not sure they were given proper
notice of the condition. Furthermore, the past owners are in bankruptcy proceedings and
have been foreclosed upon.
2. Should the requirement of the CoA pass to the next owner? I would say that this would
be unfair and unwelcoming as a Commission member stated.
2. What if the Commission does require the past owners to realign the fence, and they do
not comply? The only recourse would be to sue the past owner. Is this a situation that
warrants a drawn out lawsuit? In my opinion, it does not. The fence is about I0 — I5 feet
across and does not obscure much of the house, only a portion of the side of the house.
Its a minor feature that has not damaged the house. The pea gravel will probably make
the house more difficult to sell and is an expense if the next owners want to remove it
professionally and time consuming if they do it themselves. Its a situation that does not
warrant a lawsuit, but perhaps some patience.
Conclusion
It would be my hope that the next owners would not like the fence -pea gravel configuration and
would want to remove the pea gravel (at least) and the fence on their own volition. A smart buyer
might go for a lower price of the house to supplement the cost of removing the pea gravel and
fence and planting new grass. Another option would be to contact the real estate agent for the
bank and suggest that the house might sell quicker and at a higher asking price without the pea
gravel and the fence.
513 RIVER AVENUE
THE FENCE
DMCTOR'S REPORT
JULY, 2005
June 29 Start Up Grant meetings for the Survey work for South Bend and St. Joseph
County in Indianapolis with Shannon Hill, Steven Kennedy, Melanie, and
Frank Hurdis.
June 30 Arranged for paperwork from City for Fust installment of $12,500.00, part
of this funded Julie's salary increase which went into effect 6/30. Check was
received and receipted by Audit on July 14.
July 7 Submitted Jerry Ujdak's and Diane Wroble-Illes's requests for
reappointment to the County Council's Office. They were approved on
July 12. Terms will run until July 31, 2008
July 8 Coordinated an interview with WVPE and the city surveyors which took
place on July 12. Met with Jan Maciulski from River Park concerning the
petition for landmarking the zoo, park and greenhouse/conservatory.
Suggested that National Register would be suitable since City could access
grant funds.
July 13 Quarterly meeting with Memorial Hospital and NNN: Attended by Phil
Newbold, Ted Foti, Rebekah Go, Wayne Doolittle and William and
Catherine Hostetler.
Memorial Drive and Bartlett closing project too expensive for City and
Memorial to implement. The free standing Cancer Center will also not be
built at this time. Hospital now plans to build a power plant receiving dock
in front of the Centennial Building which will be a three year project
beginning in 2006. Bartlett Street between Main and Lafayette may be
closed after this. Once the power plant is completed 12 new Operating
Rooms are expected be constructed near the current entrance. Wayne
brought up the noise issue that neighbors believe is emanating from
Memorial. They are circulating a petition. Ted said that their Acoustical
Engineers said it wasn't from the Hospital but agreed to go out with Wayne
to determine the source of die noise.
July 14 Meeting with Paul Hayden, Todd Zeiger, Julie Schutte with David Fecteu,
Marco Mariani, Pam Meyer, Jose Arevalo and Lt. Dave Woods concerning
redevelopment of Western Ave. area where Relics is located and what
funding was available.
Assistant Director's Report
End of June - mid July 2005
June 22: Attended the Western Avenue Segment A meeting at Relic's
Discussed possibilities for that part of the Western Avenue
corridor, the rehabilitation of historic storefronts, and possible
re -use of the buildings
Paul Hayden reported on the June 1 Steering Committee meeting
June 27- July 1: Worked mainly on the Chapin Park Guidelines: blending
the revisions into the format of the printed version.
had to transfer an Adobe Acrobat file into a text file to be
able to edit the guidelines in Microsoft Word. Unfortunately,
this process would not allow me to transfer images, maps,
and diagrams; only text. Often, the text became garbled, and
had much to clean up and reformat.
Coordinated the venues and digital availability of the
guidelines for public comment with the Chapin Park
Standards Committee Chair and the Saint Joseph County web
master.
July 5: Delivered comment forms and guideline packets to venues
and checked on-line availability of documents.
July 7: Executive Committee meeting with Karen Ainsley, NNN.
July 12: Reviewed 322 Marion Street with Lynn and Catherine
July 14: Western Avenue meeting (see Catherine's report)
End of Chapin Park comment period, retrieved comment
envelops.
In the meantime: survey is plowing forward.
CHAPIN PARK LUD GUIDEBOOK
COMMENT!
TUMMARY:
UPC WfIVITE 7
"PC ORRICE 0
NNN ORRICE t
TIC LIBRARY 0
TTAIT TUMMARY:
We have attached all of the nine the comments for the commissioners'
reference. The overwhelming majority came over the website and ranged
from a few short paragraphs to 14 pages; most were favorably disposed to
the guidebook and thanked all that worked on it.
Although a number of points were raised two that staff would recommend
that the commission attach a priority status to are Mr. McKenny's
observation concerning homes on Chapin Place and the other
recommending the addition of cement board and engineered wood
products to the list of replacement siding options.
Comment Form
Chapin Park Local Historic District
Guidebook Review
July 6 —July 13
Please be considerate of others who would like to read this document after you and write (or type)
Your comments and corrections in the space below and not on the actual document. If you have
completed this form at one of the three physical locations, place it in the provided envelop. Staff
will retrieve the comment forms on July 14`s. If you have printed this form at another location,
please submit it to the Historic Preservation Commission, 125 S. Lafayette Blvd, South Bend,
Indiana 46601 or drop off the form at any of the three locations: HPC offices, Near Northwest
Neighborhood office, or the Local Historic room at the Public Library. Comments may also be
submitted by e-mail to: SBSJCHPC@co.st-joseph.in.us by July 14t°. The Historic Preservation
Commission will review comments at its July 18' monthly meeting (7:30 PM, 4" Floor, Council
Chambers, County -City Building).
o -F
�-e c o rY► s rl zh�-el/
Sri 1 May b&
�
reel aCiviq or/9 1-1-7 -a/
dl Ii7�Cn,? 6ri/ihyl
c'.. rn_e_� lwa rd
se-,
GP -f f D%15 .
Historic Preservation Commission of Sputh Bend & Saint Joseph County
125 S. Lafayette Blvd South Bend, Indiana 46601
Email: SB&JCHPC@co.st-joseph.in.us
Web: www.stjosephcountyindiana.con/sjchp/index.html
Comment Form
Chapin Park Local Historic District
Guidebook Review
July 6 —July 13
Please be considerate of others who would like to read this document after you and write (or type)
Your comments and corrections in the space below and not on the actual document. If you have
completed this form at one of the three physical locations, place it in the provided envelop. Staff
will retrieve the comment forms on July le. If you have printed this form at another location,
please submit it to the Historic Preservation Commission, 125 S. Lafayette Blvd, South Bend,
Indiana 46601 or drop off the form at any of the three locations: HPC offices, Near Northwest
Neighborhood office, or the Local Historic room at the Public Library. Comments may also be
submitted by e-mail to: SBSJCHPC@co.st-joseph.in.us by July 14'. The Historic Preservation
Commission will review comments at its July 18' monthly meeting (7:30 PM, 4" Floor, Council
Chambers, County -City Building).
1 e. 9uidelinef Seem goad tome. 6+ 1 Th;nk- The rhos+ in.Porf4n+ aar+
PE lAe
Dro6zS5 IS 1 ,A
The.
w4y dec;s;ens
ire
Arrived
a+.
41
1
see I'f, 1*1"
ej'A, 13
'M Preserve
rht
hrstpn'c di'sin'c+
67
vvork;n)
WiTh
ffoele
A^a nor
45 eti00 nem) And
_T
1"ee
-pnes *k:;L will be-.
It -C ;f1riY In Wh�ch
iPProv41 Wilk be
9;N6�
�je-
F&VeIe's retVe t5.
Th& rec,5sP.4Weness
and good-�a;Yh
eflor.}3
aF
hor..eown ees iv Preserve.
11ti ctiarac+er
aF Their bvu.sec ar.c h 51,bvrl+ooJ-: :56.1p. k in Par}gnt.
KAreh 6y"nAele
831 ?Ark Menw
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & Saint Joseph County
125 S. Lafayette Blvd South Bend, Indiana 46601
Email: SBSJCHPC@co.st-joseph.in.us
Web: www.stiosephcountyindiana.com/sjchp/index.html
!'Julie Schutte - RE: LHD Guidelines -- — Page 1 �
From: "Aaron Summers Effler" <asummerseftler@hotmail.com>
To: <gmckenny@ND.EDU>
Date: 7/13/05 1:50PM
Subject: RE: LHD Guidelines
This is a point that I raised with Tim on a few occasions during the
guidelines review, as we both share your concerns (and your situation). As
I understand it there was no provision for making an exception in the
guidelines for a specific street or set of houses, and they were unable to
formulate language that excluded the side of a house that doesn't face the
'primary' street from the requirements of the guidelines. This would cause
a great deal of confusion with corner properties, among other things.
The key thing to remember is that these are guidelines and not rules or
laws. The HPC looks at each case individually when it comes before them,
and they would take into consideration the fact that Chapin Street is for
all intents and purposes an alley. I can't imagine that they would treat
work proposed for the rear of your home the same way that they would treat a
similar renovation proposed for the front of your home, where it faces Park
Avenue, even though they both technically face a street (please, somebody
correct me if my understanding is incorrect). The granting of C of A's is a
process that allows for the HPC's interpretation, and they are not bound by
the guidelines in making their decision. This is exactly why the HPC
evaluates each case individually, which is one of the things that sets this
process apart from the enforcement of other city codes and regulations.
It might be worth raising this concern with somebody from the HPC directly,
and I have copied this email to the HPC & Chapin Park LHD Standards
Committee email addresses designated for this review. Thanks for officially
bringing this to the attention of the reviewers, and I hope my explaination
has been helpful.
Aaron Summers Effler
613 Park Avenue
----Original Message Follows ----
From: Gerald McKenny <gmckenny@ND.EDU>
Reply -To: Gerald McKenny <gmckenny@ND.EDU>
To: CHAPIN-PARK@listserv.nd.edu
Subject: LHD Guidelines
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:03:58 -0500
Thank you to all of you who have worked hard on these guidelines and also
to those who have carefully read and commented on them. In addition to the
points that have been raised I have only one comment. I was under the
impression that when the guidelines refer to what is visible from the
street this will not include Chapin Place, officially a street but better
known as the alley that runs west of Park Ave. from Navarre to Lamonte. I
see nothing in the current guidelines that exempts Chapin Place from
consideration as a street in these contexts. Failure to do so places a
heavy burden on those houses back onto Chapin Place. It would in effect
prohibit owners of these houses from doing several things that are
permitted for every other house in the district. Thanks, Gerald McKenny,
607 Park
Page 1 of 1
Catherine Hostetler - Standards Guidebook for Chapin Park
From: 'kschuth@juno.com' <kschuth@juno.com>
To: <sbsjchpc@co.st-joseph.in.us>, <chapinpark@hotmail.com>
Date: 7/7/05 5:31 PM
Subject: Standards Guidebook for Chapin Park
Dear Standards folk,
I just read through the draft of the guidebook, and find that it seems fairly straight forward, and reasonable
My only concern or comment is regarding the *Minimum Maintenance Standards' section. While enforcement is a neccessity, for
this neighborhood, as well as all neighborhoods in South Bend, it seems that the language might allow for some broad based
definitions regarding *deterioration* as agreed upon by the neighborhood committee.
I certainly don't expect that any commitee would abuse the right to try and enforce a household within the neighborhood into minor
repairs (or repairs that would be nice, but are not a neccessity), but I believe that the language used allows for that possibility.
Strict can steamroll into unreasonable
Best regards, and fine work
Kathy Schuth
911 Leland Ave.
Page 1 of 1
Catherine Hostetler - Historic district guidelines
From: Marya Lieberman <mlieberm@nd.edu>
To: <chapinpark@hotmail.com>, <SBSJCHPC@co.st•joseph.in.us>
Date: 7/6/05 5:13 PM
Subject: Historic district guidelines
The guidelines require (not recommend) that all windows be repaired
rather than replaced until they are literally beyond repair.
New windows can greatly improve energy efficiency (eg double paned
windows) and are often much more convenient for the homeowner to
clean or to put up and take down screens and storm windows.
Please change the guideline that requires repair of windows to one
saying 'repair or replacement of windows shall not alter the
appearance of the house as seen from the street' The HPC could
assess whether replacement windows would alter the appearance of the
home by requesting pictures of the current windows and the
replacement windows.
I would appreciate a response to let me know this comment was received.
Regards,
Marya Lieberman
857 Forest
3875698
Standards Review
From: Tam Bullock
To: CHAPIN-PARHOLISTSEWND.EDU
Subject: Standards Review
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 200510:56:50 -0500
Hello All,
Page 1 of I
Tuts meow has been samed for knom vinusm �
I have read thru a printed copy of the Chapin Park Local Historic
District Guidebook, which I downloaded as a PDF file.
I wish to commend and thank all who worked on this revision. It is a
tremendous improvement over the prior presentation. This version is
very well organized, clearly presented, with precise delineation of
required, recommended, prohibited, and not recommended actions for
each category discussed. It contains clear definitions for such words
as shall and should, thereby removing the ambiguity contained in the
prior release.
I have no hesitation in strongly endorsing this version re its substance.
My only recommendation is that certain grammatical errors and
omissions be corrected and a few minor "pretty print" issues be
adjusted to enhance this version's professional appearance.
I have marked my review copy with what I have found and will be glad
to turn that over to the LHD Standards Committee for its review and
consideration. If that is desired, please contact me with who should
receive my marked copy.
Thank you.
Tom Bullock
843 Forest Ave
233-7297
http://rO4.webmaii.aol.com/display-message.aspx 7/
- _- -
Julie Schutte - CP: Comments to LHD Proposed Standards - _ Page 1
From: "Dan Slattery" <slatterydan@hotmail.com>
To: <CHAP]N-PARK@ listserv.nd.edu>, <SBSJCHPC@co.st-joseph.in.us>,
<chapinpark@ hotmail.com>
Date: 7/13/05 10:54AM
Subject: CP: Comments to LHD Proposed Standards
July 13, 2005
The attached are my comments regarding the current version of the LHD
Guidelines and Standards before the Chapin Park Nieghborhood. In addition,
I would like to fully support and endorse the comments posted by Charles
Rosenberg, and to thank him for taking time to make so thorough a review of
the document.
I want to commend Tim Klusczinski and the rest of the Standards Committee
for their hard work over the last several months. Reviewing and revising
the proposed document is a daunting and for the most part thankless task.
As shown by the public comments, the task has not yet been completed. We
would not have made even the progress we have seen so far without Tim's
endless optimism, good spirits, and tireless work.
Dan Slattery
Daniel J. Slattery
754 Leland Ave.
South Bend, IN 46616
slatterydan@hotmail.com
www.broadwaytownsquare.com/slattery/
;Julie Schutte - RE: LHD Guidelines-
---,_
CC: <SBSJCHPC@co.st joseph.in.us>, <chapinpark@hotmall.com>
To: The Chapin Park 2005 Local Historic District Standards Committee,
The Chapin Park Neighborhood Association Board
The South Bend / St. Joseph County Historic Preservation Commission
From: Daniel J. Slattery, 754 Leland Avenue, (574) 234-3310
Date: July 13, 2005
RE: Chapin Park LHD Guidelines and Standards, July 2005 version.
As a property Owner in the Chapin Park LHD, I offer the following comments,
observations and suggestions regarding the current draft of the proposed Guidelines and
Standards. The document is much improved from the originally distributed guidebook.
However, it is still in need of correction and clarification. It is also disappointing in that
it fails to live up to the representations made about it to the neighborhood prior to
adoption of the LHD by the Common Council.
Page 11: "Under the requirements of City of South Bend Zoning Ordinance No. 5565-
73, as amended, a Certificate of Appropriateness (C of A) would be required for any
activity in the district which requires a building permit or which alters the appearance
of a building or site, including houses, garages, and other outbuildings, as seen from
the streets around the property."
This language is over broad in two ways. As written, it is not limited to exterior
changes to a home, but would include any renovations, interior or exterior, which require
a building permit, whether or not it had an impact on the exterior appearance of the
building. Using the word "or" instead of "and" also breaks one of the most direct
representations made to the neighborhood in the debate, that the LHD would ONLY
effect those things significant enough to require a building permit.
I would also suggest the addition of the word "permanently" in the phrase "which
[permanently] alters the appearance of a building...", as matters that have no lasting
impact on the historical integrity of the structure or site should be outside the scope of the
HPC's oversight.
"Changes made before Local Historic District Status was adopted, as well as paint
color, flowers and landscape vegetation, do not require a C of A. Planting or removal
of trees in the yard or tree lawn does require a C of A."
The first sentence as written sounds akin to the statement "If you have died prior
to receiving this notice, please do not respond." How can changes made BEFORE the
LHD was created ever need a C of A? Why state the utterly obvious? It would make
more sense written in the positive form of "Changes made [after] Local Historic Status
was adopted, [except] paint color, flowers and landscape vegetation require a C of A."
The second sentence of the paragraph was specifically clarified by the Standards
Committee to refer to trees located in front yards and tree lawns, in keeping with the
letter from HPC Director Catherine Hostetler to the neighborhood dated September 22,
2004, the letter from the president of the Chapin Park Neighborhood Association to the
neighborhood dated February 13, 2005, and the opinion of the Standards Committee that
only trees in front yards and tree lawns should be governed. The word "front' should be
restored.
Page 12: "The Residents of Chapin Park,..."
This phrase should be omitted, unless the document is actually endorsed by the
residents of Chapin Park. Since there is no mechanism in place to obtain or receive such
an endorsement from the residents as a whole, the phrase does not belong in the
document.
Page 13: "Any rehabilitation would not require the removal of all non -original
materials but would encourage the removal of all such materials, which are
incompatible with the defined elements ofpreservation for the district."
The comma after "materials" is out of place, and should instead follow the first
use of the word "materials." The word "all' is also inappropriate in both places it occurs,
since by virtue of the grand -fathering in of existing materials, the restrictions cannot
require the removal of ANY non -original materials. Using the word "all' implies that
rehabilitation DOES require the removal of SOME non -original materials. This word
was properly deleted by the Standards Committee.
Page 14: "Should" is defined as an expression of obligation, something that ought to
be done but that is open to compromise.
Redefine the word "should" to remove language that it connotes "obligation" or remove
it from all paragraphs headed "Recommended", and replace with the phrase "is encouraged to" or
"it is recommended that", modified to make the phrase appropriate in sentence context.
If "should" expresses an obligation, then it has the same practical meaning as the word
"shall," and provisions that state something "should" be done then become a requirement. True
"Recommendations" are not something a homeowner should feel compelled to compromise on;
either they are required to do something or they are free not to do so if they choose, ignoring the
"recommendation" of the HPC.
Page 15: Replace "should" in paragraphs (e2) and (e4) with "it is recommended" (unless the
word "should has been appropriately redefined to omit the element of obligation). Do the same
throughout the document.
It should be noted that the addition of the chart to this page adds absolutely nothing
to the meaning of the paragraphs, nor is it of any help in resolving the basic
question of whether recommendations are in truth recommendations or merely a
second tier of requirements.
Page 16: The title should read:
Chapin Park
Local Historic District
Guidelines and Standards
This was the compromise arrived at in lieu of calling this document "Restrictions" or
"Regulations", either of which, in my opinion would be more accurate.
"New or different fencing requires a C of and shall reflect the style and character of the
individual property and the surrounding environment and properties.
"Recommended
"The current or historic character of lawns should be preserved Front yard areas, trees and
lawns should remain open. New or replacement trees should be compatible in variety with
those presently growing. Vacant lots should be kept landscaped appropriately while vacant, and
may be used for recreational or residential development."
The provisions on fencing on individual properties and front yards, trees and tree lawns
belong in section I. B., as this section (I. A.) refers only to common areas.
Page 17: "Required Fencing, walkways, outbuildings, private yard lights, signs (Le. house
numbers) and benches (visible from the street) as well as trees located in a yard or tree lawn
which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained.
"A tree located in such areas shall only be removed if the removal is required due to
storm damage, disease, threatened damage to a structure, or for such other reason
acceptable to the Historic Preservation Commission. Storm damaged or diseased trees
should then be replaced with an approved species at the same or approximate location
wherever possible. "
Re-insert "front" to phrase "...trees located in a [front] yard or tree lawn....", for
the reason stated in my comments regarding page 11.
The sentence beginning "Storm damaged...." Creates a new requirement not
present in the originally distributed draft guidebook.
"Recommended
New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property
found in photographs, drawings and newspapers. New site work should also be appropriate to
existing surrounding site elements in scale, type and appearance. Trees in close proximity to a
building may cause structural damage. Owners are encouraged to remove these trees and
replace (or replant) them at a more appropriate location as soon as planting season permits
and upon approval of a C ofA."
"Upon approval of a C of A." is incorrect. A C of A. is a document issued by the
HPC, and cannot itself grant any approval, nor is it something that is submitted for
approval. This should read "upon the granting of a C of A." or "upon approval of the
HPC", or at the very least "upon approval of an application for a C of A."
"Prohibited
No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing trees, fencing, walkways,
outbuildings or other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and
development. "
This clause was deleted by the Standards Committee as hopelessly vague. It does not
specify who does the evaluating, nor what it means to "evaluate their importance to the property's
history and development." If this provision is included, these ambiguities should be addressed.
"The installation of unsightly large devices, such as television satellite dishes, skylights, or
solar panels, shall not be permitted in areas where they detract from the architecture of a
building, are intrusive to the public view of the building or are highly visibly from a public
street, or ruled inappropriate after Commission review. "
The clause "...or ruled inappropriate after Commission review" is not itself appropriate,
in that it states no further grounds upon which the installation can be deemed "inappropriate"
beyond those already enumerated. This should read "...unless approved by the HPC." As
stated, it seems to say that even if nothing about the installation is specifically prohibited, the
HPC can still arbitrarily decide it is "inappropriate" for unstated reasons or for no reason. This is
so vague as to be unenforceable.
Page 18: "Recommended Whenever possible, the original building materials should be
restored When maintaining or replacing original siding is not feasible, aluminum or
vinyl siding may be used When used over wood surfaces, this siding should be the
same size and style as the original wood Every effort should be made to retain the
original trim around windows, doors, cornices, gables, eaves, and other architectural
features. "
The phrases "is not feasible" and "Every effort" are both extremely vague.
Page 20:
Note: Language about saving removed items for future owners was intentionally inserted
by the Standards Committee, as this was explicitly explained by the HPC Inspector as
what was meant by the term "retained". Although we question the accuracy of his
interpretation, we felt that if this were indeed the intent of the language, then it should be
spelled out. This language was removed by the HPC, and therefore the entire section
should be revised to account for the inconsistency in which the word "retained" is being
used and/or interpreted.
Page 23: "Recommended Alternative or composite siding may be used when it is the only
feasible alternative. This siding should be compatible with the original size and style and with
the materials of other buildings in the district. "
The phrase "only feasible alternative" is impossibly vague, and it does not specify in
whose opinion the question of feasibility lies. This phrase should never be used in such a
document.
Page 25: "E. There shall be a liaison committee consisting of five (S) property owners
in the district. The committee's responsibility will be to work with the residents of the
district and the Historic Preservation Commission (See Appendix D). "
Appendix D still refers to "A group of three people ...."
Appendix B:
The meaning of this appendix in the context of regulation is unclear. Who makes
and /or approves such a list of allowable species, who requires such a permit, and how
does the neighborhood go about creating and enforcing such requirements. It is
presumed that since such a list is not included in the body of the restrictions, one is not at
present in force.
It should be noted that the first sentence of paragraph 1 and also paragraph 4 are not in
fact sentences.
If these are "recommendations" what impact do they have?
Additional Comments:
The following comments are mine alone, based on my own perceptions. They might
or might not be shared by other members of the Standards Committee, but I do not
speak for anyone but myself.
The process of creating the Proposed Guidelines and Standards was unnecessarily
antagonistic. From the outset, the Chapin Park LHD Standards Committee sought to
identify the degree of flexibility we were allowed in revising what was viewed by all as a
seriously flawed document. We were given only vague opinions at our first meeting that
we `don't need to touch this section" or that section, when in fact the sections referred to
contained blatant flaws as well as contradictions and inconsistencies with verbal and
written representations made to the neighborhood. Those of us who aggressively
undertook to address these flaws and inconsistencies were often met with impatience,
scorn, arrogance, paternalism and at times outright hostility.
It felt at times that we were fighting an entrenched bureaucracy that resisted change even
when change was for the better and the alternative was to continue living with error.
Despite this resistance and hostility, and despite an arbitrary deadline imposed upon us,
the Standards Committee arrived at a consensus behind a greatly improved document that
we felt could serve as a model for correcting and revising the standards of the other
LHDs in the county. This required compromise and patience, as the members of the
committee represented a true cross section of the strongly held divergence of opinion
present in the neighborhood.
When the HPC staff was presented with the result of our weeks of work, we were met
with arguments that printing of the final document was already contracted out, and that
we were not allowed to make such sweeping changes. The Director of the HPC gave
assurances to Common Council members who had heard our neighbors concerns about
the uncertainty surrounding the so called "guidelines" that the original mailing was just a
draft and that the final guidelines would be those selected and agreed upon by the
neighborhood. When reminded of these assurances, the Director's response was "I was
mistaken".
To their credit, the President of HPC and the chairman of the Standards Committee were
able to work out an agreed upon (between the two of them) draft incorporating many of
the improvements in language and structure drafted by the Committee. There are certain
fundamental substantive changes made by the Standards Committee to the Proposed
Draft that were rejected by the HPC. Chief among these were:
1. Defining the impact of the LHD to make it clear it did not apply to changes
which were not significant enough to require a building permit;
2. Defining the impact of the LHD restrictions to include only those changes
and/or improvements visible from the street and trees in front yards, parks and
tree lawns;
3. Making it clear that those items labeled "Recommended" and "Not
Recommended" were truly recommendations, rather than a second tier of
requirements and prohibitions, less strictly enforced.
The first two of the above items were both efforts to make the document truly say what
those in the district were specifically told it said. In its original draft, and now in its
current draft, it does not. The representations made in promoting the passage of the
Ordinance creating the LHD are now shown to have been gross misrepresentations that,
despite being challenged at the time, have never been acknowledged or corrected.
Early in the last meeting between the HPC Committee as a Whole and the Standards
Committee, we were told that now was not the time to make substantive changes in the
guidelines, as this would create an inconsistency with those in other districts. We were
told that it would be more appropriate to address these changes during our two year
review, when the changes could be made to all districts together. Later in that same
meeting, when pressed to explain this process further, the HPC staff admitted that all of
the districts' documents would NOT be up for amendment in two years, and that review
of them is intentionally staggered.
This means that contrary to the efforts by the HPC staff to make living with the status
quo for two years sound reasonable, there really WAS no reason for us to wait to make
substantive changes: we would always be in the position of being the first to make the
change. I cite this as only one example to show how intentionally misleading the process
has been at times, and to illustrate the resistance faced by the Standards Committee that
has had such a negative impact on the level of trust between some of its members and the
HPC.
I submit these comments and concerns in good faith, as a property owner in the district.
Daniel J. Slattery
754 Leland Ave.
South Bend, IN 46616
(574)234-3310
COMMENTS REGARDING
THE CHAPIN PARK LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDEBOOK
Carol Weiss Rosenberg
410 Manitou Place
South Bend, IN 46616
574-232-6616
7/12/05
Note: Some of these comments are editorial, dealing with word choice, punctuation, and
grammar. Some have to do with philosophy or consistency.
Type style varies in the copy I printed out from the Internet. The committee might check
to be sure that type styles, bold, italics, etc., are consistent throughout.
My apologies in advance for typos below. Although I took time to peruse the document
word by word, I've been out of town, and since the deadline for comments is tomorrow,
I'm typing in haste.
The District and Its Properties — HISTORY
Paragraph 1 — Was it the "district's" purpose to do something, or the founders' purpose?
Par. 2 — "Residences are sited along CURVING brick streets..." Not necessarily— cf.
Manitou Pl., Forest, etc. SOME streets are curving.
Par. 2 — Write our "20`h Century" (Twentieth Century). Also, when that is used as an
adjective, add a hyphen: "...Twentieth -Century streetlights..."
Par. 3 Nineteenth Century
Par. 4 — "... teachers, artists, writers, musicians..." Was that really the population in the
Nineteenth Century?
Par. 4 — "enclaves" -- Is that the correct word?
Par. 4 - "...partners lived (not lives) in..."
Par. 4 — Remove the apostrophe in the family surnames. It is the Sibleys, not the
Sibley's, etc.
Par. 5 — "... connecting the Kankakee and (omit "the") Saint Joseph Rivers (add "s" to
end of "River.")
Par. 6 - Change 20`h to Twentieth -Century architectural.... Put comma before
"including" (throughout document) (twice in this paragraph)
Par. 6 — The colon (:) implies that the houses are Mr. Schneider, Mr. Young, etc.
How about: Many houses were designed by locally prominent architects: W.W.
Schneider..."
Par. 7 — Meaning of "religious professors?" A mathematician who prays? A professor of
religion?
Par. 7 — in first 2 sentences: Sabbath school or Sabbath School? (Caps)
Par. 7 — Date missing ("From 1862 to 18xx"
Par. 7 — "... before retiring and returning to South Bend" (instead of "retiring back to
South Bend")
Par. 8 — "However, since neither the Assessor's records NOR (not "not") the City Atlas
HAS (not have) a record...
Par. 8 — Delete the coma after "...in the Horatio Chapin house [,] or IN some smaller
house
Par. 8 — Last sentence uses the word "famous" twice. Substitute something like "well-
known?"
Last par. — Did they donate the books to the library to be lent out, or did they LEND the
books to the library (remaining owners of the books)?
BUILDING TYPES & STYLES
Building Types
American Foursquare — First phrase (The preeminent post -Victorian house type)
modifies "the American Foursquare." The way it is written, the first phrase modifies
"The simplicity and practicality," which is not correct.
Remove the hyphen between "Two stories" in "Two stories in height," and add the
comma after "height."
Full -width [add hyphen] porches...
Bungalow —
Agreement of number: The text has "a term" and "it referred" [singular] and then
"bungalows" [plural]
Firehouse —
Change "corresponded to" to "was designed to meet" the needs...
Gabled Types
Gabled Front
Capitalize Gable Front? (Gable -L & Gable -T, below).
Or: "The gable -front form..."
"...stylistic eras, [add comma] including..."
...rectangular in plan, [add comma]"
Gabled -L & Gabled -T
"front fagade, [add comma] often with..."
"or side spurs, [add comma]"
"height, proportions, [add comma] and roof pitch
ABOUT THE COMMA IN A SERIES: THERE ARE 2 SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT. ]
FIND IT CLEARER TO ADD THE COMMA BEFORE THE FINAL "AND," BUT IF
YOU CHOOSE TO USE THE OTHER METHOD, PLEASE BE CONSISTENT.
Cross -Gable
"These building[s] ..." (the "s" was omitted)
Remove the "a" in "These buildings can be [a] one- [add hyphen, then space] or two -
storied, have an irregular..."
Change "and" to "or" "These buildings can be x, y, z, OR m.
Architectural Styles
Gothic Revival — Carpenter Gothic
- Remove "d" on "one center gabled"
Italianate
Change commas to semi -colons after "ornamented cornices;" "drip moldings;" and
"double doors;"
Add comma after "bracketed, or"
Stick
"...from the 1850s ON [not "and"] into the 1870s."
Spell out Nineteenth Century.
`...sidings, shingles, [add comma] and stick -work.
"...applied to Gabled -L (capital "G") and Gabled -T (capital "T")...
Queen Anne
Spell out "...Eighteenth -Century English architectural..." [and add the hyphen]
Free Classic
• full -width porches [add hyphen]
Spindlework
"...these one- or two-story homes." [add hyphens]
Folk Victorian
"...Italianate, Queen Anne, [add comma] and Stick..."
Shingle Style
"... many styles, [add comma] such as turrets, broad porches, [add comma] and...
Prairie Style
No hyphens in "tum of the century" when it's not being used as an adjective.
"... horizontal lines, [add comma] such as [omit colon] bands of windows..."
Craftsman
Replace dash with ", including." "...building forms, including Gabled Fronts,
Bungalows, ..."
"...trellised porches, [add comma] or porches with tapered..."
"— wood, brick, stone, [add comma] and stucco."
Revival Styles
Colonial
Capitalize "Centennial" ("...by the American Centennial...")
"...in the 1880s and has [add "has"] remained so to the present day.
Classical
"...and gambrel -roofed [add hyphen] residences..."
"... Palladian and oval windows; [semi -colon] Ionic or Corinthian columns, sometimes
fluted; [semi -colon] and entablatures..."
Renaissance
"from the [add "the"] palace and villa architecture of sixteenth- and seventeenth -century
Italy." [add hyphens; spell out 16`h & 17`h]
"The style employs (not "employed").
Tudor
"...brickwork, parapet [no "s"] walls,..." -- Is this to be parapets, walls (separate items?)
or "parapet walls?"
GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION &
DEVELOPMENT
Why is the "&" used in many places in the document?
Why is the preface "by" the residents of the Chapin Park District? Isn't this a legal
document? Why not use third person?
LOGO — who is designing the logo? Will residents of the district have any input into the
logo?
PREFACE [add comma]
Par. 1 —
"...the 1970s, [add comma]..."
... saved its [not "our"] remaining brick streets...
"...preservation of a [not "our"] mature tree canopy.
The [not "our"] history of community spirit..."
Par. 3 —
"In order to ensure that district [not "our] properties remain examples [not "the
examples"] ..."
"...individual architectural details, the district emphasizes [not "we seek to instill in each
other" — I don't seek to instill anything in my neighbors] the importance of education and
consultation regarding certain [not "any"] changes to property.
DELETE the following sentence. "We do this knowing that this personal interaction both
with civic agencies and with each other, [comma inappropriate] is one of the things that
make our community such a humane, interesting, [add comma] and dynamic place to
live." [This is a legal document, not a diary.]
Par. 4 —
"...to preserve the way the neighborhood looks as of March 15, 2005..."
Doesn't this imply that nothing should be changed? If you have a car up on blocks on
your front lawn, it should stay there?
Also: Can "guidelines "intend?"
Par. 5 —
"...flowers, [add comma) and landscape vegetation..."
"Planting or removal of trees in the yard IF VISIBLE FROM THE STREET [words
added] or tree lawn..." My understanding is that if things are NOT visible from the street
and are not a nuisance, then the homeowner's wishes prevail.
.. consideration, sensitivity, and public input." Does this mean that the neighborhood
as a whole could be consulted about a decision affecting one house?
Par. 6 —
"...worked on this committee and attended these [add "those" and delete comma]
sessions."
[Delete "Please contact"] "The Historic Preservation Commission may be contacted to
further discuss... rationale, [add comma] and methods of preservation."
Q: Why is there the line "Residents of Chapin Park,"? Is this going to include residents
of the district? Is that necessary? Everyone in the district will fall under these rules and
regulations, but not everyone agrees with everything in this document.
General Definitions
(A) — add comma before "and" in a series.
(B) - ditto
(b 1) — ditto
(b2) — "... of the district [delete comma] and, [add comma] whenever possible, [add
comma] and if so desired by owner, [words added] returning it to its original condition."
"... all such materials [delete comma] which are incompatible..."
(C)
II. -- add comma before "and" in a series.
III. New Construction
C. — Change "&" to "and"
(C) GUIDELINE COMPONENTS
"Should" is defined as an expression of obligation..." This was NOT the original
sense of the document. "Should" is a suggestion, not an obligation. An obligation is
binding. "Compromise" means that the homeowner must concede something. See
next page's chart, where "Should" is defined as "Recommended," not as an
"obligation."
This is very important to homeowners in the district. We must be clear on what we
will have to do, as opposed to what we will be encouraged to do. Also, we must be
clear on what "encourage" or "suggest" or "should" are. Undue pressure from an
overseer/liaison or one neighbor or to another could create an unpleasant atmosphere.
CHART: (Rehabilitation Guidelines): What is the meaning of the "Miscellaneous"
category?
CHAPIN PARK LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES
I. THE ENVIRONMENT
A. THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT
"This section is meant to protect and guide appropriate maintenance..."
How does one "protect... maintenance?" Needs a rewrite.
Required
"...curbs, horse hitches, [add comma] and..."
Recommended
"...areas, trees, and lawns should remain open."
Q: How can a tree "remain open?" Is this supposed to be "tree lawn?"
"New or replacement trees should be compatible in variety..."
Q: How do you define "compatible?" According to whose taste?
Prohibited
Same question about "new plant materials" that are "inappropriate."
Gardeners have different tastes and interests; who decides
"inappropriate?"
Delete commas after "barriers" and "of the houses"
B. BUILDING SITE, LANDSCAPING, AND ACCESSORIES
Required
"...numbers, [add comma] ... street), [add comma]... history and development,
[add comma]
"...location, [add comma] wherever possible."
Recommended
`...drawings, [add comma] and newspapers, if such sources exist. [words
added.]
Q: If one replants a tree that is removed because it is too close to the house,
does one require a C of A?
Prohibited
"..made to the appearance of the site as seen from streets by removing...
`...walkways, outbuildings, [add comma] or other elements
"The installation of unsightly large devices [no comma] such as... solar panels
[no comma] shall not be permitted....
"...public view of the building, [add comma for series]
Q: What defines "unsightly?" A good architect can design a small solar panel
or skylight that would be incorporated into an historic design in such a way that the
owner could enjoy the benefits of solar power and light without an noticeable difference
to the passerby. Don't sell our local architects short!
II. EXISTING STRUCTURES
A. BUILDING MATERIALS
"... vinyl, composite, [add comma]
Required
"The existing architectural detail..."
Q: What if the EXISTING architectural detail dates from 1958 or 1971, i.e., is
not the original?
Recommended
"When maintaining or replacing original siding is not feasible, "feasibility"
including homeowners' decisions about assuming the financial burden of
maintaining and/or restoring original siding, [words added], aluminum or
vinyl siding may be used."
... - materials, methods, contractors, [add comma]
Prohibited
"CURRENTLY EXPOSED [words added] wood siding shall not be
resurfaced with new material..." In other words, if deteriorating vinyl or
aluminum siding already covers old wood siding, the owner should have a choice
of replacing the more modem siding with vinyl siding -- of a style/width that goes
with the neighborhood — or refinishing and keeping up the original wood siding.
If there is no such compromise, then people are apt to retain unsightly, old vinyl
or aluminum siding, rather than incur the expense of restoring the wood and
repainting it every few years.
"veneer, asbestos, [add comma]
"Use [rather than "usage"] of Portland cement..."
B. ROOFS AND ROOFING
... and slate shingles, [add comma]
In most cases, residences have wood fascias..." [word order]
Required
"...existing shape and materials of the roof as seen from streets [words
added] shall be retained." [Otherwise, no one could add a rear addition.]
"All architectural features [no comma] which give the roof its essential
character [no comma]..."
Recommended
"The original shape and materials — if available and affordable — [words
added]
"...new material that matches as closely as possible the original..."
Q: How will "original" be defined? The shingles that have been on the
roof for 25 to 40 years? What if some kind of document discloses that
the roof originally had shingles, but hasn't had them for decades?
"...size, shape, color, [add comma]..."
Not Recommended
"...soffit, brackets, [add comma] and gables..."
C. WINDOWS AND DOORS
Required
"Original windows and doors seen from streets [words added] shall be
retained, [add comma] including..."
Recommended
"...or coated to match the existing [word missing — "ones?"]..."
D. ENTRANCES, PORCHES, [add comma] AND STEPS
This heading was lower case, unlike other headings.
Required — Add comma before "and" in a series.
"Porches and additions reflecting later architectural styles ..."
Q: Which architectural styles? Many of the houses have a mixture
of styles, from different periods. If someone added a porch
in 1999, does that mean it can't be removed?
Recommended
Sentence needs a rewrite.
"Enclosing [Delete "when"] porches... [delete comma and "it"] should be
done in a manner...
III. NEW CONSTRUCTION
A. HEIGHT AND PROPORTION
"The most prevalent fagade proportions have [delete "are"]..."
Prohibited
It is prohibited to "change the scale" of a building, but won't any
addition, by definition, change the scale of a building?
Not Recommended
"New stories should not be added, [add comma] nor existing stories be
removed, [add comma]..."
"...incompatible with the existing [one? word missing] should not be
permitted..."
Images:
The single form of "criteria" is "criterion." "...a mandatory criterion,
that [replace "which" new buildings be constructed..."
The captions are not consistent. Some are phrases, some sentences.
Perhaps colons, instead of dashes, would help.
Rhythm of solids to voids in front fagade: "Rhythm is (not "being")
an ordered recurrent alternation... "
B. BUILDING MATERIALS
"Wall materials in the district include brick, stucco, wood..."
[You can't "range from" something to nothing. There's no other half to the
statement.]
Recommended
"...is the only feasible or economically acceptable alternative for the
homeowner.
C. SHEDS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
Required
...doghouses, playhouses, outdoor sculpture, children's play equipment...
preserving historical relationships..." "Proportions and materials shall
conform to those required for new construction."
Q: Why should children's play equipment and doghouses, situated at the rear
of a residence and out of sight except from adjacent backyards, have to
conform with any particular style? Why should anyone care where a person's
sandbox or slide is located? This doesn't seem reasonable. If you live in a
stucco home, must the playhouse and doghouse be encased in stucco??
Recommended
"...and mood with [not "to] the residence..."
SAFETY AND BUILDING CODES
A. BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS
Prohibited
"...that would alter important exterior [word added] architectural features
and spaces seen from the streets [words added] is prohibited."
IV. GENERAL
D. "The committee's responsibility will be to work with the residents...'
Q: In what way? It is hoped that the committee will be there for us to
consult, not to offer advice when not invited to do so.
V. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
"...Ordinance [upper case?] No. 5565-73, as amended, [add comma]..."
"This ordinance, however, does not prevent the ordinary maintenance, [add
comma] modification [word added], and repair...
VI. MINIMUM MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
"...Landmark, structure, [add comma] or property in question..."
G. "...landscaping."
Q: What constitutes "lack of maintenance" where landscaping is
concerned?
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Nowhere in the preamble is it specified that work that falls under the C of A aegis is only
that which is visible from streets. This is an important qualification.
"...requirements, [add comma] or provisions... demolition, [add comma] or removal...
or parts thereof [no comma] shall require
1. "For a project..." Why include the abbreviation "(C of A),"
when the abbreviation isn't used in this section? It's always
spelled out.
2. "This documentation... product literature (if available), scale
drawings..."
APPLICATION
It looks as though a word is missing from "A Certified Local Government ??"
Surely, the Commission itself isn't "A Certified Local Government."
What is the meaning of "In -Kind?" In not -for -profits, that means work or goods donated
by a business that does that kind of work or handles that kind of goods. Since "in-kind"
affects the review process, the term needs to be defined.
APPLICATION FEE
Payment is $5 or $10, depending on the fate of the application, but the payment must be
submitted with the application, before the fate of the application is known. How does one
proceed?
REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION AND SITE PLANS
Last paragraph: "Any [capital "A"] documentation submitted..."
INSPECTION AUTHORITY
"...does not conform to the Certificate of Appropriateness permit [no comma] shall be
immediately..."
INTERGOVERNMENTAL DISCLOSURE
Par. 2. "...placement on the agenda. [Period] (For (new sentence) application
deadlines... Staff.)"
6. "...explaining the action and offering [word added] suggestions for changes."
"...does have the right of appeal to the proper council, [comma added]..." What is "the
proper council?" If it's The Common Council or some other, why not specifically name
it?
Q: If an applicant does not agree with the Historic Preservation Commission's decision
and reasons for denial of a C of A, what else must be done before "all proper procedures"
are considered exhausted and an appeal to the Common Council is permitted?
APPENDIX B
Overall Recommendations for Landscape Preservation...
VEGETATION
This needs some rewriting. Some points are phrases; some are sentences.
Technically, "a resident" shouldn't be followed by "they" or "their," since the subject is
singular. (His/Her)
7. "Any vegetation with thorns or fruit..."
Q: Is this suggestion grandfathered? Surely, one isn't expected to remove a
healthy, beautiful flowering tree?
TOPOGRAPHY
..some kind of connection to [omit "the"] water.
Par. 2 — "The river continues to provide all of these necessities." That includes water for
livestock. Is that really a feature of the Chapin Park Historical Distric?
In general: This is all very interesting, but many of the paragraphs are not relevant to the
Chapin District, per se. It's all very well and good that the E. Wayne and Lincolnway
Districts are also related to water, but that information is really extraneous to the purpose
of this document. I suggest deleting paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (final). Paragraphs 7 and
8 are enthusiastic general statement about historic districts, which is fine for a Historic
Pres. Commission grant, but the information in the abovementioned paragraphs don't
really advance the purpose of the Chapin Park District document. How about putting it in
a book about the history of the area, instead?
APPENDIX C
CHAPIN PARK LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT STREET LIGHTING
"Thereafter, should a lamp fixture require removal... similar design..." Would
this mean that if a non -historical -look fixture were removed, it should be replaced
with a similar [i.e., non -historical -look] fixture? Is there a way of tightening the
language?
3. Historic Landmark, [comma added] or when other "old style'..."
...Preservation Districts, [comma added]...
APPENDIX D
HISTORIC DISTRICT LIAISON COMMITTEE
1. This states "three people," whereas Part V, Par. E states 5 people.
3. Change "How long must r' to "How long must one serve..."
4. "...once a month, [comma added]
"from the Chapin Park District [replacing "our"] attend each meeting."
Duties of the Historic District Liaison Committee Members
1. What exactly does the following mean? "Work and communicate with the residents?"
(See above concern about the liaison being overly enthusiastic about intruding on other
people's affairs.)
3. This item needs a serious rewrite. The Commissioners... "...that may occur on
District property and work with property owners toward a solution to the problem(s).
"Them," in the original has an unclear precedent.
4. b. "Disseminate pertinent information to the district property owners through whatever
means available, such as a neighborhood newsletter, flyer, etc."
This sounds as if one might open the Chapin Park newsletter and read that Mr. & Mrs.
Jones have a thorn bush that is too close to the sidewalk. Can this paragraph specify that
only general information would be "disseminated?"
5. Not a sentence. A possible change: "Have at least one representative of the
committee attend..."
I hope that the committee and the Commission will take the time to consider the above
questions and suggestions. We all want the Guidebook to be as accurate and workable as
possible.
SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JULY 189 2005 MEETING
GUESTS: PLEASE SIGN THIS LIST SO THAT.
YOUR PRESENCE CAN BE NOTED FOR OUR
Print Name
O �)c q-1 %05
U
MINUTES
Address
1Signature _ ��
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND & ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
July 18, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
STAFF ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
MONTHLY MEETING
4`" Floor, Council Chambers, County -City
Building, South Bend, IN
Lynn Patrick, (President)
Martha Choitz, (Vice President)
John Oxian, (Treasurer)
Mary Jane Chase, (Secretary)
Joann Sporleder, (Architectual Historian)
Diane Wrobel-Illes, (Member)
Gerald Ujdak, (Member)
Catherine Hostetler, (Member)
Julie Schutte, (Assistant Director)
John Livingston, (City Attorney)
Catherine Hostetler, (Director)
Brad Pontius, (contractor), Bruno Zovich,
Bob Yapp, Don Sporleder
I. CALLED MEETING TO ORDER
Lynn Patrick called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
JOHN OXIAN: I would like to make a motion that we operate as a committee of the
whole in any C of A's unless there's a disagreement from any of the commission
members and that this automatically be approved when we're back into regular session.
MARTHA CHOITZ: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
1. 2005-0620; 714 Forest Avenue, porch roof modification
JULIE SCHUTTE: (See staff report and pictures attached to C of A in meeting binder).
The homeowner, Bruno Zovich, was present. Brent Thompson, the city forester,
reviewed the house and the tree. His opinion was that since the tree is so healthy it would
not be appropriate to have it cut down. The home owner also stated that he would not
have a problem with a notch being put into his porch roof to accommodate the tree.
MARY JANE CHASE: Have you ever considered taking the trees down; because they
are quite intrusive to the house?
BRUNO ZOVICH: They are in very good health and have been inspected about two
years ago. For aesthetic reasons I don't think there is any reason to do that.
JULIE SCHUTTE: The trees are enormous and the cost for cutting them down would
probably be more expensive then putting a notch in the porch roof.
MARTHA CHOITZ: I so move that 2005-0620 be implemented on the
recommendation of the staff to take a rectangular notch out of the porch roof to
accommodate the tree and future growth.
MARY JANE CHASE: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
2. 2005-0707; 930 Riverside Drive, 2 story addition
JULIE SCHUTTE: (See staff report, pictures, and drawings attached to C of A in
meeting binder). The contractor, Brad Pontius, was present on behalf of the
homeowners, Shannon and Bill Brewster.
JULIE SCHUTTE: (See staff report, pictures, and drawings attached to C of A in
meeting binder). The contractor, Brad Pontius, was present on behalf of the
homeowners, Shannon and Bill Brewster.
LYNN PATRICK: Under application items it says the computer "drawings" do not
show the gable returns, which will be included in the new construction. Then under the
recommendation it says the contractor and homeowner may wish to incorporate the reuse
of the two windows and gable returns in the new construction.
JULIE SCHUTTE: On the rear of the house there are existing gable returns, which they
may be able to salvage and reuse on the exterior of the house.
JOHN OXIAN: If I am going to approve this C of A then I want the two windows to be
used. If you are going to make it look like the original then the original windows need to
be put back in.
BRAD PONTIUS: (owner/contractor of Home Works) I see no problem with reusing
the two original windows.
JOHN OXIAN: I will make a motion that C of A 2005-0707 for 930 Riverside Drive be
approved with the condition that the two windows and the gable return trim that are being
removed be reincorporated in the new addition.
MARY JANE CHASE: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously, 5-0.
LYNN PATRICK: Joann, prior to your arrival we acted as a committee of the whole to
start the meeting. We moved to approve the first application for the owner to put a notch
in his front porch roof to accommodate his tree. All the other commission members were
in favor of this.
JOHN OXIAN: I will make a motion to go back as a regular meeting.
MARY JANE CHASE: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
JOHN OXIAN: I will also make a motion that we approve CoA 2005-0620 with the
approval by Joann Sporleder.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Actually, I don't approve of making a notch in the roof, so I
will abstain. The earlier motion for C of A 2005-0620 still carries and the C of A is
approved. John Livingston gave the opinion that C of A 2005-0707 had been
approved by the Commission as all five members had voted.
B. LANDMARK
1. Third Reading: 16977 Adams Landmark 1880 Barn
Report from the Landmarks Committee Chair
JOHN OXIAN: We are supposed to have a meeting on this. If the committee doesn't
meet then I will have a recommendation at next month's meeting on what we will send
down on 16977 Adams Road.
JOHN LIVINGSTON: Mr. Hardig, (attorney), is ready and willing to attend the
meeting on behalf of the homeowners. Catherine called me on Friday and told me the
meeting was going to be this Wednesday at 5:00 pm at the HPC office.
JOHN OXIAN: I would also like to put for a first reading in September the
Greenhouses and Conservatories in Potowatomi Park. I have received emails and I have
also received telephone calls on this. I don't know if we have received that information
yet from the woman who was here last month or not.
JULIE SCHUTTE: No, we have not.
2
JOHN OXIAN: I would appreciate you getting in touch with her and ask her to get the
information to us. The third thing that I would like to bring up is that Catherine informed
me that a demolition permit was granted concerning the Carpenter building on South
Lafayette; which is the oldest Studebaker building. What I would like to do is to put an
interim protection on this unless I get a different opinion from Bob Yapp. I want the rest
of you to look at it and if you think it's not worth preserving then we can cancel it from
going on with land marking.
JOHN LIVINGSTON: It has gone through the formal process and a demolition permit
was issued by the building commissioner.
John Oxian gave a brief history on what has happened with the owner and this building in
the past. Commission members had a brief discussion about the building and its
condition. They discussed what steps if any the commission could take to try and save
the building from being demolished. John also had Catherine get a hold of Bob Yapp
prior to the meeting so he could be there to give us his professional opinion about the
building and its condition.
BOB YAPP: The request from John was quick so I didn't get a chance to really check it
out too much. I did drive by it and take a look at the building and the context of the
historic Studebaker area and I do believe the building is significant and I believe it could
be used for adapted reuse for any number of things. It is in disrepair, there's no question
about that. But, it is a fact that the city is poising to tear down one of our most historic
factory sites in the country using taxpayer money with no effort whatsoever to try to find
adaptive reuse developers to come in and use those buildings using a 1970's
redevelopment urban renewal mentality to just tear down the buildings at taxpayers'
expense. I still think that it could be adaptively reused if anyone in redevelopment would
take the initiative to try to market these buildings for adapted reuse; like get on an
airplane, fly to silicone valley and start finding these young start up companies that are
more than willing to come into communities with some incentives and adaptively reuse
these buildings, live in them, work in them, and create economic development for our
community instead of vacant land with no promise of any economic development.
JOHN OXIAN: I would like to make a motion that the Carpenter building on South
Lafayette on the west side of the street be put into interim protection with the possibility
of it being declared a local landmark.
BOB YAPP: Sometimes I think we are so insular in this community that we forget to
look outside the community and see what other communities are doing in situations like
this. Other communities are being creative in going to the high schools and getting the
art classes to take plywood panels to secure the building and painting scenes of people
inside the building and doing fun and interesting things so that people when they drive by
abandoned buildings that can be moth balled for later use are smiling instead of feeling
bad. I would love to see our commission make some kind of statement on this.
MARTHA CHOITZ: Seconds the motion and it passes. Joann Sporleder abstains.
JOANN SPORLEDER: If we are going to actually enter an interim protection then I
think we should make some serious attempts at assessing its structural ability and giving
some kind of guess as to what it would need to make it usable.
BOB YAPP: If this commission can gain access to the inside of the building for me;
then Historic Landmark Foundation of Indiana and I, as the representative, would be glad
to do that.
John said that when they send the letter to Abe Marcus they should put his name down
and he will be able to get access to the inside of the building.
Joann Sporleder asked if Bob could assist in getting some kind of assessment of the
building's current condition in view of restoring it to a useful condition. Bob stated that
within and hour and a half to two hours of being in and outside the building and getting
up and looking at the roof; he would be able to give them a quick interim assessment of
the building.
JOANN SPORLEDER: I will make a motion that an interim assessment be done by
Bob Yapp regarding the current condition and the cost involved in restoring the
Carpenter building at 637 South Layette to a usable condition.
MARY JANE CHASE: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —(May 16, 2005 and June 20, 2005)
LYNN PATRICK: I moved that we approve the minutes as submitted for May 16, 2005
and June 20, 2005.
MARTHA CHOITZ: Seconds the motion and it passes. John Oxian abstains.
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
JOHN OXIAN: (See green copy of Treasurer's Report in HPC Meeting Binder). John
also requested an itemized up to date list of what monies had been expended from the
contractual services account. He also said that he would be able to present a report on
this at the next commission meeting.
C. COMMITTEE REPORT
1. President's Report: Executive Committee 7/7
LYNN PATRICK: It was a very fruitful meeting and it was decided at that meeting
when we spoke with the director of the NNN regarding her needs for timeliness in
response to potential properties they would like to acquire and rehab in the Chapin Park
Local Historic District. Primarily these are properties that have been divided up into
multiple units that need to be restored back into single-family dwellings. We discussed
several scenarios and it was decided that she would develop a list of properties that she
might be interested in acquiring and that the commission would be able to review these
and come up with a rough scenario of what we would allow. The point of this was that
Karen needed to understand what we would be allowing as far as renovation, possible
siding treatments, etc. She could then make a bid and have a rough idea whether it would
be feasible to restore that building, keeping with historic guidelines, on a cost effective
basis. We are expecting to hear back from her on a list of probably about five houses for
us to review and look over and get back with her on. We expect a future meeting on this.
I will give her a quick phone call tomorrow and ask her if she has started to work on her
list yet.
JOHN OXIAN: If we are going to make an exception for her after she gives us the list,
if we do; then we should adopt a policy of some sort that would pertain to a situation in
H
which she operates or a project she operates; because, if we don't the way she wants to go
at it we could have problems.
JULIE SCHUTTE: There is a different approach or a different way in which the
commission can explain its decision in those types of cases for approving or possibly
approving a synthetic siding going on top of the original; because of the possible monies
that need to be spent on the interiors to bring them back to single family dwellings. I
think that the commission has a reasonable explanation for the exceptions to their policies
for them restoring the siding on the exterior. It seems to me in that area of the district
what is more important --the exterior or actually getting stable single-family housing. It
would be lovely to have their exteriors historically accurate and restored; but I think that
the commission could find a way to phrase it so that the neighborhood understands why.
BOB YAPP: I am going to ask the commission to be very careful about this.
Consistency on historic preservation commissions is absolutely critical to maintain
credibility in the community. I found this to be true with all the commissions I have
worked with throughout Northern Indiana and throughout my entire career. If a
community development corporation wants to do some houses in a local historic district;
then they should not be doing anything different than what everyone else is doing;
especially in Chapin Park. My experience and being in the neighborhood next to Chapin
Park; Chapin Park is over the hump. Chapin Park is not like the Cottage Grove area
where I live where we are not even close to the hump. Private development is what is
going to finish turning Chapin Park around, not non -for-profit organizations going in and
doing low and moderate income housing. Our central city neighborhoods have no
economic diversity because we're packing all of this low and moderate income housing
into our central city neighborhoods. It's economic bigotry in a sense; because, you are
looking at the fact that everything is being packed into one area and it is all low to
moderate income. We need to start attracting middle to upper middle income families as
well as quality low and moderate income families into the neighborhoods instead. That
part of the central city, the Chapin Park Neighborhood, is not in need of HUD based low
and moderate income housing programs. With HUD regulations being totally anti -
preservation and promoting vinyl siding and promoting vinyl windows; it's our
organization's belief and hope that the commission will not make any exceptions for this
organization going into a brand new local historic district. There was a comment made
about the authenticity of the exterior; that's the most important part of a historic district.
I don't care if they decimate the inside of the property; you have no purview over that. I
want people to retain the architectural integrity and the interiors of their homes, but the
most critical part is the visual of the neighborhood. I am urging you that whatever your
standards are for that neighborhood that you don't adjust them for one organization.
D. STAFF REPORTS
1. C of A Approvals; Correspondence
JULIE SCHUTTE: (Refer to white copy of staff approved certificates of
appropriateness in meeting binder).
A. Director's Report
JULIE SCHUTTE: (Refer to yellow copy of director's report in meeting binder).
B. Assistant Director's Report
JULIE SCHUTTE: (Refer to white copy of assistant director's report in meeting
binder).
2. Legal —(no report)
IV. OLD BUSINESS
Mini Fair on LaSalle Street/Large Street Fair Partnership wl HLFI
(See white copies of "Old House Fair" draft outline of proposed dates of the event: Fall
2005 and May 2006, Old House Workshop Preliminary Budget, and copy of HPC
proposed training outline in HPC meeting binder).
Bob Yapp briefly went through and discussed with commission members the four
different events they have scheduled. He also asked the commission for their approval
and support to be a main co-sponsor of the Old House Unveiling Mini Fair on August 27,
2005 along with Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana. Bob also said that if the
commission would allow Wayne Doolittle to be his assistant during the Window
Restoration College event that is to be held on Sept. 23, 24, 25, and October 7, 8, 9 he
would not be expected to pay the fee that is being charged for this event. Bob stated that
he needed the following from the commission:
1. For the Old House Unveiling Mini Fair; I am looking at getting some benches,
and see if staff can assist us with the street blocking.
2. For the Window Restoration College and the Old House Fair; I am looking at
postage based on our mailing lists, and some staff time for the Old House Fair on
May 21 & 22, 2006.
JOHN OXIAN: I will make a motion that we participate in these events.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
LYNN PATRICK: Let the record show that we will assist in getting benches for the
Window Restoration College and Old House Unveiling Fair if necessary, staff assist with
these events, and assist with the cost of postage for these events.
Chapin Park Standards and Guidelines -Neighborhood Comments
JULIE SCHUTTE: The first packet with the pink cover sheet has the comments the
commission received between July 6`h and July 13`h. The second packet is the actual
document that the public would have been able to view and make comments on. We had
a copy of this document at three locations: the HPC office, the NNN office, and the
public library. We also had it posted on our website and the Chapin Park website. As
you can see the website actually received seven comments, and the NNN office received
2 comments. Staff summary — we have attached all nine comments for the
commissioner's reference. The majority of comments came from the website and ranged
from a few short paragraphs to 14 pages. Most were favorably disposed to the guidebook
and thanked all that worked on it. There were a number of points made. Staff would
recommend that the commission attach a priority status to Mr. McKinney observations
concerning homes on Park Avenue and Chapin Place, and the comment regarding cement
board and engineered wood products (See enclosed copies in HPC meeting binder)
Commission members decided they would review the comments and the documents on
their own. Commission members were given two weeks to tum in their comments and
concerns about these documents to staff (Monday, August 1).
Brick Street on Lafayette Blvd
513 River Avenue — (See white copy Staff Report concerning 513 River
Avenue — Edgewater Place Historic District in HPC meeting binder).
3
JOHN OXIAN: I will make a motion that we have staff inform the real estate agent that
a C of A was granted on this property and what it pertains to, and that it is his
responsibility to inform any individual who's interested in the purchase of this property.
MARY JANE CHASE: Seconds the motion and it passes 3-0. Lynn Patrick and Joann
Sporleder abstain.
V. NEW BUSINESS
SouthHold Committee Meeting Date
A meeting date was set for Monday, August 1, 2005 at 5:00 pm at the HPC office.
VI. HEARING OF VISITORS
DON SPORLEDER: I am happy to report on a very successful Michiana Regional
Greenways charette that was held at the Layton Center on June 14`h Summary reports
and power point presentations will be made available to groups like the Historic
Preservation Commission, very shortly. The Greenways that were identified have some
very intriguing historic preservation components as well. Here's where groups like
Michiana Water Shed, who are pushing hard for getting the east and west parts of Leeper
Park to pull together by the recreation of that walking lane underneath 933 and Michigan
as well as the possible recreation of the first bridge across the St. Joseph River to create
connections between Greenways on the west side of the river and of course the east bank
development and the river walk that occurs there And of course the big push with South
Bend to do the connection past Potato Creek and on into LaPorte county. Another
interesting thing grew out of this charette was the identification of the importance of the
remaining interurban, the South Shore, the connection between South Bend and Michigan
City. Does South Shore have historic status? Has it been identified as a landmark? It
certainly has potential with the greenways thing and it will be one of the places where
Trails with Rails will be part of the proposed connection between these two counties.
As you all know Congress is reauthorizing the TA21, Transportation Enhancement Act,
and that includes an important historic preservation section and of course those monies
are made available through the department of transportation and INDOT, which is the
Indiana component. I would like to remind the commission that INDOT has its annual
work session meeting at the various region offices. The one for our region in LaPorte is
August 4`h. Perhaps it would be very effective if there could be representation from the
Preservation Commission at either the afternoon workshop or evening workshop in
LaPorte at the INDOT annual meeting.
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS, MISCELLANEOUS, ADJOURNMENT
LYNN PATRICK: Makes a motion to adjourn the meeting.
MARY JANE CHASE: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:29pm.
Historic Preservation Commission
Minutes: July 18 2005
ATTEST: �� �l 1 �-1 , Secretary