The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFebruary 2006�SOUTIJ BFB s Ck 1865 Regular Meeting 7th Floor Commissioners' Conference Rm. County -City Building Monday, February 27, 2006 7:30 PM I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL U. PUBLIC HEARING A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 1. COA# 2006-0118B 129 West Northshore B. LANDMARK C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION III. REGULAR BUSINESS A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 23, 2006 B. TREASURER'S REPORT C. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. President's Report: 2. Landmarks Committee -Burke Building D. STAFF REPORTS: 1. C of A Approvals; Correspondence; A. Director's Report B. Assistant Director's Report 2. Legal Qi IV. OLD BUSINESS „ S 1. LWW and Taylor's Field printed and delivered; Chapin Park Final Draft r' at Printers. == i V. NEW BUSINESS 1. Southold Awards Breakfast 4/29 VI. HEARING OF VISITORS AND ADJOURNMENT r SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 279 2006 MEETING GUESTS: PLEASE SIGN THIS LIST SO THAT, YOUR PRESENCE CAN BE NOTED FOR OUR, MINUTES Print Name Aj�✓LLLC- 11 Address n �'oAl, ,)L-&/ Id - 1) -,r W, Signature STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: February 15, 2006 Application Number: 2006-0118B Property Location: 129 West North Shore Drive Property Owner: Peter Bauer and Mary Ellen O'Connell Landmark or District Designation: West North Shore LHD Rating: Significant STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: This Freyermuth and Maurer designed Neo -Classical house was built in 1905 for Eugene Harper Miller. Mr. Harper was the President of the American Trust from 1920 until 1932. He then became Treasurer of Home Improvement Company in 1932. Peter Bauer and Mary Ellen O'Connell purchased the home in August,2005. APPLICATION ITEMS: The owners received staff approval to remove non contributing and deteriorating 1975 brick wall on the west and east sides of the back yard and to restore the north brick wall. They wish to enclose the back yard along the east, west and south (side yard) with a black aluminum flat top or spear -point fence. Standards for West North Shore: The Standards for the West North Shore Local Historic District are silent on the use of fencing in the back or side yards (with the exception of the side yards in Lots 12 and 13) of the homes located in the District and of back yards in general. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval and prefers the spear -point fence. Application - FOR - Certificate of Appropriateness Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana 46601 Mailing Address: County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana 46601 Phone: 574-235-9798 • Fax: 574-235-9578 • Emjil: historic @ michiana.org Website: http://communitymichiana.org/historic/ A Certified Local Government OFFICE USE ONLY »»» DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX »»» OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received fuo /OP. .2"6 Application Number a 4 6' G - D //,? X /S Past Reviews: F] YES (Dateef Last Review) M NO Staff Approval authorized by: tai o1DD G -a 11'P'4 Title: A24et ,&,, Historic Commission Review Date: a -d 7-a0o GZOOG, C/ ,a E] Local Landmark �oeal Historic Distrie Maine) National Landmark F� National Register District (Name) Certificate of Appropriateness: n Denied n Tabled E] Sent To Committee F] Approved and Issued DATE Address of Property for proposed work: 129 W. North Shore Drive Street Number and Street Name Name of Property Owner(s): (Please Print) _peter' Ballet 8P Mary_ lleIL.QS;onnell Address of Property Owner(s): 129 W. North Shore Dr., South Bend IN 46617 Contractor(s) Name: Mesaros Masonry, Foegley Landscaping, Schuell Fence Contract Company Name: Contractor Address: (See attachment #1 for contract addresses and telephone numbers.) City: Phone: Current Use of Building: Single family home (Sin Ie Fainit_y—Multi-Family—Commercial—Gamrmnent —Industrial— vacant —etc.) Wood frame Type of Building Construction: (Wood Frame — Brick — Stone — Steel — Concrete — Other) Proposed Work: F] In-kind Q Landscape ❑ New n Replacement (not in-kind) 0 Demolition (more thmt one hvc nmy Ike checked) Description of Proposed Work: Remove remains of crumbling brick wall (circa 1 76) on west and east sides of backyard; rebuild damaged wall on north side of backyard; add topsoil and sod; install black aluminum flat -top or spearpoint (whichever is deemed most appropriate) 72- fence along west side of backyard and to house, aAd frem—n— te house en east side of baekyard. (See attaehment #2 fer phetes ef current WaR eendMeft-,fit tachment #3 for fence samples. attachment #4 for site plan.) Owner/Contractor. Fax: (This office will corn-sIvid with only one di signee) e-mail peterbauer@comeast.net and/or . Signature of Owner Signature of Contractor — APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE — Attachment #1: Contractor contact information Application for Certificate of Appropriateness, remove damaged brick wall, install fence Peter Bauer & Mary Ellen O'Connell 129 W. North Shore Dr. South Bend IN 46617 574-233-1288 Mesaros Masonry (Rob Mesaros) 421 W. Jefferson Mishawaka IN 46545 574-258-9060, Fax 574-258-9051 Scope of work: Demolish and remove brick walls on west and east sides of backyard; repair and strengthen wall along north side of backyard; remove all rubble. Foegley Landscape Inc. (Aaron Laskowski) 52215 North Lilac Road Sout Bend IN 46628 574-277-2424, Fax 574-277-2492 Scope of work: Add topsoil as necessary; grade along west property line; install sod (when season/weather permits). Schuell Fence (Mike Krueger) 22377 Adams Road South Bend IN 46628 574-272-9200, Fax 574-271-8156 Scope of work: Install 72" fence along west property line from brick wall (north side) to large fir tree, then east to house; install 72" fence from garage to house on east edge of backyard. Attachment #2: Current condition of brick wall (page 1 of 2) Application for Certificate of Appropriateness, remove damaged brick wall, install fence Peter Bauer & Mary Ellen O'Connell 129 W. North Shore Dr. South Bend IN 46617 574-233-1288 We (View from neighbor's yard looking north) North wall (dar 3i (View along top of wall) (Northwest corner) (Along north wall from inside yard) (Detail of damage on north wall) (North wall viewed from alley) Attachment #2: Current condition of brick wall (page 2 of 2) Application for Certificate of Appropriateness, remove damaged brick wall, install fence Peter Bauer & Mary Ellen O'Connell 129 W. North Shore Dr. South Bend IN 46617 574-233-1288 (Detail of northwest corner from alley) (East wall) (Gratuitous photo of dogs) Attachment #3: Proposed fence description Application for Certificate of Appropriateness, remove damaged brick wall, install fence Peter Bauer & Mary Ellen O'Connell 129 W. North Shore Dr. South Bend IN 46617 574-233-1288 72" height (to match wall along north side of backyard); spearpoint or flattop (as recommended by Commission); black finish. ® PdyesterTGIC techrobgy advanced powder (%Beteg system allows ed to an Ultra a nigh quarry, long-lasting finish whtM 4 also environmentally friendly. When applied t0 an Ultra fence, Polyester TGIC is twice the thickness and hardness of a typical acrylic, leaked enamel, or `wet paW finch, mak" h far more durable, fa leiesistant and saatch-resistant than other A MFG.. INC. coatings. ■,�,r,a a ta:c r_sat,-te All UAra Fence tompatenh aro eMnWed hom 600STS alloy. with a m'vdmurn j i ;1 !j �j ��+' ullxnate strength d 35.000 psi. Every fence syuem is assembled Wath staidess steel, corrosion resistant screws, wkh heads panted to rnetch the finish o11M lance. Ultra earrtes posh in a ,,,,.,r,u,,,...,, w,or vanery of tracknesses, ptxx.Rted b accept the t:lsannd on fie tents. Atxossories are d zine the �ast a cast aktmtriUm. AA axessories ere Aay powder coated. a Every Ultra fence is guaranteed by our LBetxrM Warranty. This guerente9 vers our products against detects in wtxkn4ntdvp and materials, es well as chipping, peeking, :ATIONS: r cracking d the Pdyest-TGIC fiNsn br as brg as you own your fence. Rails: Top Walls (/1 L'8" x .062" thick 1118" x .062" thick 1319- ..063" thick 1 51" ..070' thick Side Walls ' 1"x .080" thick 1" x .080 thick 1114" x .088" thick 1 5'8" x .100" thick Standard Ports "'sq x .ObO" thick �" s3. x .ORO- thick -- '" s4 x .1)11 thick 2 1 2" sq x .100" thick OT F2" sq.x.ty80"Uiclt Ta}x.080"thick - Taµx.125"thsck is 2" sq. x .I2T thick T s4 x.125* thick 2 112-,q, x .100" thick 2 I.'2" sq. x .100" thick 2112" sq. x .I00" thick 3" sµ x .125" thick Gate Posts 2" sq. x .125" thick 2" sq. x .125" thick 3" sµ x.125" thick 3" sµ x .125" thick 21,Z-aq.x.It10"thick 2112"sq x.10("thick 4"sµ x.125* thick 4"sq. x.125"thick Spacing llc een 13116 3 716" 3 518" 4" ---- Mckcts (15.8"Available) (112"Available) (I IR"Mailable) Post Spacing 72 12" at center 72 12" on cents 72 12" on center 72 3.B" on center _ _�__ LL (R' aide avvilable) (R' wide available) _ -_36", ((rights Available•— j6"421 48" 54 , 36",42", 48", 53", M",42".48", 54". 4R", Mr. 72", 60;71" 60", 72" W. 72" R4", 96"• I OR", 120" Standard C.1— 'Pearl Black,.White Pearl Black, White Pearl Black, White Pearl Black, White BtotrrtTorcst Green. Bronze. Forest Green, Bronre, Forest Grcm, Bmnxe, Forest Green• Designer Beige Designer Beige Resigner Beige lksigner Beige WSt005paarhlp UM -z"-"47" WSM+! UAS KQ Conetwa rjtl r ip - UAS-130 Stanend Spa- - UAF200.f] Tgp ii UASd30 Corw.x 11111 1 1 UAS1014yyaa+arrTop WF201 Rall Top UAedW Ultra Plcltat .A IVa' SPaebg wn US" Spacing UAF20o Flat sop flush Visit our Websitel'at www.ultrafence.com SEE US IN Distributed By SCHUELL FENCE COMPANY 22377 ADAMS ROAD SOUTH BEND, IN 46628 (574)272-92001(574)674-9600 STANDARD COLORS: WhRe Cobh i anon npna nan r approaknata torrspMaon Dea1QMF aA° � � eel tntOsnhbserl 9e arrrn Color. II POWDER COATED TOUGH' tV d.d WEA11n110 9 - 11.11. W�,:i:� STOCKING DISTRIBUTOR MEMNM Anted— Faroe AaaeWtl-s, Iro. Attachment #4: Site plan Application for Certificate of Appropriateness, remove damaged brick wall, install fence Peter Bauer & Mary Ellen O'Connell 129 W. North Shore Dr. South Bend IN 46617 574-233-1288 ,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ` 1 1 � 1 'y 1 :e 1 1 �1 1 1 1 1 Norwt Spru i 1 1 ..y 1 1— — — — — — — — — — — Spruce Proposed fenceline Collapsing walls Walls to be restored fl � El. 1 /c v r \ Driveway MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY [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-Ilies, 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 HIPC 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] 2 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 banquet/event 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 23a, 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] 3 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 forum for that after we decide to go that route. We even respect the Commission's and the staff s 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] 4 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] 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 0 -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] rol 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 8d', 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 ori. 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 as 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] 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] Z 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... Actually, 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 all 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 storm 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. 1 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] 16 John Peddycord: non-gravesite... a portion of the property. Did you also appraise Highland Cemetery across the street? 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 2000, 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 may be 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] 911 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.] 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. 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. 23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] 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. 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... 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. 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. 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]. John Peddycord: We should expect two or three days on the denial? i 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. 23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] 27 B. LANDMARK (There were none to consider.) C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS (There were none to consider.) III. REGULAR BUSINESS A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. November 21, 2005 Catherine Hostetler moved to accept the minutes as presented. Mary Jane Chase seconded the motion and it passed with 7-0 in favor. 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 1. 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 Catherine passed out the upcoming HPC events, and noted that the Commission retreat is scheduled for February 2nd 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. 23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] W. 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 1. 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°a 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 15& 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. a '0123 January2046 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] RN i Location Budget as of 01-31-2006 Note: Incl des transactions after the last posted date of 12-31-2005. Fund 001 County General for 01-01-2006 thru 01-31-2006 Loc 037 Historic Preservation Account Object Description 11075 Deputy Director 000 General Goi/T. 11309 Historic Preservation Admin. 000 General GovT. 10000 Totals .............................................. 21030 Office Supplies 000 General GOVT. 22010 Gas 00 & Lubricants 000- General GcvT. 22120 Garage & Motor Supplies 000 General GOVT. 20000 Totals .............................................. 31070 Other Contractual Services 000 General GOVT. 32020 Travel 000 General GovT. 32050 Instruction & Training 000 General GoVT. 32053 Public Relations 000 General GOVT. . 32200 Telephone 000 General GodT. 32350 Postage 000 General Go✓r. 33010 Publication Of Legal Notices 000 General GOVT. Saint Joseph County Unencumbered Unexpended Appropriation Encumbrance Expenditure Balance/Percent Balance/Percent 30,000.00 0.00 2,307.70 27,692.30 27,692.30 92.31 92.31 36,050.00 0.00 2,773.08 33,276.92 33,276.92 92.31 92.31 66,050.00 0.00 5,080.78 60,969.22 60,969.22 92.31 92.31 1,750.00 229.19 0.00 1,520.81 1,750.00 86.90 100.00 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 100.00 100.00 700.00 0.00 0.00 700.00 700.00 100.00 100.00 3,450.00 229.19 0.00 3,220.81 3,450.00 • 93.36 100.00 51,367.00 21,300.00 1,067.00 29,000.00 50,300.00 56.46 97.92 500.00 0.00 0.00. 500.00 500.00 100.00 100.00 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00. 100.00 100.00 3,070.00 0.00 0.00 3,070.00 3,070.00 100.00 100.00 160.00 0.00 0.00 160.00 160.00 100.00 100.00 2,160.00 0.00 22.14 2,137.86 2,137.86 98.98 98.98 500.00 0.00 46.01 453.99 453.99 90.80 90.80 02/07/200612:44 PM Page 79 Location Budget as of 01-31-2006 Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 12-31-2005. Fund 001 County General for 01-01-2006 thru 01-31-2006 Loc 037 Historic Preservation Account Objed Description 33100 Printing 000 General GoYT. 37100 Auto Lease 000 General GoVT. 39010 Dues & Subscription 000 General GOVT. 39750 Data Processing 000 General GOVT. 30000 Totals .............................................. 44250 Office Machines 000 General GovT. 40000 Totals .............................................. Location Totals ................................................. Investment Accounts Transfer Accounts Appropriation 8,528.00 500.00 750.00 1,500.00 70,035.00 800.00 800.00 140,335.00 Encumbrance 5,528.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26,828.00 0.00 0.00 27,057.19 Expenditure 92.40 0.00 10.00 0.00 1,237.55 0.00 0.00 6,318.33 0.00 0.00 6,318.33 Unencumbered Balance/Percent 2,907.60 34.09 500.00 100.00 740.00 98.67 1,500.00 100.00 41,969.45 59.93 800.00 100.00 800.00 100.00 106,959.48 76.22 Unexpended Balance/Percent 8,435.60 98.92 500.00 100.00 740.00 98.67 1,500.00 100.00 68,797.45 98.23 800.00 100.00 800.00 100.00 134,016.67 95.50 Saint Joseph County User ID krski 02/07/2006 12:44 PM Page 80 �UY • OBERFELL • LORBER A ` It o r n t tT 5 A Legacy of Service Since 1856 CERTIFIED tvIAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Derek Dieter c/o Common Council of South Bend 227 West Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 4005 South Bend, Indiana 46601 Rolland Kelly c/o Common Council of South Bend 227 West Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 400S South Bend, Indiana 46601 Dr. David Vamer c/o Common Council of South Bend 227 West Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 400S South Bend, Indiana 46601 Timothy Rouse John H. Peddycord D. Andrew Spalding E. Spencer Walton, Jr. Jane F. Bennett Jeffery A. Johnson Richard F. Nugent, Jr. Of Council: Roberti. Palmer Christopher R. Putt John J. Lorber Wendell W. Walsh Georgianne M. Walker Jeffrey B. Harding Patricia E. Primmer Michael W. Arnold Robert C. Beutter W. Todd Woelfer Marcellus M. Lebbin John P. Gourley Bradley L. Vamer Stephanie L. Nem 0 py February 17, 2006 Charlotte Pfeifer c/o Common Council of South Bend 227 West Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 400S South Bend, Indiana 46601 Ann Puzzello c/o Common Council of South Bend 227 West Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 400S South Bend, Indiana 46601 Ervin Kuspa c/o Common Council of South Bend 227 West Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 400S South Bend, Indial�,�c 1 c/o Common Council of South Bend FEB 2 1 2006 227 West Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 4005 South Bend, Indiana 46601 CITY OF SOUTH BEND DPA7 F � Re: Certificate of Appropriateness Number 2005-1028A, 2300 Por nAWb Indiana Dear Common Council Members: Petitioner, Alderwoods Group, Toronto, Canada, submits this notice of appeal and assignment of errors with respect to the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County's (the Commissions) denial of Petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with respect to the demolition of the Romanesque style gatehouse located at 2300 Portage Avenue, South Bend, Indiana. A copy of the denial of Certificate of Appropriateness is attached for your convenience. Petitioner asserts that the Commission's denial of Certificate of Appropriateness is in error for the following reasons: 1) The decision is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with applicable law; 2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; 4100 Edison Lakes Parkway, Suite 100 • Mishawaka, Indiana 46545 • Telephone (574) 243-4100 • Facsimile (574) 232-9789 • www.MayLorber.com South Bend • Fort Wayne MAY • OBERFELL • LORBER February 17, 2006 Page 2 3) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, limitations, or statutory rights; 4) Without observance of procedure required by applicable law; and 5) Unsupported by substantial evidence. The transcript of the Commission's meeting with respect to the Certificate of Appropriateness is also attached to this letter. Wherefore, petitioner, respectfully requests the Common Council to consider petitioner's appeal of the denial of Certificate of Appropriateness for the above identified property. ejb Enclosures cc: Charles S. Leone, Esq. (w/enclosures) Shawn E. Peterson, Esq. (w/enclosures) Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand (w/enclosures) F:\Clicnts\.A0345\05001\Correspondence\Lt. Common Council 2-15-06.doc 2/17/06 Director's Report February, 2006 January 30 Toured Landmarked Burke Building with Chris Dressel, Bob Yapp and Wayne Doolittle. Owner SouthGateWay-Urban Enterprise Association is contemplating demolition. January 31 Todd Zeiger and I spoke at Kendallville at the invitation of Mayor Handshoe concerning creating a Preservation Commission and local historic districts. February I Todd Zeiger, Chairman of the Landmarks Committee, and I met with Jim Frick of South Gateway, Marco Mariani, Chris Dressel and Pam Meyer,of Community Development concerning the Burke Building. Demolition was discussed and strongly discouraged. Bob Yapp is to follow up with an assessment. The skylight has been leaking for two years because Mr.. Frick decided not to spend $1,200-1,4000.00 to repair it. Wayne Doolittle and I met with NNN and Memorial Hospital at 5:15 concerning their plans for, expansion. Memorial is planning to create a new surgical wing containing 14 operating rooms extending towards Bartlett; a new power plant and delivery dock area on the comer of Bartlett and Lafayette -which is not going to be visible from the street/neighborhood. The parking garage on the comer of St. Joseph and Navarre is back in their plans along with a new neuro -science center at the former Kagel's Flower shop location. Holladay will own this building. February 2 The Historic Preservation Retreat at the LaSalle Grill Board Room. February 9 Julie and I met with Lou Sabo concerning the photos of the Studebaker Buildings to be demolished. Wayne Doolittle suggested creating a 12-18 month calendar to sell using a selection of these photographs. February 10 Attended Quarterly Department Head's meeting with County Commissioner Steve Ross. Some of the changes that the County Commissioner's hope to make are to create Job Classification levels with Pay Scale Grades; Security will be in our building, and the renovation of the old jail space in the County City Building. February 13 Registered for the Career Fair at IUSB held on March 24. Julie and I met with Suzanne Stannis, Shannon Hill and Todd Zeiger concerning the City and County Survey. Spoke at the request of East Wayne Street Neighborhood on the COA Process. Meeting was at 7:00pm at Sunnyside Presbyterian and concluded at 8:30. February 16 Wayne, Julie and I toured St. Paul's Memorial Methodist Church with Donna Hostetler. This is the "Studebaker Church" in the West Washington National Register District. The small congregation is looking for ways to attract new membership and revenues for the maintenance of this magnificent church. February 24 Attended the Studebaker Demolition with Julie, Wayne, Commissioner Tim Klusczinski and Lou Sabo. Attended the Leeper Bridge meeting at INDOT in LaPorte. Work will begin the week of March 6 on the cofferdams. The lights will be restored. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY February 27, 2006 County -City Building, South Bend County Commissioners Conference Room, 7`h Floor Members Present: Lynn Patrick [President], Todd Zeiger [Vice -President], Mary Jane Chase [Secretary], Timothy Klusczinski [Treasurer], Catherine Hostetler Members Absent: Martha Choitz, Joann Sporleder, Jerry Ujdak, Diane Wrobel-Illes Staff Present: Catherine Hostetler [Director], Julie Schutte [Assistant Director] Staff Absent: Shawn Peterson [Legal Counsel] Also Present: Peter Bauer, Mary Ellen O'Connell I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL: Lynn Patrick called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm. II. PUBLIC HEARING A. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 1. 2006-0118B 129 West North Shore Catherine Hostetler: The homeowners, Peter Bauer and Mary Ellen O'Connell, are present. The house is located in the West North Shore District and is rated significant. This Freyermuth and Maurer designed Neo -Classical house was built in 1905 for Eugene Harper Miller. Mr. Harper was the President of the American Trust from 1920 until 1932. He then became Treasurer of the Home Improvement Company in 1932. Peter Bauer and Mary Ellen O'Connell purchased the home in August 2005. The owners received staff approval to remove the non-contributing and deteriorating 1975 brick wall on the west and east sides of the back yard and to restore the north brick wall. They wish to enclose the back yard along the east, west and south (side yard) with a black aluminum flat top or spear -point fence. The Standards for the West North Shore Local Historic District are silent on the use of fencing in the back or side yards (with the exception of the side yards in Lots 12 and 12B) of the homes located in the District and of back yards in general. Staff recommends approval and prefers the spear -point fence. Peter Bauer noted that he had done an informal survey of the district and there are a few fences visible from North Shore: one chain link fence, two wooden fences, and a long spear -point wrought - iron fence. Approximately three feet would be visible from West North Shore. Mary Jane Chase asked what the feelings of the neighbors were. Mary Ellen O'Connell stated that they had spoken to their immediate neighbors and that the Brodens and the [Favors?] are very happy with the project. Todd Zeiger: I'll make a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness 2006-0118B as submitted. Timothy Klusczinski seconded the motion, and it passed 5-0, all in favor. B. LANDMARKS (There were none heard.) C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS (There were none heard.) III. REGULAR BUSINESS A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 23, 2006 Catherine Hostetler: I would like to make the suggestion that on page 26 that we amend it to clarify, basically. There is some ambiguity with the minutes about what was in the Preservation Plan vis-a- vis the standards for landmarks, and I would like to clarify that in addition to my comments recorded in the proposed minutes that I found the C of A application for 2300 Portage independently violates both the B standards and the historic preservation plan standards for demolition of a landmark. And I know that other people were using the same language that I was using, Mary Jane used it, Lynn and also Tim used it, and also with your comments if you would like you to incorporate this as well so there won't be any problems or any question as to which standards we were referring to. Timothy Klusczinski noted another correction was needed on page 28 under approval of minutes for November 21, 2005. The vote should be corrected to 6-0-1 as Tim abstained from the motion to approve those minutes. Mary Jane Chase: Then, I move that we accept the changes from Catherine and myself, from Lynn and Tim. Todd Zeiger seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. B. TREASURER'S REPORT Timothy Klusczinski formally submitted the treasurer's report (the budget location for the department) to the Commission. C. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. President's Report Lynn Patrick reported that the Commission had a well -attended retreat. There was much discussion on the Commission's goals for the future though the specific implementation of the goals will need further discussion. Lynn also noted that there was a meeting with neighbors from Edgewater Place about 513 River Avenue's fence issue. At the meeting the prior decisions of the Commission were reviewed and its decision to take no action was again emphasized. 2. Landmark Committee Report Todd Zeiger reported that he and Catherine had met with the Planning Department and the South Gateway Association on the Burke Building, 1019 S. Michigan. As a point of information, Community Development/South Gateway may come to the Commission with an application, possibly to demolish the building. D. STAFF REPORTS 1. C of A Approvals; Correspondence Catherine Hostetler reported that the staff had approved a C of A for 129 West North Shore, which was included in the packets. Catherine noted that the office had received several pieces of correspondence including: a note from Glory -June Grief that the National Register nomination for the WPA river wall had passed the state review board; a letter from John Strauss, of the South Bend School Corporation, noting that the bids for the demolition of Lincoln School will be determined on March 6`h and the Commission can then negotiate with the demolition contractor/s; correspondence from Alderwoods via May Oberfell Lorber that Alderwoods has decided to proceed with an appeal; and thank -you notes from the East Wayne Street liaisons to Catherine for her presentation on the C of A process. 2. Director's Report (included in the HPC meeting binder) Catherine passed out a listing of meetings and events the staff had attended to reflect the progress of the office and announced that the Notre Dame School of Architecture is having a lecture on ancient Greek architecture. 3. Assistant Director's Report: Julie Schutte had nothing new to report. 4. Legal: There was no legal report as Shawn was absent due to illness. IV. OLD BUSINESS 1. LWW [sic] and Taylor's Field printed and delivered; Chapin Park Final Draft at Printers. Julie Schutte reported that the Lincolnway East and Taylor's Field guideline books had arrived from the printer and shall be delivered soon. A final proof for Chapin Park should arrive by the end of the week with the delivery occurring by the middle of March. IV. NEW BUSINESS 1. Southhold Awards Committee Meeting The Committee meeting was set for Thursday, March 2"a at 5 pm in the Commission offices. 2. Marquette School The Commission discussed the future of Marquette School and the possibility of placing it under interim protection. The building's connection to the Public Works Administration (PWA) was highlighted. It was also noted that the South Bend School Board may be voting on a bundle of projects for a new bond issue, which would include the bond for the destruction of Marquette School. Lynn Patrick: I move to place interim protection to Marquette School with the appropriate measures to be followed. Timothy Klusczinski seconded the motion. There was some discussion about what would be included in the letter and how it would be mailed to the School Corporation at the appropriate time. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0. V. HEARING OF VISITORS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Mary Jane Chase reported on the potential changes Gov. Daniels' plan to privatize food production for welfare and shelter programs might have on South Bend and the South Gateway area. She also submitted a name for the Commission's Advisory Board. VI. ADJOURNMENT Lynn Patrick moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 pm. Catherine Hostetler seconded the motion and all were thrilled to end a meeting before 9 p.m. Attest: Secretary Date Historic Preservation Commission South Bend & Saint Joseph County