HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006Page 1 of 1
Catherine Hostetler - RE: HPC meeting error
From: "Laura Kistler" <LKistler @sbtinfo.com>
To: "Catherine Hostetler" <CHOSTETL @co.st•joseph.in.us>
Date: 1/18/06 12:38 PM
Subject: RE: HPC meeting error
Catherine - this is no excuse, but I was off a lot in December and when
someone else does your job, these things happen: If you send the yellow
invoice back to me, I will no charge it, since it was our mistake.
Sorry Laura
..... Original Message - - -..
From: Catherine Hostetler rmailto :CHOSTETL(@.co.st- ioseoh.in.usl
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:08 AM
To: Laura Kistler
Subject: HPC meeting error
On 12/23/05 a notice was published correcting the location of the first
2 monthly HPC meetings to the 7 floor of the County City Building. I
have just received the billing and the notice copies from the Trib and
the notice has the meeting on the 4 floor in the Council Chambers.
Please advise. Catherine
tllea /C \TEMP \GW) 00006.HTM 1/20/06
State of Indiana
St. Joseph County so:
Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for said county and
December 23. 2005
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day
of -- - December .. - ` 2005.
i
Geraldine Dickey
Notary Public
Resident of St. Joseph County
My commission expires January 28, 2009
Charges $13.60
state, the undersigned Carol Smith
who, being duly sworn says that she is of competent age and is
The January 23
Advertising Director of The South Bend Tribune, a
and Feb -J
,nqq of the meet-
dally newspaper which for - at least five (5) consecutive years has been
Preservation a Historic
sion of south Cod mis.
published in the City of South Bend, county of St. Joseph, State of Indiana,
S t- Joseph Count and
be held in the 7 y Fl
and which during that time, has been a newspaper of general circulation,
County Commissioners
Conference Room be-
cause
having a bona fide paid circulation, printed in the English language and
it conflicts with
the cit of South Bend
Common
entered, authorized and accepted by the post. office department of the
scheduled C ouncil
Council chambe °g. Ali
United States of America as mailable matter of the second -class as defined
other 2008 meetings
will be held in
by the act of Congress of the United States of March 3, 1879, and that the
the a
floor Council Cham-
bers. Thank you and t
printed matter attached hereto is a true copy, which was duly published in
am sorry for any confu.
.ion that this may have
said newspaper.
caused.
It: 12: 23
_._
I time " s ilie dates of publication being as follows:
December 23. 2005
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day
of -- - December .. - ` 2005.
i
Geraldine Dickey
Notary Public
Resident of St. Joseph County
My commission expires January 28, 2009
Charges $13.60
State of Indiana
St. Joseph County ss:
Geraldine Dickey d
Notary Public
Resident of St. Joseph County
My commission expires January 28, 2009
Charges $13.60
Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for said county and
state, the undersigned Carol Smith
who, being duly sworn says that she is of competent age and is
Advertising Director of The South Bend Tribune, a
daily newspaper which for at least five (5) consecutive years has been
- The January 23 and Feb -
published in the City of South Bend, county of St. Joseph, State of Indiana,
ruary 27, 2008 meet-
ings of the Historic
and which during that time, has been a newspaper of general circulation,
Preservation Commis.
sion of South Bend and
having ona fid langu aid circulation, printed in the English l e and
g a p aid g a g
St. Joseph County will i
be held in the 7 Floor
entered authorized and accepted by the post office department of the
County Commissioners'
Conference Room be-
cause it conflicts with
United States of America as mailable matter of the second -class as defined
the City of South Bend
Council I
by the act of Congress of the United States of March 3, 1879, and that the
Common
scheduled use of the
Council Chambers. all
printed matter attached hereto is a true copy, which was duly published in
other 2008 meetings
will be held in the a
said newspaper.
floor Council Cham-
bers. Thank you and I
am sorry for any confu-
sion that this may have
1 time s, the dates of publication being as follows:
caused.
� 1t: 12: 23
December 23. 2005
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day
of December 2005 .
Geraldine Dickey d
Notary Public
Resident of St. Joseph County
My commission expires January 28, 2009
Charges $13.60
State of Indiana
St. Joseph County so:
,_- Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for said county and
state, the undersigned Carol Smith
who, being duly sworn says that she is of competent age and is
Advertising Director of The South Bend Tribune, a
daily newspaper which for at least five (5) consecutive years has been
published in the City of South Bend, county of St. Joseph, State of Indiana,
and which during that time, has been a newspaper of general circulation,
having a bona fide paid circulation, printed in the English language and
entered, authorized and accepted by the post office department of the
United States of America as mailable matter of the second -class as defined
by the act of Congress of the United States of March 3, 1879, and that the
printed matter attached hereto is a true copy, which was duly published in
said newspaper.
NOTICE OF MEETING �
A meeting of the His-
toric Preservation Com- 1 time s, the dates of publication being as follows:
mission (HPC) of South
Bend & St. Joseph
County will be held
January 23, 2006 at
7 .30 p,m. in Council Janu 13. 2006
Chambers on the fourth
(4th) floor of
Co unt y the
ge as ar Building,
South Bend, Indiana.
Agendas are available in
the HPC Office or may
be obtained via a . mall
at SBSJCHPC6co.st-
joseph.m.us Additional Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1 da
matters not requiring a y
Public Hearing may be
added to this agenda
prior to the meeting. Of January 2006 .
Lynn A. Patrick,
President
tt: 1: 13
Geraldine Dickey
Notary Public
Resident of St. Joseph County
My commission expires January 28, 2009
Charges $13.90
NOTICE OF MEETING
A meeting of the His-
toric Preservation Com.
mission (HPC) of South
Bend & St. Joseph
County will be held
February 27, 2006 at
7:30 p.m. in Council
Chambers on the seven
(7th) floor of the
County -City Building,
South Bend, Indiana.
Agendas are available in
the HPC Office or may
be obtained via e-mail
at SBSJCHPCQco.st•
joseph.in.us Additional
matters not requiring a
Public Hearing may be
added to this agenda
prior to the meeting.
Lynn A. Patrick,
President
tt: 2: 17
State of Indiana
St. Joseph County as:
i
Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for said county and
state, the undersigned Carol Smith
who, being duly sworn says that she is of competent age and is
Advertising Director of The South Bend Tribune, a
daily newspaper which for at least consecutive years has been
published in the City of South Bend, county of St. Joseph, State of Indiana,
and which during that time, has been a newspaper of general circulation,
having a bona fide paid circulation, printed in the English language and
entered, authorized and accepted by the post office department of the
United States of America as mailable matter of the" second -class as defined
by the act of Congress of the United States of March 3, 1879, and that the
printed matter attached hereto is a true copy, which'was duly published in
said newspaper.
of publication being as follows:
M
February 17.2006 - -
Subscribed and sworn to before me this, 17th day
of - - - - - -- February .2006..
r. Geraldine Dickey
Notary Public _
Resident of St. Joseph County
My commission expires January 28, 2009 I
Charges $13.90
Ncl .
Ar¢
NOTICE OFMEhe IHa
A meeting Of
toric Preservation Com-
mission (HPC) of South
Bend St. County & willl be held
March m 2006 at
7:30 P- m- in Counc
Chambers on the seven
(7th) floor of the
County -City Building,
South Bend, Indiana.
Agendas are available in
the HPC Office or may
be obtained via a -mad
at SBSJCHPCl f2 -!t-
rs not requiring a
c Hearing may be
d to this agenda
to the meeting.
Lynn A. Patrick,
President
It: 3:10
I
f
State of Indiana
St. Joseph County as:
:• Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for said county and
state, the undersigned Carol Smith
who, being duly sworn says that she is of competent age and is
Advertising Director of The South Bend Tribune, a
daily newspaper which for at least five (5) consecutive years has been
published in the City of South Bend, county of St. Joseph, State of Indiana,
and which during that time, has been a newspaper of general circulation,
having a • bona fide paid circulation; printed in the English language and
entered, authorized and accepted by the post office department of the
United States of America as mailable matter -.of the•second- class• as, defined
by the act of Congress of the United States of March' - 1879,, and that the
printed matter attached hereto is a true copy, which.was dulypublished in
said newspaper.
1 time s, the dates of publication being as follows:
March 10. 2006
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day
of March 2006.
Geraldine Dickey.
Notary Public . .
:Resident,of St. Joseph County,
My commission expires January 28, 2009.
Charges $13.90
NOTICE OFMEE MEETI
A meeting o
torie Preservation Com-
mission (HPC) of South
Bend & St. Joseph
County will be held
March 20, 2006 at
7:30 p.m. in Council
Chambers on the seven
(7th) floor of the
County-City Building,
South Bend, Indiana
Agendas are available in
the HPC Office or may
be obtained via a -mail
�O usHPAdddit onal
matter; not requiring a
Public Hearing may be
added to this agenda
prior to the meeting.
Lynn A President
1t: 3:10
State of Indiana
St. Joseph County so:
Personally appeared before me, a notary, public in and for said county and
state, the undersigned Carol Smith
who, being duly sworn says that she is of competent age and is
Advertising Director of The South Bend Tribune, a
daily newspaper which for at least five (S) consecutive years has been
published in the City of South Bend, county of St. Joseph, State of Indiana,
and which during that time, has been a newspaper of general circulation,
having a bona fide paid circulation, printed in the English language and
entered, authorized and accepted by the post office department of the
United States of America as mailable matter of the second -class as defined
by the act of Congress of the United States of March 3, 1879, and that the
printed matter attached hereto is a true, copy, which was duly published in
said newspaper.
1 time s, the dates of publication being as follows:
of March
2006.
Geraldine Dickey
Notary Public V
;l .s Resident of St. Joseph County
March 10. 2006
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day
My commission expires January 28, 2009
Charges $13.90
NOTICE OF MEETING
A meeting of the His-
toric Preservation Com-
mission (HPC) of South
Bend & St. Joseph
County will be held
April 19, 2008 at 5:30
p.m. in the Council
Chambers on the fourth
(4th) floor of the
County -City Building,
South Bend, Indiana.
Agendas are available in
the HPC Office or may
be obtained via e-mail
at SBSJCHPC@co.st-
joseph.in.us Additional
matters not requiring a
Public Hearing may be
added to this agenda
prior to the meeting.
Lynn A. Patrick,
President
It: 4: 7
State of Indiana
St. Joseph County ss:
Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for said county and
state, the undersigned Carol Smith
who, being duly sworn says that she is of competent age and is
Advertising Director of The South Bend Tribune, a
daily newspaper which for at least five (5) consecutive years has been
published in the City of South Bend, county of St. Joseph, State of Indiana,
and which during that time, has been a newspaper of general circulation,
having a"bona fide paid circulation, printed in the English. language and
entered, authorized and accepted by the post office department of the
United States of America as mailable matter'of the second -class as defined
by the act of Congress of the United States of March 3, 1879; and that the
printed matter attached hereto is a true copy, which was duly published in
said newspaper.
1 time - . s,- the -dates of publication being as follows:
Anri17.2006 -
&
Subscribed -and sworn to before me this }1„ day
of April, 2006.. .
ji
Geraldine Dickey
Notary Public
- Resident of St. Joseph County
My commission expires January 28, 2009
Charges $13.90
State of Indiana
St. Joseph County ss:
Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for said county and
state, the undersigned Carol Smith
who, being duly sworn says that she is of competent age and is
Advertising Director of The South Bend Tribune, a
daily newspaper which for at least five (S) consecutive years has been
published in the City of South Bend, county of St. Joseph, State of Indiana,
and which during that time, has been a newspaper of general circulation,
having a bona fide paid circulation, printed in the English language and
entered, authorized and accepted by the post office department of the
NOTICE OF MEETING United States of America as mailable matter of the second -class as defined
meeting Preservation Com-of the His-
t oric by the act of Congress of the United States of March 3, 1879,1and that the
mission (HPC) of South
Bend & St. Joseph printed matter attached hereto is a true copy, which was duly published in
County will be held July
17, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. said newspaper. "
in the Council Cham-
bars on the fourth (4th)
floor of the County City
Building, South Bend,
Indiana. 1 time s, the dates of publication being as follows:
Agendas are available in
the HPC Office or may
be obtained via e-mail
at SBSJCHPC @co.st - J July 12. 2006
joseph.in.us Additional
matters not requiring a
Public Hearing may be
added to this agenda
prior to the meeting.
Lynn A. Patrick, _
President . i am'
It: 7:12
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day
- of July 2006.
Geraldine Dickey
Notary Public
Resident of St. Joseph County
My commission expires January 28, 2009
Charges $13.90
A meeting of the Historic
Preservation Commission
(HPC) of South Bend
and St. Joseph County
will be held on Septem State of Indiana
ber 18, 2008 at 7:30 pm
in the fourth Chambers (4th) floor St Joseph County ss:
on the fourth
of the County -Cit
Building, South Bend,
Indiana Agendas are
available in the HPC o f- Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for said county and
fice or may be obtained a
v i a email state, the undersigned Carol Smith
SBSJCHPC@co.st
Jo9eph,;n,us Additional who, being duly sworn says that she is of competent age and is
matters not requiring a
Public Hearing may be
added to this agenda Advertising Director of The South Bend Tribune, a
prynn ior to the z , Pre. Pre9' daily newspaper which for at least five (S) consecutive years•has been
L A. Patricw
\ published in the City of South Bend, county of St. Joseph, State of Indiana,
and which during that time, has been a newspaper of general circulation,
having a bona fide paid circulation, printed in the English language and
entered, authorized and accepted by the post office department of the
United States of America as mailable matter of the second -class as defined
by the act of Congress of the United States of March 3, 1879, and that the
printed matter attached hereto is a true copy, which was duly published in
said newspaper.
1.1 - -- - time s, the dates of publication being as follows:
September 8, 2006
aa
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day
of September 2006.
Geraldine Dickey ;
Notary Public
Resident of St. Joseph County
My commission expires January 28, 2009
Charges $7.98
ft
A meeting of the Historic
Preservation Commission
(HPC) of South Bend
�+
State of Indiana
and St. Joseph County
will be held on October
St Joseph County ss:
18, 2008 at 7:30 pm in
the Council Chambers
on the fourth (4th) floor
of the County city
Building, south Bend, In-
Personally appeared before me a notary public in and for said county and
diana. Agendas are
available in the HPC Of-
state, the undersigned Carol Smith
fice or may be obtained
via email at
who, being duly sworn says that she is of competent age and is
SBSJCHPCQco.st-
joseph.in.us Additional
Advertisin Director of The South Bend Tribune, a
matters not requiring a
Public Hearing may be
daily newspaper which for at least five (5) consecutive years has been
added to this agenda
prior to the Meeting.
Lynn A. Patrick, President
published in the City of South Bend, count of St. Joseph, State of Indiana,
P Y y P
1 t: 10:
and which during that time, has been a newspaper of general circulation,
-- - - - - - --
having a bona fide paid circulation, printed in the English language and
entered, authorized and accepted by the post office department of the
United States of America as mailable matter of the second -class as defined
by the act of Congress of the United States of March 3, 1879, and that the
printed matter attached hereto is a true copy, which was duly published in
said newspaper.
time s, the dates of publication being as follows:
October 6. 2006
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day
of September 2006.
Geraldine Dickey
Notary Public
Resident of St. Joseph County
My commission expires January 28, 2009
Charges $7.98
A meeting, of the Historic
`
P C om m ission
h Bend
(H I
PC) County
and St. Joseph
will be held on November I
20, 2008 at 7:30 pm in
on the council
fourth (4th) floor
of the Countgr-i .
Building, South endd
Indiana. Agendas are
available in the HPC obtained
�
fice or may at
vi t_
a
SB R3
joseph.in.us Adddional
matters not requin 9 a
Hearing be
Public maenda
added to this ag
prior to the Meeting.
Lynn A. Patrick, P ;ide 0
State of Indiana
St. Joseph County ss:
Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for said county and
state, the undersigned Carol Smith
who, being duly sworn says that she is of competent age and is
Advertising Director of The South Bend Tribune, a
daily newspaper which for at least five (5) consecutive years has been
published in the City of South Bend, county of St. Joseph, State of Indiana,
and which during that time, has been a newspaper of general circulation,
having a bona fide paid circulation, printed in the English language and
entered, authorized and accepted by the post office department of the
United States of America as mailable matter of the second -class as defined
by the act of Congress of the United States of March 3, 1879, and that the
printed matter attached hereto is a true copy, which was duly published in
said newspaper.
time s, the dates of publication being as follows:
November 10, 2006
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day
of November 2006 .
Geraldine Dickey
Notary Public
Resident of St. Joseph County
My commission expires January 28, 2009
Charges $7.98
A meeting of the Historic
Preservation Commission I
(HPC) of South Bend
and St. Joseph County
will be held on December
"' 2008 at 7:30 pm in j
the Council Chambers
on the fourth (4th) floor
of the County -City
Building, South Bend,
Indiana. Agendas are
available in the HPC Of-
fice or may be obtained
via email at
!SBSJCHPC@co.st-
joseph.in.us Additional
matters not requiring a
Public Hearing may be
added to this agenda
prior to the Meeting.
Lynn A. Patrick, President
It: 12: 8
State of Indiana
St. Joseph County so:
Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for said county and
state, the undersigned Carol Smith
who, being duly sworn says that she is of competent age and is
Advertising Director of The South Bend Tribune, a
daily newspaper which for at least five (S) consecutive years has been
published in the City of South Bend, county of St. Joseph, State of Indiana,
and which during that time, has been a newspaper of general circulation,
having a bona fide paid circulation, printed in the English language and
entered, authorized and accepted by the post office department of the
United States of America as mailable matter of the second -class as defined
by the act of Congress of the United States of March 3, 1879, and that the
printed matter attached hereto is a true copy, which was duly published in.
said newspaper.
1 time s, the dates of publication being as follows:
December 8, 2006
oa 4 danvt�
Subscribed and sworn to before me this. 8th day
of. December. _ 2006— ,
Geraldine Dickey
Notary Public
Resident of St. Joseph County
My commission expires January 28, 2009
Charges $7.98
STAFF APPROVED COAS
FIRST QUARTER, 2006
2006 -0109
Z00F -0109A
2006.0111
2006.011 8A
2006 -0115C
2006 -01 ?.5
20064303
2006.0306
2006 -C3'17
2006 -0305
2006.0315
2016.0316
540 Fark Avenue
317 La Monte
11.11 I? iversiAe Dr
129 W. Nortnshore
129 W. Norilishore
1312 Lincc,nway East
Leerier Pane. West
1010 Hudson
Cii.«p;n Pank
SM Park Av3 '
711 Forest,
' . .223 F. Wayne
Rear Porch Roof Replacement
Roof replacetnenr
Roof Replacement
Remove and'repair, rcolace E:riri {_ivslis
In kind replacement of concrete. steps tittdt
, ;valk
Roof replacement:,
Datnaged Tree rema•.%al
Roof Replacement
Replacement of manhole coyer
Iloof replacement on Bay Nindo w
Roof and C'hintney work and repair
Diseased /Lead Tree Removal
Lion- permanent shed in barn
to kind and r `f po rch an.0. ccili rig
in kind roof repairs on house qud gii agc
Roof replacement
200E -0322 31'i L��Ior to
2006-0329 421 ':V. Naw - rre
20060329 -1 2119 Portage
206.0330 102 :Riverside
STAFF APPROVED COAs April 1 -June 30, 2006
i
I
COA#2006 -0404
t
1031 E. Jefferson
In -kind replacement of porch Features
C6A #2006 -0406
1121 E. Wayne
in -kind replacement windows
C6A #2006 -0410
�I
714 Forest Ave.
in -kind replacement of roof
COA#2006- 0410 -1
i
425 W. Northshore
removal of 4 non original bushes
CO'A #2006 -0413
504 E. LaSalle
re- install sign
i
CO'A #2006 - 0413 -1
865 Forest
removal of dead tree
COA #2006 -0420
540 River Ave
in -kind replacement of garage roof
And fence
COA #2006 -0424
863 Forest
in -kind roof replacement
COA #2006 - 0425 -1
i
1 323 E. Wayne
Dead Tree removal
COA #2006 -0425
i
219 E. Taylor
Re -roof and porch repair
COA #2006 -0427
844 Park Ave
In Kind Porch repair
i
COA #2006 0501 -1
433 W. Northshore
Re -roof
COA #2005 -0503
I
533 River
Deck in back yard
COA#2006 -0517
810 Park
Dead tree removal
COA #2006 -0518
407 LaMonte
Dead tree removal
COA#2006 -0523
518 LaMonte
repair shingles and gutters
COA #2006 -0608
552 River Ave
in -kind porch repair
COA #2006 -0615
419 LaMonte
restore cross heads
COA #2006 -0621
531 Carroll
re -roof
COA #2006 -0622
53190 Juniper
in kind step replacement
COA #2006 -0623
626 Park Avenue
in kind replacement of front
4
Entry porch and frame
STAFF APPROVALS: JULY 1- SEPTEMBER 30, 2006
it
�I
2006.0705
502 N. ST JOSEPH
REROOF
2006.0707
807 ASHLAND
DEAD TREE REMOVAL
2006.0710
1326 E. WAYNE N.
DEAD TREE REMOVAL
2006.0712
853 FOREST AVE
IN-KIND PORCH REPAIR
2006.0717
714 FOREST
DEAD TREE REMOVAL
2006.0720
706 PARK
INJUND REPAIR /STUCCO,FASCIA
2006-0719
519 RIVERSIDE
REROOF
2006.0720A
211 ► PORTAGE
RE-ROOF
2006.0721
1017 RIVERSIDE
IN-IQND FENCE
2006.0724
317 LAMONTE
IN-KIND STEP /WALKWAY REPAIR
2006.0726
1055 RIVERSIDE
DRIVEWAY REPAIR
2006.0808
1324 E. WAYNE S.
IN-KIND ROOF REPAIR
200£ -0808A
209 HAMMOND
IN-KIND WALK REPLACEMENT
2006.0814
1704 E. WAYNE
DEAD TREE REMOVAL
2006-0816
LEEPER PARK
DEAD /DYING TREE REMOVAL
2006.0822
424 MANITOU
IN-KIND PORCH REPAIR.
2006.0825
2300 PORTAGE
IN-KINND REPAIRS/REPLACMENTS
2006.0328
1326 E. WAYNE N.
IN-KIND PORCH, STEPS REPAIR
2.006.0830A
548 RIVER
IN-KIND DOOR REPLACEMENT
2005.0830
840 PARK
IN-KIND WINDOW IEPI kCEMENT
2006-083 1
LEE-PER ISLAND
DEAD TREE REMOVAL
2006.0901
827 PARK
IN-KIND PORCH REPLACEMENT
2006.0905
616 N. ST. JOSEPH
REROOF
2076. 0906
830 N. MICHIGAN
LIGHT REPLACEMENTS
2006.0911
31.8 W. NAVARRE
DEAD TREE REMOVAL
2006. 0915
344 S.SUNNYSIDE
HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL
200 6.0918
708 N. ST. JOSEPH
REROOF
2006.0921
1021 RIVERSIDE
DEAD TREE REMOVAL/
WALKWAY REPLACEMENT
2006 -0926
410 MANITOU
IN-KIND REPLACEMENT OF
REPLACMENT WINDOWS
STAFF APPROVALS
OCTOBER 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2006
2006 =1004
I
2006=1005
'I
2006
2006 - -1013
2006 x,1018
2006 �� 1031
!I
i
2006 -1101
2006 I 1024
2006
2006 -1114
2006 -1115
2006 - 117
2006 -1120
2006 -1120A
2006 -1213
I
i
2006 -1214
2006 -1214A
�I
j
316 LAMONTE DEAD TREE REMOVAL
812 FOREST RE -ROOF
107 W. NORTHSHORE DEAD TREE
REMOVAL
112 S. LAFAYETTE REPAIR PORCH
944 RIVERSIDE GARAGE DOOR
REPLACEMENT
1110 E.WAYNE IN -KIND EYEBROW
ROOF REPAIR
1709 E. WAYNE RE -ROOF
706 N. ST. JOE . RE -ROOF
701 PENNSYVANIA LANDSCAPING AFTER
UTILITIES INSTALL
843 PARK GARAGE DOOR
REPLACEMENT
412 LAMONTE
RE- ROOF
619 EDGEWATER
PORCH RESTORATION
836 DUSHANE CT
RE -ROOF
1219 E. WAYNE
RE -ROOF
952 RIVERSIDE
GARAGE RE -ROOF AND
REPAIR
614 PORTAGE WINDOW
RESTORATION
1201 E.WAYNE RE -ROOF
ABSTRACT OF TITLE
1I
853 FOREST
Lot 37 in Edward P. Chapin's First Plat of Chapin Place Addition to the To n, now City
of South Bend
The East half of Section Two Township Thirty -seven North Range Two East
Deed Recites: "Which half section of land was granted to the above named Laurance
Bertrand by the Treaty made and concluded at Chicago, in the State of Illinois between
Lewis Cass and Solomon Sibley, Commissioners of the United States and the Ottawa,
Chippewa and Pottawatimie nations of Indians on the 29' day of August, A.D. 1821."
Francis Comparet and Eleanor Comparet, his wife To Alexis Coquillards his heirs and
assigns a Quit Claim Deed, Dated Oct. 24, 1835, Recorded Dec. 26, 1835
Detai I ls of litigation concerning Alexis Coquillard and John Defrees versus The State
Bank of Indiana, South Bend Branch and the Kankakee Mill Race September 1843 and
continues to cite suits up to march, 1846 until State Bank of Indiana executes a Warranty
Deed to Horatio Chapin Dated July 19, 1855.
Also records the Quit Claim Deed dated Sept 4, 1874 of Phebe A. Chapin, widow of
Horatio Chapin, deceased to Mary E. Anderson and Edward P. Chapin and the Partition
of the property between Mary Chapin Anderson and Andrew Anderson to Edward P.
Chapin dated June 3, 1875 with a Map showing Lot 37.
The ownership of Lot 37 being transferred to Charles E. Clipfell from the Cll arles and
Edward Chapin families on September 4, 1890. The Mortgage between Ann Klingel and
the Clipfells dated May 7, 1900. The Foreclosure in St. Joseph Circuit Court Estate of
Anna Klingel versus the Clipfells and the judgement rendered, September 15, 1903 and
subsequent purchase by Albert G. Harlin on November 7, 1903 and then to William Happ
on November 9, 1904.
I
Note #38 September 4, 1890 deed restrictions: "This deed is made upon the express
condition that the said grantee, his heirs and assigns, shall erect and construct a good an d
substantial dwelling house on said lot to cost not less than $850 within three years from
date hereof and shall erect and maintain forever a good and substantial fence i across the
west F end of said lot. And further that any and all outbuildings that may be e on
said lot shall be kept and maintained within 25 feet of the west line of said lot. On any
violation of all or either of these conditions the title to said premises herein conveyed
shall revert to the grantor, Edward P. Chapin, his heirs and assigns" and Whereas the
condition relating to the dwelling house on said lot to cost not less that $850.00 to be
erected within three years has been fully complied with and whereas it was not the
intention of the said grantors that the restrictions should prevent the erection of a private
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNT - '
August 21, 2006
4" Floor Council Chambers
County — City Building, South Bend, Indiana
Members Present: Lynn Patrick LP[President], Mary Jane Chase MJC[Secretar q, Catherine Hostetler CH,
Martha Choitz MC, Linda Riley LR, Joann Sporleder JS,[Architectural Historian], Jerry Ujdak JU,
Staff Present: Catherine Hostetler CH [Director], Amy Herdman AH [Asst. Director],
Others Present: Don Sporleder
Absent: Shawn Peterson SP [Legal Counsel], Tim Klusczinski TK [Treasurer], TI dd Zeiger TZ [Vice President]
I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL: Lynn Patrick called the meeting to or ler at 7:30pm
ii. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
None on the agenda.
B: LANDMARKS
1. 1013 East Jefferson — Second Reading
CH. We have the landmark agreement signed off on by..
JS: Signed on or signed off ?
CH. She's signed off on the form; she signed on the dotted line, on the lat dmarks form- the
owner Serena Howley.
MC: May I make a motion that we pass this on to the Common Council for approval?
CH. Yes, you may.
JS: I'll second that motion.
LP: All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (Silence)
Moved: MC Second: JS Vote: 7 -0 Unanimous
LP: Oh yes, I'm sorry, we were so eager to begin that we did not do our roll call.
Roll call followed as recorded above.
LP: I'd like to make a motion that the roll call be included in the beginning of the minutes of
this meeting, even though we started....
JU: Second
LP: All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (Silence)
Moved: LP Second: JU Vote: 7 -0 Unanimous
LR: Could I make a suggestion? On the second reading, could you mention t.le address?
CH. I did. 1013 E Jefferson.
LP: Did you mean mentioned on the minutes or in her verbal statement?
LR: Both.
JS: Once it's sent to Council, then they'll send it back...?
CH.- Right.
LP: Ok.
CA We have a proposal for anew landmark that's come before us. And we were approached by
the homeowners and they requested that we investigate whether or not their property was eligible
and met the three criteria mentioned in the Ordinance for land marking. Staff reviewed what we
have which are the survey cards and the assessor cards, which is all that the off °e has.
LP: Is this on Forest Avenue?
!- r
. 4
CH. • Yes.
CH. And I hope that you all had a chance to drive by it. I have some color photos here that show
the house a little bit better.
LP: When you present this, do you use color pictures or black and white?
CH. Color.
JS: This is already in a local district, why does it need special attention?
CH. The owners have requested that the Commission consider it to be a landmark It meets the
three criteria that we have for a property to be considered for landmark status. It's up to the
Commission to decide whether it's worthy to be a landmark
JS: Are there other designated landmarks in this district?
CH.- I believe there are some, yes.
LP: As with anything, I'm sure that there are some that we would consider even more worthy, but
given where this is, and that the owners are this interested in it, I have no problem land marking
it. Especially given the wonderful district that it's in, their interest, and it does meet the criteria.
And there are other places that meet the criteria, and the owners don't want them land marked...
CH. I spoke to the chairman of the landmarks committee, which is Todd, to verify that he wanted
this put on the agenda for this evening and he said to go ahead and put it on here. We can either
send it back to the committee for further research, or move it on to the second reading.
JU. • What's his recommendation?
CH. He didn't give me one I didn't even know that he wasn't going to be here tonight.
JU. Oh, ok. I don't have any problem with it.
LP: I have no problem. I'd like a motion.
JU. So moved.
MJC: Is this the first or the second reading?
LP This was the first reading.
CH. There's really no need for a motion. (Discussion ensues)
MC. We still have next month to do anything about it.
LP: Jerry, your motion is that we accept the first reading of 853 Forest and you move that it be
moved forward to the next meeting for a second reading? All in favor? (Ayes heard) All
opposed? (Silence) The motion carries.
Moved: JU Second: ` LP Vote: 7 -0 Unanimous
MC.- I would like some clarification, do we have any history of the building at any time that it's
been in our files?
CH.- No, you have what we've got.
MC. Ok, that answers that then.
CH. And we checked to see if it was designed by a notable architect and we could find n..9
notation of an architect. We can go back to the owners and ask them if they have anything in
their abstract, of even if they have their abstract...
JU.- They would have an abstract...
CH.- We would hope.
JU. Yeah, you're right, we would hope. How long have they owned the home?
CH.- I don't know.
MJC: Do we have a list of all of the previous owners?
CH. That's not really ... see, we've got some history, but when we went down to the Main Street
Cornelius O'Brien Conference in Madison we discussed that genealogy alone is not a ough to
establish the historic nature of a house. It's got to have some architectural features t ? it. The
fact that it's a stick style, and that it's a cross gable, and that it's been well maintained and
according to our survey card it's also been unaltered.
JS: (unintelligible due to shuffling paper)
CH. • 1 think that stayed in the Happ family for a number of decades.
JS: When was this card done?
CH. Either in '79 or '80.
is
DELIVERY RECEIPT / PACKING SLIP
814 S. Main • South Bend, IN 46601 27479
printing company 574.232.7935 • Fax 574.288.2115
FOR /`/ /rLSPr ✓c tiv. l� /gym /.T i a r) I DATE F - I?- O 6
ADDRESS L / /r/ Avo ATTENTION /fm)/ CIS r��r�a.i
Number Quantity Form Number Your Order Our Order Description
Of Pkqs. Number Number
l e
Delivered By GtiLc c,
THANK YOU!
Received By��
Company
� ��
garage and other modern outbuildings and whereas there is not longer any advantage in
maintaining a good and substantial fence across the west end of said lot and whereas
William Happ is now the owner in fee simple of the real estate herein described. Now
therefore the said Edward P Chapin and Leonora L. Chapin his wife release to William
Happ the entire paragraph of restrictions in said deed and release and cancel the
reversionary rights in and to the said lot.
In Note #53 The will of William Happ dated March 1, 1938 is recorded leaving all of his
real estate to his three sons, Willard, Robert and Eugene as well stock in William Happ &
Sons, Inc. The notice of final Account of the Estate of William Happ dated March 30,
1943.
( 1 - 1 r
JS: I think that what Mary Jane said would be interesting. To have some information about
ownership, and I guess that I would like to know who, I mean, not that it makes any difference
really, but someone has restored it very nicely. I think that might be an interesting part of its
history as well.
MJC: It says that in 1903 Mr. Clipfall sold the house to Albert Harlin, and the following year
sold the house to Mr. Happ and its been in his ownership since.
CH. And now the Prince's own it. The Happ family owned it through the 1970's or '80's. The
last notation on the survey card was from 1987. But we just did another survey.
MJC: So then we would have up until the present owners.
JS: But there may be a gap between the Happ's and the present owners.
LP: Did they send you a letter or anything about the house?
CH. • Yes, well no, not about the house.
LP: How about this. I'm sensing that the Commission would like a little more background, even`
though they seem to be generally in favor of it. Can you request of them that they put together
something, whatever they've got, give them some of the questions that we asked...
JU.• The Portage Township Assessor would have the chain of ownership.
MC. But they wouldn't have things like whether or not the windows had been replaced or things
like that that would be if interest to us.
JU: Oh, heavens no.
LP: Maybe Amy could call or go over to the Portage Township Assessor and get the chain of
ownership?
AH Yes, sure.
CH. • We've got it on the tax rolls, but they don't show anything past conversion. They just say
"conversion record".
LR: Is there an advantage to the owner to have it become a landmark.
CH.- Well, not really... they're already in a National Register District, and in a Local Historic
District.
LP: It just makes it a trifecta. (laughter) Just one more feather in their cap. It's nice when you
market it, it's not just historic and in a historic district, 'it's a landmark.
LR: Some people don't want a landmark
LP: Well, you're selectively screening out the people that don't. Alright, I'd like to move on from
this. And there are no National Register nominations at this time.
CH- No.
LP: On to the regular business, the approval of minutes.
C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION
None on the agenda.
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
LP: If people have read them, including the amended version, and even if they haven't ... I'd like a
motion on approval of the minutes ofJulyl7, 2006.
MJC: I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of July 17, 2006.
JS: Which version are you...?
MJC: The amended version
JS: The amended version.
LP: Yes, the amended version with our Counsel's comments.
JS: Which he put in later, you might make that part of your motion.
LP. • I'd like a motion to approve the amended minutes of July 17, 2006, which includes Counsel's
comments which he clarified after reading the first draft.
JS: I'll second that motion.
LP: All in favor? (Ayes are heard) All opposed? (Silence) The motion carries
Moved: MJC Second: JS Vote: 7 -0 Unanimous
3
r' 1
MC. Would you like the old ones kept for our records?
CH. • If you'd like or you can just hand them to me and I'll throw them out.
LP: Is that why it says July 17, and July 31?
CH.- No, those are two separate minutes.
AH.• July 31"' was the Executive Session.
LP: Oh, I didn't see that it said Executive Session....
JU.• Amy, is there part of this that was changed?
AH.• No, he added probably added 7 or 8 comments starting with page three where previously, on
the original version it read "unintelligible " because it really was. I thought it better to leave it
that way and then ask him to clarify rather than try to surmise what he had said.
JU.• Oh, ok.
AH.-1 did that as I was only able to hear about every tenth word.
CH. • Ifyou'd like to give me the old copies...
JU. No, I'll keep it.
LP. Next up for approval is the minutes from the July 31, 2006 Executive Session on the
goldenrod paper. The single sheet.
AH.• Catherine those were amended as well, correct?
CH. • Yes.
AH.• What you got in your packets has also been amended and is on goldenrod colored paper.
That was also by Shawn's directive.
LP: Ok. I only have one copy.
CH. • You just need the gold copy.
LP: That's the one I have.
CH. That's all you need, that one's correct.
LP: I'd like a motion on the minutes.
MC. I move that we accept the minutes of the July 31' Executive Committee.
LP Mary Jane Chase has seconded it. All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Any opposed? (Silence)
No? The motion carries.
Moved: MC Second: MJC Vote: 7 -0 Unanimous
TREASURER'S REPORT
LP: The Treasurers Report we'll hold off until next time, unless he gave you something?
CH. No, what you have is the standard location report that the County generates for the
departments budget, plus our proposed budget for 2007 that reflects the required 2% cuts.
LP: Ok.
CH. And we go in for hearings on that later this month.
JS: Did you get the 2% out of the total?
CH. That is just the proposed budget with the 2% reduction.
JS: My observation here is that some of the line items are the same, and yet some are different
and what you've done is managed to make them total 2 %, not 2% in each line item.
CH. Oh heavens no.
JS: Am I correct?
CH.• Yes.
JS: That would be pretty monumentally awful.
CH. No, it's just out of the total budget: It doesn't require any action, just for information.
LP: Next up is me.
B. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. President's Report
LP: The President's Report, Advisory Board. Catherine and I, through no fault of her own, have
not yet met about the Advisory Board. I do have a printout of the names. I'm planning to meet
4
with Catherine and Amy at our earliest opportunity. It strikes me that we have a new person on
our professional staff who is extremely motivated, full of new ideas, and I know she likes to start
up new things, but I'd like to see if we could better utilize Amy to help us get this going because I
think that its going to require some concerted effort.
CH. • But nor have we had any input from any of the other Commissioners. Everyone was emailed
the list. And I think that Jerry, did we mail that to you?
JU. • You can't.
CH: No, regular mail.
JU: No.
CH: We'll get you a copy of it. It's a working list of ideas that everyone was adding on to. We
emailed it to you, all the other Commissioners got it, it was on the same email, if Lynn got it, and
Linda got, it got out. It was attached.
MC: I may have disconnected already to go away.
LP: We got it some time ago.
CH. • We sent it out by email.
LR: I haven't seen that
LP: I have another version, but I can get another one from the oice. I'm going to give mine to
Jerry, so he'll know what we're talking about. Pass this down to Jerry please.
JU. • That should have been mailed to me. When was this given to me?
CH. • We've been working on this since the retreat.
JU: Since when?
CH. • The retreat.
LP: Last fall.
CH: It went out, Lynn got it.
MJC: If I did get it, it's probably something that I didn't open.
CH: We sent it out in two different versions, in a .PDFfile and in a word file.
LP: When you get back to the office tomorrow can you resend the most recent one?
CH. • Yeah, sure. We were hoping to get this thing going. To get this list, go through it, so people
could make their recommendations, delist people that they didn't think would be interested, then
we would narrow it down and then appoint some people to contact those that we wanted to have
on an advisory board for the Commission.
MJC.• On some of these, I don't know why ... I don't know what they do.
CH: I know.
MC: It's hard to vote when you don't know...
CH. • We didn't compile the list. People were throwing names at us and we were writing them
down.
JU. • When was this?
LP: This started last fall, and there was some minor discussion, and Catherine typed it up.
People threw in names periodically when we talked about it.
CH. If we knew that they were architects, we tried to put that little designation by their name.
JU: Have any of these people been contacted.
LP: No, we haven't done anything. This is just in its nascence. It's good that we brought this up
at this meeting because apparently a couple people were unaware...
MC: Yeah, I haven't seen anything like this at all. I know that we're going to disconnect from
our AOL very soon, and it may already be out of commission to get the high speed stuff.
CH. • Ok, what we will do is we will mail everything out.
MC: Or 1 could pick it up.
CH. • No, we'll mail it out. This is getting ridiculous as we have sent this list out at least 3 other
times.
JU: I've never seen it.
CH. • This is very frustrating.
LP: I know lets move on from this. I'll have a more comprehensive report next meeting.
CH. • If you want to move on, we've have to move on it.
R
LP: That's why I need to come to the office and talk to Catherine and Amy. I've said before we
need to go over this more. Catherine's done a great job with this, as I know that these names
have come from a lot of different quarters. Some of these names were from our retreat, people
threw out a couple of names then and then periodically we've revisited this theme, more names
have been added, and its kind of morphed into what's in front of you now. I'll get with Catherine
and Amy and try to have something more substantive, and I'll also try to get a little background
on these people.
MC: It's the entire thing, because of how you make contact with those people.
LP: We haven't made any contact. What I'm thinking of doing, and I'll get with Catherine on
this, is just get some numbers, and make a phone call. You know? "Would you be interested?"
Just keep it very,....
CH: I think that happens after the Commission decides who they want to .... we could even have
an A list and a B list and let it filter that way.
JU: Why does the Commission have to decide what these people would do? What the
parameters? What's the purpose? And then go out... we're getting the cart before the horse here.
CH. • Well the parameters were, and I think that this was while you were out ill Jerry, that we...
JU: We need to set it down on paper.
CH. • It was, it was in the minutes. Basically, it was to get a group of experts to help the
Commission in areas where it doesn't have the expertise. Architects, designers, review people,
that sort of thing. The second item was, according to my understanding, to have a group of
people that would give the Commission guidance in the future as to where it should be looking for
its direction. We've got nine people here, nine different backgrounds, but you know, that's it. It
was also a means to broaden the net of the Commission to other area professionals who are
historians, and architects, and knowledgeable of and appreciative of historic preservation to help
the Commission in its goals of reaching out the communities.
JU. • Put that on paper.
CH: It's on paper, Jerry.
JU. • Well then you need to get it to us. Get it to us again; I'm not going to go digging around in
past minutes.
CH: Ok.
JU. • Life is tough sometimes. There's a name that's obviously been left off of that list.
LP: And that is?
JU. • Our past President.
LP: I think that he was on the list, but he said that he was not interested.
JU :I don't know.
CH: Our indication was that Mr. Oxian does not want to have anything to do with this
Commission as long as I am the Director.
JU: He told you that?
CH He told Julie Schutte that.
JU: Maybe you ought to check that out.
MJC. And if anyone knows what skills these people have that would be helpful.
LP: You've given us a lot to noodle on here.
CH: If any of you know what these people do, please let us know. We were merely compiling this
list of names.
JS: If I could just stick one little thing here. Apparently none of sitting here submitted names, so
who are the people that did?
CH: Joann, you submitted a name to us, and that's on the list.
LP: I know Riverbend Blacksmiths have been at our last two awards banquets. There are subtle
differences in first and second generation drafts of the list. We'll come up with a thorough list ad
we'll date it. We'll comeback to this at the next meeting, if not sooner. I don't believe that there
are any committee meetings reports? Are there any CoA approvals, in house ones?
CH We'll do our quarterly report on those.
0
2. Correspondence
Director Hostetler presented correspondence from The Holland Historic District Commission of
Holland, MI. The note thanks HPC Staff for their assistance and proposes a visit to tour our
districts, meet Commissioners, and observe a meeting. Our colleagues from Holland will b
visiting South Bend on September 18, 2006. President Patrick reviewed previous plans to
reschedule the September meeting, but has decided to leave the meeting as scheduled. Martha
Choitz, Mary Jane Chase, Jerry Ujdak and HPC stiff will assist with hosting and visit with our
visitors from Holland.
Catherine shared a letter from Ted Foti of Memorial Hospital inviting "hospital neighbors" to a
meeting on August 26` 2006, loam, at the NNN Office on Portage Avenue to discuss the parking
situation facing Memorial and its surrounding neighborhoods.
C. STAFF REPORTS
1. Director's Report — Catherine Hostetler
Distributed to Commissioners.
2. Assistant Director's Report — Amy Herdman
Amy distributed the Six at Risk Report for Commission review, including color photos of the
properties on the list. Amy specifically thanked Commissioner Zeiger for his assistance and
guidance in the preparation of the report and the accompanying press - release. -
Commissioners were given 2 pieces of HPC note cards that were recently delivered to the office,
bearing the new HPC logo.
Commissioners were also given samples of "Historic Preservation Nuts" the new confection
created with South Bend Chocolate as a fundraiser for the HPC.
Commissioners approved an invitation for Ellen Harper of Main Street Indiana to South Bend for
an informational presentation on bringing that program to South Bend.
Moved: JU Second: JS Vote: 7 -0 Unanimous
A discussion followed regarding the.piogress of a project at the Firehouse on Hill Street. Greg
Kil has been working on the addition•fo the building and won the praise of the Commissioners
that have seen the work thus far.
3. Legal Report — Shawn Peterson
None given as Counsel was absent from the meeting.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
None discussed.
V. NEW BUSINESS
Martha expressed concern that the Portage Avenue corridor is being "lost ", and encouraged the
Commission to do something to save the area. She further clarified the area that she was—referring
to as both sides of Portage Avenue from Marquette St. North to Riverview Cemetery.
President Patrick moved this issue into the Districts Committee (chaired by Martha Choitz) for
further review and consideration. President Patrick asked to have a preliminary report prepared
for the September meeting.
VI. HEARING OF VISITORS
Guest Don Sporleder was recognized to speak.
Unfortunately due to paper shuffling, and other background disturbances, Mr. Sporleder's
comments are unintelligible.
ADJOURNMENT 8:40 pm
7
4 9
Attest:
A 20W c�f"o—
Mary JanlChase
Secretary
Historic Preservation Commission
South Bend & St. Joseph County
r- /7 - -"
Date
; 1n
r Historic Preservation Commission
Fax Transmittal Form
To ow"a-
Name
Organization Name /Dept:
CC:
Phone number:
Fax number. 432 — /x' PO
❑ PER YOUR REQUEST
❑ For Review
❑ Please Comment
❑ Please Reply
Message: A&Ao—
Mailing Address
County-City Building
South Bend, IN. 46601
Phone: 574-235-9798
Fax: 574-235-9578
tmail: chostetl @co.st - joseph.in.us
From Catherine D. Hostetler
Historic Preservation Commission
Phone: 574 - 235 -9798
Fax: 574-235-9578
Email: chostetl @co.st - joseph.in.us
Date sent: 7/2-ft Time sent: /D: SS
Number of pages including cover page: ,I-
A44-M,
Catherine D. Hostetler
Director
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend
and St. Joseph County
HPC
NOTICE OF MEETING OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
Notice is hereby given that an executive session of the Historic Preservation
Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County (the "Commission ") will be held on July 31,
2006, in the Conference Room of the Office of Historic Preservation at 125 S. Lafayette, South
Bend, Indiana 46601, commencing at 5:00 p.m. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss
matters pursuant to Indiana Code § 5- 14- 1.5- 6.1(b)(7) and (13).
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
�o -e?
President
Dated: July 27, 2006
(To be provided to all news media who have requested notice of meetings of the Historic
Preservation Commission, 'and to be posted at the entrance of the Office of Historic Preservation
by 5: 00 p. m., July 27, 2006).
1
15 ;
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUP'
[Corrected Version] `
January 23, 2006
County-City Building, South Bend
County Commissioners' Conference Room, 7 Floor
Members Present: Lynn Patrick [President], Mary Jane Chase [Secretary], Joann Sporleder
[Architectural Historian], Todd Zeiger, Timothy Klusczinski, Catherine Hostetler, Jerry Ujdak
Members Absent: Diane Wrobel - Illes, Martha Choitz [Vice- President]
Staff Present: Catherine Hostetler [Director], Julie Schutte [Assistant Director], Shawn Peterson [Legal
Counsel], Wayne Doolittle [Inspector]
Also Present: John Peddycord, Patricia Primmer, Marcel Lebbin, Roland Kelly, Robert Huddleston,
Bernard Diedrich, Bob Yapp, Don Sporleder
I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL: Lynn Patrick called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
II. PUBLIC HEARING
Lynn asked Shawn Peterson, Legal Counsel, to Chair the Certificate of Appropriateness portion of the
meeting.
A. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
1. 2006 -0104: 1325 East Wayne Street South
Shawn Peterson: The homeowner, Roland Kelly, is present. I'd like to recognize the staff to present
their staff report.
Catherine Hostetler read the staff report as follows. This 1926 Colonial Revival home was designed
by H.R. Stapp for Whitcomb and Keller for Myra G. and Elmer A. Higgins. Mr. Higgins was the first
Christian Science teacher in South Bend. The home was purchased by Merrice and Roland Kelly in
1969. At the time of the 1986 survey, it was noted that there was an aluminum -sided one -story
gabled read addition to the house with a shed roof entrance. Application items: Mr. Kelly wishes to
extend the one -story rear addition on his home to accommodate a full bathroom and bedroom. He
also wishes to reconstruct the current deck to attach to the rear of the new addition. The new addition
will match the exterior and will not remove any original feature of the house.- The new windows will -- --
match the windows on the house which would be wooden Pella windows. Standards for East Wayne
Street: III> New Construction A. Height and proportion: Required: Additions to existing buildings
shall be related in height and proportion to the existing structure. B. Building Materials: Required:
Materials used on an addition to an existing structure shall relate so that the addition could be
removed without damage to the basic structure and appearance of the building. Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the addition and deck as they are in proportion to the existing house,
will match the exterior materials and do not infringe upon the original 1926 structure.
Shawn Peterson: The Chair now recognizes Mr. Roland Kelly.
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
Roland Kelly: Hi. How are you? I present this for your hopeful approval. What we are really doing
with this project is building an apartment for me at the rear of the house. It's a big old house. I've
lived in it for years and my wife is gone now, so I rattle around in it. It gets awfully lonely at times,
and what will happed when we finally get it built - it seems to be taking an inordinately long time to
get this done — but my son and his family will move in with me. They will have the major portion of
the house and I will have my apartment. They will have their privacy and I will have mine. With
three young girls in the house, it will be wonderful for me. I'm looking forward to this for some time,
as Catherine knows, but its been like pulling teeth to get things done, and ... we're getting close and
of course we need your approval; to get it done properly. I trust I'll have that approval by the end of
the evening because I have to get back to a council meeting. Incidentally, that 1926 year means
something to me, too. That was the year I was born, so you now know how old the house is.
[Everyone chuckles.]
Shawn Peterson: The Chair will now recognize any Commissioner who has questions for Staff or the
property owner.
Joann Sporleder: I have a question. The siding is going to be aluminum like the addition?
Roland Kelly: Yes, right. It will match, and of course, the deck that I have now will be removed and
a new deck will be built.
Shawn Peterson: The Chair will now open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Are there any
members of the public who wish to speak on this mater? Seeing none, the Chair now closes the
Public portion of the meeting. Is there any other additional evidence wishing to be submitted on this
matter? Seeing none, the Chair now opens it for discussion amongst the Commissioners. Discussion
has been completed. The Chair will now entertain a motion to approve or deny the C of A.
Joann Sporleder: I will move that Certificate of Appropriateness 2006 -0104, 1325 East Wayne
Street, the application for an addition to the back of the house and the deck, be approved as submitted.
Shawn Peterson: There is a motion on the floor.
Mary Jane Chase seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, 7 -0 in favor of approval. Roland
Kelly stated his appreciation for the approval and noted that the correct location of his home is on
East Wayne Street South for the record.
2. 2005 -1028: 2300 Portage Ave, renumbered to 2006 -0123
Shawn Peterson: The next C of A is 2005 -1028. Would the owners or representatives for
Alderwoods Group please step to the podium? The Chair will now recognize staff for the
presentation of its report.
Catherine Hostetler: The date of this application is 2005 -1028 because of the requests of the
attorneys for Alderwoods Group to table, so we have been tabling this since October. The
designation ... The owner is Alderwoods Group, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It's a landmark
designated in 2000. Rating is significant/12. Statement of Significance: It is a Romanesque style
gatehouse designed by Claude K. Howell, a notable Midwest architect, in 1900. Granite masonry
units are cut and constructed in much the same way as other stone buildings in the area including
Tippecanoe, Copshaholm, and the Birdsell House, which were constructed by expert German
stonemasons. They shaped granite boulders with hand tools and fitted each into the fagade.
APPLICATION ITEMS: Demolition of the entire structure. RECOMMENDATION: This is a case
of demolition by neglect. The building does not serve the needs of the cemetery administration, so
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
Fa
the owners have not put the necessary money into the building to maintain it nor have they sought
another use for the gatehouse. They have let it sit hoping that it will deteriorate to a point where it
would not be economically feasible to repair, thereby, tying the hands of the Commission.
In 2002, HPC's Inspector reviewed the building and found repairs were needed, especially the roof.
A letter was sent to the owners requesting repair of the building. Photos of the building were also
sent to Code Enforcement, but this building has not been placed on their agendas.
The building does need repair but it is not beyond repair. As an administrative office for a cemetery,
the building might not make enough revenue to cover maintenance costs, but other uses would
certainly be able to support the building economically. Any number of uses could be found for the
building besides cemetery administration purposes - an interfaith chapel for memorial services, an
upscale restaurant, offices, or banquettevent space.
The city may be purchasing right -of -way from the cemetery to construct a roundabout at the
intersection of Portage and Lathrop. These monies could be used for the repair building.
Staff does not recommend approval. There will be a report from the Landmarks Committee on this
matter presented at the November meeting, which did not occur.
Shawn Peterson: For clarification, the C of A will be deemed to be submitted today January 23`
2006 pursuant to the property owner's request that the C of A be tabled to today. Today will be the
effective date for the purposes of the Municipal Code and the provision therein. The Chair now
wishes to recognize the property owner.
John Peddycord: My name is John Peddycord. I'm an attorney with offices at 9100 Edison Lakes
Pkwy, Mishawaka. To my immediate right is Pat Primmer, one of my partners. Pat represents
Alderwoods Group on a regular basis in this area with matters that they on which they need legal
representation. Due to my experience with real estate, they asked me to appear here with her this
evening. We represent Alderwoods Group. They are the owners - for those of you who are not aware
— of not only Riverview Cemetery on the east side of Portage between Portage and the Saint Joseph
River, but they also own Highland Cemetery on Portage across the street, of which has considerable
historical significance. I'm sure most of you are aware of that.
The company is a rather large company. For way of background, they own approximately 800
cemeteries, or operate 800 cemeteries in North America. We have with us this evening, you'll hear
from them later for those of you who don't know the gentlemen to my right. The first gentleman is
Bernard Diedrich, a local certified real estate appraiser, and to his right is Robert Huddleston, another
certified real estate appraiser, who I've had the privilege of using as experts in various real estate
matters over the last 15 to 20 years.
First, before I start my formal presentation, I would like to thank your counsel, Shawn Peterson. He
was a big help tome particularly this afternoon. I spent I think about three hours as juror #11 in a
criminal case as a juror until they finally informed us that a... the defendant decided to enter a plea.
That took some of my time away that I had intended to spend on this matter. In any event, Shawn was
nice enough to give us a courtesy call, as many attorneys do in his position, and discussed this with
us, briefly. He did correct something that we were not aware of and we were not aware of it for a
legitimate reason. We were operating originally under the assumption that you were bound by the
1977 State Statute on Historic Preservation Commissions. He informed us for the first time that we
learned that at about 3:30 this afternoon or 4:00 even that you predate that statute. You were formed
in 1973 and there is some debate as to whether or not you are bound by the State Statute or not. Your
attorney rightly takes the position that you are not, and I don't know if I agree with that, but I'm not
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
k]
going to argue that tonight, because quite frankly, the standard that I think applied under the 1977
Statute is substantially similar to in many ways to the standard that I understand you are operating
under. And then on top of everything else, we subscribe to a service, or our firm does, to the South
Bend City Code and we annually get releases from the company that we buy this South Bend city
code from is owned by the City Counsel's attorney, Cathy ...Cekanski, and we historically receive, at
least once a year, sometimes twice a year, the updates to the South Bend City Code, we have not been
furnished yet and still haven't been as of today the 19. We understand there is a new copy of the City
Code that her company is producing. The code was recodified, as some of you may know in 2005,. .
and we were reading the old City ordinance for the Historic Preservation Commission, and so Shawn
was nice enough to send us the current version, which does not vary that much from the old version,
very slightly. And not only that, but he also forwarded to me the two sets of standards which various
Commissions, either this board or an earlier board, had adopted that govern your consideration and
determination of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Now withstanding all that background, we ... our client would very much like to demolish the building
in question. Before I get into our reasons for doing so, we did read the staff report initially and I must
state that we must respectfully take exception to some of the statements contained in the staff report.
We want to make it clear though that in doing so that our goal here this evening is not to offend
anyone or even to make this an adversarial proceeding. There is another foram for that after we
decide to go that route. We even respect the Commission's and the staffs goal of trying to preserve
this structure if economically feasible. I kind of have mixed emotions being here representing
Alderwoods as an advocate ... As Todd knows, I'm a member of Historic Landmarks Foundation of
Indiana. I even serve on an Advisory Commission, or Board, I guess I should say for the Northern
Regional Office, of which Todd is the Director. Notwithstanding my historical background - I'm a
history major from Ball State - and my desire to see virtually any reasonably preservable historic
building or structure preserved. There are some real problems with this particular building and any
attempt to do so. And notwithstanding your goals and our understanding of those goals and the
appreciation of them, as owner of the structure and the property, we feel we have a right and perhaps
an even an obligation to present our perception of not only the situation but our perception of the
realities of the situation. Before I get into specifics, I also want to make known that we did receive a
verbal proposal from Todd wearing his other hat as Executive Director of the Northern Region Office
of Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, and - he asked us, the client, to consider whether we
would consider gift this property to Historic Landmarks as a non - profit organization and hopefully
they would be able to salvage the building and preserve it. I can tell you that we have discussed this
by phone with ... including one of the Vice - Presidents of Alderwoods and we are going to seriously
evaluate that request. We are asking and we want to it on record tonight, to request that HLFI, I'm
sure Todd will follow up on this, present us with a written proposal along these lines. At the stage,
it's only been verbal and we need something in writing. Unfortunately, because of the size of our
organization, we can't make this decision in 48 hours or 72 hours or any thing like that. It will
probably will take anywhere from 30 to 60 days... Assuming that they do submit that written request,
-- - - —and that is a serious request on the part of HLFI that we have 30, minimum 30, preferably 60 days to _ -
consider that request and we will gladly do that. And I'll be honest with you .... Pat and I even gave a
list of about six reasons why we thought it might be appropriate and would be advantageous to our
client. But, quite frankly, it's not my decision to make nor is it Ms. Primmer's decision to make.
And we assure you it will be given serious thought and there are some advantages to that possibility if
it develops. Unfortunately, it's quite a ways away at this stage.
We would prefer even though that's a distinct possibility and it will be decided presumably within the
next sixty days, that we would prefer to go ahead tonight make our presentation on our application for
a C of A to obtain a demolition permit for this building if for no other reasons for time. As you know
you do have a say in determining whether or not you will grant our C of A. If you don't, there are
other subsequent steps that we have to take to obtain demolition of the building if we decide to
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
E
ultimately pursue that route. We would rather do that than wait another sixty days, we have already
waited 60 from the time our firm has been involved. We would rather proceed now and make our
record here today and get a decision one way or the other and then proceed with all options including
the investigation of HLFI's potential request to have the property gifted to them.- As you might
expect if we would ever seriously consider that, we have to decide how much would you gift them,
what do you do about these ingress/egress easements. We have two driveways: one is on the north
side of the existing structure; one is on the south side between the building and its parking lot to the
south, so there are lots of things for the company to consider.
I hope I've done a good job of explaining to you our unique situation at the present time with this
pending... potential offer, for lack of a better description. Notwithstanding that, I would like to
address what we feel are some of the statements in the staff report which we feel are extremely
conclusory, some of which we think are not supported by fact and some of which we think may not
even be true. For example, with reference to the latter, the staff report states and I quote: "The city
may be purchasing right -of -way from the cemetery to construct a round -about at the intersection of
Portage and Lathrop. These monies could be used for", and it says, "for repair building ", and I
assume they mean to say: "used for the repair of the building" end - quote. With reference to that
statement, we would like to refer to each of you to a map that is contained in Exhibit 1, which we are
going to submit as part of the record at the present time. While she's distributing that to you .... but
we going to furnish each of you a color copy of a building condition study labeled Exhibit 1 and it
was prepared by Mekus Studios out of Chicago, Illinois. It's a multi -page document, with the last
portion of which is a lot of colored photograph of the structure in question. They were contracted by
Alderwoods Group to evaluate the building. There's a table of contents attached. It doesn't take
long... realize that this particular structure is not a mom -and -pop fixer- upper. It's going to involve
considerable effort on the part of the property owner or anybody, any third party who wants to
rehabilitate this building. If you would, in that particular study ... She's informed me that it's not in
that...
Shawn Peterson: I'd like to add, as part of the round -about discussions with the city, they have
indicated that they will not be pursuing any improvements on the round -about for which funds will be
given to the cemetery.
Catherine Hostetler: All the activity will be on the west side and they've already purchased the
property that they wanted from Highland. At the time we were writing this, it wasn't known, but we
know this now. So you don't have...
John Peddycord: There is a map and we're going to have it here and we will submit it as part of the
record as soon as Scott finds it. It clearly shows, and you're correct. Ms. Hostetler is right ... It clearly
shows that the round -about or what ever you want to call these new contraptions that the cities and
counties are using now. I love'em. Don't get me wrong. I think they work quite well. It is going to
- - - be...occupy the existing intersection and most of the land that's on the south east corner of the
Highland cemetery, which as you know is on the northwest corner of Lathrop and Portage Ave. In
effect our position is: we will not realize any monies from the construction of that round -about as
presently contemplated by the City.
So... and now they know, and staff obviously seems to be recognizing that we will not be realizing
any monies from the construction of that round -about by the city. I did not learn from the city, I
wasn't even able to find the right person, to find out when that round -about might even be
constructed.
We were under the impression based on a reading the legal descriptions and applying those to the plot
maps that the county uses that most of that triangle area at the northwest corner of Lathrop and
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
5
Portage, would be used along with the existing intersection to accommodate the round -about was
owned by the city itself anyway, but I'll yield to Ms. Hostetler's comment that whatever they needed
from Highland cemetery, they've already obtained.
The staff report also indicates, as you may know when you read it that "other uses for the building
would be able to support the building economically." We don't believe there in any factual basis for
that conclusion of the staff. There's none attached to the staff report, and we're going to address in
more detail later through our two appraisers and some other comments that I'll be making. Among
other reasons that we do not agree with that statement is that the property in question is not zoned
properly for many of the uses suggested by the staff. It is zoned A -1 Residential in the city. Uses
named by the staff would require at minimum an O- Office or even a C- Commercial zoning. I've
been doing re- zonings in the city and the county for 35 years and I can assure you that you would
have considerable difficulties convincing the city counsel, let alone, or the Planning Commission and
the City Counsel to rezone this site to accommodate as restaurant for example with a C- Office zoning
or something of that nature. Usually, those types of rezoning only occur if there is a contiguous C_
zoning district or use next to it or something like that. There is none. It would be unadulterated spot -
zoning to have an O- Office there or a C Zoning District, a one -lot district. Secondly, as all of you
know that have driven down Portage Avenue, Portage Avenue is a very narrow right -of -way and
although the neighborhood ... is a rather nice neighborhood ... it has stayed rather established
neighborhood, it is definitely not a growth area in the city. And thirdly, the building is adjacent to
and probably deemed in the eyes of most members of the public as part of the cemetery. I would
suggest to you ... and of course in addition to that there is a second cemetery across the street from the
property. I would suggest to you that anyone who might consider putting an upscale restaurant'on
that site, would be deterred by the presence of those two cemeteries.
We also have to take serious exception, for—at least for the purposes of the record, to the statement
in the staff report that "this is a case of demolition by neglect." The building was built in 1900, so it's
over 100 years old. We only acquired the building in 1996. It was owned by a different company
previously. We can assure you that we have not neglected the building for purposes of obtaining a
demolition. Instead, we do agree with the statement in the report that the building does not simply
serve our needs. In fact we have absolutely no need whatsoever for the building. I already mentioned
that we acquired the property in 1996. We believe the building has been neglected for decades. We
can't dispute that; however, we dispute the fact ... err... the suggestion that we are intentionally
neglecting the building. Rather what the real situation is: it's cost prohibitive for us to restore it. We
cannot under any scenario justify investing the monies needed to rehabilitate the building for our use
or for anybody's use.
The staff report also says that the building may "not be beyond repair." Theoretically, any building is
not beyond repair if you've got enough money to throw at it. I mean, if you've got millions you
could probably rebuild anything. But, I would suggest to you that that's not the issue or the standard
- - - before this Commission. -- You use a different standard and your standard is based on the economic
feasibility of rehabilitating a historic structure. I'm looking at particular your 1992 standard that I
understood was adopted by a prior board in 1992. It tracks very much the standard used in the 1977
State Statute and there has to be some economic viability before you can insist that a building be
rehabilitated, and I would submit to you based on what ... in particular... the appraisers are going to
share with you in a few minutes this particular building because of its location - the three rules of real
estate being: location, location, location - I think the two gentlemen who are going to speak in a
minute, are easily going to be able to demonstrate that this building, even if you did restore it, even if
you had $1.8 million to restore it, $1 million to restore it, or $800,0000 to restore it, it's not going to
be economically viable. Your standards, I won't bore you with those, I assume you're somewhat
familiar with those, but they do basically say, it has to be economically viable, and this entity, or this
structure, simply cannot be made economically viable.
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
0
And again, we did submit to you the detailed and what we think is a reasonably thorough building
conditions study prepared by Mekus that as you know. When you get to the back of it you will find
that they estimated the costs of rehabilitation to be cost prohibitive i.e., $1.8 million. The study is
also supported by a separate roofing estimate. Alone, just the one line item within the Mekus study
was a roof replacement, and we have, we're distributing to you now, or Pat is, an independent roof
replacement estimate from Bennett and Brosseau Roofing, Inc., of Champaign, Illinois, I think their
located in three cities in Illinois, dated January 8` 2004. You'll note that that roofing estimate to ..
replace that roof, and I presume it's with a not the real slate roof, but the - what do you call it - plastic
slate roof, or the look -alike slate roof. In any event, their estimate, it's interesting, their estimate is
187,000 plus. The estimate of Mekus study, in their study, ah they had estimated $200,000. So I
think their figures may be a little on the high side, I would yield to that suggestion. They are after all
a Chicago architecture firm. I presume they're familiar with their cost in Chicago. I would suggest
and wouldn't doubt if someone could show me that those estimates may be a little on the high side
because in fact they're based on Chicago prices, and I presume South Bend prices wouldn't be as
high. We would again ask that that roofing estimate that's being routed to you be made a part of the
Commission's record. And again, we don't think it varies significantly from the roof replacement
figure used in the Mekus study. The Mekus study in our opinion is self - explanatory. It, as you might
except, so I'm not going to go into detail on it, other than to state that virtually every system in the
building, and I did have the opportunity to tour the building personally with Mr. Diedrich and Mr.
Huddleston, and I think you can't help but walk through the building, and I'm sure even Mr. Zeiger
would agree with this, virtually every system in the building has to be replaced. The complete HVAC
has to be replaced; the electrical has to be replaced; the roof has to be replaced; the plumbing has to
be replaced; the windows and doors I think even have to, some of them have to be replaced, maybe
not all of them, but most of the ones we looked at we thought needed to be replaced. And, even if we
assume arguendo that the building could be rehabilitated for less than the $1.8 million, the building
still has to be economically viable and I would submit to you that it has to be economically viable as
determined be a qualified appraiser. And that's the state standard, you're standard doesn't vary from
that much. You don't talk about as determined by a state appraiser or certified appraiser, but I think
it's implicit in your standards that you have to have some evidence of economic viability. You can't
just arbitrarily say, "No, it's economically viable," and then move on. You have to have evidence of
that. With reference to that, we have had the building inspected, examined closely and appraised, by
not one but two local respected real estate appraisers, Mr. Diedrich and Mr. Huddleston, and at this
time I would, before they get into their testimony or comments concerning the thing, I would like to
present to you a copy of their, a tablet ... of their respective resumes again for the record and for no
other reason. Many of you may even know Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Diedrich.
Again, inasmuch as they've now not only inspected the property but appraised it, at this time, I would
like to offer Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Diedrich's testimony or comments. I'm not sure whether you
take formal testimony or whether you just solicit commentary.
Shawn Peterson: We do take testimony, although we do tend to limit presenters to 15 minutes or so.
John Peddycord: That's fine. I don't think that will be a problem from what I understand.
Catherine Hostetler: Shawn, it's five. It's been forty minutes.
Shawn Peterson: Yes, it's five for'members of the public...
John Peddycord: It's my understanding that their position is that the rehabilitation of the building is
not realistically feasible and is cost prohibitive. At this time then, I would like to invite either one of
you gentlemen to speak and...
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
7
Robert Huddleston: My name is Robert Huddleston. I am a certified general appraiser in Indiana and
in Michigan and I've been appraising for thirty years at this point. I understand my time is brief, so
I'll get try and get right to the point. I inspected the subject property with Mr. Peddycord and found a
building in deplorable condition. It is not secure at this point from the weather nor is it secure from
apparently a large colony of raccoons that now thinks they're living in the Hilton Hotel. There's
obvious evidence where the raccoons have done serious damage to a number of areas in the house.
There's a number of windows that are broken out. And every system in the house is not operable: the
electric, the plumbing, the heating system. All of that would necessarily have to be replaced. What I
did and Mr. Diedrich did is: we looked at sales of houses in that Near Northwest, that Northwest area
where this property is located that would have similar structural significance and also located in
historical districts. And we looked at it from two directions. The first being: what would the property
be worth today if in fact it had just had operable heat, decent electric and a full bathroom because this
house only has a half -bath in it. What would it be worth? What could we sell it to someone today for
if it was in a better location? Because quite frankly, folks, not many people want a building like that
with a mausoleum about 18 feet from the back door, and we also had to determine what the highest
and best use of the property was. The building's footprint is so small that like an upscale restaurant
would be out of the question. 1118 square feet on the main level after you tear off the non - significant
17 by 29 addition that was put onto the rear at some later time. 1118 feet is not enough to operate a
restaurant on a main level plus you would have to do all commercial wiring, new HVAC, you'd have
to put a better staircase to the upper level and then you'd still have the issue of American for
Disability Act and access. We determined really there is just no, there's no demand for a commercial
or an office use for this building in this site due to its size and its configuration. So, we said okay
what is the best use? We determined that is single - family, but if it is single - family it is not there.
Nobody, and I repeat, I don't know of anyone, that wants to live next to a mausoleum and plus there
is no actual separate site for the house. The whole thing would have to be surveyed and with setbacks
and parking requirements, we're not sure that could be done. So, it was our suggestion that the house
should probably be moved and we've talked to our clients about donating the house and having it
moved off the site. It was our opinion based on all the data that we looked at that as the property sits
today, just the improvements without the foundation and without consideration of the land, it's
probably worth no more that $25,000. If we do all the work that we're talking about — the roof, a new
kitchen, the electrical, the plumbing, and the heating, you're looking at a minimum, a minimum, of
$350,0004400,000 and that house, because of the size that it is will never be worth right now more
than $170,000 based on all of the sales that we provided you in this data here. So, it is just not
economically feasible for someone to do that especially my owners, now if they want to donate the
house; somebody wants to pick it up and move it, I've actually located three sites on Portage Avenue
within three blocks of this house that are vacant lots and I'm sure one of those lots could be purchased
and put that house on it and it would fit right into that neighborhood just beautifully. And so we
believe from a public safety standpoint, the house is not secure to weather,nor to animals, that it
presents a hazard to the public and secondly, it is just not economically feasible for our client to put
that kind of money into it for no real use as far as their operation is concerned. Thank you very much.- - - --
John Peddycord: For the record, Mr. Peterson, I would like the appraisal of Mr. Driedrich and Mr.
Huddleston marked as, admitted exhibit 5; and did this one page round -about get admitted as
exhibit IA?
Shawn Peterson: Yes. Do you have any other witnesses?
John Peddycord: Yes, I'll just have Mr. Diedrich, and try to avoid duplication, Bernie, but if you
want to add anything to...
Bernard Diedrich: Yeah, it won't take me long. I am Bernard Diedrich...
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
E
Shawn Peterson: And, just so you know we will have all of you available for questions when we
open up this hearing.
John Peddycord: That's fine. We expect that.
Bernard Diedrich: I'm Bernard Diedrich. My office is 922 East Jefferson Blvd, and you have my
resume so I'm not going to go into that. The only other comment I would make, because I think Bob
pretty much explained what our position was and I don't think that that's very arguable. We've both
done a number of historic properties, and this is just another example of a property that may have to
go its way, unless somebody wants to spend the money to relocate it for its highest and best use. The
other thing I would like to comment on and ... I have a hard time believing that when this property was
made a historic property in 2000 that this property wasn't already in some manner of distress. The
inspection was done in 2002. The things that have happened to this property did not happen in two
years. So, I don't think that at that point in time whether it was a volunteer, a voluntary preservation
or whether there was some pressure to have it done. I think that's what, these things should have
been addressed at that time. That's pretty much all I have to say. I'll be available for questioning.
John Peddycord: It is interesting, Mr. Diedrich also and he didn't mention this, he had an opportunity
to appraise this property did you not?
Bernard Diedrich: Well, I appraised the cemetery.
John Peddycord: When was that?
Bernard Diedrich: It was probably mid -90s: `94, '95.
John Peddycord: And, so ... he remembers the building, he had been in it ten years ago and now
recently in conjunction with our efforts here. Thank you.
Now, I guess what I would like to say in closing is your standards do require that it be economically
practical to renovate this building. I would suggest to you unless you have other evidence that I'm
not familiar with, maybe you do, I'd love to hear it, if staff or anybody has it, I don't think it justifies
the cost that would be involved in renovating this building. I don't care whether it is $800,000 or
$1.8 million. You have to have a reasonable rate of return on your investment these days and unless
somebody, Todd and his staff or somebody, can find someone who is in love with historic structures
and has a lot of money to throw away and doesn't mind doing that, I think that's so remote though,
that I don't think it meets the standards you are bound by. Interestingly, the reason I should say that
by the way is: let's face it, even if you spent $800,000 on this building, the debt service costs on
$800,000 that you might borrow to put into this building; it would kill it. It would prevent this
-
-building from being economically viable for any other use. We think the only evidence that you have
in front of you at the present time supports our conclusion that we are entitled to a Certificate of
Appropriateness. We are willing as I originally suggested to afford Historic Landmarks Foundation
or the Commission itself - I was surprised to find in the state statute and I presume it is in your
ordinance too, that you even have the power to acquire historic buildings, if you want. In any event,
we are willing to afford the Commission and HLFI the opportunity as contemplated by the statute and
I think it is basically contemplated by your ordinance too, to acquire or arrange for the preservation
for the building. We want to go forward and we're agreeable to a reasonable period of time for you to
do that, but we don't want this thing to drag on for six months or a year. We think we should be
allowed to get a, obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness and eventually get a demolition permit to
destroy the building, again, unless some third party can find a better use for the property. Whether,
Mr. Huddleston suggested moving it down the street or there is some well - healed person out there, or
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
0
entity, that's willing to sink a lot of money into this property in an effort to renovate it. Thank you,
and we'll be more than happy, either Ms. Primmer or I, or either of the appraisers, to answer any
questions the Commission members may have.
Shawn Peterson: Before the Chair opens up to questions I would like to make some clarifications and
add a couple things for the record as well. First of all, I have a copy of ordinance No. 9150 [ Exhibit
6], adopted on October 23, 2000, which designated the gatehouse as a landmark, and I will put that
into evidence appropriately.
John Peddycord: I have no objections.
Shawn Peterson: Secondly, the Building Inspector for the City of South Bend did go out to the
premises today and took some photos of it in its current condition [Exhibit 8]. I would like to pass
these over to Attorney Peddycord and ask if those photos are the historical premises and they fairly
accurately represent the structure as the architect indicated.
John Peddycord: Yes, yes, I agree on the record to that.
Shawn Peterson: I will also pass these around so you can all look at it. Finally, we have pulled our
minutes for September 18 of 2000 in which Jim Masters, attorney for the then owners, which Oak
Enterprises owned the gatehouse and consented to the designation of the premises and the landmark,
as a landmark, and so I would like to submit that as well as an exhibit. [Exhibit 7]
John Peddycord: I have no objection to that. I've seen that.
Shawn Peterson: Let the record reflect that consent. Also, a point to clarify for the record, you
mentioned a few points, I just want to run through them quickly, as I was making sure it was properly
reflected. First, have you sought approval for zoning redesignation? Have you had this rezoned or
not?
John Peddycord: No, there is an expense factor involved and it wouldn't do any good to seek that.
Normally, the Area Plan Commission, of which I was a member in `72 to 1976, longer ago than I care
to admit, in their practice even today is they normally do not like rezoning without a final site plan, in
other words, the final use you are going to commit the property to, and they discourage petitions for
rezoning unless you have a specific site plan; how you are going to use the property? It's difficult to
do that when you don't represent the ultimate end user.
Shawn Peterson: Secondly, you talked about the narrow right -of -way. You mentioned the map that
was submitted to record, the map of what the city is planning to do. Is your interpretation that it is
narrow with the city improvements or exclusive of the city improvements?
John Peddycord: It's narrow both north and south of the intersection. Obviously, it wouldn't be,
assuming they do the round - about, which as far as I know they are someday, the intersection is going
to be improved in my mind. There's no doubt about that. And it will be much broader than it is now,
expanded, but I was referring to the main route of Portage. It's a very narrow right -of -way. We
observed that. I don't remember the distance, but it wasn't very significant on the simple plat maps
that the county uses and the city uses.
Shawn Peterson: And is it my understanding that you still at this time would entertain an offer from
an entity to purchase the property?
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
10
John Peddycord: Yes, we are in the process, assuming that HLFI does submit a written request. I've
been assured by the officials that we've been working with, and they're out of Toronto, Ontario, they
will seriously evaluate any such a proposal and all the pros and cons and it will take us some time to
do that even if he submitted it tomorrow. I assume that Mr. Zeiger has to go through the proper
channels in his organization, too, to get that request, but we are open to that, or South Bend Heritage
Foundation, or anybody else, other non - profits, that might have an interest in it, or private parties as
far as that goes. Just that, and we've encouraged, I will say we've encouraged the officials to come
down and look at the property, and they have, well at least one. I think it's somewhat, even though its
on the corner of the property, I think historically its deemed a part of the cemetery and obviously it
was intended to be a part of the cemetery. That's my personal bent. I think maybe there would be
some nominal incidental value to the property owner to have it maintained, or if somebody has the
money with which to do it. They see no reason to do that and have no purpose for the building...
They have much more land vacant in the Highland Cemetery across the street and that's where
they've moved their administrative offices to years ago. I think they've said they haven't used it for
eight or nine years, if I remember right.
Shawn Peterson: So, you're still exploring those options?
John Peddycord: We'll still explore those, but we want to go on parallel tracks, if you don't mind my
use of that term.
Shawn Peterson: Have you explored moving the premises? I know that was mentioned by the
appraisers.
John Peddycord: Other than what Mr. Huddleston has talked about, Todd did inform me, and again
I'm not trying to put him on the spot, but he asked me to make sure the appraisers saw the basement
and I understood why he did that because having done a lot of real estate litigation, he wanted me to
make sure they knew the basement was dry. There are no water problems in that basement, so he
mentioned to me that because of the type of structure that it might be difficult with the type of
basement it has to move the residence. Now, I don't know if he's bothered, I doubt if you've
interviewed any or obtained any estimates from any movers, or to even determine whether it can be
moved. I don't know.
Shawn Peterson: Have you officially put it on the market?
John Peddycord: No, we have not.
Shawn Peterson: At this time I will, first of all, it was mentioned to the standards applicable here and
let me read it for you, the standards, and then we'll open it to testimony from the public on this. And
for the record, Todd Zeiger has agreed to abstain from this since he has been in conversation
regarding purchasing' so to avoid any conflicts, he will abstain from the vote and immediately
preceding discussions or deliberations although he could have the opportunity to ask questions as a
Commissioner and speak during the public portion of it. The standards applicable to this landmark
are the standard, of what is called the "B Standard" as we refer to them, and whether the A Standards
or the B Standards are applicable is actually, is not so much of consequence as they are the same and I
will read them. "Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a landmark poses a threat to the
public safety and demolition is the only alternative, documentation by way of photographs, measured
drawings, or other descriptive measures should be made of both the exterior and the interior of the
Landmark. The person or the agency responsible for the demolition of the Landmark will be
responsible for this documentation."
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
11
The other standard is the standard adopted as far as the, in our Historic Plan for the county, to provide
guidance for what is appropriate. Although they are not the specific standard applicable to this
building, they are, they should provide guidance, and they are the ones in part that Attorney
Peddycord alluded to. I'll read them. "Demolition of an historic landmark or significant building in
an historic district is disfavored and requires a Certificate of Appropriateness. Such a Certificate of
Appropriateness shall be granted only if the owner demonstrated by submission of substantial,
competent evidence that:
a.) The property in its current condition is uneconomical or in a substantial state of disrepair, .
deterioration or structural instability not created by the owner;
b.) Historically appropriate renovation or rehabilitation is either technically or economically
impractical, and
c.) The owner has investigated and considered all reasonable alternatives to demolition, not
simply the least expensive alternative, and that all such alternatives such as: sale, rental, or
lease of the property, have failed or with reasonable likelihood will fail, or will not earn a fair
economic return on value.
It is my understanding that you wish to proceed today with this petition to the Commission?
John Peddycord: Yes, yes.
Shawn Peterson: At this point the Chair will open it to the testimony offered by staff or counsel and
they will open it to the public thereafter and they will have an opportunity to question everyone
involved as far as which, any questions the Commission may have. And there has been submitted in a
part of the staff report [Exhibit 10] a report from Bob Yapp. [Exhibit 9]. Is Bob Yapp present? Mr.
Yapp if you could come to where you are able to on the record, and we would just like you to be
again available for questions during that portion. Mr. Yapp, if you could state your name...?
Bob Yapp: Bob Yapp. I'm a Community Preservation Specialist with HLFI. I'm President of a
national consulting corporation called Preservation Resources, Inc., and a historic property
developer I was asked, in my position as with HLFI as Community Preservation
Specialist I'm contracted to the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and Saint Joseph
County as an advisor and spend quite a bit of time out in the field looking over buildings, we get
demolition requests, C of A requests for specialty things, specifically in regard to renovation and
rehab costs.
I had a chance to go through Alderwoods' building condition study and I also had an opportunity to
go through the building from top to bottom and quite frankly, I was appalled at this study. And the
reason that I am appalled by it, is that I have never seen such phonyed -up numbers in my life, and I
apologize if I am using words that seem extraordinary, but in all my thirty-one years and over 150
historic structures that I have been involved in the adaptive reuse of, from traveling all over America,
producing a national PBS television show, and seeing projects over, -I have never seen more -
outrageous numbers in my life. I didn't want that to happen, but I'm going to give you some
examples of what I'm talking about.
For instance, rough carpentry — $200,000 — now, if you gutted that property and you paid more than
$30,000 to have all the rough carpentry done, you'd be getting ripped off and that's based on every
single book, every single book that addresses national cost, national trends or what have you.
Let's talk about the roof for a second. It's interesting to me, there are about, at the extreme and I -
didn't get a chance to get up and measure every square on the roof but assuming there are 50 squares.
A square is 10 feet by 10 feet. On that roof and assuming, you have to take that roof off and replace it
and in my opinion you do not, their numbers at $180,000 come out to be $3,600 per square. Now,
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
12
I've worked in Chicago for many years and the highest price I've ever paid for a slate roof, even
brand new from scratch with copper flashing, lead coated copper flashing, was $1,200 a square. Now
when I read numbers like this it screams to me at somebody is phonying up their numbers to make
their case, and I object to that. I find it abhorrent.
And another example - windows. First of all, I don't agree that the windows need to be replaced in
way, shape or form. I believe that the original windows, because it is a historic property, should be
restored and can be done so and be made more energy - efficient than a replacement window. They are
in excellent condition, the original windows in this property. I have a number $650 per opening
including a combination wood stone that never has to be taken off because it has self - storing
capabilities with screens and glass, complete restoration of the windows, all putty removed, all paint
removed, all weather - stripping for both the primary window sashes and the storms. Instead of the
$650, their number to replaces the windows, $4,000 per window. I have never seen a commercial
building that had windows that expensive.
Wood flooring. I went through this building from top to bottom and it has beautiful wood floors.
And the most expensive wood refinisher that you could get in this community is $2.58 a square foot.
You'd have to look pretty hard find this guy, because most of the people are charging $1.50 to $2.00
a square foot. Even if you put in repairs of the existing wood floors, you're still no more than $3.50 a
square foot, maximum. There number is 750 square feet and that's based upon my numbers at 4,000
square feet, and there are not 4,000 square feet in this building. I was never given the square footage,
but my guess on both floors is closer to 3,000. Most of my numbers, by the way, is based on a 4,000
square foot structure.
Per your request I walked through the Cemetery Gatehouse at 2300 Portage Avenue on November 15,
2005. I was very impressed with both the architecture and the excellent condition the property was in.
I basically disagree with just about every element of the rehabilitation write -up the applicant
provided. There has, however, been long deferred maintenance throughout the structure. My findings
are as follows:
Roof. The roof is a red slate on the main structure and an organic three -tab shingle on the early, rear
addition. The red slate roof is in surprisingly good condition. Yes, there are some broken slates and
there are some bad flashings, but the connections as you look into the attic space and see where the
nails come through, it's not an issue. So, replacement of this red slate is readily available, in either
salvage material or brand new. Copper flashings are also available and so the roof is highly
restorable and does not need to be taken off in any way shape or form. I inspected the property
during an extremely hard rain and saw no rain coming into the house either from the roof or the
foundation. The addition should have a complete tear -off its three -tab shingles down to the sheathing,
re- sheathed, and another red shingle similar to in color to the slate, the three tab could be done again,
because its on the back. The slate and flashing repairs - $12,000; addition roof, approximately 6
squares at $500 a square; which is the high - end of what people charge per square for complete tear - _ - --
offs for roofing here people in our community — $3,000; gutters and downspouts, assuming half -
round gutters with downspouts, coming in at around $3,000. That is opposed to $180,000. We have a
total of $18,000 for all roof work: That's mind - boggling to me. I'm sorry, but it just is.
Masonry and concrete flat work. The exterior stone and the foundation are in excellent condition.
Minor re- pointing of the exterior stone and foundation stone is needed. New parging on the exterior
of the addition's brick foundation is also needed. Parging is cementitious coating that they've had on
there since the very beginning on this addition. It needs to be patched up and redone. The stone
chimney does not need to be replaced just re- pointed with a new cap installed. There are some cracks
in the stucco panels on the main building as well as the addition. The sidewalks around the building
should be replaced for positive drainage. Any moisture that we're getting into that basement is
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
13
coming because we have sidewalks that are pitched into the foundation: The foundation walls do not
need to be excavated as the new sidewalks and re- grading around the perimeter of the foundation will
take care of any drainage problem. The basement is relatively dry anyway. The chimney is clay tile
lined and with my magnifying glass and flashlight, I was able to see that it is in good shape and the
mortar joints even look good inside the chimney. Repointing is minor. Spot - pointing and repairing, I
figure $8,000. Parging, the cementitious coating on the addition's brick foundation, around $2,000.
Very minor. Stucco repairs around $8,000. Sidewalk replacement — three foot wide by two inches
deep, 200 feet at $40 per square foot. That's really, really expensive. I figured it at $8,000. , .
Exterior wood and painting. While there is some rot on the front porch beadboard ceiling and
ancillary trim, the overall condition of the exterior wood trim elements are in very good condition.
Limited replacement of the wood and architectural epoxies are needed. There are some places where
wood should be replaced, but in most of the places where we have wood damage, architectural
epoxies in historic preservation are the preferred way according to the Secretary of the Interior's
standards for rehabilitation. The entire building needs to be re- painted. Painting will include removal
of all paint from all wood surfaces and thorough scraping and paint removal of the stucco elements.
These numbers also include an ADA ramp. Now the building needs a way for handicapped folks to
get into the building and a ramp is included. Wood repairs - $10,000; exterior painting - $15,000 —
down to the bare wood with any number of painters that I've worked with and trained all day long;
ADA Ramp - $10,000. That's a number that I've used many, many times and even in Chicago to get
an ADA ramp.
Windows and storms. All of the original windows are in fully restorable condition. These windows
can be made more energy efficient than replacements for comparable or less money. Complete
restoration includes paint and putty removal, weather - stripping, and new combination wood storms.
Total costs $13,000. HVAC, electrical and plumbing: complete re- wiring; all new plumbing and
fixtures; all new heating and air conditioning system including an ADA accessible bathroom come in:
wiring at $7,000, plumbing at $18,000, HVAC at $15,000 with all new ductwork, a high - efficiency
furnace that will handle all that building and central air will come in at $15,000 probably less that.
I'm being a little bit on the high side. Total of HVAC, electrical and plumbing at $40,000.
Interior Finishes. The original plaster for the most part is in very good condition, and because this is
a historic landmark we want to try to retain as many of the original finishes as possible. Now plaster
repair includes some past water damage, some cracking, reattaching plaster using plaster washers to
the original lathe underneath, channels being cut out to run new wiring, plumbing, those kinds of
things that normally have to be done. A channel will be cut out between two studs and to go in there
to replaster that up and do all of the crack repairs and cover all of the original plaster when it is done
with a product called Nu -wall, which is a product that encapsulates all of the plaster surface. It
permanently bridges over all of the hairline cracks and creates a new plaster -like surface. So that's
the methodology. Flooring - $8,000; that I figured at 3,200 square feet, which is high, very high at
$2.50 a square foot, $8,000; woodwork repair - $6,000; plaster repairs - $8,000. Total of all repairs to
put this building into use, ADA compliable, completely rehabed and ready for an end use: $154,000.
I always put in a 20% contingency. That's another $30,800 for a total rehab cost of $184,800. Now,
if you take into consideration that there's not a kitchen in here. It has the original kitchen, which is
just fabulous. I mean it is beautiful and in excellent condition. New countertops, but let's just say for
the sake of discussion that you are going to put in deluxe, brand new kitchen, master bathroom suite
with a master bathroom decked out to the nines and a huge lighting package for historic lighting on
the property. That would add another $70,000 to the price. You would be at $224,000 plus a 20
percent contingency. A total worst -case scenario, absolute drop -dead worst -case scenario for this
property: $268,000.
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
14
Shawn Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Yapp. I will move that this report that he had that was attached to
the staff report be submitted into evidence as an exhibit along with the staff report if I have'not
already moved as such. And, for proper clarification, how long have you been doing these types of
renovations or estimates for historic properties.
Bob Yapp: Thirty-one years.
Shawn Peterson: Thank you. John, do you have any questions for Mr. Yapp?
John Peddycord: No, may I assume the original was a signed copy. My copy is not ... a signed copy
for the record. You can take mine.
Bob Yapp: Yeah, I'll sign yours.
John Peddycord: I guess I do have one question though. You indicated, you don't mind if I ask, you
indicated and if I could have another copy, that if you put a kitchen in this thing and you use the
materials that you describe, and you added another twenty percent contingency for that, you come up
with a total of $268,000, worst -case scenario. Right?
Bob Yapp: Correct. That includes a brand -new deluxe kitchen, two bathrooms, one being a master
bath and the other being a handicapped accessible bathroom on the first floor, and an entire historic
reproduction lighting package.
John Peddycord: And, that's your estimate at $268,000. That's consistent with a single - family
residential use of this facility, correct?
Bob Yapp: No, that's commercial.
John Peddycord: Oh, commercial. You realize the property is not zoned commercial.
Bob Yapp: I understand that, but I always, when I do a inspection of this type, I look at the worst -
case. What the possible end use could be if it was a commercial use and then of course, if it's straight
residential you are going to be way less than that.
John Peddycord: But, again you recognize that's not zoned properly for commercial use.
Bob Yapp: I have no idea.
John Peddycord: And, could someone use it for residential purposes if they did this type of repair of
$268,000?
Bob Yapp: Absolutely.
John Peddycord: Did you observe the building as it relates to its surroundings?
Bob Yapp: Yes, and in fact, I grew up in a neighborhood in Des Moines of $600,000 houses, homes
that all backed -up to a cemetery.
John Peddycord: No, but this particular cemetery, this particular structure is not only next to a
cemetery it's next to a intersection that is soon going to have a round- about. Have you seen the
diagram of the round - about?
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
15
Bob Yapp: Yes, I have. I'm not an appraiser, but I am a historic property developer and I know
properties when I see them and this property is highly adaptable to reuse in just about every way you
could think of. I just purchased anew home blocks from there, and it just appraised for $363,000
yesterday.
John Peddycord: Do you know of anybody or any entity that would purchase this house or even have
it gifted to them and invest $268,000 in it and use it today?
Bob Yapp: Yes. Absolutely.
John Peddycord: Who?
Bob Yapp: I have to give you on record who they are?
John Peddycord: Yeah, I want you, I asked you. Do you know of any entity or person that would
invest $268,000 even if the property were gifted to them?
Shawn Peterson: He already answered the question, or at least that it is likely.
Bob Yapp: It is highly likely ... Yes, in fact I just purchased my home several blocks from there.
Shawn Peterson: Okay, so ... the next section is I would like Commissioner Zeiger in his capacity with
Historic Landmarks, his different hat, and you surveyed the property, is you could provide a brief
summary as far as your findings of the property. As far as it's condition and what you experienced.
Todd Zeiger: I, excuse me, I'm sorry, I was not prepared for that question. I'll defer to Bob. He's on
staff obviously with Historic Landmarks and has done an outstanding job of representing our views
on this property so my views really support and mimic what Bob has entered into the record for'
Historic Landmarks views on this property. I have toured it.
Shawn Peterson: At this point, we will open it from questions from the Commissioners to any of our
witnesses that we've had at this point including the staff and various attorneys for each side and if
they have any questions of the testimony, we'll be able to do that at this time.
Todd Zeiger: I have a clarification question for you. Obviously, I'm abstaining from the vote. I have
a number of questions though as a Commission member I would like to ask.
Shawn Peterson: You should abstain from the discussions immediately preceding the vote. That's
that point at which you would abstain...
Todd Zeiger: I can ask questions now?
Shawn Peterson: You may ask questions from any point of view.
Mary Jane Chase: You have owned the property for ten years, when that was purchased was the
property examined as to the condition?
John Peddycord: I'm sure it was, because in fact we noted earlier that Mr. Diedrich appraised the
property. He had appraised not only the gatehouse but he appraised the entire cemetery. Did you
not?
Bernard Diedrich: Not the gravesites.
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
Ill
John Peddycord: non - gravesite... a portion of the property. Did you also appraise Highland
Cemetery across the street?
i
Bernard Diedrich: Yes.
Mary Jane Chase: ... now would that include if it were a gift, would that include just the property or
would that include any land around it, any egress?
John Peddycord: Well, this is pure speculation on my part. If the client were interested in gifting it to
HLFI or some other third entity, I presume they would, there are different ways you could do it. You
could give a life- lease; you could give a 99 -year lease; you could give the land outright to them, carve
it off. It's now part of the same legal description that constitutes the cemetery.
Mary Jane Chase: So, what I'm trying to say is ... so then you would have land, it wouldn't be
landlocked where there was no way you could get to the property, or...?
John Peddycord: No, it's right along Portage, so it has access to Portage.
Mary Jane Chase: So that...
John Peddycord: My concern, my comments were addressed to the fact that I presume the client
wants to retain two different driveways or entrances to the cemetery.
Mary Jane Chase: Well that, the question was just that there would be some land available for
someone to use it?
John Peddycord: They haven't made the determination yet, that they don't need the land. As Mr.
Huddleston, they have a mausoleum that's 18 feet behind the building. They have four or five other
mausoleums and I presume they may be interested in building other mausoleums. I don't know that;
they haven't mentioned it to me.
Mary Jane Chase: The question was just that you're going to have a building and have to jump over
something to get there. You know, you're going to have someway to reach, to get to the building...
John Peddycord: I assume if there were a gift involved it would include land.
Mary Jane Chase: I don't know if you're familiar with Howard Park in South Bend
John Peddycord: Yes, I am.
Mary Jane Chase: Okay, there is a building there that has been used as offices for some time. It is a
lovely building. There's a lot of changes going on in the area, and a lot more planned in the future ... It
is presently being use very adequately and it is an old stone building and it hasn't been in this state of
disrepair, but it is very, very useful use. The Civil Rights Commission uses it, and so you know that's
going to be changes when they do some building on Riverside to enclose it, so the is the possibility
even if it is by a cemetery and I understand that you have a mausoleum on the other side in Highland.
Is that mausoleum being used for both cemeteries?
John Peddycord: I don't know. I just know there are multiple mausoleums on the Riverview side? I
didn't even go over to the Highland side. I presume there are some over there?
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
17
Mary Jane Chase: Usually, there are more than one mausoleum per cemetery. Maybe, when I'm
thinking of a mausoleum, I'm talking about, maybe chapel is the word I'm looking for, that.... Is
there one in this?
John Peddycord: I don't know if there is one in Highland.
Bernard Diedrich: There is one in Highland where they have indoor ceremonies.
Mary Jane Chase: Is there one in Riverview?
John Peddycord: No.
Mary Jane Chase: So if the Riverview people want that they have to use the Highland one?
John Peddycord: Apparently, Yeah.
Mary Jane Chase: Because it could be used as a chapel. That would be, I mean, even looking at the
drive through ... it would be ideal.
Bernard Diedrich: The problem with that Madam is the economic basis. They already have a chapel
in Highland, so they don't need two chapels.
Mary Jane Chase: Well, no that's what I asked. The chapel is in Highland. I have been to it many
times and I have never been to a service in Riverside that they...
Bernard Diedrich: I believe there is a mausoleum to the west, to the northwest. There is an interior
area where they can have a ceremony.
Catherine Hostetler: But there is no place to sit.
Mary Jane Chase: In the mausoleum, I'm sorry in the chapel on the Highland side, there is a place for
the people to sit and to have a service ... what I am trying to find out, is there any on Riverside.
Diedrich: No ma'am, in the Highland, that is part of a mausoleum also.
Mary Jane Chase: So, is there are places for people to sit in Riverside?
Catherine: No,...
Mary Jane Chase: Anyway, that would be a very useful thing, wouldn't it. I think it would be
advantageous for a cemetery to have a chapel on the Riverside. So, I am suggesting that as a _
- - - -- -- - - - - -- - --
-possibility. --- - - - -- -- - - - - --
Bernard Diedrich: Mary Jane, I'm really not even sure how many gravesites are available at this time
in Riverside.
Mary Jane Chase: [muffled statements.]
John Peddycord: There are some plots, but most of the plots the cemetery owns are in Highland.
There's plenty of land in Highland, probably enough for the next fifty, seventy-five years. But limited
numbers in Riverview.
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
18
Mary Jane Chase: Okay, that's just my suggestion as a possibility. -
John Peddycord: I simply understand that it would require someone like Alderwoods to spend
$268,000.
Mary Jane Chase: Okay. That isn't the point I'm discussing. All I'm saying is presenting a view that
that would be a possibility.
Shawn Peterson: Are there any further questions?
Tim Klusczinski: I have a question. I need a point of clarification to either by the staff or the
petitioner. Your client purchased the property in 1996 and the landmark status took affect in 2'0 00,
and you don't know if your client petitioned for landmark status.
John Peddycord: The petition for landmark status was I think by the Commission or staff.
Catherine Hostetler: They were sent a letter requesting...
John Peddycord: and it wasn't our client. It was a prior owner, possessor of title.
Catherine Hostetler: Oak.
John Peddycord: Yeah, Oak or Oakwood, or something like that, and I think it was read in record that
they...
Todd Zeiger: Is Oakwood a subsidiary of Loewen or Alderwoods?
John Peddycord: Pardon.
Todd Zeiger: Is Oakwood or Oak, the company, a subsidiary of Loewen or Alderwoods?
John Peddycord: I don't know if it is a subsidiary or whether they acquired them. That I don't know.
Todd Zeiger: That's a question I have for you then, if I could just jump into mine. I have a question
about that.
John Peddycord: I don't know. I don't have an answer to that question.
Todd Zeiger: Was Oak a subsidiary of Loewen or, it successor, Alderwoods at the time of
designation? I believe it was. [Some muffled discussion of the company] Either way their attorney in
the minutes...
Bernard Diedrich: I think Terry Miller owned the property before, correct? And, I think he sold it to
Loewen.
Todd Zeiger: I think so, right. Anyway, their attorney did represent that they agreed to the designation
and that's in the minutes. So that's related to the point I'm making.
Catherine Hostetler: They also, I can clarify that situation, with Mr. Masters speaking on September
18, 2000. "The owners take pride in the historic nature of the cemetery. They are only too happy to
comply with the Commissioner's request to Landmark the aforementioned structures and sites. They
would also like to work with the Commission in eminent repairs to the Riverview Gatehouse."
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
19
Todd Zeiger: That was in 2000?
Catherine Hostetler: That was in 2000 and that's in the minutes from Jim Masters. So, not only were
they agreeing to the gatehouse landmarking, they were also amenable to repairs and to start working
on it. To my knowledge nothing was ever done in response to letters or anything.
Todd Zeiger: I have a couple questions, if I could, please. I just wanted to thank, Alderwoods did .
send a representative down, we did have a chance to walk though and I wanted to thank you for that
opportunity. It was pouring down rain the day we were there, so I can attest to that and I can attest to
the fact that we experienced no leak in the building. There was one in the porch but that's because of
the hole immediately above where it was coming through. Moving the building. I wanted to address
a couple of issues John brought out in his commentary. It was brought up more often then I hoped.
Really, we are not interested in moving the structure. It needs to remain in place. It's construction of
granite and whatnot are really going to make it cost prohibitive to relocate. And so that really won't
be something we would pursue with vigor. We're looking at some sort of a use other than residential.
Obviously, we would need to look at some sort of use variance or special use permit of some type
understanding that zoning, spot zoning would maybe be difficult.
I have just some general questions about the report that you have presented as evidence for the repair
costs. Is there anybody here from Mekus Studios to represent them?
John Peddycord: No, we were informed today that the preparer was one of the owners of Mekus,
Christopher Mekus, and he's out ill with the flu. He has been since Friday.
Todd Zeiger: I tried to look him up online and I couldn't find anything. What's their preservation
experience? Can you detail...
John Peddycord: No, I don't know. I wasn't even sent a bibliography or anything
Todd Zeiger: I think that's of importance to this hearing that the report that's been submitted was
prepared by an architectural firm that doesn't necessarily have a vitae in historic preservation. I could
find no evidence of that at all. What kind of dollars have been spent over the past ten'years or even
since 2000 on any just simple repairs on this building?
John Peddycord: That I have no knowledge of.
Todd Zeiger: I think that goes to the heart of lack of maintenance to this facility. Not even
temporarily patching the hole in the roof, or fixing up a broken piece of glass that would have kept
the critters out that they have referenced. It would have been helpful. I have a number of problems
with the report itself and I can go through them. Without Mekus here it maybe difficult. When I read___
a report and I find inconsistencies, it makes me call into question the whole overall report, in general.
On page 3, their talking about the site, they start talking about sidewalks. This is the third paragraph
down on page three, and all of a sudden it devolves into a conversation about foundations and walls.
One sentence says, "As for the building the entire skin needs to be removed and rebuilt." The very
next sentence says: "The stone walls are in decent condition." And that's troubling to me. It shows a
really, a big inconsistency in this report and it makes me question how they approached this, and I
just question, questioning whether you can explain that; if they have given you any information on
that at all?
John Peddycord: No, I have never spoken to Mr. Mekus.
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
20
Todd Zeiger: I think that calls into question the validity of this*report that has been submitted for why
it is not economically viable, but the same thing goes on, to page four. They talk about reinforcing
the existing structure to accommodate a new slate roof. That's in the second paragraph. I guess I
question why it needs to be reinforced. It already has a slate roof. The new one definitely isn't going
to be any heavier. My specific question is: did Mekus investigate the Indiana Code Rule 8 with
regard to historic properties and their renovation for this building.
John Peddycord: That I don't know.
Todd Zeiger: Rule 8, for everyone, it gives us a lot of ability to work with the existing building to
meeting ADA standards and whatnot. So, I think that is another fallacy in their argument with regard
to why it can't be repaired. So, those are my basic questions.
Bob Yapp: Mr. Chair, may I make one comment. Rule 8 is a very unique law that we have in
Indiana, very similar to the New Jersey rehabilitation code that allows for exceptions for historic
buildings. When you petition the state through a committee that oversees building code for the state
of Indiana. It's a wonderful way to work through ADA issues and other issues.
Todd Zeiger: Related to the Indiana thing, why weren't any local architects or contractors contacted
for the numbers?
John Peddycord: I do not know.
Todd Zeiger: Why was the Champaign company contacted for the slate roof? We have two really
reparable companies here in South Bend. Slatile, and many actually, Dudeck, Slatile.
John Peddycord: I presume, I'm speculating that that's because it's the roofing firm that Chicago
firm has utilized,
Todd Zeiger: One of the difficulties with using a company out of Champaign is you're obviously
paying travel costs, overnights for staff, etc., etc., which drives the numbers up, which calls that bid
into question, in my mind.
John Peddycord: They had three locations in Illinois. I don't know if the other two are any closer, I
don't know where they are.
Todd Zeiger: A_hundred and some thousand dollar number, though I think is suspect given the
distance.
Shawn Peterson: Any more questions?
-- - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - --
- - Tim Klusczinski - One, one for staff. Back in 2002 after an assessment by the HPC inspector, were
any repairs performed on the structure by the owner?
Catherine Hostetler: No...[muffled]
Shawn Peterson: Any other questions for?
Joann Sporleder: I have about three questions or concerns. Did you represent the Loewen Group
before it became the...
John Peddycord: No, I did not nor did our firm. Mr. Masters, I believe, represented them.
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
21
Joann Sporleder: And, what is the plan or expected use for the site assuming it would be demolished?
John Peddycord: I don't believe we've had any information received from the clients for what the
intended use will be. I will say though that with setbacks and everything, I don't know if there's
much use you could use it for. It's not a very big site. The last mausoleum right behind the building
as Mr. Huddleston said, is only 18 feet from that. I presume there are some laws, setback laws
between buildings you have to comply with, and then there's usually the setback from the centerline
of the highway or the edge of the right -of -way. There isn't much room on there for doing anything,
maybe landscaping.
Joann Sporleder: So the principle reason for demolishing the building is because you just don't want
to spend the money to fix it.
John Peddycord: That, and we don't have any use for the building.
Joann Sporleder: I want to pick up on what Tim said, about since the Alder [sic] Group acquired the
property, did they make any or can you find out or document any attempt to secure the building
against the elements, vandalism and other things? One of the reports referred to broken windows and
other kinds of holes in the roof, which have been there obviously for some time.
John Peddycord: Yeah, there are holes in the roof. I have observed them, but the building is secure
in the sense that it was locked when we arrived and it had to be unlocked, and there is not the normal
plywood over the windows or anything like that.
Joann Sporleder: ... and relative to maintaining the roof in some sort of minimal way to keep the
water out...
John Peddycord: If there have been any repairs, I have no knowledge of that.
Joann Sporleder: I have one other question. The term, economic viability, has been used a great deal
in this discussion, is that a legal term or is that a .... [muffled]?
John Peddycord: It's very consistent with your standards. It's very consistent with the state
standards. It's slightly different from your standards, but it talks about whether the building is capable
of an economic return, a viable use based on its value.
Joann Sporleder: and what determines its value?
John Peddycord: as determined by a licensed appraiser.
-- - - -- - -- - - -- - - - --
- - Joann Sporleder: And the value, there's a whole era I just really quite understand in terms of
accessing value let alone...
John Peddycord: Well, value means, fair market value...
Joann Sporleder:... [muffled]
John Peddycord: ... and I will submit to you that the value of the building as it stands today is
negligible, relatively speaking.
Todd Zeiger: Do our standards require that, Shawn?
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
22
Shawn Peterson: Well, again there is the three -part test, and you have to meet all three. One is: the
property in is current condition is uneconomical or in a substantial state of disrepair, deterioration or
structural instability not created by the owner. And, again , this is the preservation plan, which
provides guidance. It's not the one that I consider is the binding one on this, but the one he is
referring to. Historically, well, the one of which you look to, which I believe is the other one.
Historically appropriate renovation or rehabilitation is either technically or economically impractical,
and the owner has invested [sic] or considered all reasonable alternatives to demolition, not simply
the least expensive alternatives and that all such alternatives such as sale, rental or lease of the
property, have failed or with reasonable likelihood will fail or will not earn a fair economic return on
value. So in other words, if they are required to put money into it then there is return on that,
although not all situations or alternatives require that they put money into it depending upon how they
want to sell or lease it.
John Peddycord: If I may comment on your 1992 standards that you were just reading from, I would
submit to you that those standards are better than your original standards that you adopted back, what
year were these adopted?
Shawn Peterson: These were by that...
John Peddycord: 1982 [1992], but what was the prior one. I'm reading from Section D. Demolition.
Shawn Peterson: They predate me.
John Peddycord: They are very dangerous and I think they are ambiguous, vague and unconstitutional
because it says historic landmarks shall not be demolished, and the only exception to that is for public
safety, and I don't think this could be enforced at all. The only ones that I think may have some
viability is your 1992 standards, which I don't know if you were on the Commission then or not, but
these track the state standards, the state's statutory standards that other Commissions since 1977
follow. There's not much difference from that.
Shawn Peterson: It is though consistence with the ordinance that we have which says that it must get
a Certificate of Appropriateness through this Commission unless a Building Commissioner or other
person in such authority certifies the demolition as required, so, and you have the opportunity or the
power to promulgate rules within, that not inconsistent with, that ordinance. As far as the
Constitutionality of it, it has just never been challenged.
Joann Sporleder: Ok, you more or less answered my question that I had whether the term economic
viability is in fact a legal term. It's not a legal term. It's descriptive.
Shawn Peterson: It may be a term of art as far as how the courts have interpreted the state statute. It _
-- is not a term that was incorporated into the standards promulgated by the....
John Peddycord: They instead use the term "a fair economic return on value." I would interpret that
as being economic viability.
Shawn Peterson: Are there any other Commissioners with questions for the witnesses?
Lynn Patrick: I have one very brief question to which I demand a very brief answer because it's nine
o'clock and because I think we have done a lot of very, very good discovery and I appreciate the
patience of all. How many adaptive reuse projects have you worked on?
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
23
John Peddycord: Several personally that I have been involved with.
Lynn Patrick: In you capacity as a counselor, working in, representing a client who owns a historic
structure.
John Peddycord: I have never represented a client in historic ... I was very involved as Todd knows...
Lynn Patrick: Thank you.
John Peddycord: ... on their restoration of their current office, regional office, also the other building.
I can't think of the, the home. In fact my clients purchased the home and Historic Landmarks sold it
to them and restored it. Actually, it was a joint effort was it not, Todd, between my client, the home?
Todd Zeiger: Give me a street.
John Peddycord: The home on the north side of the river just east of Michigan.
Todd Zeiger: The showhouse.
John Peddycord: It was the showhouse, a Prairie style house. I was involved in that as well.
Shawn Peterson: Are there any other questions? Okay, then, I'll close this portion and open it to
members of the public. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak for or against this
proposed Certificate of Appropriateness? Seeing one. Please, again, I ask that you keep your
comments brief.
Don Sporleder: I am Don Sporleder, professor emeritus of architecture at the University of Notre
Dame, and Sporleder Architects, and have been involved in historic preservation in practice and
would just simply like to take a few moments to speak to the issue and speak in support of its
preservation. It is a landmark, and I think the notes presented by Bob Yapp, I certainly concur with
those, and they are in order; but the other aspects and I would put to the owner a question that one of
the Commissioners I think noted: but it does seem to me, there are other adaptive uses that are quite
consonant with what the cemetery is about, and that that facility has the potential of housing
effectively and having a reasonable'economic investment, uses that would serve well, that whether it
is was a chapel or even a gatehouse, which it is, and bringing to mind what the uses are involved in
that arena. It does seem to me that there are some aspects that have not been explored or presented as
even been looked at or considered as to how these uses, which are consistent with what a cemetery
should be about: a gatehouse, controls, even housing of its personal, but the idea, the notion of having
it serve effectively those aspects that the chapel, which in Highland are across the way, as the
mausoleum is developed, the columbarium notion, the fact that there is the old gate and the covered
- - — - - -Porte cochere that exists. -It does look as if there are some aspects that would make it serve well its - -
original uses and maybe adaptive uses are looked at. These might be explored in more depth by the
owner, and keep it as a landmark that serves well the community. Thank you.
Shawn Peterson: Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak - at this time? Seeing
none, I will close the public hearing portion of this Certificate of Appropriateness is now closed. The
Chair will now recognize any Commission members who wish to deliberate or raise any points
related to it. Please, after this is closed, then we will move to the voting section, but primarily this
portion, as you know, is to relay history, or aspects you've done in the past or things that might be
relevant to a vote on this matter open and in the public.
[Todd Zeiger recuses himself and leaves the room.]
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
24
Joann Sporleder: Just to reiterate what Don Sporleder said and I go back to my concerns about the
sense of value. Value seems to be in some cases, appraisals, to be related to specific and usually
economic return which has somewhat been addressed but hasn't been really addressed. There are
other concepts of value, which I think in this particular cemetery, which sits on the most historic site
in Indiana, most likely, and it represents a historical continuity of time and place and importance that
is important and has value that should be recognized. And, the destruction of such a structure, which
is architecturally significant, structurally sound, though certainly in need of repair, it seems like the
value should be valued for what it represents to the community not just what it could return the owner
in the immediate dollars and cents and bottom -line end -of -the- calendar -year way of thinking. I would
just like to throw that out as something...
Shawn Peterson: Any other discussion? The discussion or deliberation portion is now closed. In
anticipation of various items, I am going to hand out, there has been submitted, and I'm handing out
copies, there has been submitted ... and I'll have this read first before motions are entertained to
speed the process along to avoid to read and do it again. There has been submitted a formal denial of
the Certificate of Appropriateness that, which makes the following findings and decisions:
1. The South Bend Common Council passed Ordinance No. 9150 -00 designating the Historic
Landmark, as a local historic landmark on October 23, 2000, which designation was agreed to by
Oak Enterprises Loewen Group, the owner of the Historic Landmark at the time.
2. Upon its designation, the standard adopted by the Commission for the Historic Landmark became
effective, which standards were adopted pursuant to the Commission's authority under § 21-
13.02(f) of the South Bend Municipal Code.
3. Section 21- 13.02(e)(1), the Historic Preservation Commission Ordinance of South Bend requires
that owners of structures designated as historic landmarks obtain a certificate of appropriateness
from the Commission before action is taken to construct, reconstruct, alter, demolish or move any
exterior feature of any building, structure or use.
4. Petitioner has presented no evidence that the Building Commissioner or another official having
such authority have certified that demolition of the Historic Landmark is required for public
safety reasons.
5. The Historic Landmark is unique and significant to the surrounding neighborhood, the City, the
greater community because of its age, its presence in the community, its Romanesque style, and
its granite masonry and for all of the other reasons set forth in the reports provided by the staff
and the other members of the Commission. (The findings and reasons stated in said reports are
incorporated herein as presented or submitted to the Commission.)
- - - 6. The Historic Landmark serves as an educational and cultural purpose for its style of architecture,
especially considering its location to Portage Avenue and the traffic on or near the premises on
which it is located.
7. Any changes to the Historic Landmark, since its designation as a local landmark, are insignificant
or are otherwise restorable.
8. Allowing the demolition of a structure as architecturally significant as the Historic Landmark
would be a great loss to the community and antithetical to the purpose of historic preservation and
to the purposes of § 21 -13.01 et seq.
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
25
9. The historical, architectural and cultural significance weighs in favor of disallowing the
demolition of the Historic Landmark.
10. The substantial public benefit of keeping the Historic Landmark weighs in favor of disallowing
the demolition of the Historic Landmark.
11. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by substantial evidence that the current condition or state of
deterioration of the structure is due to factors outside the Petitioner's (or its predecessor's)
control.
12. Petitioner has failed to show by substantial evidence that historically appropriate renovation or
rehabilitation is economically impractical. The Petitioner's evidence on this factor is outweighed
by the Report of Bob Yapp, Community Preservation Specialist, which is more credible than the -
Applicant's submission. The basic condition of the structure appears to be sound and the
architecture is significant. The total cost of rehabilitation is probably less than $200,000, and not
over one million dollars as the Petitioner claims.
13. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it has fully considered and investigated all reasonable
alternatives to demolition. Among these alternatives are sale of the structure, the rental of the
structure as a non - denominational chapel or gathering place for families after funerals or
internment; the lease or rental to third parties, among other potential uses.
14. Petitioner has not fully investigated the availability of grant or public funds to assist with
rehabilitation.
15. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate and allowing the structure to remain would cause it a
substantial economic hardship.
These are the findings set forth in the denial that was submitted to the Commission. The Chair will
now entertain a motion on whether to approve or deny the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Lynn Patrick: I will make a motion. I move that we deny the Certificate of Appropriateness 2005-
1028 [renumber 2006 -0123, as of 23 January 2006] regarding the Gatehouse, based on the evidence
presented in the findings of fact and in the other comments made here this evening.
Timothy Klusczinski: Second.
Shawn Peterson: It is a motion on the floor, it has been seconded, to issue a denial of the Certificate
of Appropriateness based on the evidence presented to today and in making the findings of fact,
which I presume are set forth in the document I just read, including all of their,'and based upon the
____evidence submitted, those findings and that denial in the form submitted. Correct? And, that has been _
seconded? [Consents were given.] All in favor? [Six ayes were given; no nays were heard.]
23 January Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] 2 6
As we go around, there is a majority to deny, please state the reasons set forth for your denial. We
will go around the table.
Catherine Hostetler: The reason for denial is because I believe there is an effective adaptive reuse of
this, and that would be an interdenominational chapel and all the items mentioned here in the
Certificate of Appropriateness denial report. I also found that the C of A application independently
violated both the B standards the Historic Preservation Plan standards.
Timothy Klusczinski: Costs are pivotal to the petitioner's argument for demolition. I question the
validity of those figures and subsequently the request for demolition based upon those estimates.
Approving a C of A is truly the death-knell for the structure and any possible use to sustain it. I
cannot agree to that in good conscience. I also found that the C of A application independently
violated both the B standards the Historic Preservation Plan standards.
Mary Jane Chase: I too feel that there is a use for an interdenominational chapel having been to so
many of them and you stand outside ... That has not been looked into. That is a part of the community
and it is a shame that something that is part of the community. I also found that the C of A
application independently violated both the B standards the Historic Preservation Plan standards.
Shawn Peterson: And for the record do you also include in your comments the form of denial?
Mary Jane Chase: All the comments state perfectly to back up my reasons.
Shawn Peterson: ...and just to back up, do you as well?
Timothy Klusczinski: Yes.
Lynn Patrick: I, Lynn Patrick, President of the Commission, deny this based on the staff report, the
findings of fact, testimony heard here tonight, evidence, personal tour and knowledge of this
structure. I also found that the C of A application independently violated both the B standards the
Historic Preservation Plan standards. Therefore, I move and we have voted to deny.
Jerry Ujdak: I vote for denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness, basically on the basis of this
document, on all the testimony given, and obviously, on all the findings of fact.
Shawn Peterson: So, you've proven the form of the document based upon the evidence for it.
Jerry Ujdak: Yes.
Joann Sporleder: I vote to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for all the reasons given in the
document here and because I believe that this particular structure is historical in its own right and has
— -
value to the community which far outweighs probably cost of renovation, and that it should be
- -- - - - - -- - - -- -- -- -
maintained, and its loss would be irreparable to that particular site and to our community.
Shawn Peterson: Let the record show that the Commission has voted to deny this Certificate of
Appropriateness six to nothing with Todd Zeiger abstaining. Each member commented and
incorporated, agreed with the findings of fact set forth herein; and therefore, the form, as presented to
the Commission, is hereby approved. This concludes the portion of the meeting obtained with
Certificates of Appropriateness. Again, I would thank everyone who came and worked hard,
presented evidence both for and against and under, we will provide you a Certificate of Denial in the
mail shortly thereafter this meeting... amount of three days or after you will have ... [muffled
comments].
23 January Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] 2,7
John Peddycord: We should expect two or three days on the denial?
Shawn Peterson: The denial, yes, we'll submit it to you.
John Peddycord: Thank you for your time. I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone of you and I know
you are sincere in your convictions.
[Todd Zeiger reenters the room.]
Shawn Peterson: Having concluded the Certificates of Appropriateness section and that now taking
more than two hours, I will give it back to the President.
Lynn Patrick: Thank you.
B. LANDMARK (There were none to consider.)
C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS
(There were none to consider.)
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
I. November 21, 2005
Catherine Hostetler moved to accept the minutes as presented. Mary Jane Chase seconded the
motion and it passed with 6 -0 -1 in favor. Timothy Klusczinski abstained.
2. December 19, 2005
Catherine Hostetler also moved to accept these minutes as presented. Tim Klusczinski seconded the
motion, and it too passed unanimously, 7 -0 in favor.
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
Catherine Hostetler distributed the corrected 2005 year -end location report for the budget and
explained some of the presented numbers. No questions were received.
C. COMMITTEE REPORT
I. President's Report
Lynn Patrick noted that the Nominating Committee had met and that Joann Sporleder would give its
report. She also provided Commission Members and Staff the 2006 HPC Committee Appointments.
2. Nominating Committee
Joann Sporleder presented the slate of officers for 2006: Lynn Patrick, President; Todd Zeiger, Vice
President; Mary Jane Chase, Secretary; Tim Klusczinski, Treasurer. Joann moved to approve this
unanimous ballot. Tim Klusczinski seconded the motion. It passed unanimously, 7 -0 in favor.
D. STAFF REPORTS
1. Director's Report
23 January Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] 28
Catherine passed out the upcoming HPC events, and noted that the Commission retreat is scheduled
for February 2n with the location to be announced.
She also reported on the recent correspondence from South Bend's Community Development (CD),
which requests the demolition of the landmarked Burke Building, 1019 S. Michigan Avenue. There
will be a meeting scheduled to review the building and to meet with CD, the Urban Enterprise Assoc,
and the South Gateway Assoc. One interesting point to note is the recent sale of the vacant lot across
Garst Street from this building to Real Services.
2. Assistant Director's Report
Julie reported the progress of the three outstanding guidebooks, and announced that she is applying to
Graduate School for the Fall of 2006.
3. Legal Report
There was no report given. Open Door Law report still in progress.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Chapin Park Standards and Guidelines, Taylor's Field and LWE
(Report was already given under staff reports.)
V. NEW BUSINESS
I. Officer Election
(Election of officers occurred under Committee Reports — Nominating Committee.)
2. Committee Appointments
(Committee Appointments were provided under Committee Reports — President's Report.) _
3. Retreat
The retreat will take place on Feb. 2 "d from 7 to 9 pm. The location had not been decided.
VI. HEARING OF VISITORS
Don Sporleder noted that the AIA Northern Chapter will celebrate its 150` anniversary in 2007.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Catherine Hostetler moved to adjourn the meeting. Joann Sporleder seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously at 9:35 pm.
Attest:
Secreta Date
Historic Preservation Commission
South Bend & Saint Joseph County
23 January Meeting Minutes [Co.—, Version] 29