HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 2006pU TH
^
OFTHEJ: UARY-11,
2006:
dam. ate, ,COMMISSION MEETING:
1865 i
Regular Meeting 7th Floor Commissioners' Conference Rm.
County -City Building
Monday, January 23, 2006 7:30 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL
II. PUBLIC HEARING
=: A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
1. COA# 2006-0104 1325E. Wayne Street
2. COA# 2005-1028 A 2300 Portage tabled previously
B. LANDMARK
C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 21, 2005
December 19, 2005
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
i C. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. President's Report:
2. Nominations Committee
PER D. STAFF REPORTS:
1. C of A Approvals; Correspondence;
A. Director's Report
B. Assistant Director's Report
i 3 2. Legal
5�.
W. OLD BUSINESS
i
1. Chapin Park Standards and Guidelines, Taylor's Field and LWE
..I V. NEW BUSINESS
1.Officer Elections
2. Committee Appointments
3. Retreat
HEARING OF VISITORS AND ADJOURNMENT
SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY
- HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JANUARY 23, 2006 MEETING
GUESTS: PLEASE SIGN THIS LIST SO THAT
YOUR PRESENCE CAN BE NOTED FOR OUR
MINUTES
Print Name Address
/L
Signature---)
l/ X6�On/pyc'/p 01 tr--A/r Ie tW
(VIA�Ctil �-C.b�r^ �sl�lll� �'�LHZC(�LLrn. �CJ✓kiSa.� a�!/c.� �/L� �_,.
AL F-7,
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: January 12, 2006
Application Number: 2006-0104
Property Location: 1325 East Wayne Street South
Property Owner: Mr. Roland Kelly
Landmark or District Designation: East Wayne Street LHD
Rating: Contributing C/9
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: 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 -storey gabled
rear addition to the house with shed roof entrance.
APPLICATION ITEMS: Mr. Kelly wishes to extend the one storey 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
=f the new addition. The new addition will match the exterior and will not remove any original features of the
mouse. The new windows will match the windows on the house which would be wooden Pella windows.
Thomas Thompson of Thompson Homes is the Contractor.
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 to the
existing or original materials of that structure. As much of the original structure as possible shall be retained 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 on the original 1926 structure.
NOTE: Because of the proximity of the
noted improvement(s) to the property
line, a Boundary Survey is recommended
to determine if ithhey may constitute
an encroachment.
I'Sac• ON j
or srtA► R
, - cv.r•
1 IZ X I(e�
tvarK w
a
ko��„! r • '�
;. o
W •'•�
382. ,o: :• .,�
.I
-�• Go. o• � •1
curb i f
EAST WAYNE STREET
. SQU TH
This report was preparedea04vithout a copy of the Tile Insurance Policy and may
be subject to other restrictions contained thereon This drawin conforms with the
THE PRIMARY STRUMRE
SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING
IS NOT IN A FLOOD
HAZARD AREA.
IV I
rAl�. UG
' gyt7 'V 01011 A-
•SUR�ti�
9
Surveyor Location Report minimum requirements as certified on page two of this
report. Any encroachments are specifically noted above. This report is of Imded
accuracy and should not be used for construction or for astablshing boundary or
fence Ines. REGISTERED wro SUPVCYOR S j ---
SURVEYOR LOCATION REPORT
Lot 120, Whitcomb 3 Kellees Sunnymede
1325 East Wayne Street South, South Bend, IN
FOR: Thompson Homes, Inc.
Lang, Feeney & As::ociates, Inc.
Land Swweyor•s & Engineers
715 South Michigan Street
South bend. Indians 46601
Phone 219.2311641
FAX 219-674-0374
SCALE DATE DRAWING NO.
SOk
First
)eocn
1:n
Basem
fs
Jars
Parch
OOMM
0
rrr
LMU
dsrs -..'-3 1� j MTTn1 nnnXT TTnA Ii?t"1 TATOIIIRemode1 For.
►� n p ►-3
4 • r \ , \ 1
\ \
N. \ \
\ \ \
.__-__-_.__------------�
- - - - -- - - - \ -- - - - - --'
I�
11
11
II
II
11
Ii
it
11
it
I
I
1
I
I
t
1
I A THOMPSON HOMES. INC Remodel For:
En
p ;. p 0, J
A - � Torn Thompson Roland Kelly
awA�
aNy a 2940 Sycamore Lane Location:
V.- � Breman, IN 46506 1325 South Wayne St. East, South B(
COA# 2005-1028 WAS TABLED AT THE REQUEST
OF THE PETITIONER FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.
IT WILL NOW BE CONSIDERED BY THE
COMMISSION ON JANUARY 23, 2006.
STAFF REPORT.
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: 11110105
Application Number: 2005-1028
Property Location: 2300 Portage Avenue
Property Owner:. Alderwoods Group, Toronto, Canada
Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark — designated in 2000
Rating: Significant —12/ Notable
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCEIIIISTORIC CONTEXT
Romanesque Style gatehouse designed by Claude K. Howell, 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 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.
Application
- FOR -
Certificate of Appropriateness
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County
125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana 46601
I:- Address: f' I P -11A.- C_ Bend, AAAf)1
1VLULU L U I Indiana
Phone: 574-235-9798 - Fax: 574-235-9578 - Email: SBSJCHPC@co,st-joseph.in.us
Website: http://www.sqosephcounVindiana.com/s chp/index.html
OFFICE USE ONLY >>>>>> DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX >>>>>> OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Receivedt4005 Application Number o2 0 0 5 - 100A
If I
Past Reviews: M YES (Date of Last Review) t NO
Staff Approval authorized by: Title:
Historic Commission Review Date: 11 * -24 - aD05
ZLocal Landmark F-1 Local Historic District (Name)
National Landmark 7 National Register District (Name)
Certificate of Appropriateness:
0 Denied [-1 Tabled E] Sent To Committee F-1 Approved and Issued DATE
Address of Property for proposed work: 2300 Portage Avenue. South Bend
Street Number and Street Name
Name of Property Owner(s): (Please Print) Alderwoods Group, Inc -
Address of Property Owner(s): 259 Yorkland Rd., Toronto, Canada, M2J 5B2
Contractor(s) Name:
Contract Company Name:
Contractor Address:
City:
Current Use of Building: vqrqnt
-
Phone:
(Single Family — Multi -Family — Commercial — Government — Industrial — Vacant — etc.)
Type of Building Construction: combination wood frame and stone
Wood Frame — Brick — Stone — Steel — Concrete — Other)
Proposed Work: F-1 In-kind E] Landscape [] New ❑ Replacement (not in-kind) R Demolition
(more that: one box may be checked)
Description of Proposed Work: Please see attached description.
Owner/Contractor: Fax, (q74) ?19-Q790 e-mail ppri mmPrQ)MaV1 nrh,-r - raw
(This office will correspotui with only one designee)
. M W&TRIM
— APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE —
Description of Proposed Work: Demolition of complete structure which is demonstrated in the
report of Mekus Studios dated September 21, 2005, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked
Exhibit "N' and made a part hereof. The structure poses a threat to public safety; rehabilitation
of the structure is not realistically feasible and is cost prohibitive (estimated at $1,807,000)
particularly inasmuch as the owner does not and cannot utilize the structure; nor is there any
reasonable likelihood that the structure can be devoted to another use due to, among other things,
its location within a privately owned cemetery.
The address for Mekus Studios is as follows:
Mekus Studios Ltd
401 East Illinois Street, Suite 401
Chicago, IL 606111
Phone: (312) 661-0778
Fax: (312) 661-0980
msle,mekusstudios.com
Building Condition Study
For:
Cemetery Ga i-ehouse
Riverview Cemetery
2300 Portage Avenue
South Bend, Indiana
September 21, 2005
ALDERWOODS"
GROUP
MEKUS STUDIOS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 2
HISTORY 2
OBSERVATIONS �S
SITE 3
BUILDING EXTERIOR 3
WINDOWS
ROOF 4
INTERIOR
HEATING SYSTEM
PLUMBING 5
ELECTRICAL 5
COST 6
MEKUS STUDIOS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Riverview Gatehouse and define
financial parameters for returning it to its original condition.
HISTORY
The Riverview Cemetery was developed in 1900 when a group from South Bend
formed a stock company and purchased the James Miller estate for the purposes
of developing a suburban cemetery.
It is a significant local site being the location of the St. Joseph - Kankakee
Portage, an important link between the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence River
and the Atlantic Ocean.
Riverview Cemetery includes many significant family mausoleums which adopted
the architectural styles popular at the time they were constructed. The cemetery
is considered to have more private mausoleums than is typical elsewhere in the
upper Midwest.
Claude K. Howell, a notable Midwest architect, was responsible for the design of
the Gatehouse and Entryway. The Romanesque style is characterized by large,
rough -cut stones and stucco and half timber walls with a gable slate roof. The
front porch wraps around the front and incorporates Doric Columns on top of a
low stone wall.
At the rear of the Gatehouse is an addition that incorporates an all stucco and
half-timber wall with a gable roof. This addition seems foreign to the original build-
ing design as it does not include any rough cut stone. Additionally, the addition's
roof has asphaltic shingles and not slate like the original Gatehouse roof.
The Gatehouse was granted historic landmark status by the city of South Bend
and St. Joseph County by ordinance No. 9150-00, on October 23, 2000.
2
Y
1. Front Elevation 2. Side Elmtlon
{1
3. Rear Elevation
5. Foundation Wag
7. Chimney
4. Side Elevation
6. Exterior
a. Dormer Window
MEKUS STUDIOS
OBSERVATIONS
The existing building is currently vacant and no longer serves the administrative
needs of the cemetery. These activities are housed in the administrative office of
Highland Cemetery, which Is right across the street.
SITE
The Gatehouse (1,2,3,4) has not been maintained and is in severe disrepair. The
sidewalks around the building are cracked and have experienced differential set-
tlement.
The solution Is to replace the sidewalks and replace some of the asphalt paving to
create positive drainage away from the building. New landscaping is needed to
enhance the site. The foundation wall needs to be excavated to expose the wall
for new waterproofing on the wall. The addition of drain tile would also help move
water away from the basement walls. The foundation wall needs to be rebuilt
underneath the low porch wall (5). As for the building, the entire skin needs to be
removed and rebuilt. The stone walls are in decent condition, but all trim, slate,
gutters, walls and windows need replacement, stripped down to bare structure
and rebuilt. (6)
Replacement of stone chimney is needed (7). The roof and building envelope is In
desperate need of repair. Windows are broken and rotten (8), the stucco is
cracked and significant areas of wood trim and half timber are rotten. There are
numerous holes In the roof allowing the elements to the inside.
BUILDING EXTERIOR
The Gatehouse has stone foundation walls which are deteriorating under the
porch wall (5). Additionally, the stone walls show signs of moisture Infiltration.
WINDOWS
All windows are simple pane glass in wood, double hung sash. Many sashes and
glass panes are broken, allowing the elements to get Inside(S). All windows should
be replaced with an insulating glass unit with aluminum exterior cladding in dou-
ble hung configuration.
.3
8. Roof
10. Trim & Gutters
-,.,.
12. Ceiling
13. Restroom
15. Door/Fames
14. Wall/Calling
16. Heating Systems
MEKUS STUDIOS
ROOF
The existing roof has numerous holes, broken slate and disintegrating sheathing.
Gutters are missing entirely or rotting in place. Valley flashings are in disrepair (9).
The solution is to remove all roofing and trim down to structure. Reinforcement of
the structure is needed to accommodate a new slate roof, provide a new copper
flashing, gutters, sheathing, ice and water shield, felt, slate and wood trim (10).
INTERIOR
The interior space is in a state of severe deterioration. The ceiling and walls are
all peeling, cracking and contain mold and moisture (11). Animals have nested in
the ceiling spaces and have damaged many areas of the ceiling (12). The interior
space does not meet ADA and needs to incorporate these standards to make the
building accessible (13). The finished wood floors are cupped and warped from
moisture coming through the roof and ceiling. The stairs are non-compliant and
need replacement.
All wood lathe and plaster needs to be removed and replaced (14). All the wood
trim need to be evaluated and new trim added (15). All wood floors should be
replaced. Some doors and frames are salvageable, but new doors and frames
need to be added. New ADA restrooms need to be added. Stairs need to be
replaced and reconfigured for better access to the second floor and basement.
HEATING SYSTEMS
The existing heating system is antiquated and non-functional. The existing boiler
and piping systems are in disrepair. The hot water heater is the newest piece of
equipment, but will need replacement (16).
4
17. Basement Piping 18. Piping
19. Electrical Service
MEKUS STUDIOS
J
PLUMBING
The plumbing systems are non-functional. The sump pump is located in the base-
ment floor and is temporarily inside. All steam piping is deteriorated and the sani-
tary piping has many "patches" on the line (17).
The one bath Is inoperative and does not meet code. Removal of all the plumbing
piping is needed and redone with new waste and vent piping. Relocation of the
sump pump to the perimeter wall for easier discharge. Develop two (2) new ADA
compliant restrooms.
ELECTRICAL
Where as some electrical is still on the building, the wiring is very antiquated and
not code compliant (19). The electrical service in the basement is outdated and
needs to be replaced (20).
20. Electrical Panel Removal of all electrical service and sub -distribution wiring, boxes and devices
will be needed to provide new service, panels, conduit, wiring and devices per
code.
5
MEKUS STAIOS
COST
M BUDGET
Demolition - Building Skin
$
70,000
Site Cleaning
$
5,000
Excavation
$
12,000
Waterproofing
$
15,000
Foundation Repair
$
25,000
Stone Repair
$
30,000
Rough Carpentry
$
200,000
Finish Carpentry
$
150,000
Exterior Skin
Stucco
$
75,000
Half Timber
$
50,000
Roof
$
180,000
Windows
$
80,000
Doors/Frames
$
15,000
Plaster
$
100,000
Wood Trim
$
80,000
Painting
$
50,000
Ceramic Tile
$
5,000
Carpet
$
15,000
Wood Floor
$
30,000
Elevator
$
65,000
HVAC
$
30,000
Plumbing
$
25,000
Fire Protection
$
10,000
Electrical
$
50.000
Subtotal
$1,367,000
Contingency 15%
$
205.050
Subtotal
$1,572,050
General Conditions/OHP 15%
$
235.808
Total
$1,807,858
0
Am
JP1
HISTORIC
LANDMARKS
FOUNDATION OF
INDIANA
November 16, 2005
Catherine Hostetler, Director
Historic Preservation Commission
South Bend/St. Joseph County
Catherine,
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:
1) 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. I inspected the
property during a hard rain and saw no roof leaks inside the building. The addition
should have a complete tear -off and new shingles installed to match the color of the red
slate.
Slate & Flashing Repairs $12,000
Addition Roof, approximately 6 squares at $500 p/sq $3,000
Gutters & Downspouts $3,000
2) Masonry & 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. 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. The foundation walls do not need to be
excavated as new sidewalks and re -grading around the perimeter of the foundation will
take care of the drainage problem.
Re -Pointing $8,000
Parging $2,000
Stucco Repair $8,000
Sidewalk Replacement $8,000
3) Exterior Wood & Painting
While there is some rot on the front porch beadboard ceiling and ancillary trim, the
overall condition of the exterior wood trim elements is very good. Limited replacement
of the wood and architectural epoxies are needed. The entire building needs to be re-
painted. Painting will include removal of all paint from wood surfaces and thorough
scraping of the stucco elements. ADA ramp included.
Wood Repair
$10,000
Exterior Painting
$15,000
ADA Ramp
$10,000
4) Windows and Storms
All of the original windows are in fully restorable condition. These windows can be made
more energy efficient than a replacement for comparable or less money. Complete
restoration includes paint and putty removal, weather-stripping, and new combination
wood storms
Window Restoration @ $650 per opening x approx. 20 openings $13,000
5) HVAC, Electrical and Plumbing
Complete re -wiring; new plumbing and fixtures; all new heating and air conditioning
system. This includes an ADA bathroom.
HVAC, Electrical and Plumbing
6) Interior Finishes
$40,000
The original plaster for the most part is in very good condition. Plaster, woodwork and
floor refinishing is needed.
Flooring
$8,000
Woodwork
$6,000
Plaster Repairs
58.000
All repairs
$154,000
20% continQencv
530.800
Total Rehab Costs
$184,800
Sincerely,
Bob Yapp Community Preservation Specialist
Northern Regional Office
Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana
402 West Washington Street
South Bend, Indiana 46601
574-232-4534 fax: 574-232-5549
byapp@historiclandmarks.org
www.historiclandmarks.org
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND & ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
MONTHLY MEETING -
November 21, 2005
4th Floor, Council Chambers, County -City
Building, South Bend, IN
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Todd Zeiger, (Member)
Mary Jane Chase, (Secretary)
Joann Sporleder, (Architectural Historian)
Lynn Patrick, (President)
John Oxian, (Treasurer)
Diane Wrobel-Illes, (Member)
Catherine Hostetler, (Member)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Gerald Ujdak, (Member)
STAFF PRESENT:
Catherine Hostetler, (Director)
Wayne Doolittle, (Inspector)
Aladean DeRose, (Chief Assistant
Attorney)
Shawn Peterson, (Assistant City Attorney)
STAFF ABSENT:
Julie Schutte, (Assistant Director)
ALSO PRESENT:
Diana Matthias, Kate Ravin, Laura L.
Smith, Kent Anderson, David Bainbridge,
Jonathan J. Cook, Donald Sporleder,
Paul Schmitt, Brenda E. Knowles, Paul
Kochanowski
I. CALLED MEETING TO ORDER
LYNN PATRICK: Called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
1. 2005-1012; 1111 Riverside Drive
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: (See staff report, proposed work description, window
advertisement, and black and white photos of property attached to C of A in HPC
meeting binder). Catherine also passed out the original colored photographs she had of
the property for commission members to look over. (Homeowners, Brenda Knowles and -
Paul Kochanowski, were present). The homeowners also passed out a written copy
explaining their reasons and opinions for having the proposed work done on their
property for commission members to look over.
DIANE WROBEL-ILLES: Have you explored areas for replacement windows that
better match the original window's frame size?
PAUL KOCHANOWSKI: We just looked at windows that we thought were the most
efficient. We looked at some wood windows that really didn't have the energy savings
and would not have been easy for us to clean. We picked what was considered high end
replacement windows. We also looked around the neighborhood to see what other kinds
of windows were being used.
The staff did give us information; however, we feel this information is outdated and
goes back to the mid to late 1990's. It states things that are certainly not true anymore. It
states that the seals will break in seven and a half years and the windows are going to
warp. The windows we are buying have a guarantee for 20 years on both the seals and
frames. We can't understand how the staff by taking pictures of the outside of our house
can tell anything about what the windows are like on the inside. The staff doesn't have to
live with these windows on a day to day basis. The windows are always getting dirty and
we have hired contractors to clean them. The last time this happened, even though we
paid the contractor $200.00 dollars, the contractor quit in the middle of the job because
there were too many windows. He put together storm windows incorrectly so they are a
mess. Every time it is humid the windows are very hard to open and shut. Since we live
in the house on a day to day basis we feel the replacement windows will not only be a lot
easier to clean but they will look better also. They will not look the same; but, the storm
windows that are on the house now are not very attractive either. We also look at this
from an energy savings point of view. The staff report said that the pay back period is
about 30 years; but, with energy prices triple and the windows much more efficient than
they were in the past, the payback period is going to be obviously a lot shorter, maybe 10
years or fewer.
BRENDA KNOWLES: I also have severe allergies and I am very worried about the
lack of ventilation because we literally cannot open most of the windows. They swell
shut almost the entire year. I am worried about argon, mold, and the exacerbation of my
allergies. So I see health as well as ecological issues here.
JOHN OXIAN: You are already violating the standards by going from 4 over 1 window
to 1 over 1 window. If you were going to go for new windows that were 4 over 1, which
we have some times allowed in other places to match the original ones, then that's a
different story. My house is a landmark and it has wood windows. If you have your
wood windows taken care of properly they will open and shut properly. You have to
check the ropes and weights on the windows periodically to make sure they are working
correctly. I can open all of the wood windows I have in my house. You also mention
about going inside the house to see what the windows are like. Our inspectpr cannot go
inside the house. If you want our inspector to come in and see what the windows look
like from the inside to get a better judgment to make us decide on what we would like to
approve or reject, then I would suggest that we table this and you allow Wayne Doolittle
to come in and look at the windows and then come back. Until you decide to come back
with 4 over 1 window I will not approve this one way or another.
BRENDA KNOWLES: I had called Mr. Doolittle a couple of times about this; because,
we actually don't even know what you are talking about regarding 4 over 1 and 1 over 1.
JOHN OXIAN: Then I would suggest that we table this and have you sit down with our
inspector and go over this and come back with a mutual understanding among all of you
so that next month what ever is approved would be the best thing to do.
LYNN PATRICK: I also have wood windows in my house that would not open because
they were all painted shut. We did a window rehab workshop with Bob Yapp. He
replaced the weights and ropes and did a lot of work on my windows and now they open
and shut like a dream.
TODD ZEIGER: Have there been bids received for rehab on these windows?
BRENDA KNOWLES: No.
TODD ZEIGER: I would request that if this is tabled then bids should be brought back
in for consideration. The fact that it violates the standards to replace them to begin with
really begs the question why there aren't even bids to repair what is there now.
2
JOANN SPORLEDER: Which windows are you planning on replacing?
PAUL KOCHANOWSKI: The only windows that we are going to be doing anything
with are the ones that have the aluminum storm windows already on them and they're
just double -hung windows.
LYNN PATRICK: All of the windows that are going to be replaced are in fact 4 over 1
windows.
PAUL KOCHANOWSKI: Yes they are.
JOANN SPORLEDER: So then you are intending to replace the triple -track aluminum
storm windows and the windows themselves with thermal insulated replacement
windows.
PAUL KOCHANOWSKI: Right.
ALADEAN DEROSE: I would like to make a point of clarification because a C of A is
being denied; if it's not approved within 45 days there are two possibilities. 1. The
owners could withdraw the current C of A and start with a new request for C of A. 2.
The owners could waive the 45 day rule and allow the commission to act on this C of A
and perhaps amend it.
LYNN PATRICK: I will make a motion to allow this C of A to be withdrawn and a
new C of A be submitted.
DIANE WROBEL-ILLES: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
2. 2005-1028; 1333 E. Wayne Street
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: (See staff report, project description, black/white photos,
double -hung window advertisement brochure attached to C of A in HPC meeting binder).
(Homeowner, Laura Smith, was present).
JOHN OXIAN: There is a new type of casement windows that are out now that
duplicate the old ones. Did you check on those?
LAURA SMITH: No, I didn't. Who ever did the windows in 1997 did double -hung
windows. I would like to replace those windows which are not double -hung windows so
that all of the windows will match one another.
JOHN OXIAN: I will make a motion that the C of A 2005-1028 be approved as
recommended by staff.
DIANE WROBEL-ILLES: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
3. 2005-1104A; 840 Park Avenue
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: (See staff report, black/white photos, white copy of
written statement by Mr. and Mrs. Matthias, copies of invoices and estimate).
(Homeowner, Diana Matthias, was present).
MARTHA CHOITZ: The Standards and Maintenance Committee was called upon to
review C of A 2005-1104A. The Standards and Maintenance Committee recommends
approval of this C of A to the HPC for further activity.
MARY JANE CHASE: Were these Scamozzi capitals original and then changed to the
Doric style capitals?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Yes.
MARY JANE CHASE: Do we know when they were changed?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Yes, in the summer of 2005.
TODD ZEIGER: How did you square up your recommendation for approval with the
guidelines for the district with regard to the fact that this was done after the district was
put in place without a C of A?
3
MARTHA CHOITZ: The decorations shall be retained or replaced by replicas of the
same design or by a design more in keeping with the historic period of the structure. We
investigated that very thoroughly and realized that it could be a possibility, because
there's no proof that those were original to the house.
JOANN SPORLEDER: The capital on the right was seriously damaged and the center
capital was not in good shape, so they needed to be replaced. In order to make all three
match; all three would have needed to be replaced. The one capital on the left had been
replaced in 2000 because of a storm. There were problems associated apparently with
replacing the other two or then all three with Scamozzi column capitals that were then
available, because of if I am understanding what was said with the size, and the style, and
the structure; if you will look in one of those photographs apparently the structure of this
thing is such that there is a column inside that is the structural column that holds up the
whole thing and all of this is put around it on the outside of that. So in order to do what
was then available apparently in the Scamozzi style, as I understand it, they would have
had to completely undo the entire structure and start all over again because the capitals
came as a piece instead of in halves which could accommodate the structure itself. You
can see that quite plainly in the photograph which was passed around. They apparently
had tried to get Scamozzi capitals, and there have been some indications of this, which
was in your packet.
In 2004 they had investigated trying to get Scamozzi in other places. The difficulty
of doing that led them to try something simpler which was also in keeping with that
particular Queen Ann style. In fact, in my professional opinion the Doric is more
commonly used in the Queen Anne than the Scamozzi. That doesn't mean the Scamozzi
was never used; but, the Doric was the normal way of going. So what they have done
was chosen to do something that needed to be done because those tops had to be fixed -
they had obviously disintegrated. I think that's where I came down on this and I thought
that is what they had done over a long period of time of starting this whole process in
2001, I believe. It just seemed to make the most sense to do what they in fact did.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: But, then how do you explain the Scamozzis on the
Queen Anne Inn?
JOANN SPORLEDER: I can't explain that because that's not in the same district.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: It was. We moved that house. That was in Chapin Park
right across on Lafayette. Those are wooden columns with terra cotta. One of your
arguments was about shingle style Queen Anne's not having Scamozzis; but, -----
JOANN SPORLEDER: No, I didn't say they didn't have it; what I was saying was
Doric is appropriate. There is a difference.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: But, that wasn't what was there.
JOANN SPORLEDER: The truth of the matter is we don't know what was there. We
only know what was destroyed.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: The terra cotta industry collapsed in the 1930's so they
had to have been at least seventy years old.
JOANN SPORLEDER: I don't really want to get into how old they are. All I know is
that they were deteriorated and needed to be replaced. An effort was made to replace
them with Scamozzi and apparently that was unsuccessful structurally. So I can't address
anything more beyond that.
4
WAYNE DOOLITTLE: I would like to give you my time line of what happened.
Every year as you know I walk through every district. I take photographs of things that
seem to be in need of repair and I make a report on it. I did this on July 10th and July
11th. I have been doing this for four years. I do it the same way with people all the time.
When I take pictures of peoples' homes, I really hope that we can get together and talk
about why I am taking pictures. I have had many people ask me why I am taking it and I
tell them why. We're doing it as a record to see if that district is going up or if it is going
down. I was also given some opportunity to write letters to people and to tell them about
problems they might not even know they have:
At this particular time, John came out and we talked about it. I noticed that they had
the new Scamozzi at one end; which I thought looked rather striking, and I mentioned
that. We were talking about the one that had been broke. That one he said we are going
to get repaired, that was July 11th: I give everyone my card and say if we can be of any
assistance to you please give us a call; we can often times find things for you because we
deal with a lot of different people. That's the way I left it.
So, I was under the understanding that one was going to be repaired. I would
certainly have been happy to talk with them at any time about the problems that they had.
So as far as I was concerned this was a problem thatwas going to be solved. I told the
other staff the same thing when I printed the photographs and how pleased they were to
be able to go ahead and get it fixed. They said that one had been repaired and it was put
in. When I am taking photographs, everybody knows we're in the district and that's why
I am taking those photographs. I don't think there should be any mistake why I am doing
what I am doing. I am happy to talk to everybody because it gives me an opportunity to
try to come to some resolution and to try and help people come to a good conclusion.
MARY JANE CHASE: Were they going to change all of them to Doric?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: They did.
MARY JANE CHASE: ' I thought you said there was a Scamozzi left:
WAYNE DOOLITTLE: There was a new one, and the one in the middle was all ready
there, and the one on the South side of the house was broken in half. Then there are two
other half Scamozzis that were on half pillars embedded to the house. They were fine
and the one in the center was fine. What really needed to be done, they had so many
coats of paint on them that you needed to take some paint off in order to get a better look.
I found at least three companies that manufacture Scamozzis and they ranged from; well I
found more than that; but, the more reasonable ones were like $265.00 to $365.00 dollars.
There were some that were a $1,000.00 dollars and I immediately discounted those.
Many of them come in halves so you're able to rise them up and hook them in otherwise
you would have a big problem because of the shaping of the Scamozzi.
MARY JANE CHASE: I was confused if you had said they had Scamozzis and
changed to Doric.
WAYNE DOOLITTLE: Yes:
MARY JANE CHASE: That wasn't at all in the original C of A to do anything?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: There wasn't an original C of A, it was after the fact.
WAYNE DOOLITTLE: They also had a great deal of work that was'done without a
building permit which is required by the city. Over at least $2,000.00 dollars worth of
work done again on the original before we came to the district may really have an impact
on this; but, every contractor should know that it does require a building permit for any of
5
the things that they do and it's for the safety of the homeowner that it's done. The only
thing that connects the contractor to the job is the building permit. Every single
contractor is required to register and required to have a $5,000.00 dollar bond. The
$5,000.00 bond is there in case you don't meet the requirements of city code and they
require them to redo the work. Either they get the bond back or the contractor will have
to do the work over. This is something a lot of homeowners don't know. Most of the
contractors know they have to do it; but, they would rather skip the $20.00 dollars or so
that it cost and the hassle to do it.
JOHN OXIAN: First of all, they automatically violated by putting these in without
coming for a C of A and that completely turns me off. For thirty-two years it's been
turning me off and it isn't going to change my opinion yet. You violate the law when
you don't get a C of A. It's like running a traffic light, you violate the law.
The other thing is if they repaired one why would you go ahead and replace the other
ones when you only have to replace or repair one other one when you have already found
another one you can replace it with. If there was something that you couldn't replace
because it does not exist anymore then I could understand that; but, when you've already
replaced one why would you remove them all? That to me makes no sense whatsoever.
You're in a district now and you abide by the rules and regulations; just like I told the
people earlier. I don't care who you are, or where you are, or whether you've read the
standards or not; that's inexcusable. You have received preliminary standards and if you
didn't read those then it's your fault because it's a district now and you still have to
abide. You have two choices. Whenever we made a district if we didn't have standards
we follow the guidelines. If there were preliminary standards we follow them until the
permanent ones come. I can't approve this and I cannot see going ahead and setting bad
precedent.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Ok, I am going to weigh into something that I had said that I
wasn't going to do. We're going to get into the time line. The preservation commission
accepted from the time line for when this became a district. Unfortunately, I guess, I
don't keep such good records; because I don't really know exactly when this became a
district nor do I know and have in my records when the standards were finally approved
by a vote of the committee and the commission and when the neighborhood was given
those standards and given a notice that they were in fact now a district and this is the
procedure that now must be followed. I would like to know exactly when the
neighborhood was informed. All of the people, even those who were not necessarily
participating in the endlessly, apparently, endless discussions about becoming a district
and the endless revisions, and revisions, and revisions of the standards; which I notice we
still have on our agenda today for further review of the standards.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: No, you're not reviewing the standards. You're just
receiving a status report on the printing of the standards.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Well, whatever it is, I don't have any documentation and
perhaps other commission members do have documentation and I am just totally
negligent about having lost something that I shouldn't have. I don't know that the district
has been informed about being a district and what the time line is for that and when what
goes into effect. I am sorry to have brought that up because I think it's going to be point
of great difficulty; but, I think it's important that we cannot hold people to standards if
Cel
they don't have them. To say that they are now, available by email is fine if everybody
has email and is informed about that.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: The Chapin Park came in March of 2005 with standards
that were approved by the commission in 2002.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Then why are we still messing around with the standards?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Because there has been a change of guard so to speak
from Pana to the Chapin Park Neighborhood and they wanted to review them.
JOANN SPORLEDER: I remember reviewing the standards myself last summer.
Marking them up and submitting my remarks; but, I still don't see how we can expect
someone to follow something that hasn't been approved yet. .
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Everybody got a copy of the standards.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Well, I don't know that.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: They were -all sent out in September 2004.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Is there documentation that they were in' fact sent out?
CATHERING HOSTETLER: Yes.
JOANN SPORLEDER: By whom?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: The staff. We had them printed up from Rink.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Ok and they were mailed.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Everything was mailed out along with a letter from both
the Chapin Park Neighborhood and HPC and then it also had the standards and copy of
the proposed boundaries and ordinance. There were three hundred copies mailed out.
JOANN SPORLEDER: When was that mailed out?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: In September 2004.
LYNN PATRICK: And now almost a year later they went ahead and replaced them
without first coming for a C of A and without telling Wayne when he was by there
talking with them; they led him to believe basically they were going to replace them.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Because, as I believe they intended to replace them. They
were finding difficulty apparently in doing just that.
LYNN PATRICK: We can debate that.
JOANN SPORLEDER: We weren't there. I took those people at their word. They said
what their time line on this thing was and I guess I believe what they said.'
ALADEAN DEROSE: I would like to offer some legal advice. Though you may be
irritated with the owners for not following the rules, you must consider then this C of A
now before you without reference to any prior violations and as if the owner had failed to
obtain before performing work.
JOANN SPORLEDER: And with that in mind I will say that if it had come before me
without the time line issue and the presentation was made that they made an attempt at
replacing them all with the so called Scamozzi capitals; but, they had decided to go a
different route, I would have still approved it because the Doric capitals are very
appropriate for a Queen Anne structure. If for reasons of economics or structure they
found the Doric more amenable to their means, I would have approved it. That's
basically why I said what I said initially and that's why I would have approved it;
because, it is in keeping with the historical character of the building in which they live in.
It is regrettable to lose the Scamozzi capitals; but, they were wrecked and there wasn't
any salvaging of the original tops at all.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: They did fix one of them.
VA
JOANN SPORLEDER: One was already wrecked and so that was a replacement and
then the one on the south end was already half destroyed, at least in July, and it was
obvious that it was falling apart for quite some time and something was in the works to
get it fixed.
TODD ZEIGER: I have a question about your legal advice. I guess my question about
what you were talking about not weighing the fact that the work has already been done; I
am concerned about that with regard to us setting a precedent for somebody just to go
ahead and do the work and then come in for a C of A.
ALADEAN DEROSE: Occasionally some people will violate the rules and will not do
the appropriate thing and will be forced to redo the work but if someone accidentally or
for whatever reason comes in that has pre -done work that is in keeping with all of the
rules I don't think we can punish that person by requiring that person to redo the work
simply because they failed to obtain the prior C of A. All I am saying is look at it as if it
were an initial C of A without any resolutions.
TODD ZEIGER: So a future applicant can't use approval tonight as a precedent for
saying you approved such and such and they had already done the work.
ALADEAN DEROSE: Not at all. All you would be saying by granting this C of A is
that the owner had preformed the work in an historically appropriate way.
JOHN OXIAN: So in other words when we make a motion like we have done before on
something like this then we should put in there specifically that this is not a precedent and
give the reasons why we approved it and that this is first and last.
ALADEAN DEROSE: Right.
TODD ZEIGER: One of my concerns, Joann, is simply the fact the guidelines talk
about replication when there is an existing element which was in place by photographic
evidence this summer and it talks about if it's not available in more with keeping and I
don't agree with the fact that the Doric is more in keeping; the fact that the guidelines are
there to protect those elements that are unique to the district. Those capitals were unique
and we should have had a conversation about what happens to them before they were
replaced. The fact that that they didn't pull a building permit concerns me and that would
have triggered the C of A process to begin with and we would have had our conversation
about that and maybe be able to help find a location for them. I appreciate your research;
but, in our guidelines there it talks about more and I'm not buying into the fact that the
Doric are more when the fact is that there was an historic element there.
ALADEAN DEROSE: Well you have a committee recommendation so you have to
decide whether to accept the committee's recommendation or vote it down.
DIANA MATTHIAS: I live at 840 Park Avenue. I hoped the committee would have
read the quite long statement that my husband and I sent to you. My husband apologizes
for not being here and the reason is written in the statement that we sent you. We would
have certainly submitted the C of A before now had we realized we were meant to do so.
During the period in March when the neighborhood became part of the historical
preservation area I was away in England looking after my mother who in fact died on
March the 14`h the very day when the Chapin Park Local Historic District was
established. My husband was not well during this period and may have missed mailings
or circulars. At any rate we had no idea that we were meant to submit the C of A. It is
our understanding that a pre -ordinance guidebook was mailed to residents of the area on
or about September the 24`h, 2004. We may have received this guidebook at the time but
N.
didn't attend to its contents. In September and October, 2004 we had major emergency
repairs done to our kitchen and bathroom when a plumbing leak collapsed the kitchen
ceiling. Both the kitchen and the bathroom had to be completely rebuilt. During some of
this time we were living in a motel. When we could live at home we lived in total chaos.
Anything coming in the mail that didn't require immediate attention was doubtless filed
away somewhere or lost as we tried to live in a house that was undergoing major repairs.
When we discovered that our capitals were broken or cracked we began the procedure
explained in our longer written statement. What was begun to locate appropriate capitals
in September of 2004. The actual work of installing the Doric'capitals which seemed
best to conform with those on columns on Park Avenue began in the summer of 2005.
Although we had not yet read the guidebook as such for the capitals none the less, it was,
made in the spirit of the statement on page twenty of the guidebook quoted in the staff
report.
Dissatisfied with the replica we had used before we were for a design more in
keeping with the historic period of the structure. Just as the work was about to get
underway on our porch my husband had a conversation with Wayne Doolittle,
(inspector), about the capitals; this was on July 11th, 2005, when Wayne took the
photograph of the broken Scamozzi which forms part of the application packet. My"
husband and Wayne spoke for a few moments about the difficulty of finding the
appropriate replacements for the broken or damaged Scamozzi. Had Wayne said
anything at the time about the necessity of filing a C of A we would have done so.
In fact we would have done almost anything to avoid the hassle that this
misunderstanding has produced for all concerned. But, we knew no more after this
conversation than we did before. We decided to replace the broken Scamozzi with the
Doric capitals because we did not like the plaster imitation Scamozzi installed by
Peacock and Company in 2002 and we could not find anything that looked better through
our contractor, Jeffrey Dierbeck, with whom we have worked with for over twenty years.
We began work on the project hoping to get it finished by winter so that we could
stop the deterioration of the columns themselves. We prefer the look of the Doric
capitals and find them consistent both with the period eclecticism'of Queen Anne style
and the capitals of the other houses in our part of Park Avenue. Somebody on the
committee asked me to bring a broken piece of the Scamozzi capital here because you
would want to see it.
LYNN PATRICK: Did the contractor who replaced the capitals put in for a building
permit?
DIANA MATTHIAS: No. He spoke to Wayne and Wayne evidently told him that he
shouldn't do that because we had to submit the C of A which as soon as we knew about it
we did.
LYNN PATRICK: He spoke to Wayne and Wayne told him he should not put in for a
building permit?
DIANA MATTHIAS: Yes, that is what the contractor told me.
LYNN PATRICK: Is that correct, Wayne?
WAYNE DOOLITTLE: No that is completely false. I talked to him and I told him he
needed to have a building permit. He asked me at the time when he was painting the
house, and he asked me should he stop painting the house. I said no - that doesn't come
under our jurisdiction so he continued painting the house. I told him under no uncertain
6
terms that he needed to have a building permit. There was no doubt in his mind what I
told him. I don't know how he managed to confuse that; but, that is exactly what I told
him.
DIANA MATTHIAS: I am afraid that I didn't know.
JOANN SPORLEDER: They were painting the house in July?
WAYNE DOOLITTLE: No, this was after the Doric capitals were put in. The painters
were there; they were finishing putting some of the molding on it. They asked me if they
should stop painting, and I said no, continue painting because you want to protect the
wood that is there. We do not have authority over painting. What I was speaking of was
the replacement of the Scamozzis and what they had to do and there are requirements by
the city that require him to get a building permit.
JOANN SPORLEDER: What was the date that this exchange happened with the
contractor, approximately?
WAYNE DOOLITTLE: I don't know when that particular conversation was. It was in
September, I believe. It was whenever you were having the columns finished.
DIANA MATTHIAS: I think that was October.
JOANN SPORLEDER: With what you had said was that somewhere in that particular
thing then you were alerted to applying for a C of A, which is why we have it in front of
us now.
DIANA MATTHIAS: Yes.
JOANN SPORLEDER: You did apply for a C of A when you were made aware that
you were supposed to do that.
DIANA MATTHIAS: As soon as we knew about it we applied for it, yes indeed.
JOANN SPORLEDER: That was in October?
DIANA MATTHIAS: Yes.
JOANN SPORLEDER: This is why it is on our November agenda.
DIANA MATTHIAS: Yes. I hope you see why we didn't apply for the C of A at the
time we should have, because we didn't know about it and I can quite say we should have
known about it; but, with one thing and another we didn't. It was not a rejection of this;
we certainly would have applied for it had we known about it.
LYNN PATRICK: You prefer the Doric capitals, then?
DIANA MATTHIAS: Yes I do.
MARY JANE CHASE: You stated that Mr. Dierbeck has been working for you for
over twenty years?
DIANA MATTHIAS: Yes.
MARY JANE CHASE: In that amount of time he never was aware that he needed a
building permit. If he has been a contractor for that many years he would know that he
would need a building permit.
DIANA MATTHIAS: I am afraid I don't know what he knows and what he doesn't
know.
MARY JANE CHASE: A contractor would have to know this and I think he would
have to be licensed too.
DIANA MATTHIAS: I asked him this last night and he was under the impression that
the work that he was doing on our porch wasn't structural enough to require a building
permit and I didn't know what the differences were between what was required for a
building permit and what was not.
10
MARY JANE CHASE: I just thought after twenty years he would have been aware of
this.
DIANA MATTHIAS: I would have thought so too. Peacock and Company, when they
repaired our porch after it was destroyed by a tornado in 2001 applied for a building
permit. It seemed understandable tome that what Jeff Dierbeck was doing this year was
very much less. It didn't seem to me that it was structural. I thought that was the
difference between the need for the building permit and no need for a building permit.
JOANN SPORLEDER: I will second the Standards and Maintenance Committee's
recommendation.
MARY JANE CHASk: Could you repeat that so we understand what we are
approving?
JOANN SPORLEDER: Is it to approve the C of A as presented.
LYNN PATRICK: So we have to vote on the recommendation made by the Standards
and Maintenance Committee.
JOHN OXIAN:. Why don't we do an individual hand vote on this motion?
LYNN PATRICK: Let's put it to a hand vote then. All those in favor of accepting the
Standards and Maintenance Committee's recommendation signify by raising their hand.
Joann Sporleder was in favor of the recommendation and everyone else was against
the recommendation. Motion was denied.
JOANN SPORLEDER: So what does this mean exactly?
LYNN PATRICK: This means that their C of A is denied.
JOANN SPORLEDER: It was my understanding and Aladean; perhaps you can
illuminate me again, is that when a C of A is not accepted that the reasons for it being not
accepted must be part of the motion so that it's quite clear why it was not accepted.
ALADEAN DEROSE: Any denial of a C of A requires that those members of the
commission that are going to deny the C of A will need to state their reasons for denying
the C or A.
LYNN PATRICK: Should we do that at this point?
ALADEAN DEROSE: Absolutely.
Individual reasons for denial of C of A
TODD ZEIGER: My reasons are simply that the replacement of the historic material
that has been completed does not follow the guidelines as set up for the historic district in
which it sits.
MARY JANE CHASE: There was a Scamozzi which proved that was the capital that
should be there on the column which was changed to the Doric. I can't believe that a
contractor with a twenty year record does not know the procedures of the city for a
building permit. He would have known that he would have had to have a C of A and that
would have taken care of that right then.
MARTHA CHOITZ: I feel now that I have heard more of the detail of what actually
had transpired and the dates that went with it. There was ample time for them to have
followed through on instructions that they had.
LYNN PATRICK: I feel also based on additional verbal testimony that there are
insufficient grounds to grant this C of A based on contact with HPC personnel, based on
our mailings whether or not they opened them or chose not to, based on architectural
variety in the district which is one of the things that Chapin Park residents were very
11
proud of. For these and other reasons which I can't come up with off the top of my head,
this is why I voted against the C of A.
ALADEAN DEROSE: Let me again caution you that your reasons cannot be generic
and must be specific.
JOHN OXIAN: You're saying that we cannot use the reasons that what was stated in
the Preservation Plan as a reason to deny it?
ALADEAN DEROSE: I am not saying that I am saying you can't use as your reason
the fact that they did not obtain a C of A in advance. You can use as your reason that it
doesn't comply with the standards and just the basis for your objection to the C of A.
JOHN OXIAN: I have several reasons. The Standards were sent out'and whether you
read the standards or not does not grant you the right to state that you found out later thus
in the Preservation Plan it specifically states what you may do and what you may not do.
You already replaced one of the Scamozzi capitals in 2001. You had a few to be
repaired. Allowing these to be repaired would have been the right route instead of having
them all removed which then means you're going against what was established as the
original picture of the building or the house at the time the district was established. That
would be several of my reasons for denying this C of A.
ALADEAN DEROSE: Let me give you a pointer as your making your decision. The
rules say that shall be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design where by the
design more in keeping with the historic period of the structure. I think you'll have to
factually state that the Doric is not more in keeping than the Scamozzi for the historic
period of the structure.
JOHN OXIAN: I really disagree with you there. I don't think I have to justify that
because that was there and she came in with a C of A after the fact and after the
Scamozzis were removed and a different style was put in. That to me does not justify the
right to do that and if I was in court I don't think that would fly what you state, Aladean.
ALADEAN DEROSE: I am not agreeing or disagree on this. I am just reading the
standards and I know that in order to support the denial you'll have to show that the
standards were violated. The standards say that a piece of decoration shall be retained or
replaced by replicas of the same design or by a design more in keeping with the historic
period of the structure. That's your standards and what you have to say is that this C of A
does not comply with that standard. You need to give facts to support your decision.
That's all I am saying.
MARTHA CHOITZ: My comments certainly meant that I should include that and I did
not and that's perfectly true.
ALADEAN DEROSE: If any member wishes to reinforce what they said before then I
think they should.
JOHN OXIAN: Then I think what Julie wrote in her report would support my opinion.
ALADEAN DEROSE: Then what you can say is that you would incorporate in your
decision the original staff recommendation.
LYNN PATRICK: I think we should all go back through and restate our reasons for the
interest of clarity and so we are on sound legal footing.
JOANN SPORLEDER: In that case I would like to also use this opportunity to state my
reasons for agreeing with this C of A.
ALADEAN DEROSE: I don't think it is necessary to state the reasons for agreeing with
this C of A.
12
JOANN SPORLEDER: I am asking if I may have the opportunity to state my reasons
why I agree with the C of A whether it is necessary or not.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: It is already in the record.
ALADEAN DEROSE: I believe the recommendation of the committee stands on its
own and that is a matter of record, and so to the extent that your rationale is contained in
the committee recommendation that's part of the record.
TODD ZEIGER: Are we restating then the previous comments are being struck? Is that
how this works?
ALADEAN DEROSE: You can re -add to your comments; that's what I am saying.
TODD ZEIGER: I am incorporating as part of my comments the staff recommendations
that have been presented to the commission previous to this meeting just to reinforce my
decision for the denial of this C of A.
MARY JANE CHASE: I do the same.
MARTHA CHOITZ: Same here.
LYNN PATRICK: Same for Lynn Patrick.
JOHN OXIAN: I already stated mine and also stated what I based it on.
DIANE WROBEL-ILLES: I actually thought the Scamozzi was a unique style in
itself and different from the one it was replaced with; however, I understand you said
and I have to remove that thought from what I was originally going to say. The permits
were an issue so I will go along with the staff recommendation.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: I will read an excerpt from Julie's report.
JOANN SPORLEDER: If you do that, please, then I would like to make my statement.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: No.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Then I am going to be excused because I have been denied my
right to speak.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: The rationale behind the staff reports people are
referring to that they probably didn't bring with them is that, "architectural evidence that
the terra cotta Scamozzi capitals on wood shafts were available and used in Chapin
Park/west side of the South Bend area from 1890 to 1909. The Queen Ann Inn (circa
1893), which was located at 512 North Lafayette, has its terra cotta capitals on wood
shafts. The shafts are fluted; but, unfluted shafts are also available as seen on 220 South .
Taylor (circa 1905). The Scamozzi capital was a popular type and the loss of it from the
diverse architectural vocabulary of the first decade of the 20'h century would be a shame".
She also goes on for several more pages about this; but, basically there is enough
architectural evidence in and around the Chapin Park area and in and around Park
Avenue that terra cotta Scamozzis were on wooden shafts. This was an original feature
of the house and the staff's contention that it is since the collapse of the terra cotta
industry happened in the 1930's, which would have had to make these Scamozzis at least
seventy-five years old. They were on the house when it came into the district. There was
a removal of an original feature from the time that the house came into the district and
that is why we'are recommending for denial this C of A.
JOANN SPORLEDER: I would like to say that I am an Architectural Historian by
training, by education, and by extreme amount of study of this particular area and period.
The standards say what they say and however much we may disagree or regret the loss of
the Scamozzi capitals as an emotional thing, which I believe we are now into. What was
done and the reasons it was done that way were sound and they picked a style to use
13
which was amenably appropriate to that particular historical period and style. In fact if
one does any serious research in the architectural booklets that illuminate the various
parts of the style you will not find Scamozzi anywhere. That doesn't mean that they
didn't happen and that they weren't also done and they are as people have said interesting
and unique, there's no denying that; however, what was replaced was stylistically
appropriate and correct as far as the style concerned and I will continue to stand on that.
LYNN PATRICK: I think we are concluded with 840 Park Avenue.
JOANN SPORLEDER: No, I don't think we are. Now that we have denied it what are
the instructions to do next? We have given no instructions, we have simply denied it.
LYNN PATRICK: They can call Catherine and talk to her about submitting a petition.
JOANN SPORLEDER: To do what?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Put them back up.
JOANN SPORLEDER: If they decide they're not willing to do that then what is their
other option?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: I will refer that to Aladean.
JOANN SPORLEDER: What is their next option if they do not want to undo what they
have done?
ALADEAN DEROSE: An injunction can be requested prohibiting them from
continuing to have the Doric style capitals.
JOANN SPORLEDER: It was my impression that any total disagreement with the
decisions of the commission could be taken to the Common Council.
ALADEAN DEROSE: They have the right of appeal first and assuming that they
appeal within a certain period of time then the Common Council will review your
decision.
4. 2005-0825; 517 Carroll (revocation hearing)
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: (See staff report, notice of possible revocation of C of
A, copy of 1St page of September 19, 2005 monthly minutes, and black/white pictures of
owner's house attached to HPC meeting binder). Catherine also passed around colored
photos of the owner's house for commission members to look at for better detail.
(Homeowner, Kent Anderson, was present).
KENT ANDERSON: I have no recollection of saying anything about the wood siding
underneath the aluminum siding. The only thing I said was that the aluminum siding has
been damaged and I wanted to replace it. You kept asking me about the wood siding
underneath and I said I have no idea. I have no better idea than you would have. I would
not have torn off the other siding if you wouldn't have agreed to let me cover it.
LYNN PATRICK: I am looking at the statement in the September 19th meeting minutes
that you made when we spoke of this.
KENT ANDERSON: I read that also and if that was a direct quote from me I do not
remember making that statement about what was underneath the aluminum siding. I had
no way of knowing any more than you did.
LYNN PATRICK: I remember you saying it as well as having it in the minutes.
KENT ANDERSON: That the wood siding was bad underneath?
LYNN PATRICK: That it was rotten underneath and that is the exact wording I recall.
We then came out and looked at it and found that not to be the case. In fact, if you follow
the recommendation and do a nice paint job it will be a real enhancement of that
structure.
14
KENT ANDERSON: That is putting me in a major hardship at a time where I can't do
it.
LYNN PATRICK: Do we have a quote on the price for a good paint job? Todd, do we
have any idea?
TODD ZEIGER: No, I can't speak for the petitioner.
JOHN OMAN: If you're talking about types of paint and all that I can tell you what it is
because I had my house painted this year and my house is as big as his house.
ALADEAN DEROSE: I think one of the things you are going to have to ask the owner
this time is whether he stands by his statement that the wood siding was rotten and in bad
shape or whether he agrees with the assessment by all of those who have seen it, that's
not the case.
KENT ANDERSON: I I have no knowledge of wood siding; but, if you hadn't made me
tear off the other siding you wouldn't know either.
JOHN OXIAN: How much of the siding have you torn off so far?
KENT ANDERSON: It is all off.
JOHN OXIAN: I thought that's what I saw.
TODD ZEIGER: I have a question for Wayne or the staff with regards to one of the
things we talked about at the last meeting, which was how to deal with'the decorative
trim around the windows. We had a long conversation about this and your contractor was
here and he talked about building the window jams and the window sills and all that. Did
you have a conversation with him about how all of that was going to be handled as far as .
the depth was concerned?
KENT ANDERSON: Yes, he said we couldn't do it.
WAYNE DOOLITTLE: When siding was put on the front of most of these houses the
trim was knocked off. The sills were cut so they could put the channels in right around
the window. If you get rid of something you're going to have to put something there.
Those can be reattached relatively easily; they are, I think, about four inches long on
either side: There's a house that was redone on Park Avenue where the siding was pulled
off and all of the original wood was put back on. I can't tell you what individual things
would cost.
TODD ZEIGER: I'm not asking that. I was asking if you had "talked to the owner about
how to handle the trim and the gables on this house.
WAYNE DOOLITTLE: We talked about it some; but, I can't say we spoke — the gable
part of it though was going to be painted anyway.
TODD ZEIGER: There was a long conversation at the last meeting about needing to
build the window trim out significantly and I disagreed with that need. Now that the
aluminum siding is off, I think, there is a better ability to figure out exactly what needs to
be done around the windows and the corner boards on each of the corners.
WAYNE DOOLITTLE: Bob Yapp and I discussed at that time putting those back on.
We had a conversation on what to do at that point..I don't know if you were there; but,
we had a conversation and we talked about traditional ways of repairing. Are we
looking at basically the body of the house?
TODD ZEIGER: The J' channel up the side, the corner boards, I believe, it's the corner
boards exposed, the window trim exposed.
WAYNE DOOLITTLE: Yes, everything was exposed.
JOHN OXIAN: Everything is there.
15
WAYNE DOOLITTLE: The only thing you're looking at was to cover the body of the
house. You had to incorporate the trim and put it back on.
JOHN OXIAN: Not much of the trim is missing; because, during this time period of
aluminum siding very little of the trim was removed; usually it was just covered over. It
is later on that your siding really takes out the trim.
I will make a motion that this C of A be denied and that the owner comes back with a
new proposal with the help of the staff and the inspector and we go from there.
ALADEAN DEROSE: The motion has to be that the C of A that you previously issued
be revoked.
JOHN OXIAN: That's what I said. I accept the staff report and that the previous C of A
be revoked and that the owner then work with the staff and the inspector and come back
with a new C of A on what should be the right way to do this.
DIANE WROBEL-ILLES: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
TODD ZEIGER: Aladean, under this discussion do we have to do the same thing as far
as articulating the reasons like we did on the previous C of A?
ALADEAN DEROSE: You can incorporate the staff's rationale.
JOHN OXIAN: Do each one of us have to give a reason or can I give a reason for all of
us?
ALADEAN DEROSE: The person who makes the motion should give the reason why.
JOHN OXIAN: I will make the reason being that the statement that was originally made
by the owner that the under siding of the building, the original siding, was rotted and it
was so stated and as was stated on the tape that was played and then put into the minutes.
That is. not true and the staff now states the reason why and that is what I used as the
reason to ask for the revocation of the earlier C of A.
John Oxian makes the motion and Diane Wrobel-Illes seconds the motion and it
passes unanimously.
LYNN PATRICK: Are you clear with the decision that was made, Mr. Anderson?
KENT ANDERSON: I don't know what I am going to do. I don't know if I am going
to have to sell the house and move or what.
LYNN PATRICK: That's why I am asking you if you are clear about the decision that
was made.
KENT ANDERSON: Yes, you denied me putting up the aluminum siding.
LYNN PATRICK: No, that is not what we said. We revoked this C of A and we asked
that you work with the inspector and staff to put together a new C of A that is very
explicit regarding what is to be left exposed, what is to be painted, and what is to be
sided. So we found a middle ground for you.
TODD ZEIGER: The previous approval was very vague on all of that detail; because,
we had a long conversation about the trim.
Lynn Patrick stated that she would try and talk with Mr. Anderson some more about this
matter after the meeting adjourned.
5. 502 East LaSalle -Bergen Building Local Landmark Demolition
JOHN OXIAN: I would like to make a motion to table number 5 and number 6 under
Certificates of Appropriateness and under Old Business number 4, until the December
meeting at which time the Landmarks Committee will make a recommendation on all
three of these buildings.
16
ALADEAN DEROSE: John, the only concern I have, is whether you are within when
that. forty-five day time limit expires.
JOHN OXIAN: Number 4, under Old Business, is under a six'month protection.
Number 5, I talked with the owner after the meeting on Friday and he stated it was ok.
Number 6, has already been asked to be tabled until the December meeting. ,
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: John, are you sure you want to table number 5?
JOHN OXIAN: Yes.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: The owner did not express that to us.
JOHN OXIAN: I talked to him after the meeting on Friday and I asked him after
everyone left: He was talking to me about how well I was dressed for that time of the
year and we were talking about it and I mentioned to him that I am going to make a
recommendation that the Bergen Building be tabled. I also talked with Bob Yapp, earlier
and we would like to make"a recommendation on which parts of the building, if we go
ahead with demolition should be saved and can be approved at that time also.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: I am passing out Bob Yapp's report.
JOHN OXIAN: That's another thing; I haven't seen Bob Yapp's report yet.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: We just got it this afternoon.
JOHN OXIAN: That's another reason I would table this. I don't have to justify myself
and my committee report to you, Catherine.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: I know that, I am just letting you know that I'm passing
out Bob Yapp's report and the owner is here also.
LYNN PATRICK: If the owner is here, then I would like to hear from the owner if that
is what he would like us to do:
TODD ZEIGER: Are you referring to number 5?
-LYNN PATRICK: Yes. If the owner is here and wants us to table this, won't that get
us around the forty-five day rule, Aladean?
ALADEAN DEROSE: Yes, if that is what he wants to do.
PAUL SCHMITT: I am the owner of J.C. Lauber Sheet Metal Co. I know you talked
about tabling this to me; but, if that was really going to be that way, and you said you
may do it, you did not say you were absolutely going to do it; then why did I even come
here tonight?
JOHN OXIAN: I was going to get back with you on that and maybe go through the
committee and possibly let you know ahead of time if we were going to go with
demolition and there are some other things I want to see happen concerning the building.
In other words, if we go with demolition then I want to see parts of the building saved
and I can't do that in this short period of time.
LYNN PATRICK: It can be stated within the context of the C of A what is to be saved
and what is to be done to the building as it states in this last paragraph of Bob Yapp's
letter. Did Paul get a copy of this?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: No, we just got it this afternoon.
LYNN PATRICK: He might like to see this then.
TODD ZEIGER: Since the petitioner is already here, I think we should go ahead with
number 5, 502 East LaSalle. I don't have any'objections to tabling number 6 under New
Business because I think that was going to be withdrawn anyway and number 4 under
Old Business.
JOHN OXIAN: Then I will withdraw my motion on C of A number 5 then.
17
LYNN PATRICK: I don't know if you have had a chance to read Mr. Yapp's letter but
it is specific about how we want to proceed on this. Specifically that the owners allow
HPC in partnership with Historic Landmarks Foundation to salvage many of the key
architectural features inside and out before demolition begins. Mr. Yapp also suggests
that the C of A require that the west end of the one story building be clad with original
brick from the Bergen Building or a historic looking brick. There should also be
windows on the west side that flow with the architecture.
PAUL SCHMITT: That may be possible; but, on the other hand there's no guarantee of
exactly what's going to happen when they start bringing the building down. Right now
we do not know whether or not we can save the west wall. If we can, it maybe a case
where we have to tear it down and rebuild it. You can see we've got some structural
beams there that level and the line of brick is going down hill at such an angle that you
see on the west elevation of the building on the west wall, which is there now on the
outside of the building, that it isn't going to look very nice with that nose-diving down
into the ground like it is now. I am not really sure what's going to happen there.
LYNN PATRICK: No one does. What I wanted to point out and I think others will
agree with me is that given the severe state of the building, catastrophic structure failure,
we have an idea of what you're dealing with and that's why it says here "partner". We
don't even have the whole plan on how the building is going to be taken down yet, do
we? Is that contained in the demolition permit?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: No.
LYNN PATRICK: So there's still some planning to be done before everything comes
down and that's why it talks about partnering with HPC and HLFI. We know we cannot
guarantee nor can you what's going to happen when you actually start getting into it. We
understand that. We wanted to go through this so you could start moving forward on
your project.
JOHN OXIAN: What's written here is what I was going to suggest. I was going to be
more specific on what parts should be saved or salvaged and then work with Mr. Schmitt
on how to do this. We could then come back with a recommendation on whether it could
be done or not and talk with the contractors. You want to jump the gun and do it this
way, then fine.
PAUL SCHMITT: If you want to go in there and save something that's fine. I have
gone through a lot of expense now just to get this far to see if I can save the other
building. Do you want to pick up the tab for these other items that you're talking about?
I don't have a problem with that if you would like to do that. Right now the main thing
on the agenda is that the building has to come down before I can do anything to save the
structure that my business is in. If I try and jack this thing up that building is going to go
down by itself. If you want to save something, then I suggest you do it now before the
building comes down. You can see the crack on the side of the building and the bricks
are ready to fall out at any time. I do not want to be responsible for that any more. I have
had that responsibility hanging over my head now for quite awhile. I have been working
with engineers on this to try and get this job done safely so it's not a public danger.
JOANN SPORLEDER: How are you going to demolish the building? Is it going to be
imploded or is it going to be dismantled?
PAUL SCHMITT: Ritschard Brothers could probably tell you more on how they are
going to do that then what I could. They are going to start from the outside on the west
In
side wall and also on the front of LaSalle Street and they are going to pull the corners
down. What we're trying to do is save the inside west wall which adjoins the J.C. Lauber.
Sheet Metal Company. That wall will be taken down until it is approximately two foot
above our roof line so that we have a parapet wall there.
JOANN SPORLEDER: So then'it will be above the one story structure to east of the
two story structure. t
PAUL SCHMITT: That's correct. We would like to keep it even with the cornice work
that we have there now.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Would it be possible to salvage the stone section on the front
of the building on LaSalle Street?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: It's tin.
JOANN SPORLEDER: That whole section is tin,
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Yes, it is.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Could that be salvaged when you're taking the building down?
PAUL SCHMITT: It would be like building it almost to take it down. It is all masonry
right behind it and I don't know exactly how it could be dismantled and taken down.
You will never get it down in one piece -1 guarantee you that. To strip all that cornice
work off there would be quite a project. Part of the roof would have to come off to even
get to all of the parts that hold it together.
JOANN SPORLEDER: You are taking the roof down anyway, aren't you?
PAUL SCHMITT: That is correct; but, the manner in which they demolish buildings is
not exactly the way that you would go and try to dig artifacts out of the ground like they . .
do in Egypt.
JOHN OXIAN: Yes, but, the commission can ask you to save it because you are .
knocking down a landmark and you are taking the landmark completely out of the
picture. We as a commission can ask you and can require you to do that. The company
who is going to demolish your building is Ritschard Brothers, right?
PAUL SCHMITT: That's correct.
JOHN OXIAN: Ritschard Brothers knows how to do something the right way if they
have to do it because they have done things like this before.- So it's not like they don't
know how to do a proper demolition job:
LYNN PATRICK: Do you have an estimate of cost on the demolition job from
Ritschard Brothers?
PAUL SCHMITT: Yes.
LYNN PATRICK: What is the cost?
PAUL SCHMITT: You should have a copy of that.
LYNN PATRICK: Do we have a copy of that, Catherine?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Yes we do, it is in the form of a letter. It is a demolition
permit which includes: utility disconnection and underground utility locations, filed the
asbestos notification forms, set up barricades for traffic control as required, demolish the
building and dispose of same offsite, furnish and place fill as required to back fill the
basement to surrounding grades. Will perform the work listed as for the above sum of
$35,683.00 dollars.
PAUL SCHMITT: I have already incurred another loss of $1,100.00 dollars because
they were issued a permit to go ahead and demolish the building and actually somebody
in that office messed up and gave them a permit and they weren't supposed to. So here I
W
am incurring that cost also. I don't know what is going to happen here, but if I have to I
will go after the city, or the building department, or who ever issued that permit to recoup
that $1,100.00 dollars because they wrongfully submitted or gave out the permit.
ALADEAN DEROSE: The building department didn't follow their procedures.
TODD ZEIGER: Have we actually officially started this C of A yet?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: No.
TODD ZEIGER: I would like to request that we begin this C of A like we normally do.
We don't have to start over; but, we do need to get this into a form where we can actually
act on this C of A.
LYNN PATRICK: Yes.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: (See staff report, pictures, and work description attached
to C of A in HPC meeting binder). (Also see written inspection report from Mark E.
Gronek, P.E., and Geotechnical Exploration report prepared by Weaver Boos
Consultants, LLC, Geo -Environmental Engineers and Scientists). (The owner, Mr. Paul
Schmitt, was present).
TODD ZEIGER: I will make the motion on this C of A that demolition be approved. I
would also like to add in addition to the staff comments that some key architectural
elements on the interior be allowed to be salvaged and that the west wall of the one-story
building that is going to remain be re -clad with some sort of historical looking brick or
historic brick if possible; something that would fit in with his existing building. There
should also be some sort of window fenestration along the west side of that existing
building once that side has been re -clad.
PAUL SCHMITT: Is it ok if it looks like a window; but, might not actually be one?
TODD ZEIGER: Finally we need some sort of site plan for that corner once the
building is down. We understand you don't have a total plan right now about what's
going to go on with that corner and how it is going to look when it's done. These items
should be allowed to be worked out with staff and the Standards and Maintenance
Committee.
PAUL SCHMITT: Yes, I want it to look good too. I don't really want to put any
windows there; however, I could make it look like a window, just like what's up there on
the second story now, where they have the archways over it; but, it's bricked in.
TODD ZEIGER: The concern I am expressing is simply that it's not just a big blank
wail in that corner. When you're coming down the street you don't want to see a big
blank wall without any sort of window fenestration whatsoever. That's what I would put
out for some discussion among the commission and we could work that out. Obviously
we need some more details before we can finally act. We want to be able to get moving
on this so you don't have the nuisance.
PAUL SCHMITT: Well I can guarantee you that we will be doing some brick
veneering or something out there; but, first I have got to get the building down. If I can
get the building down next summer, the whole front of my building is going to look like
sin for awhile while they're trying to jack everything up because I actually have to get
this done before the first of the year so that the engineer can get his engineering work
done from the front. He really needs to have this done so I can sign the contract with him
to do the engineering for that part and then go ahead and get the concrete specialist. As
far as the side of the building goes we don't know yet, that may come down also. If I do
rebuild I promise you I will do it with some masonry that looks -----
m
TODD ZEIGER: There should be some conversation with the staff and the Standards
and Maintenance Committee since it was a landmark corner before you move forward
with reconstruction. We need to have some say in what it's going to look like so it looks
good at the end. We can work_ together with you on that.
PAUL SCHMITT: I will go along with that one hundred percent.
MARY JANE CHASE: Seconds the motion and it passes. John Oxian opposes.
JOHN OXIAN: I will oppose the motion because it was not a recommendation of my
committee; because, you by-passed my committee. I also don't think it should be
mentioned in there that HLFI would be involved with the salvage of key architectural
features, thus Todd should not be making this motion; somebody else should be because
of his conflict of interest.
TODD ZEIGER: That wasn't my motion, John, I just simply.said salvage.
JOHN OXIAN: That still sounds like a conflict of interest to me and you shouldn't be
making this motion; somebody else should be making it instead because you are HLFI.
LYNN PATRICK: Would somebody else like to make a motion that HLFI could assist
them in the salvage of architectural details from this building before demolition.
MARTHA CHOITZ: I will make that motion.
MARY JANE CHASE: Seconds the motion and it passes. Todd Zeiger abstains.
PAUL SCHMITT: You can take whatever you want off the building; but, give me a
time frame here so that I can reschedule with Ritschard Brothers to get this done.
LYNN PATRICK: To answer someone's earlier question about where this came from,
it comes from our Community Preservation Specialist's recommendation that the owners
allow HPC in partnership with HLFI to salvage many of the key architectural features
inside and out before demolition begins. _
6. 2300 Portage Avenue Local Landmark Demolition
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: We received a fax from May Oberfell Lorber to request
that the 2300 Portage Avenue Local Landmark Demolition be tabled.
JOHN OXIAN: The Landmarks Committee recommends that.
TODD ZEIGER: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
B. LANDMARK
1. Navarre Cabin — Report by Joan Sporleder
(See gray copy of Joann's report attached to HPC monthly meeting packet).
DAVID BAINBRIDGE: I am from the Northern Indiana Historical Society. As you are
well aware we are interested in following through with the major restoration of the
Navarre cabin. I understand from the last meeting there were some additional questions
and that is why I am here. Are there any questions?
JOANN SPORLEDER: Did you get a copy of my report?
DAVID BAINBRIDGE: No, I did not.
JOANN SPORLEDER: At the end of my report it says, "I believe this reflects my
conversation with David Bainbridge. So in effect my recommendation to the commission
is to approve the C of A as submitted with the addition of the alternate on the Gable
ends."
5. Gable ends: Proposed framing with siding was questioned because currently'
existing has exposed logs in gable ends. Meeting with David B. and Todd Z. and
referencing older photos of "cabin" continued to be inconclusive. (photo show
horizontal siding, but also shows furring strips on logs were siding had been
21
removed.) I would like to suggest that the commission give NICH the option of
either: Use horizontal siding over framing, OR: Use logs as it currently looks,
basing their decision on the physical evidence that is encountered as the building
is dismantled; and further, that NICH report their findings and decision to HPC
for our records.
Is that acceptable? I thought that's what we talked about.
DAVID BAINBRIDGE: Yes it is. Just for your interest, just today a better photograph
has surfaced. I think we talked about keeping the log ends on it and for maintenance I
think it is a fairly good idea; but, I have to take another look at it. It does show upright
supports with a lathe on the end.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Whatever the physical evidence is that seems like a good idea
to me to redo it that way. However you decide. My recommendation is to leave that
little bit up to you to decide how you want to handle it. Just let us know. That's my
recommendation.
DAVID BAINBRIDGE: Ok, thank you. Are there any other questions?
JOHN OXIAN: What does the new photograph show?
DAVID BAINBRIDGE: Vic Leatherwood who did this study noticed there was some
mortaring on the top log as you went into the gable and he thought there were uprights
with an irregular lathe board end. Just as Joann said, the photographs we have in some
show a great deal of detail; but, not on the gable ends. There was some question about
that and of course as we dismantle the cabin that would be answered. In the interest of
Joann's suggestion to reconsider this, I got to thinking about it and I thought the gable log
ends that are there now certainly have a very hard patented surface to them, and we just
might go with that for the question of maintenance. Talking with Vic Leatherwood, the
National Parks Service, and the National Trust, we are within our, I don't want to say,
rights, because we could take it back to either one as Joann is suggesting but they now
often take a building back to its latest major renovation. So either way we will be in
good standing.
JOANN SPORLEDER: I recommend that the so called Navarre Cabin specifications as
presented to us in the first place be accepted as presented with the addition of letting
NICH decide whether they want to use the logs or the siding in the gable ends as seems
appropriate to them and to let us know what they decide.
MARTHA CHOITZ: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION
Walker Field and North Liberty Individual Sites
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: (See white copies of National Register Nomination Staff
Reports for Walker Field Shelterhouse and North Liberty Park attached to HPC monthly
meeting packet). I need the commission's approval on these two so we can send them on.
TODD ZEIGER: I will make that motion.
LYNN PATRICK: Seconds the motion.
JOHN OXIAN: Are you going to do every one of these WPA's separately around town?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Just three.
JOHN OXIAN: What about the other ones?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: We just received on Friday, the Riverwall nomination.
We didn't receive it in time to put it in the monthly meeting packet. You can approve
22
that one also tonight if you wish. Those were the only three that she had that would pass
muster down in Indianapolis.
JOHN OXIAN: What about the one down by Northside Blvd?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: That was the one I was talking about, the Riverwall.
JOHN OXIAN: Is that what it's called?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Yes, it is called the Northside Boulevard Riverwall.
JOHN-OXIAN: I will make a motion that all three be sent down.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Todd has already made a motion on this.
TODD ZEIGER: I will withdraw my motion.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: John Oxian has made a motion to accept all three
nominations. You currently only have two of these nominations in your HPC monthly
meeting packet.
DIANE WROBEL-ILLES: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — (October 17, 2005)
MARTHA CHOITZ: I move that the October 17th minutes of the HPC be accepted as
printed.
TODD ZEIGER: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously. John Oxian abstains.
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
JOHN OXIAN: Catherine and I met and she explained to me what sum of money that,
has not been spent so far will be encumbered for. I am sure all of you will receive a
report on that. (See green copy of Treasurer's report attached to HPC monthly meeting
binder),
JOHN OXIAN: I will make a motion that the Treasurer's Report be accepted.
MARTHA CHOITZ: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
C. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. President's Report — (will be given next month)
D. STAFF REPORTS
1. C of A Approvals; Correspondence;
A. Director's Report
B. Assistant Director's Report
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: The Director's Report and the Assistant Director's
report are going to be delivered next month because of the length of this month's agenda.
I do have the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana statement that I need the
commission's approval on. (See white copy of Historic Landmarks Foundation of
Indiana letter attached to HPC monthly meeting packet).
This is for the Commission Assistance Program and/or our part in the Old House Fair.
It is a total of $9,000.00 dollars altogether for both of those items. We will get half of the
net proceeds on the Old House Fair, which will be at the Century Center in May of 2006.
The Commission Assistance Program contract is identical to the one that we had last
year. I have a copy of last year's contract for anyone who would like to look at it. All I
need is a vote from the commission to approve this and I will get that money over to
HLFI out of this year's budget.
MARY JANE CHASE: I will make a motion that we approve the request for monies for
Old House Fair and also the Commission Assistance Program.
DIANE WROBEL-ILLES: Seconds the motion and it passes. Todd Zeiger abstains.
MA
2. Legal
ALADEAN DEROSE: I am most pleased to introduce to all of you today your new
council to the HPC, Shawn Peterson, who has come to us from Baker and Daniels as a
very experienced attorney. I can attest to his intelligence, his conscientiousness, and his
work ethic. I think you will be very pleased to have him as your legal council. If ever
there's a date or time that Shawn cannot be here then I will remain as his back up.
Shawn Peterson briefly introduced himself to the commission.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Chapin Park Standards and Guidelines, Taylor's Field and LWE
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: We have them underway and Julie's been working on
them all month. We hope to have them all printed off and ready to go by the end of this
year, or the beginning of next year.
MARTHA CHOITZ: To the printer or back from the printer?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Back from the printer.
2. Vote on Amendment to By -Laws
LYNN PATRICK: Catherine, did you have a chance to ask Aladean about that one
suggested change?
ALADEAN DEROSE: Yes, she did. Catherine mentioned that Julie had suggested that
the committee language have the same language as in the Advisory Board to the effect
that no opinion or recommendation made by the committee shall constitute official action
of the Commission nor shall it bind the Commission in any way. I don't have a problem
with adding that language; however, committee's generally as a rule don't have binding
authority on what the commission does so it's not necessary, but if you want to add that
we certainly can.
JOHN OXIAN: How come in Section 2, you state, "Special Committees may be
appointed by resolution of the Commission, or by unanimous consent, to serve at the
pleasure of the Commission." What is the idea of unanimous consent? I don't
understand why you need that.
ALADEAN DEROSE: It is simply a more instant way of appointing special
committees. Frankly I don't know, this is the existing language
JOHN OXIAN: I've seen where you say maybe by resolution of the commission that
just about takes care of everything. You don't even need the words by unanimous
consent; because, to me it sounds like the only way the contents of this resolution will be
applied would have to be by unanimous consent of the commission and I don't think you
want that in there. I would drop those words. I would also drop those same words where
it states, "Such Special Committees by the President may continue if authorized by
resolution of the Commission by unanimous consent."
ALADEAN DEROSE: If it is not an illegal modification then I don't have a problem
with that, if that's what you want to do.
JOANN SPORLEDER: In part one, I have some concerns about how and whom the ex -
officio people are to be appointed and for how long they serve. It is not stated how or by
whom they are to be selected or appointed. Are they appointed by the commission at
large, the president, the committee chairman, or other? How long do they serve? Do
they serve for one meeting, a specific project, for a year, or longer? I also have the same
questions for Section 2 as well.
24
ALADEAN DEROSE: All this does is state that a member of the committee need not be
a member of the commission. It doesn't affect their term, which is described in the
previous section, which is a one year term. So any member of the committee serves for a
one year term.
JOANN SPORLEDER: It still doesn't say how an ex -officio person is invited to
participate on these committees.
ALADEAN DEROSE: You want to make it clear that all committee members whether
they are commission members or members of the community should, be appointed by the
president. I will make that change in Section 1.
Commission members had a brief discussion about the benefits of having an advisory
board.
LYNN PATRICK: In Section 2, Special Committees, the last line of that paragraph
says, "The majority of every standing committee shall be constituted of commission
members." In Standing Committees, Section 1, the last line of that paragraph states the
same thing, is that a redundancy.
ALADEAN DEROSE: Yes it is. It should read "special committee" instead. Let me
summarize the revisions that have been made.
1. Under Section 1, you want to make it clear that all members of each standing
committee are appointed by the president and that the standing committee
members serve a term of one year.
2. Under Special Committees, you want to delete in the second line the words "or by
unanimous consent" as well as in the second to the last line in the same paragraph.
3. At the end of Section 2, on the last line where it now says, "The majority of every
standing committee shall be constituted of commission members." You're
replacing the word "standing" with the word "special" and you also want to add
"no opinion or recommendation of the special committee shall bind the
commission."
4. The Advisory Board section will remain as it is.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: I move that we hold off taking a vote on this until the
new revisions have been completed next month.
LYNN PATRICK: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
3. Minutes Proposal
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: I move that this be tabled until next month.
TODD ZEIGER: Seconds the motion and it passes. John Oxian abstains.
4. Studebaker Building on 637 S. Lafayette — John Oxian report
JOHN OXIAN: I want to make a motion to table this until next month.
MARTHA CHOITZ: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. CONTRACTS: Inspector's and Transcriptionist
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: We only have one contract to renew. We received Mrs.
Oxian's letter informing the commission that she will no longer be our transcriptionist the
30th of this month. We do have the inspector's services contract before us. You have a
copy of it in your monthly meeting packet. It is the same contract as we approved for
Wayne last year except I have asked for a ten percent increase in his hourly wage to go
up to twenty-two dollars an hour. He has been with us for four years and has not had any
increase in his salary.
25
JOANN SPORLEDER: Beginning when?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: His contract, I believe, states that it goes from December
1" of this year to November 30th, 2006. We have a request from the county
commissioners to put him on a fiscal calendar year beginning as soon as possible.
JOANN SPORLEDER: Are there appropriations in the budget for that?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Yes there are. So instead of this contract going from
December 1St, 2005, you may want to amend it to go from December 1st, 2005 through
December 31St, 2006.
JOANN SPORLEDER: I so move for the change of the fiscal time period.
TODD ZEIGER: I second the motion and it passes unanimously.
JOANN SPORLEDER: I also move that we accept the contract as presented and as
amended fiscally.
MARY JANE CHASE: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
JOANN SPORLEDER: I would like to mention that in driving up and down Park
Avenue I have noticed another renovation going on at 810 Park Avenue. They have put
in new columns and balustrades and are still currently working on it. I don't see any C
of A for that anywhere. In my opinion it is architecturally incorrect. -
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: If it is the same property I am thinking of that had to go
through a variance hearing and that pre -dated the historic district.
JOANN SPORLEDER: But, they're still working on it.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: I know, but the variance and the work pre -dated the
historic district so there's nothing we can do about it.
2. East Wayne Street Historic District Signage
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: The East Wayne Street Historic District signs have been
approved. There are four of them. Our cost would be $168.80 for the new signs.
JOHN OXIAN: Where are the pictures/drawings of these new signs?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: The signs have already been made up. I do not have
them. We have seen them and they are very attractive. They are gray and burgundy
signs with the logo of the East Wayne Street Historic District on them. They already
have sign posts attached to them.
JOHN OXIAN: Wouldn't it be right to have them here when you're approving this?
That is the proper way for the commission to see what the logo looks like.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: I agree. I didn't bring them because I don't have them.
We would incur half the cost of the bill and the city would incur the other half. (See
white copy of bill from Traffic Sign Shop attached to HPC monthly meeting binder).
JOHN OXIAN: Will you send us a picture of this so we can see what they look like?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Yes I will. The East Wayne Street Liaison Committee
designed them and the building department put them together.
JOHN OXIAN: I will make a motion that the bill for the signs be paid and that all of our
commission members receive a picture of the signs.
MARY JANE CHASE: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously.
JOHN OXIAN: Catherine, did you get a request today for a roofing job on LaMonte
Terrace?
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: No, I did not.
JOHN OXIAN: You will be receiving one. The person called me on Saturday. She was
asking for bids to have her roof done. The roofer I know very well came in after the first
26
roofer who wanted to start the job on Monday. The second roofer who knows me and
who has done a lot of work for me knows that you have to get a C of A first and a
building permit. He told the owner to call me and I explained the whole situation to her.
So I think when that person comes in you should find out who this roofer is and make
sure the building department is aware of this so they can stop them from going ahead
with this.
CATHERINE HOSTETLER: To stop him from putting the roof on?
JOHN OXL4,N: They should be informed that there is a roofer who goes around doing
work without first getting a building permit or C of A. I will try and find out what the
roofing company's name is from the roofer I know.
V1. HEARING OF VISITORS AND ADJOURNMENT
LYNN PATRICK: We stand adjourned.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm.
Historic Preservation Commission
Minutes: November. 21, 2005
ATTEST:
27
, Secretary
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY
December 19, 2005
County -City Building, South Bend
Council Chambers, 4"' Floor
Members Present: Lynn Patrick [President], Martha Choitz [Vice -President], Mary Jane Chase
[Secretary], Joann Sporleder [Architectural Historian], Todd Zeiger, Timothy Klusczinski, Catherine
Hostetler
Members Absent: Jerry Ujdak, Diane Wrobel-Illes
Staff Present: Catherine Hostetler [Director], Julie Schutte [Assistant Director], Shawn Peterson [Legal
Counsel]
Also Present: Kate Ravin, John Sitter, Don Sporleder, Karen Ainsley, Douglas Merrit, Robert Rodes,
Diana Mattias, Ken Fedder, Abraham Marcus
I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL: Lynn Patrick called the meeting to order at 7:33 pm.
Todd Zeiger moved to suspend the agenda to New Business. Mary Jane Chase seconded the motion.
All were in favor, and the motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Reconsideration of COA 2005-1104A, 840 Park Avenue
Shawn Peterson noted that a formal denial of the certificate of appropriateness with the agreement
not to prosecute had been drafted for the Commission's consideration.
Todd Zeiger: I motion that we affirm our denial in form presented and agreed, to allow the
inappropriate structure pursuant to the form of denial presented. Mary Jane Chase seconded the
motion. It passed with six in favor and one abstention; Joann Sporleder.
Todd Zeiger moved to return to the agenda. Catherine Hostetler seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
Shawn Peterson asked the Commission members to sign the denial before moving to the next item.
Robert Rodes, attorney for the owners, and Diana Mattias were present. The Commission members
signed the form at this time.
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
1. Any Reconsidered Certificates of Appropriateness (There were none.)
2. 2300 Portage Avenue: 2005-1028
Catherine Hostetler: We received a fax from May, Oberfell & Lorber requesting us to continue the
hearing on the gatehouse until Monday, January 23, 2006. If I could have a motion, then, to table
this.
Martha Choitz: I so move. Todd Zeiger seconded the motion and it passed unanimously
3. 1112 East Wayne Street: 2005-1202
Catherine Hostetler: The next certificate of appropriateness that we have before us is from 1112
East Wayne Street, Certificate of Appropriateness 2005-1202. Application items: The owners
propose to remove deteriorating; existing enclosed back porch constructed in the late 1940s or early
1950s out of eight storm doors, siding and topped with a shed roof. The new construction will be in
the exact footprint of the existing enclosure but constructed using a frame construction to allow for
year around use. The existing floor, upper framing and roof would be retained but the series of screen
doors will be replaced with lapboard siding from the ground to about three feet and new vinyl
windows would replace the upper portion.
Standards for East Wayne Street:II Existing Construction, D. Entrances, Porches and Steps: ,
Required: Porches and additions reflecting later architectural styles and which are important to the
building's historical integrity shall be retained. III New Construction B. Building Materials:
Required: Exterior materials used on a new structure shall be compatible in scale, texture and color
with adjacent structures. Materials used on an addition to an existing structure shall relate to the
existing or original materials of that structure. As much of the original structure as possible shall be
retained so that the addition could be removed with, I mean without, damage to the basic structure
and appearance of the building.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the new enclosed back porch to replace this
make- shift construction, which is not original to the house. It will enhance the appearance of the
house from the rear and it will be in keeping with the scale of the house as well as with the materials
used through out this neighborhood.
The homeowners, John Sitter and Kate Ravin, were present and expressed that the report well
explained their project.
Todd Zeiger: I'd like to make a motion that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness as
presented. I'd like to incorporate the staff comments in this motion. I move for approval as this
proposed work meets the standards of the district. Tim Klusczinski seconded the motion.
Joann Sporleder asked to correct the reading of the standards to say: "as much of the original structure
as possible shall be retained so that the addition could be removed without damage to the basic structure
and appearance of the building" as the motion included mention of the guidelines. Mary Jane Chase
moved to include the correction for the record. Todd seconded. All were in favor. Shawn Peterson
asked for a revote on the motion with the amendment for the record. All were again in favor, and the
motion passed.
4. 508 Lindsey: 2005-1207 A & B
Catherine Hostetler: The next Certificate of Appropriateness is 508 Lindsey, CoA 2005-1207. This
is a certificate of appropriateness for Part A: Demolition of rear two-story addition and fire escape
Part B: Replacement of replacement windows with Kolbe & Kolbe one -over -one double hung wood
windows; porch rehabilitation: removal of concrete porch floor and metal supports and railing and
replacement with wood tongue and groove flooring, bead board ceiling, columns and spindles;
removal of aluminum siding and painting per HLFI's painting specifications; Removal of second
front door (original front door is still present); In-kind roof, gutter, and sidewalk replacement.
GUIDELINES: Buildine Materials: Whenever possible, the original building materials should be
restored. Windows. Reauired: When deteriorated beyond repair, [windows] shall be replaced with
units and trim resembling the original. Windows. Recommended: If new sashes or doors are
installed, the existing or original materials, design, and hardware should be used. Entrances. Porches.
and Stens. Reauired: When deteriorated beyond repair, existing or original porches, stoops, patios
and steps, including handrails, balusters, columns, brackets, tiles and roof decorations, shall be
retained or replaced by replicas of the same design or by a design more in keeping with the historic
period of the structure. Porches and additions reflecting later architectural styles and which are
important to the building's historical integrity shall be retained.
RECOMMENDATION. Part A: In its current configuration, the addition dates to 1943. The removal
of this addition would restore the original massing of the American Foursquare. Two original
windows would be retained and reused after reconstruction. Staff recommends approval. Part B: All
sections of part B are appropriate rehabilitation measures for this non-contributing house. Proposed
changes fall with the Chapin Park Guidelines and Standards. Applicant will have examples of
porches from American Foursquares at the meeting. Staff recommends overall approval of the
project with the porch and rear elevation details to be worked out between the applicant and
Standards and Maintenance Committee and/or Staff.
Doug Merritt and Karen Ainsley, from the Near Northwest Neighborhood Association [NNN], were
present at the hearing.
Douglas Merritt: I am Douglas Merritt, the NNN's new construction supervisor. I have photos to
present. May I approach? It is our intent to restore this American Foursquare to a single-family
residence.
Todd Zeiger: I have a quick question. The materials you have passed out ... are you representing that
this would be similar to the porch you are thinking about then? This is a reference. We'll submit this
for the record that that this will be the type of porch. That is why this is being passed down. This is
the type of porch that will be considered for the restoration.
Mary Jane Chase: When you take off an addition like this, what do you do to ground? I'm thinking
of a patio, deck, or ground cover.
Douglas Merritt: Well right now, we are interested in opening up that area for additional green
space. It will provide approximately a 25' by 41' area. It will decrease the massing of the house on
the city lot and it will benefit not only that property, but the adjacent properties as well.
Todd Zeiger:.Have you done any investigation of the siding underneath at all, or it is still. I did not
have a chance to drive by. Just wondering if you are going to find the belt -course, the flare.
Douglas Merritt: Right, we have not been able to start any type of investigative work.
Shawn Peterson: As your counsel, I would recommend that if you are going to approve part B, that
you would do it and authorize staff to work out the details rather than the committee,- and also when
you do so that it would fall under the current guidelines to have the staff make approvals within the
boundaries of the photos that they presented. In other words, they would not have to come back here
unless staff could not work out a solution with them or they would deviate substantially from the
picture they presented of what they are going to do.
Discussion continued between staff and the Commission members regarding the application of the
standards. -
Tim Klusczinski: Can we make an official motion before they have done any investigative to see
what is underneath or beyond, to see what the finished product will be?
Todd Zeiger: I think ... I would suggest that that could be incorporated into the conversations about
the porch with the staff, i.e. the belt course we're talking about... because we don't really...why we
ask...because we're not really sure what happened when they sided it, if it had a belt course. We
probably know what happened to it. It's obviously not there. So there probably will be some
question of how that should be handled. If we could incorporate that with our comments of the porch
and let staff kind of work through that based on the pictures, because one picture has a foursquare that
is very similar to this one, that has a flared belt course on it. I'm just throwing that out for it seems
appropriate to handle it that way.
I think ... a motion to approve Certificate of Appropriateness 2005-1207, both parts A and B, as
recommended by staff as the proposed work does follow the guidelines for the district and remand the
questions with regard to the exact design of the porch as well as any details that might be uncovered
after the aluminum comes off to the staff to work with the applicant based on the photographs that
were submitted tonight for our review.
Tim Klusczinski seconded the motion. It passed six in favor and one opposed; Joann Sporleder.
B. LANDMARK
1. Studebaker Building 30-30A Rescind Interim Protection
Catherine Hostetler: The next item on the agenda is the Studebaker building 30-30A to rescind
interim protection and I am going to turn over to you some reports and letters from the Studebaker
Club and Bob Yapp on the assessment of this building. [Catherine passed out the letter and Bob
Yapp's report.]
Ken Fedder: How are you? My name is attorney Ken Fedder. I have offices at 53600 North
Ironwood Drive. I am here as the attorney for the owner of the building who is with me, Mr.
Abraham Marcus. I would only tell you that it is a very old building; that the HPC has been looking
at it since 1996 and on July 13 of this year at the request of my client I obtained a demolition permit.
The building has been vacant. There is no electricity, no lavatory facilities. The windows are all
gone. There is a total state of disrepair. The HPC got an interim protection order on July 22nd, which
held up our demolition. During that time, I had"approved and received approval from the state to
clear the asbestos question, and we are prepared to demolish this building as it is in a terrible state of
disrepair. But, we are on hold pending the rescinding of your interim protection order of July 22nd
Thank you every much and the owner of the building is here with me. It's been inspected by I believe
Mr. Oxian and his Commission; it's been inspected by the Studebaker Commission, and the
consensus is that it would cost in excess of $100,000 to even think about restoring the building.
Thank you.
Lynn Patrick: I have a question about salvage. I went through the building and I did not specifically
ask Bob Yapp if any molding around the doors if that was worth salvaging. Do you have any plans?
Ken Fedder: I don't think there is anything salvageable in the building. If there was a nameplate I
would certainly be willing to donate that to somebody, but it is in such a bad state that we're
concerned about the liability of somebody that breaks in there and we don't think there's anything
that's salvageable insofaras the historic value of the building.
Joann SporIeder: Can you review what the Commission has in fact done with the restraining...
what the building... What I want to ask is: Is the building a landmark or is it in an historic district or a
multiple resource district?
Catherine Hostetler: It is under interim protection. It is not a landmark. It is in the Studebaker
corridor, which is nothing. We have absolutely no claim on this building at all.
Joann Sporleder: I move that we rescind the interim protection for Studebaker Building 30-30A.
Martha Choitz seconded the motion. It passed unanimously.
Ken Fedder stated his appreciation and thanks.
C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS
1. Owner comments on Walker's Field Shelter House, Northside Boulevard Riverwall, and
North Liberty Park
Catherine Hostetler: If any representative from South Bend, the County Council, the County
Commissioners, or the President of North Liberty would like to make a statement regarding these
nominations they are able to do so. We did not receive anything in the mail supporting or rejecting.
Todd Zeiger: So, the record will reflect that there are no comments
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Catherine Hosteler: There are no minutes from the November 21St meeting.
Martha Choitz asked about the status of application 2005-1012, 1111 Riverside, window replacements.
Staff is still setting up an appointment to work with the homeowners and the application was withdrawn.
The Commission did have the minutes from the December 14 special meeting to consider.
Tim Klusczinski: I will make the motion that we approve these minutes as is. Todd Zeiger seconded the
motion, and it passed 5-0 with two abstentions; Mary Jane Chase and Joann Sporleder.
Joann Sporleder asked if it was necessary to accept minutes for a special meeting. Shawn Peterson
responded that this is a requirement although they can be limited in scope due to the special
circumstances of the meeting.
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
Catherine Hostetler: There is no treasurer's report other than the financial data you have in your
packets. A brief discussion ensued between Joann Sporleder and the Director regarding these reports.
C. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. President's report:
Lynn Patrick asked for volunteers for the Nominating Committee in addition to herself. Joann Sporleder
and Todd Zeiger volunteered to serve on the committee.
D. STAFF REPORTS
1. C of A Approvals; Correspondence
Catherine Hostetler read letters received from Paul Schmidt, Linda Riley, and Derek Dieter thanking the
Commission and staff for their assistance in recent matters. These are attached. Todd also mentioned
how great Paul Schmidt was. He went above and beyond to help Todd, Tim, and Wayne salvage the
interior. They were able to take trim, paneling, and transoms from the Bergen Building.
2. Director's Report (included in the HPC meeting binder)
Catherine also passed out a sheet with the Commissioner's appointing bodies and expiration dates, and
their contact information and 2006 meeting dates.
3. Assistant Director's Report (included in the HPC meeting binder with correction)
4. Legal: Committee Work
a
Shawn Peterson presented a detailed report to the Commission regarding the requirements for meeting in
committee under the Open Door Law and agreed to provide Commission members with a list/cheat sheet
of Committee work that would require notice before the January meeting.
What cannot be done without public notice is official action, which entails: receiving information,
deliberating, which is discussing in the hopes of making a recommendation or making a vote, establishing
policy, making recommendations, and taking final action, which may be resolutions, contracts, C of As,
or things of that sort.
Lynn Patrick: So my understanding is that this does not necessarily need to be published, just the paper
needs to be informed?
Shawn Peterson: Right, to meet the Open Door Law for a public meeting, you have to give 48 hours
notice to the media outlet that gave you a request for meetings, which for this body means the South Bend
Tribune.
Other matters discussed were: the application of the Open Door Law to the nominating committee,
holding regularly scheduled committee meetings, when a committee can deliberate without notice under a
fact-fnding/research function, and what would be considered a meeting, discussion, or a chat over email.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Update on District Guidelines and Booklets, Resolution 05-02.
Mary Jane Chase: Do we need a resolution number?
Catherine Hostetler: This is resolution number 05-02.
Mary Jane Chase: I move that we accept Resolution 05-02 on the Historic Preservation Commission of
South Bend and St. Joseph County approving changes to standards and guidelines for the Chapin Park
district, accepted as presented. Lynn Patrick seconded the motion. Lynn asked for a roll call vote. Mary
Jane Chase — Yea; Tim Klusczinski — Abstains; Lynn Patrick — Yea; Martha Choitz — Yea; Todd Zeiger -
Yea; Joann Sporleder— Nay; Catherine Hostetler— Yea. The motion passed 5-1-1. Shawn asked that the
standards as adopted be attached to the meeting minutes. The resolution was then signed by the
Commission members.
B. Vote on Amendment to By -Laws: Resolution 05-01
Joann Sporleder: Under Section III, vis-a-vis what our counsel has just been telling us about Open Door
things, it would seem to me that the last paragraph would need to instruct the Advisory Board with it must
adhere to the Open Door Law as part of what they are required to do. [Quoted section of the amendment.]
I think there should be some notice in this that the advisory board should it be created needs to be aware
of the Open Door Law and their meetings must also be made public.
Lynn Patrick: I'd like to ask our counsel that since the Advisory Board does not make a rule and no
opinion or recommendation is binding in any way, do they need to adhere to the Open Door Law?
Shawn Peterson: If you delegate official action. The question is: are you doing that? Shawn provided
the Commission with a few options for the Advisory Board. It could publicly notice the meetings or they
could be research/fact-finding missions with the information then presented to the Commission in a
public hearing as testimony that would not have the weight of a recommendation. Other members of the
public would also be allowed to testify.
Todd Zeiger: We have the option of deciding whether or not it will have the full weight of a
recommendation or not. I'm not sure we need to delay this for another month.
Martha Choitz: I move that we use substitute resolution 05-01 as our guide in establishing an Advisory
Board. Catherine Hostetler seconded the motion and it passed 6-1; Joann Sporleder was opposed. The
Commission members then signed the resolution.
C. Michigan Street Bridge: additional CoA extension
Todd Zeiger moved to provide an extension to the CoA for the Michigan Street Bridge until November
2007. Joann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
No additional items were heard.
V. HEARING OF VISITORS
Don Sporleder wished the Commission a very Merry Christmas.
VI. ADJOURNMENT: Lynn Patrick adjourned the meeting at 9:05 pm
504 EAST L&SALLE AVENUE
SOUTH BEND, IN 46617-2796
PHONE (219) 2344174
CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS
FORINDUSTRY
HEATING, VENTILATING AND
AIR CONDITIONING
ARCHITECTURAL AND
MECHANICAL SHEET METAL
SLATE, TILE AND
METAL ROOFING
POLLUTION CONTROL December 1, 2005
CONTRACTING ENGINEERING
DESIGN AND BUILD
BID TO SPECIFICATION
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL
LARGE RESIDENTIAL
METAL FABRICATION
STAINLESS STEEL
SHORT RUNS
PROTOTYPES
WELDING
POLLUTION CONTROL
BAGHOUSES
DUCTSCRUBBERS
LTERS
RROSIVE AND TOXIC
ME REMOVAL
ODOR CONTROL
TANKS
HVAC
G.E., TRANS, CARRIER,
A.A.F. AND DUO-AIRE
HOODS
I.R. HEATERS
AIR CURTAINS
EXHAUST FANS
BOILER BREECHINGS
PAINT SPRAY BOOTHS
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend
Sirs:
Thank you for your concern in the matter of demolition of the Bergan
building located at 502 E. LaSalle Avenue, South Bend. I realize that
there is a great concern about the restoration of the west wall that connects
the sheet metal shop to the Bergan building. I assure you that once the
restoration of the foundation and front of 504 E. LaSalle is complete the
west wall will be restored to the historic greatness necessary to deem this
establishment as a historic landmark for generations to come.
Sincerely
Paul J. Schmi
President, J.C. Lauber Sheet Metal Co., Inc
ROOFING
SLATE, TILE, TERNE,
COPPER, GALBESTOS AND
COLORBESTOS
GUTTERS, DOWNSPOUTS,
FLASHINGS, STEEPLES,
MANSARDS AND BATTEN SEAMS
SHEET METAL
GALVANIZED, COPPER,
STAINLESS, L.C.C. AND
ALUMINUM
IN BUSINESS SINCE 1890
"i�2c_e.c�bex- Ca
A -C -V1 lCk n Y, L? CX-) On
W S +4:D kn
rxC-r� U i t' i r 9 Our- Clete �t S-�r o r"
L -j-
� � a
• pq;G 0\ -Z\,� S%. S *8')l
... WAYNE
r.�....�
. r..rl..
S
TR
i
�sEET.._.__
sovTH $�
City of South Bend
'`E�' , common Council
1865 s 441 County -City Building • 2.27 W. Jefferson BIvd
South Bend; Indiana 46601-1830
Charlotte D. Pfeifer
President
Karen L. White
Vice -President
i
Roland Kelly
C
(574) 235-9321
Fax (574)235-9173
TDD (574) 235-5567
http://www.ci.south-bend.in.us
Chairperson, ommittee
of the Whole
Derek D. Dieter
First District
- L F r . (a
Charlotte D. Pfeifer YA
Second District
Roland Kelly �1►
Third District
l7o_u_r_t'h District
David Varner
Fifth District .
Ervin Kuspa
Sixth District
Al "Buddy Kirsits
At Large
Timothy A. Rouse
At Large
Karen L. White
At Large
Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand
Council Attorney
GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR
HISTORIC PRESER VA TION
& DEVELOPMENT
CHAPIN PARK LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT
PREFACE
The Chapin Park Neighborhood has a long history as a place where communal action and a
spirit of care -taking prevail. In the 1970s neighborly action saved our remaining brick streets
and historic street lamps. Large numbers of homeowners invested time and energy in the
careful restoration of their homes and the preservation of our mature tree canopy. Our history
of community spirit and interest in preservation provided the impetus for the designation of
Local Historic District Status.
The Chapin Park Local Historic District was established by Ordinance No. 9574-05, as enacted
by the Common Council of the City of South Bend on March 14, 2005. The Chapin Park
Neighborhood Association and the Historic Districts Committee of the Historic Preservation
Commission cooperatively developed guidelines and standards adhering to rehabilitation
standards (see b2 — Rehabilitation on page 15). These were modeled after the rehabilitation
standards of other local historic districts in South Bend.
The intent of the Local Historic District Guidelines and Standards is to impress upon property
owners their communal responsibility. In order to ensure that our properties remain the
examples of their kind and historic moment, and that the neighborhood remains aesthetically
intact both on the level of the streetscape and on the level of individual architectural details, we
seek to instill in each other the importance of education and consultation regarding any changes
to property. We do this knowing that this personal interaction both with civic agencies, and
with each other, is one of the things that make our community such a humane, interesting and
dynamic place to live.
Under the requirements of City of South Bend Zoning Ordinance No. 5565-73, as amended, a
Certificate of Appropriateness (C of A) would be required for any activity in the district which
requires a building permit or which alters the appearance of a building or site, including
houses, garages, and other outbuildings, as seen from the streets around the property. The
guidelines and standards are intended to preserve the way the neighborhood looks as of March
14, 2005, to provide guidance about proper rehabilitation techniques, and to encourage, where
possible, a return to original historic appearance.
Changes made before Local Historic District Status was adopted, as well as paint color, flowers
and landscape vegetation, do not require a C of A. Planting or removal of trees in the yard or
tree lawn does require a C of A, and input from the city forester is often helpful. There is some
flexibility in interpretation, and while decisions of the Historic Preservation Commission are
ultimately binding, they are rendered with consideration, sensitivity, and public input. Any
exceptions beyond the limits of this text are considered on a case-by-case basis.
The Chapin Park Local Historic District Standards Committee carefully examined the
standards, layout, words, and meaning of this document. This Preface is unique among all the
other books in the series, and recognizes and honors the efforts of all who worked on this
committee, and attended these sessions. Please contact the Historic Preservation Commission
to further discuss and explore the philosophy, rationale and methods of preservation.
The Residents of Chapin Park,
Page 2 of 26
General Definitions
(A) PRESERVATION
Defined in these guidelines as the act or process of
restore the form, integrity and materials of a building,
original condition. It can include stabilization work,
ongoing maintenance and/or prevention of demolition.
(B) PRESERVATION GUIDELINES
applying measures to maintain or
structure or site in its existing or
restoration or rehabilitation work,
An outline of requirements and recommendations which are used as guides in the
determination of appropriateness of proposed work within an Historic District.
The Historic Preservation Commission has established three sets of guidelines — Restoration,
Rehabilitation and Conservation. Each Local Historic District selects one of these at the time
of implementation. This selection is based on the quality and integrity of the architecture and
environment of the district, and upon the goals of the neighborhood organization. The Chapin
Park Local Historic District Steering Committee selected Rehabilitation: Guidelines in 2001.
The preservation guidelines are defined as follows:
(bl) Restoration (ENCOURAGED)
Maintaining the original or unimpaired character of the district as it was at the time of
construction. Any restoration done must return the structure to its original state. Authenticity of
a restoration would require the removal of incompatible exterior elements and the replacement
of all damaged or deteriorated elements with replicas of the same design and materials. New
construction shall 'conform to the guidelines for defined elements of preservation regarding
height, proportion and building materials. A Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) applicant
shall be responsible for documenting the authenticity of the proposed work to the satisfaction
of the commission.
(b2) Rehabilitation (ADOPTED)
Maintaining the existing character of the district, and whenever possible returning it to its
original condition. Any rehabilitation would not require the removal of all non -original
materials but would encourage the removal of all such materials, which are incompatible with
the defined elements of preservation for the district. The design of new construction or
alteration would not require the duplication of the original design and construction, but should
be compatible with the existing structures and the district's defined elements of preservation.
The use of original materials or construction techniques would be encouraged, but
contemporary methods and materials would be acceptable when compatible.
(b3) Conservation (NOT ADOPTED)
Maintaining a district in its existing condition by placing guidelines on new construction, and
limiting demolition and moving. The use of contemporary methods or materials would be
acceptable if they are compatible with the defined elements of preservation for the district.
Page 3 of 26
(C) ELEMENTS OF PRESERVATION
Defined as specific areas of preservation covered within the guidelines. The elements to be
defined for each historic district, with the exception of those with Conservation guidelines, are
as follows:
I. Environment -
A. The District Environment
B. The Building Site and Landscaping
II. Existing Structures
A. Building Materials
B. Roofs and Roofing
C. Windows and Doors
D. Entrances, Porches and Steps
III. New Construction
A. Height and Proportion
B. Building Materials
C. Sheds & Accessory Buildings
IV. Safety and Building Codes
A. Building Code Requirements
B. Access for Handicapped or Disabled Persons
V. General
(D) GUIDELINE COMPONENTS
Statements within the guidelines, which specify the requirements and recommendations for the
preservation of the characteristic relationships of the various features which are of significance
to the appearance of the Local Historic District.
"Shall" is defined as an expression of something that is mandatory or must be done.
"Should" is defined as an expression of obligation, something that ought to be done but that is
open to compromise.
Page 4 of 26
(E) GUIDELINE CATEGORIES
Guidelines for the district will address each of the Elements of Preservation individually within
four divisions of classification. At the time of implementation of an historic district, the
commission will work with the respective neighborhood association to select the desired
category of placement for each of the Guideline Components. These categories are as follows:
(el) Required
Defined as work which shall be done in a restoration or rehabilitation project in order to restore
or maintain the original or existing character of the structure or site.
(e2) Recommended
Defined as work which should be done to help restore or maintain the original or existing
character of the structure or site.
(e3) Prohibited
Defined as work which shall not be permitted in a restoration or rehabilitation project because
it may have a negative impact on the original or existing character of the structure or site.
(e4) Not Recommended
Defined as work which should not be undertaken in a restoration or rehabilitation project
because it may have a negative impact on the original or existing character of the structure or
site.
The chart below explains the placement of shall and should within the each of the four
categories in the guidelines — required, recommended, not recommended, prohibited.
REHABILITATION GUIDELINES
Required Shall
Recommended Should
Prohibited Shall not
Not Recommended Should not
Existing/ Whenever possible, original
Miscellaneous Retained/Maintained/
Whenever possible, restored
Page 5 of 26
Chapin Park
Local Historic District
Guidelines and Standards
I. THE ENVIRONMENT
A. THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT
The Chapin Park Local Historic District is a particularly fine residential area located close to downtown
South Bend, the St. Joseph River, Memorial Hospital and Leeper Park. This section is meant to protect
and guide appropriate maintenance of the common areas of the district (i.e. visual landscape and
streetscapes)
Required
Brick streets contribute greatly to the character of the neighborhood. These streets have always been
essentially passenger car thoroughfares. The appointments of the streets (i.e. lighting, curbs, horse
hitches and monuments) should contribute as much as possible to their architectural, historic, and
residential character.
Retention and maintenance of existing brick streets in the district is required. Repair work to fill voids
and gaps must utilize brick paver materials and acceptable installation methods whenever applicable.
When utility work dictates the removal of street sections (pavers), the original materials will be
reinstalled. Brick streets shall be patched with brick pavers. Concrete, asphalt, fillers, and similar
materials shall not be used.
All original streetlights shall be maintained, especially the George Cutter "Park View" streetlights
designed by the Cutter Company for this neighborhood. Present efforts by the Neighborhood
Association and the Historic Preservation Commission to restore "Park View" streetlights to the district
shall continue. Any change in lighting must receive approval of the Historic Preservation Commission.
New or different fencing requires a C of A and shall reflect the style and character of the individual
property and the surrounding environment and properties.
Recommended
The current or historic character of lawns should be preserved. Front yard areas, common lawns, and
tree lawns should remain open. New or replacement trees should be compatible in variety with those
presently growing. Vacant lots should be kept landscaped appropriately while vacant, and may be used
for recreational or residential development.
When replacement of utility poles or power supply lines is necessary, consideration should be given to
underground conduits or utility poles erected along rear property lines.
Prohibited
Existing relationships of buildings and their environments shall not be destroyed by widening existing
streets, applying asphalt or other bituminous coverings, or by introducing new streets or parking lots.
Signs, streetlights, benches, new plant materials, fencing, walkways, and paving materials which are out
Page 6 of 26
of scale or inappropriate to the neighborhood may not be used. The erection of high walls or barriers,
which would alter the relationship of the houses, shall be prohibited. Utility poles with high intensity
overhead lights shall not be used on main thoroughfares.
B. BUILDING SITE, LANDSCAPING, & ACCESSORIES
This section focuses on individual properties and amenities. Building sites tend to be irregularly
shaped, of varying topography, and with different setbacks with regard to plots. Alleys are generally
behind houses. Landscape accessories like fences are unique to each structure. Chapin Place presents a
unique situation within the district. Applications from properties that have property lines on Chapin
Place will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Required
Fencing, walkways, outbuildings, private yard lights, signs (i.e. house numbers) and benches (visible
from the street) as well as trees located in a yard or tree lawn which reflect the property's history and
development shall be retained.
A tree located in such areas shall only be removed if the removal is required due to storm damage,
disease, threatened damage to a structure, or for such other reason acceptable to the Historic
Preservation Commission. Storm damaged or diseased trees should then be replaced with an approved
species at the same or approximate location wherever possible.
Fencing visible from the street in front of the structure shall be open (meaning spaces between the
pickets), and consistent with the historic character of a structure enclosed.
Recommended
New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in
photographs, drawings and newspapers. New site work should also be appropriate to existing
surrounding site elements in scale, type and appearance. Trees in close proximity to a building may
cause structural damage. Owners are encouraged to remove these trees and replace (or replant) them at
a more appropriate location as soon as planting season permits and upon approval of a C of A.
Prohibited
No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing trees, fencing, walkways,
outbuildings or other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and
development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped,
nor enclosed by solid fences, chain link, nor industrial/commercial style fences.
The installation of unsightly large devices, such as television satellite dishes, skylights, or solar panels,
shall not be permitted in areas where they detract from the architecture of a building, are intrusive to the
public view of the building or are highly visibly from a public street, or ruled inappropriate after
Commission review.
Utility poles with high-intensity overhead lights should be installed so that they cannot be seen from a
street.. The Commission will evaluate all installations as well as any potential exceptions resulting
from special circumstances, before granting a C of A.
Page 7 of 26
II. EXISTING STRUCTURES
A. BUILDING MATERIALS
Original exterior building materials in the district include brick, stucco, clapboard, wood shingles, and
brick or stone masonry. In some instances, vinyl, composite and aluminum siding have been applied
over the original material.
Required
Original exterior building materials shall be retained when possible. Deterioration of wood materials
shall be prevented through repair, cleaning, and painting. The existing architectural detail around
windows, porches, doors, and eaves shall be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design when
deteriorated beyond repair.
Masonry, including brick and stucco structures, shall be maintained, and properly cleaned only when
necessary to halt deterioration or to remove stains and shall be done in a method acceptable for the
preservation of the surface: i.e. low pressure water and soft natural bristle brushes. Brick or masonry
mortar joints should be repointed only when there is evidence of moisture problems, or when sufficient
mortar is missing to allow water to stand in the mortar joint. Existing mortar shall be duplicated in
composition, color, texture, joint size, method of application, and joint profile.
When repairing stucco, stucco mixture shall be used. A professional shall make a study of the old
stucco, to determine the exact mixture and underlayment used in the original work. Some repair
methods are not compatible with the original techniques and may cause early disintegration of the repair
work and the original work.
Ample ventilation must be afforded the structure when siding is installed, in order to prevent increased
deterioration of the structure from moisture and insects.
Recommended
Whenever possible, the original building materials should be restored. When maintaining or replacing
original siding is not feasible, aluminum, vinyl, or composite siding may be used. When used over
wood surfaces, this siding should be the same size and style as the original wood. Every effort should
be made to retain the original trim around windows, doors, cornices, gables, eaves, and other
architectural features.
Property owners should contact the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph
County prior to initiating any restoration of rehabilitation effort. [Address and contact information is
listed in the front of the Guidebook.] The Commission is an invaluable source of information about all
facets of rehabilitation and restoration - materials, methods, contractors and the like.
Prohibited
Wood siding shall not be resurfaced with new material that is inappropriate or was unavailable when
the building was constructed, such as artificial stone, brick veneer, asbestos or asphalt shingles.
Sandblasting or the use of harsh detergents shall not be used on masonry including brick, stucco,
limestone, flagstone and sandstone. This method of cleaning erodes the surface material and accelerates
deterioration.
Repointing shall not be done with a mortar of high Portland cement content which can often create a
bond that is stronger than the building material. Usage of Portland cement can cause deterioration as a
Page 8 of 26
result of the differing coefficient of expansion and porosity of the historic masonry unit and the mortar.
This most often results in serious damage to adjacent brick.
Unpainted masonry surfaces shall not be painted unless they had been painted originally. Paint shall
not be removed from masonry surfaces by any means that damage the surface.
Not Recommended
Waterproof or water repellent coatings or surface consolidation treatments should not be used on
masonry surfaces unless required to solve a specific problem that has been studied and identified.
Coatings are frequently unnecessary and expensive, and can accelerate deterioration of the masonry.
Mortar joints, which do not need repointing, should not be repointed. Wood siding should not be power -
washed.
B. ROOFS AND ROOFING
Roof shapes in the district encompass all. the various designs found in residential structures: ,hipped,
gabled, gambrel, flat, and combinations of these. Roofs are covered with a variety of materials such as
asphalt, asbestos, wood and slate shingles as well as clay tiles. Residences in most cases have wood
fascias with gutters and downspouts. The fascias of some vinyl or aluminum sided houses are covered
with the same material.
Required
The existing shape and type of materials of the roof shall be retained. All architectural features, which
give the roof its essential character, shall be retained, including dormer windows, cupolas, cornices,
brackets, chimneys, cresting and weather vanes.
Recommended
The original shape and materials of the roof should be restored. Particular effort should be made to
retain materials such as slate, tile, and other unique materials not commonly found in new construction.
Roof covering which is deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced with new material that matches as
closely as possible the original in composition, size, shape, color and texture. Gutters and downspouts
are often a necessary adjunct in order to prevent deterioration of the structure; they should be
maintained whenever possible or replaced with a style comparable and suitable to the architectural
period.
Prohibited
Nothing shall be done to change the essential character of the roof as viewed from a street by adding
architectural features or large unsightly fixtures, or by using materials inappropriate to the style of the
house. The roof shall not be stripped of architectural features important to its character.
Not Recommended
Overhanging eaves, soffit, brackets and gables should not be covered or enclosed when adding siding to
a building.
Page 9 of 26
C. WINDOWS AND DOORS
Window and doorframes are in most cases wood and vary depending upon the style of the home. Many
are double hung windows with wood trim and sills. Brick structures have stone sills and brick lintels.
In some cases where aluminum siding has been applied, the window and door trim has been covered.
About half of the structures in the district have aluminum storm windows, the other half have wood
storm windows.
Required
Original windows and doors shall be retained including sashes, lintels, sills, shutters, decorative glass,
pediments, hoods, and hardware. When deteriorated beyond repair, they shall be replaced with units and
trim resembling the original.
Recommended
Wood storm windows and doors painted or finished to match the original should be used but should not
damage existing frames. If new sashes or doors are installed, the existing or original materials, design,
and hardware should be used. When metal storm doors are used, they should be painted, anodized or
coated to match the existing. When awnings are used they should be of canvas material.
D. Entrances, Porches and Steps
Most houses in the district have either an open or enclosed porch across the front. Most porches have
either hip or gabled roofs or are covered by the main roof of the house.
Required - When deteriorated beyond repair, existing or original porches, stoops, patios and steps, including
handrails, balusters, columns, brackets, tiles and roof decorations, shall be retained or replaced by
replicas of the same design or by a design more in keeping with the historic period of the structure.
Porches and additions reflecting later architectural styles and which are important to the building's
historical integrity shall be retained.
RECOMMENDED -j
When enclosing porches for heat conservation or for other reasons, it should be done in a manner that
does not alter the architectural or historical character of the building.
Prohibited
Front porches, stoops, patios and steps that are important to the building's style and development shall
not be altered or removed; if in need of replacement, see above Required section. See also Section IV
B. Access for Handicapped or Disabled Persons.
Not Recommended
Original porch details should not be replaced with materials representing a different period or style from
the original.
Page 10 of 26
E. MECHANICAL SERVICES
The majority of the structures within the district have oil or gas heat, and have brick chimneys through
the roof. Some houses have one or two window air conditioners.
Required
Required mechanical systems shall be placed in areas that will result in the least possible alteration of
the structural integrity and physical appearance of the building.
Recommended
Solar collectors and TV dishes should be placed in the rear of the property and shielded by shrubbery
and landscaping. Window air conditioners and exhaust fans should be installed at the rear or an
inconspicuous side window. Original lighting fixtures should be utilized whenever possible.
Prohibited
Holes shall not be cut through walls or roofs in areas that can be seen from the street to accommodate
air conditioners or other mechanical equipment.
Not Recommended
Exterior electrical and telephone cables should not be attached to the street elevations of the building.
III. NEW CONSTRUCTION
New construction includes any new building or structure built within the boundaries of the historic
district, or any new addition to an existing building. New construction should be designed considering
the appearance, scale, styles, and setbacks of the other buildings in the neighborhood. New work may
be contemporary or may suggest motifs from historic buildings in the district.
A. HEIGHT AND PROPORTION
The majority of the structures in the district are two stories in height, and have square or rectangular
plans. There are several houses that have "L" or "T" shaped or rambling ground plans.. There are a
few single story cottages and one and one and a half story bungalows. The most prevalent facade
proportions are: 1:1 and 1:2, height to width ratios.
Required
The height of a new structure and its height to width proportions shall be consistent with adjacent
buildings in the district. The building height shall be no greater than that of the tallest existing structure
and no less than that of the lowest existing structure in the same block. Facade proportion shall be
established by permitting no structure with a facade wider or narrower than those existing in the same
block. Additions to existing buildings shall be related in height and proportion to the existing structure.
Recommended
Design of new construction should be compatible in character and mood to the building or
neighborhood.
Prohibited
Additions that would add new height or change the existing fagade of a building and change its scale
and architectural character shall not be constructed.
Page 11 of 26
Not Recommended
New stories should not be added nor existing stories be removed which would destroy important
architectural details' features, and spaces of the building. Any style or period of architecture that is
incompatible with the existing should not be permitted in the new additions.
B. BUILDING MATERIALS
Wall materials.in the district range from brick, stucco, wood clapboard and shingles, and aluminum,
vinyl and fiberboard/composite siding.
Required
Exterior materials used on a new structure shall be compatible in scale, texture, and color (as pertains to
masonry) with adjacent structures. Materials used on an addition to an existing structure shall relate to
the existing or original materials of that structure. Also, as much of the original structure as possible
shall be retained so that the addition could be removed without damage to the basic structure and
appearance of the building.
Recommended
Alternative or composite siding may be used when it is the only feasible alternative. This siding should
be compatible with the original size and style and with the materials of other buildings in the district.
Prohibited
Inappropriate materials such as asbestos, asphalt, cast stone, or artificial brick shall not be used.
Not Recommended
Glass blocks should not be used. Concrete block should not be used for anything other than the
foundations.
C. SHEDS AND 'ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
Required
Sheds and accessory structures (gazebos, decks, doghouses, playhouses, fountains and small reflecting
pools, outdoor sculpture, children's play equipment, etc.) shall be located at the rear of the property and
as unobtrusively as possible while preserving historical relationships between the buildings, landscape
features, and open spaces. Proportions and materials shall conform to those required for new
construction.
Recommended
Accessory building designs should be compatible in character and mood to the residence and the
neighborhood.
Prohibited
Prefabricated metal sheds shall not be used.
Not Recommended
Prefabricated wood composition sheds should not be used unless they conform to all other guidelines
and standards.
Page 12 of 26
IV. SAFETY AND BUILDING CODES
A. BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS
Required
Building code requirements shall be complied with in such a manner that the existing character of the
building is preserved.
Recommended
Local building code officials should be consulted to investigate alternative life safety measures that will
preserve the architectural integrity of the structure. Variances for historic properties should be
investigated.
Prohibited
Construction of new stairways and elevators that would alter important architectural features and spaces
is prohibited.
Not Recommended
Fire prevention equipment should not damage the appearance or fabric of the building.
B. ACCESS FOR HANDICAPPED OR DISABLED PERSONS
Typical Accessibility Solutions:
Install handrails.
Vertical or inclined lift.
Regrade area around entrance.
Portable or fixed ramp.
V. GENERAL
A. Buildings in the district should not be demolished except where a building poses a threat to the
public safety, and demolition is the only alternative. Documentation of interior and exterior features of
the original buildings, especially homes rated as historically significant, is encouraged. Measured
drawings and photographs may be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for safekeeping
and future reference.
B. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required before moving any building or structure. The moving of
a building within, out of, or into the district is discouraged; however, moving is preferred to demolition.
Buildings incompatible with existing structures in the historic district shall be prohibited.
C. Any rehabilitation work shall not be such as to change a building to a style dated previous to its
original style.
D. In planning rehabilitation projects, an architect or contractor experienced in preservation should be
consulted.
E. There shall be a liaison committee consisting of five (5) property owners in the district. The
committee's responsibility will be to work with the residents of the district and the Historic Preservation
Page -13 -of -26
Commission (See Appendix D).
F. All guidelines will be reviewed and updated, on the recommendation of the liaison committee, every
five years after the two-year first review, with ongoing consideration and respect given to Temple Beth -
El's exemption with regard to demolition or removal Certificates of Appropriateness.
G. In the case of structures located within the district, which are designated individually as Landmarks,
the most restrictive guidelines shall apply.
H. Existing easements and codicils in property owners' abstracts shall remain in effect.
I. There is excepted from the general provisions of paragraph A and B of Section V. General, a partial
exception for the future property acquisitions and uses by Temple Beth -El, 305 W. Madison Street,
South Bend, Indiana. Temple Beth -El is currently located on the east half of the block bordered by
Madison, Lafayette, Marion and William streets. The west half of this block is within the confines of
the Chapin Park Local Historic District. Temple Beth -El currently owns, through a trust, a lot in the
west half of this block and may acquire in the future other lots in the west half of this block for the
purposes of additional buildings, grounds or parking for expansion of its campus. Temple Beth -El and
its trusts shall maintain any structures or property in the west half of aforesaid blocks consistent with
these guidelines unless and until Temple Beth -El decides to demolish any structures or buildings. In the
event that Temple Beth -El wishes to use such land in the west half of the block for Temple purposes, it
shall notify the Historic Preservation Commission and seek a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
removal of any buildings or structures in the designated area. Such Certificates of Appropriateness will
not be denied nor unreasonably delayed if Temple Beth -El follows the demolition or removal
procedures set forth in this paragraph. Upon grant of said Certificate of Appropriateness by Historic
Preservation Commission, Temple Beth -El may demolish or provide for removal of said buildings.
Temple Beth -EI may demolish the structures) and clear the land, provided that first the structures, be
offered for sale and relocation, and publicly advertised at a price of One Dollar ($1.00) with the
relocation expenses to be borne by the buyer. The structure shall be offered for sale and relocation for a
period of not less than one hundred eighty (180) days. This time period may be extended by up to an
additional sixty days (60) at the request of the Historic Preservation Commission or the Chapin Park
Neighborhood Association Board. This paragraph shall not constitute a waiver of any of the zoning or
building code sections of the South Bend Municipal Code applicable to these properties. This waiver
will only apply to Temple Beth -El while it owns the property. This waiver does not apply to any other
properties in the district.
VI. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
Enforcement of the preservation guidelines and standards for the historic district is made possible in the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of South Bend, ordinance No. 5565-73, as amended and the Historic
Preservation Commission's Preservation Plan.
The Historic Preservation Commission may petition the Building Commissioner to use the legal means
available to him/her to force the maintenance and/or repair of any building or structure within the
historic district in accordance with the intent of this ordinance.
This ordinance, however, does not prevent the ordinary maintenance and repair of any building or
structure which does not involve a change in any exterior feature, nor does it prevent the reconstruction,
alteration, demolition, or moving of any building or structure which the Building Commissioner or
other official has determined to be a hazard to public safety.
Page -14 of -2E -
Property owners wishing to do, or have done, any work affecting the exterior of their building or land
must apply directly to the Historic Preservation Commission on the form prescribed by the Commission
(see Appendix A). The Historic Preservation Commission shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness
before commencement of any construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition or moving of any
house or structure within the historic district boundaries (see Appendix A). The Historic Preservation
Commission will accept applications for Certificate of Appropriateness only from the property owner.
In making its determination, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider three factors: first,
appropriateness of the proposed work to the preservation of the building and district; second, the
detriment to the public welfare if the proposed work is permitted even though it is not deemed
appropriate; third, the potential hardship that the denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness would
cause the applicant.
Where the Historic Preservation Commission deems it necessary, the commission may petition the
Common Council for a temporary delay in the issuance of the required permit(s) for proposed
construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition, or moving for the purpose of preparing an historic
preservation plan for a building or district. Such a request shall be for a specified period of time. In no
case may the delay granted by the Common Council exceed one (1) year, but the Commission may
petition the Common Council for a continuance of any such delay in accordance with the same
procedure as for the initial petition.
The Commission will review the application and either issue a Certificate of Appropriateness or else
deny the application, stating in writing the reasons for such denial. Upon such denial the applicant may
appeal to the Common Council.
VII. MINIMUM MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
All Landmarks and all contributing structures located in an historic district shall be preserved from
decay and deterioration, and shall be maintained in good repair and kept structurally sound. The owner
or other person having charge or control of Landmarks and property in an historic district shall not
allow or permit deterioration from defects or conditions which, in the judgment of the commission,
produce a detrimental effect on the character of the district as a whole or the life and character of the
Landmark, structure or property in question, including but not limited to:
A. Deterioration of exterior walls or other vertical supports causing conditions such as splitting,
leaning, buckling, crumbling, visible cracking or similar conditions;
B. Deterioration of roofs and other horizontal members causing conditions such as sagging, splitting,
buckling, crumbling, holes, missing shingles or similar conditions;
C. Deterioration of external chimneys causing such conditions as listing, settling, bulging, crumbling,
holes, loose or missing materials or similar conditions;
D. The deterioration or crumbling of exterior plasters or mortar;
E. The ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs and foundations, including broken windows
and doors;
F. The peeling of paint, rotting, holes and other forms of decay;
G. The lack of maintenance of surrounding environments such as fences, gates, sidewalks, steps, signs,
accessory structures and landscaping;
H. The deterioration of any feature so as to create, or permit the creation of, any hazardous or unsafe
condition or conditions.
Page -15 of -26
The commission shall give notice to the owner or person in charge of the structure, by certified or
registered mail, of each specific instance of failure to maintain or repair. A copy of such notice shall be
sent to the Code Enforcement Department. The owner or person in charge of such structure shall have
twenty (20) days to respond in writing by identifying specifically the corrective or remedial steps to be
taken. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be required for such repair unless such repair results in
a change in the design, form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, location or
external appearance of any structure or part thereof. In the latter circumstance, a Certificate of
Appropriateness shall be required (HPC Policy; adopted 12-16-91).
VIII. EMERGENCY REPAIR PROVISION
In the event of any catastrophe causing serious structural damage, the following corrective actions are
suggested.
Contact the Historic. Preservation Commission offices for advice and to see if a C of A is
necessary. Repair work with the existing materials would not require a C of A. In-kind
replacements of severely damaged material would be able to be approved by the Commission staff
within a day.
Page -16 of 2(
Location Budget as of 12-31-2005
Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 11-30-2005.
Fund 001 County General for 01-01-2005 thru 12-31-2005
Loc 037 Historic Preservation
Account
Object
Description
11075
Deputy Director
000
General Gov T.
11309
Historic Preservation Admin.
000
General GovT.
10000
Totals r«.«r,..«.....,«.«r.r.......w.........w,...r.w
21030
Office Supplies
000
General GOVT.
0.00
22010
Gas Oil & Lubricants
35,356.75
000
General GovT.
& Motor Supplies
22120
Garage
000
General GovT.
20000
Totals rww�ww«wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwrrrwr:««rrr««««wwwwww:r
i
31070
Other Contractual Services
000
General GovT.
32020_
Travel
000
General GovT.
i
32050
Instruction & Training
000
I
General GovT.
32053
Public Relations
000
General GOVT.
32200
Telephone
000
General GovT.
I
32350
Postage
000
I
General GovT.
33010.
. Publication Of Legal Notices
T
000
I
I
General GovT.
User ID ksobecki .
Saint Joseph County
Unencumbered
Unexpended
Appropriation
Encumbrance
Expenditure
Balance/Percent
Balance/Percent
30,000.00
0.00
30,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
36,050.00
0.00
35,356.75
693.25
693.25
1.92
1.92
66,050.00
-0.00
65,356.75
693.25
693.25
1.05
1.05
2,512.09
0.00
2,274.73
237.36
237.36
9.45
9.45
500.00
0.00
499.81
0.19
0.19
•
0.04
0.04
700.00
0.00
700.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,712.09
0.00
3,474.54
237.55
237.55
6.40
6.40
72,193.00
22,367.00
48,635.23
1,190.77
23,557.77
1.65
32.63
500.00
0.00
450.18
49.82
49.82
9.96
9.96
400.00
0.00
400.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 ,
7,971.00
0.00
7,819.98
151.02
151.02
1.89
1.89
260.00
0.00
249.00
11.00
11.00
4.23
4.23
1,760.00
0.00
1,619.97
140.03
140.03
7.96
7.96
500.00
0.00
162.05
337.95
337.95
67.59
67.59
01/22/2006 11:50 AM
Page 80
Location Budget as of 12-31-2005
Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 11-30-2005.
Fund 001 County General for 01-01-2005 thru 12-31-2005
Loc 037 Historic Preservation
Account
Object Description
33100 Printing
000
General GovT.
37100
Auto Lease
000
General Gov'r.
39010
Dues & Subscription
000
General GovT.
39600
Refunds, Awards & Indemnities
000
General GovT.
39750
Data Processing
000
General Gov T.
39980
Funds W/O Approp.
000
General GovT.
30000
Totals «...«..,«« ...............«.....«....,,,«....,«
44250
Office Machines
000
General GovT.
45510
Furniture & Fixtures
000
General Gov T.
40000
Totals •«««««•« ................«««««..«,...«....,....
Location Totals .,.«« .................««..................,.««.«.
Investment Accounts
Transfer Accounts
Saint Joseph County
User ID ksobecki 01/22/2006 11:50 AM Page 81
Unencumbered
Unexpended
Appropriation
Encumbrance
Expenditure
Balance/Percent
Balance/Percent
18,716.00
5,528.00
13,100.10
87.90
5,615.90
0.47
30.01
500.00
0.00
368.68
131.32
131.32
26.26
26.26
650.00
0.00
555.02
94.98
94.98
14.61
14.61
0.00
0.00
27,339.00
(27,339.00)
(27,339.00)
0.00
0.00
70.00
0.00
55.30
14.70
14.70
21.00
21.00
0.00
0.00
625.00
(625.00)
(625.00)
0.00
0.00
103,520.00
27,895.00
101,379.51
(25,754.51)
2,140.49
(24.88)
2.07
800.00
0.00
473.50
326.50
326.50
40.81
40.81
3,042.00
0.00
3,042.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,842.00
0.00
3,515.50
326.50
326.50
8.50
8.50
177,124.09
27,895.00
173,726.30
(24,497.21)
3,397.79
(13.83)
1.92
0.00
0.00
173,726.30
User ID ksobecki 01/22/2006 11:50 AM Page 81
2005 State of the County Address
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND AND SAINT
JOSEPH COUNTY
Commissioners/Officers
Mary Jane Chase, Secretary -
Martha Choitz, Vice President
Catherine D. Hostetler
Timothy S. Klusczinski (term began 12/2005)
John H. Oxian, Treasurer (term expired 12/2005)
Lynn A. Patrick, President
Gerald UdJak
Diane Wroble-Illes
Todd Zeiger
Joann Sporleder, Architectural Historian
Staff:
Wayne Doolittle, Inspector
Julie Schutte, Assistant Director
Catherine D. Hostetler, Director
During the 2005 fiscal year the Historic Preservation Commission successfully concluded
in March the process of creating the Chapin Park Local Historic District. In October, the
HPC with strong local support and involvement successfully designated the Barn on
Adams Road as a St. Joseph County Local Landmark. HPC administered four grants,
three for the resurvey of the City of South Bend, Resurvey for St. Joseph County and the
printing of the County Survey and one for the Northern Indiana Historical Society for the
restoration of the Navarre Cabin in Leeper Park. HPC co-sponsored 5 workshops with
Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana; these were practical, hands on workshops on
window and siding restoration and proper paint application. HPC's office space was
improved to allow for better public access to the reference and research materials in the
Commissioners' Conference Room. The Commission's Website was moved to the
County server and updated to provide online forms and better service to the public. The
HPC worked with MACOG to digitize the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures in
St. Joseph County for the GIS system. In May the HPC hosted the annual Southold
Preservation Awards Breakfast at the Palais Royale with guest speaker, Will Tippens,
who spoke on Adantive Reuses of Historic Buildin2s. The 2005 awards were given to St.
Patrick's Roman Catholic Church for Preservation, the County Commissioners and
Engineering Department for the Jefferson Street Bridge for Rehabilitation and to Mr.
Douglas Gibson for Restoration of his home on Hudson. The event had over 125
attendees including local vendors specializing in home restoration. The HPC Office also
added computer software programs for public use concerning historic house paint. The
program includes digital photographs, color copies, disc storage and use of the program
for a $20.00 fee. The HPC actively participated and supported in the Granger Paths
initiative, provided Landmark information for the Gumwood Road project in the County
and successfully supported Landmark homeowners in the County against spot re -zoning.
In December, the Commission amended its by-laws to allow for broader community
participation through an Advisory Board and non -Commission membership on its
committees. The Historic Preservation Commission thanked John H. Oxian for his 32
years of dedication to Historic Preservation.
Assistant Director's Report
December 19, 2005 — January 23, 2006
December 20th & 21St: Meeting minutes from December 19th meeting.
December 29th: Meeting with Todd Zeiger, Mario Mariani, Larry Magliozi, and
other members of South Bend's Community Development Division about
including historic districts in the City Plan's Land -Use maps. The City already
has much of our historic district information from recent projects with the City
GIS Manager.
January 2"d: Holiday
January 3rd: Taylor's Field Proof I and Lincolnway East Proof I review and
revisions; re -shot photos for booklets' building inventory.
January 4th: Met with Thomas Thompson regarding C of A for 1325 E Wayne.
January 5th: Review and Revision of Chapin Park Building Inventory Proof.
January 6th: Taylor's Field Proof II and Lincolnway West Proof II reviewed and
revised; continued Chapin Park Building Inventory Proof revision.
January 9th; Chapin Park Building inventory continued; Chapin Park history.
January 10th: Re -shot photos for Chapin Park building inventory; Reviewed
Taylor's Field Proof III and sent revisions; Chapin Park history revision.
January 12th: Revision of Chapin Park Guidebook Proof I and revision of history.
January 13th: Revision of Taylor's Field Proof IV and revision of Lincolnway East
Proof III.
January 16th: Holiday
January 17th — 20th: Revision of Chapin Park Proof II, Chapin Park history fact
checking and revision, Review of Taylor's Field Proof V and Lincolnway East
Proof IV.
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-Illes, Martha Choitz [Vice -President]
Staff Present: Catherine Hostetler [Director], Julie Schutte [Assistant Director], Shawn Peterson [Legal
Counsel], Wayne Doolittle [Inspector]
Also Present: John Peddycord, Patricia Primmer, Marcel Lebbin, Roland Kelly, Robert Huddleston,
Bernard Diedrich, Bob Yapp, Don Sporleder
I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL: Lynn Patrick called the meeting to order at 7:30 pin.
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 HFC 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: Ices, 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 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 fa9ade.
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 2046 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
7
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 23`d,
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 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]
10
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.
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 I and it
was prepared by Mekus Studios out of Chicago, Illinois. It's a multi -page document, with the last
portion of which is a lot of colored photograph of the structure in question. They were contracted by
Alderwoods Group to evaluate the building. There's a table of contents attached. It doesn't take
long... realize that this particular structure is not a mom-and-pop fixer -upper. It's going to involve
considerable effort on the part of the property owner or anybody, any third party who wants to
rehabilitate this building. If you would, in that particular study ... She's informed me that it's not in
that...
Shawn Peterson: I'd like to add, as part of the round -about discussions with the city, they have
indicated that they will not be pursuing any improvements on the round -about for which funds will be
given to the cemetery.
Catherine Hostetler: All the activity will be on the west side and they've already purchased the
property that they wanted from Highland. At the time we were writing this, it wasn't known, but we
know this now. So you don't have...
John Peddycord: There is a map and we're going to have it here and we will submit it as part of the
record as soon as Scott finds it. It clearly shows, and you're correct. Ms. Hostetler is right ... It clearly
shows that the round -about or what ever you want to call these new contraptions that the cities and
counties are using now. I love'em. Don't get me wrong. I think they work quite well. It is going to
be ... occupy the existing intersection and most of the land that's on the south east corner of the
Highland cemetery, which as you know is on the northwest corner of Lathrop and Portage Ave. In
effect our position is: we will not realize any monies from the construction of that round -about as
presently contemplated by the City.
So... and now they know, and staff obviously seems to be recognizing that we will not be realizing
any monies from the construction of that round -about by the city., I did not learn from the city, I
wasn't even able to find the right person, to find out when that round -about might even be
constructed.
We were under the impression based on a reading the legal descriptions and applying those to the plot
maps that the county uses that most of that triangle area at the northwest corner of Lathrop and
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
5
Portage, would be used along with the existing intersection to accommodate the round -about was
owned by the city itself anyway, but I'll yield to Ms. Hostetler's comment that whatever they needed ,
from Highland cemetery, they've already obtained.
The staff report also indicates, as you may know when you read it that `other uses for the building
would be able to support the building economically." We don't believe there in any factual basis for
that conclusion of the staff. There's none attached to the staff report, and we're going to address in
more detail later through our two appraisers and some other comments that I'll be making. Among J
other reasons -that we do -not agree with that statement is -that the property in question is not zoned — -- — —
-- properly for many of the uses suggested by the staff. It is zoned A-1 Residential in the city. Uses
named by the staff would require at minimum an O -Office or even a C -Commercial zoning. I've
been doing re -zonings in the city and the county for 35 years and I can assure you that you would
have considerable difficulties convincing the city counsel, let alone, or the Planning Commission and
the City Counsel to rezone this site to accommodate as restaurant for example with a C -Office zoning
or something of that nature. Usually, those types of rezoning only occur if there is a contiguous C -
zoning district or use next to it or something like that. There is none. It would be unadulterated spot -
zoning to have an O -Office there or a C Zoning District, a one -lot district. Secondly, as all of you
know that have driven down Portage Avenue; Portage Avenue is a very narrow right-of-way and
although the neighborhood ... is a rather nice neighborhood ... it has stayed rather established
neighborhood, it is definitely not a growth area in the city. And thirdly, the building is adjacent to
and probably deemed in the eyes of most members of the public as part of the cemetery. I would
suggest to you ... and of course in addition to that there is a second cemetery across the street from the
property. I would suggest to you that anyone who might consider putting an upscale restaurant on
that site, would be deterred by the presence of those two cemeteries.
We also have to take serious exception, for ... at least for the purposes of the record, to the statement
in the staff report that "this is a case of demolition by neglect." The building was built in 1900, so it's
over 100 years old. We only acquired the building in 1996. It was owned by a different company
previously. We can assure you that we have not neglected the building for purposes of obtaining a
demolition. Instead, we do agree with the statement in the report that the building does not simply
serve our needs. In fact we have absolutely no need whatsoever for the building. I already mentioned
that we acquired the property in 1996. We believe the building has been neglected for decades. We
can't dispute that; however, we dispute the fact ... err... the suggestion that we are intentionally
neglecting the building. Rather what the real situation is: it's cost prohibitive for us to restore it. We
cannot under any scenario justify investing the monies needed to rehabilitate the building for our use
or for anybody's use.
The staff report also says that the building may "not be beyond repair." Theoretically, any building is
not beyond repair if you've got enough money to throw at it. I mean, if you've got millions you
could probably rebuild anything. But, I would suggest to you that that's not the issue or the standard
before this Commission. You use a different standard and your standard is based on the economic
feasibility of rehabilitating a historic structure. I'm looking at particular your 1992 standard that I
understood was adopted by a prior board in 1992. It tracks very much the standard used in the 1977
State Statute and there has to be some economic viability before you can insist that a building be
rehabilitated, and I would submit to you based on what ... in particular... the appraisers are going to
share with you in a few minutes this particular building because of its location - the three rules of real
estate being: location, location, location — I think the two gentlemen who are going to speak in a
minute, are easily going to be able to demonstrate that this building, even if you did restore it, even if
you had $1.8 million to restore it, $1 million to restore it, or $800,0000 to restore it, it's not going to
be economically viable. Your standards, I won't bore you with those, I assume you're somewhat
familiar with those, but they do basically say, it has to be economically viable, and this entity, or this
structure, simply cannot be made economically viable.
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
R
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 fmd
that they estimated the costs of rehabilitation to be cost prohibitive i.e., $1.8 million. The study is
also supported by a separate roofing estimate. Alone, just the one line item within the Mekus study
was a roof replacement, and we have, we're distributing to you now, or Pat is, an independent roof
replacement estimate from Bennett and Brosseau Roofing, Inc., of Champaign, Illinois, I think their
located in three cities in Illinois, dated January 8`�, 2004. You'll note that that roofing estimate to . -
___ ._ — -- --- -replace that roof, and I -presume it's with a not the real slate roof, -but the-- what do you -call it --plastic--------
slate
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 1.
think their figures may be a little on the high side, I would yield to that suggestion. They are after all
a Chicago architecture firm. I presume they're familiar with their cost in Chicago. I would suggest
and wouldn't doubt if someone could show me that those estimates may be a little on the high side
because in fact they're based on Chicago prices, and I presume South Bend prices wouldn't be as
high. We would again ask that that roofing estimate that's being routed to you be made a part of the
Commission's record. And again, we don't think it varies significantly from the roof replacement
figure used in the Mekus study. The Mekus study in our opinion is self-explanatory. It, as you might
except, so I'm not going to go into detail on it, other than to state that virtually every system in the
building, and I did have the opportunity to tour the building personally with Mr. Diedrich and Mr.
Huddleston, and I think you can't help but walk through the building, and I'm sure even Mr. Zeiger
would agree with this, virtually every system in the building has to be replaced. The complete HVAC
has to be replaced; the electrical has to be replaced; the roof has to be replaced; the plumbing has to
be replaced; the windows and doors I think even have to, some of them have to be replaced, maybe
not all of them, but most of the ones we looked at we thought needed to be replaced. And, even if we
assume arguendo that the building could be rehabilitated for less than the $1.8 million, the building
still has to be economically viable and I would submit to you that it has to be economically viable as
determined be a qualified appraiser. And that's the state standard, you're standard doesn't vary from
that much. You don't talk about as determined by a state appraiser or certified appraiser, but I think
it's implicit in your standards that you have to have some evidence of economic viability. You can't
just arbitrarily say, "No, it's economically viable," and then move on. You have to have evidence of
that. With reference to that, we have had the building inspected, examined closely and appraised, by
not one but,two local respected real estate appraisers, Mr. Diedrich and Mr. Huddleston, and at this
time I would, before they get into their testimony or comments concerning the thing, I would like to
present to you a copy of their, a tablet ... of their respective resumes again for the record and for no
other reason. Many of you may even know Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Diedrich.
Again; inasmuch as they've naw 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]
h
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]
91
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 "umber 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]
9
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.
Johri 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 comer_of the roe I think historical) its deemed apart of the cemetery and obviously rt
property,, rty,.. Y� p ry y• --------
was intended to be apart 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 101 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 1 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
corning because we have sidewalks that are pitched into the foundation. The foundation walls do not
need to be excavated as the new sidewalks and re -grading around the perimeter of the foundation will
take care of any drainage problem. The basement is relatively dry anyway. The chimney is clay tile
lined and with my magnifying glass and flashlight, I was able to see that it is in good shape and the
mortar joints even look good inside the chimney. Repointing is minor. Spot -pointing and repairing, I
figure $8,000. Parging, the cementitious coating on the addition's brick foundation, around $2,000.
Very minor. Stucco repairs around $8,000. Sidewalk replacement — three foot wide by two inches
deep, 200 feet at $40 per square foot. That's really, really expensive. I figured it at $8,000.
- — Exterior wood and painting. While there is some rot on the front porch beadboard ceiling and
ancillary trim, the overall condition of the exterior wood trim elements are in very good condition.
Limited replacement of the wood and architectural epoxies are needed. There are some places where
wood should be replaced, but in most of the places where we have wood damage, architectural .
epoxies in historic preservation are the preferred way according to the Secretary of the Interior's
standards for rehabilitation. The entire building needs to be re -painted. Painting will include removal
of all paint from all wood surfaces and thorough scraping and paint removal of the stucco elements.
These numbers also include an ADA ramp. Now the building needs a way for handicapped folks to
get into the building and a ramp is included. Wood repairs -$10,000; exterior painting - $15,000 —
down to the bare wood with any number of painters that I've worked with and trained all day long;
ADA Ramp - $10,000. That's a number that I've used many, many times and even in Chicago to get
an ADA ramp.
Windows and storms. All of the original windows are in fully restorable condition. These windows
can be made more energy efficient than replacements for comparable or less money. Complete
restoration includes paint and putty removal, weather-stripping, and new combination wood storms.
Total costs $13,000. HVAC, electrical and plumbing: complete re -wiring; all new plumbing and
fixtures; all new heating and air conditioning system including an ADA accessible bathroom come in:
wiring at $7,000, plumbing at $18,000, HVAC at $15,000 with all new ductwork, a high -efficiency
furnace that will handle all that building and central air will come in at $15,000 probably less that.
I'm being a little bit on the high side. Total of HVAC, electrical and plumbing at $40,000.
Interior Finishes. The original plaster for the most part is in very good condition, and because this is
a historic landmark we want to try to retain as many of the original finishes as possible. Now plaster
repair includes some past water damage, some cracking, reattaching plaster using plaster washers to
the original lathe underneath, channels being cut out to run new wiring, plumbing, those kinds of
things that normally have to be done. A channel will be cut out between two studs and to go in there
to replaster that up and do all of the crack repairs and cover all of the original plaster when it is done
with a product called Nu -wall, which is a product that encapsulates all of the plaster surface. It
permanently bridges over all of the hairline cracks and creates a new plaster -like surface. So that's
the methodology. Flooring - $8,000; that I figured at 3,200 square feet, which is high, very high at
$2.50 a square foot, $8,000; woodwork repair - $6,000; plaster repairs - $8,000. Total of all repairs to
put this building into use, ADA compliable, completely rehabed and ready for an end use: $154,000.
I always put in a 20% contingency. That's another $30,800 for a total rehab cost of $184,800. Now,
if you take into consideration that there's not a kitchen in here. It has the original kitchen, which is
just fabulous. I mean it is beautiful and in excellent condition. New countertops, but let's just say for
the sake of discussion that you are going to put in deluxe, brand new kitchen, master bathroom suite
with a master bathroom decked out to the nines and a huge lighting package for historic lighting on
the property. That would add another $70,000 to the price. You would be at $224,000 plus a 20
percent contingency. A total worst-case scenario, absolute drop -dead worst-case scenario for this
property: $268,000.
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
14
Shawn Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Yapp. I will move that this report that he had that was attached to
the staff report be submitted into evidence as an exhibit along with the staff report if I have not
already moved as such. And, for proper clarification, how long have you been doing these types of
renovations or estimates for historic properties. -
Bob Yapp: Thirty-one years.
Shawn Peterson: Thank you. John, do you have any questions for Mr. Yapp?
John Peddycord: No, may I assume the original was a signed copy. My copy is not ... a signed copy
for the record. You can take mine.
Bob Yapp: Yeah, I'll sign yours.
John Peddycord: I guess I do have one question though. You indicated, you don't mind if I ask, you
indicated and if I could have another copy, that if you put a kitchen in this thing and you use the .
materials that you describe, and you added another twenty percent contingency for that, you come up
with a total of $268,000, worst-case scenario. Right?
Bob Yapp: Correct. That includes a brand-new deluxe kitchen, two bathrooms, one being a master
bath and the other being a handicapped accessible bathroom on the first floor, and an entire historic
reproduction lighting package.
John Peddycord: And, that's your estimate at $268,000. That's consistent with a single-family
residential use of this facility, correct?
Bob Yapp: No, that's commercial.
John Peddycord: Oh, commercial. You realize the property is not zoned commercial.
Bob Yapp: I understand that, but I always, when I do a inspection of this type, I look at the worst-
case. What the possible end use could be if it was a commercial use and then of course, if it's straight
residential you are going to be way less than that.
John Peddycord: But, again you recognize that's not zoned properly for commercial use.
Bob Yapp: I have no idea.
John Peddycord: And, could someone use it for residential purposes if they did this type of repair of
$268,000?
Bob Yapp: Absolutely.
John Peddycord: Did you observe the building as it relates to its surroundings?
Bob Yapp: Yes, and in fact, I grew up in a neighborhood in Des Moines of $600,000 houses, homes
that all backed -up to a cemetery.
John Peddycord: No, but this particular cemetery, this particular structure is not only next to a
cemetery it's next to a intersection that is soon going to have a round -about. Have you seen the
diagram of the round -about?
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
15
Bob Yapp: Yes, I have. I'm not an appraiser, but I am a historic property developer and I know
properties when I see them and this property is highly adaptable to reuse in just about every way you
could think of. I just purchased anew home blocks from there, and it just appraised for $363,000
yesterday.
John Peddycord: Do you know of anybody or any entity that would purchase this house or even have
it gifted to them and invest $268,000 in it and use it today?
Bob Yapp: Yes. Absolutely_ __
John Peddycord: Who?
Bob Yapp: I have to give you on record who they are?
John Peddycord: Yeah, I want you, I asked you. Do you know of any entity or person that would
invest $268,000 even if the property were gifted to them?
Shawn Peterson: He already answered the question, or at least that it is likely.
Bob Yapp: It is highly likely ... Yes, in fact I just purchased my home several blocks from there.
Shawn Peterson: Okay, so ... the next section is I would like Commissioner Zeiger in his capacity with
Historic Landmarks, his different hat, and you surveyed the property, is you could provide a brief
summary as far as your findings of the. property. As far as it's condition and what you experienced.
Todd Zeiger: I, excuse me, I'm sorry, I was not prepared for that question. I'll defer to Bob. He's on
staff obviously with Historic Landmarks and has done an outstanding job of representing our views
on this property so my views really support and mimic what Bob has entered into the record for'
Historic Landmarks views on this property. I have toured it.
Shawn Peterson: At this point, we will open it from questions from the Commissioners to any of our
witnesses that we've had at this point including the staff and various attorneys for each side and if
they have any questions of the testimony, we'll be able to do that at this time.
Todd Zeiger: I have a clarification question for you. Obviously, I'm abstaining from the vote. I have
a number of questions though as a Commission member I would like to ask.
Shawn Peterson: You should abstain from the discussions immediately preceding the vote. That's
that point at which you would abstain...
Todd Zeiger: I can ask questions now?
Shawn Peterson: You may ask questions from any point of view.
Mary Jane Chase: You have owned the property for ten years, when that was purchased was the
property examined as to the condition?
John Peddycord: I'm sure it was, because in fact we noted_ earlier that Mr. Diedrich appraised the
property. He had appraised not only the gatehouse but he appraised the entire cemetery. Did you
not?
Bernard Diedrich: Not the gravesites.
23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
TZ
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 thankyoufor 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]
20
Todd Zeiger: I think that calls into question the validity of thisreport 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 withreasonable 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 forwhat_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]
9. The historical, architectural and cultural significance weighs in favor of disallowing the
demolition of the Historic Landmark.
10. The substantial public benefit of keeping the Historic Landmark weighs in favor of disallowing
the demolition of the Historic Landmark.
11. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by substantial evidence that the current condition or state of
deterioration of the structure is due to factors outside the Petitioner's (or its predecessor's)
— -control.------ - - - -- ---- ----
12. Petitioner has failed to show by substantial evidence that historically appropriate renovation or
rehabilitation is economically impractical. The Petitioner's evidence on this factor is outweighed
by the Report of Bob Yapp, Community Preservation Specialist, which is more credible than the
Applicant's submission. The basic condition of the structure appears to be sound and the
architecture is significant. The total cost of rehabilitation is probably less than $200,000, and not
over one million dollars as the Petitioner claims.
13. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it has fully considered and investigated all reasonable
alternatives to demolition. Among these alternatives are sale of the structure, the rental of the
structure as a non -denominational chapel or gathering place for.families after funerals or
internment; the lease or rental to third parties, among other potential uses.
14. Petitioner has not fully investigated the availability of grant or public funds to assist with
rehabilitation.
15. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate and allowing the structure to remain would cause it a
substantial economic hardship.
These are the findings set forth in the denial that was submitted to the Commission. The Chair will
now entertain a motion on whether to approve or deny the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Lynn Patrick: I will make a motion. I move that we deny the Certificate of Appropriateness 2005-
1028 [renumber 2006-0123, as of 23 January 2006] regarding the Gatehouse, based on the evidence .
presented in the findings of fact and in the other comments made here this evening.
Timothy Klusczinski: Second.
Shawn Peterson: It is a motion on the floor, it has been seconded, to issue a denial of the Certificate
of Appropriateness based on the evidence presented to today and in making the findings of fact,
which I presume are set forth in the document I just read, including'all of their, and based upon the
evidence submitted, those findings and that denial in the form submitted. Correct? And, that has been
seconded? [Consents were given.] All in favor? [Six ayes were given; no nays were heard.]
23 January Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] 2 6
As we go around, there is a majority to deny, please state the reasons set forth for your denial. We
will go around the table.
Catherine Hostetler: The reason for denial is because I believe there is an effective adaptive reuse of
this, and that would be an interdenominational chapel and all the items mentioned here in the
Certificate of Appropriateness denial report. I also found that the C of A application independently
violated both the B standards the Historic Preservation Plan standards.
Timothy Klusczinski: Costs are pivotal to the petitioner's argument for demolition. I question the
validity -of those figures and subsequently the request for demolition based upon those estimates.
Approving a C of A is truly the death -knell for the structure and any possible use to sustain it. I
cannot agree to that in good conscience. I also found that the C of A application independently,
violated both the B standards the Historic Preservation Plan standards.
Mary Jane Chase: I too feel that there is a use for an interdenominational chapel having been to so
many of them and you stand outside ... That has not been looked into. That is a partof the community
and it is a shame that something that is part of the community. I also found that the C of A
application independently violated both the B standards the Historic Preservation Plan standards.
Shawn Peterson: And for the record do you also include in your comments the form of denial?
Mary Jane Chase: All the comments state perfectly to back up my reasons.
Shawn Peterson: ... and just to backup, do you as well?
Timothy Klusczinski: Yes.
Lynn Patrick: I, Lynn Patrick, President of the Commission, deny this based on the staff report, the
findings of fact, testimony heard here tonight, evidence, personal tour and knowledge of this
structure. I also found that the C of A application independently violated both the B standards the
Historic Preservation Plan standards. Therefore, I move and we have voted to deny.
Jerry Ujdak: I vote for denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness, basically on the basis of this
document, on all the testimony given, and obviously, on all the findings of fact.
Shawn Peterson: So, you've proven the form of the document based upon the evidence for it.
Jerry Ujdak: Yes.
Joann Sporleder: I vote to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for all the reasons given in the
document here and because I believe that this particular structure is historical in its own right and has
value to the community; which far outweighs probably cost of renovation, and that it should be
maintained, and its loss would be inseparable to that particular site and to our community.
Shawn Peterson: Let the record show that the Commission has voted to deny this Certificate of
Appropriateness six to nothing with Todd Zeiger abstaining. Each member commented and
incorporated, agreed with the findings of fact set forth herein; and therefore, the form, as presented to
the Commission, is hereby approved. This concludes the portion of the meeting obtained with
Certificates of Appropriateness. Again, I would thank everyone who came and worked hard,-
presented
ard,presented evidence both for and against and under, we will provide you a Certificate of Denial in the
mail shortly thereafter this meeting... amount of three days or after you will have... [muffled
comments].
23 January Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] 217
John Peddycord: We should expect two or three days on the denial?
Shawn Peterson: The denial, yes, we'll submit it to you.
John Peddycord: Thank you for your time. I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone of you and I know
you are sincere in your convictions.
[Todd Zeiger reenters the room.]
Shawn Peterson: Having concluded the Certificates of Appropriateness section and that now taking
more than two hours, I will give it back to the President.
Lynn Patrick: Thank you.
B. LANDMARK (There were none to consider.)
C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. November 21, 2005
(There were none to consider.)
Catherine Hostetler moved to accept the minutes as presented. Mary Jane Chase seconded the
motion and it passed with 6-0-1 in favor. Timothy Klusczinski abstained.
2. December 19, 2005
Catherine Hostetler also moved to accept these minutes as presented. Tim Klusczinski seconded the
motion, and it too passed unanimously, 7-0 in favor.
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
Catherine Hostetler distributed the corrected 2005 year-end location report for the budget and
explained some of the presented numbers. No questions were received.
C. COMMITTEE REPORT
L President's Report
Lynn Patrick noted that the Nominating Committee had met and that Joann Sporleder'would give its
report. She also provided Commission Members and Staff the 2006 HPC Committee Appointments.
2. Nominating Committee
Joann Sporleder presented the slate of officers for 2006: Lynn Patrick, President; Todd Zeiger, Vice
President; Mary Jane Chase, Secretary; Tim Klusczinski, Treasurer. Joann moved to approve this
unanimous ballot. Tim Klusczinski seconded the motion. It passed unanimously, 7-0 in favor.
D. STAFF REPORTS
1. Director's Report
23 January Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] 28
Catherine passed out the upcoming HPC events, and noted that the Commission retreat is scheduled
for February 2"d with the location to be announced.
She also reported on the recent correspondence from South Bend's Community Development (CD),
which requests the demolition of the landmarked Burke Building, 1019 S. Michigan Avenue. There
will be a meeting scheduled to review the building and to meet with CD, the Urban Enterprise Assoc,
and the South Gateway Assoc. One interesting point to note is the recent sale of the vacant lot across
Garst Street from this building to Real Services.
- -- 2: Assistant Director's Report
Julie reported the progress of the three outstanding guidebooks, and announced that she is applying to
Graduate School for the Fall of 2006.
3. Legal Report
There was no report given. Open Door Law report still in progress.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Chapin Park Standards and Guidelines, Taylor's Field and LWE
(Report was already given under staff reports.)
V. NEW BUSINESS
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"d from 7 to 9 pm. The location had not been decided.
VL HEARING OF VISITORS
Don Sporleder noted that the AIA Northern Chapter will celebrate its 150`'' anniversary in 2007.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Catherine Hostetler moved to adjourn the meeting. Joann Sporleder seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously at 9:35 pm.
Attest:
A.
7 Secreta
Historic Preservation Commission
South Bend & Saint Joseph County
23 January Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] 29
Date