Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 2007Off' O SouTy - '''%° AGENDA OF THE JULY 16, 2007 4 4 .��,. COMMISSION MEETING 1865 Regular Meeting THIRTEETH FLOOR- ROOM 1308 County-City Building MONDAY, July 16, 2007 7:OOPM I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL _ II. PUBLIC HEARING A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 1. 1512 E. Wayne Street COA #2007-0705 B. LANDMARK H C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION-None- 111. REGULAR BUSINESS A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 18, 2007 B. TREASURER'S REPORT Location Report C. STAFF REPORTS 1. Correspondence 2. C of A Approvals 3. Directors Report aj 4. Assistant Director Report 5. Legal Counsel D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: 1. President's Report IV. OLD BUSINESS F"MM� V. NEW BUSINESS VI. HEARING OF VISITORS AND ADJOURNMENT Application - FOR - Certificate of Appropriateness Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana 46601 Mailing Address: County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana 46601 Phone: 574-235-9798 • Fax: 574-235-9578 • Email: historic@michiana.org Website: http://communitymichiana.org/historic/ A Certified Local Government OFFICE USE ONLY »»» DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX »»» OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received o?Od % Application Numbereg la4 % - v Past Reviews: [:] YES (Date of Last Review) NO Staff Approval authorized by: Title: Historic Commission Review Date: Ali 6� ;'da % Local Landmark [B<ocal Historic District (Name) ❑ National Landmark ❑ National Register District (Name) Certificate of Appropriateness: ❑ Denied E] Tabled F_� Sent To Committee ❑ Approved and Issued DATE Address of Property for proposed work: ✓/� UJAYt i- s j Street Nurf6er and Street Name Name of Property Owner(s): (Please Print) Sp (' t"-1/ -60 ST I I -11 Address of Property Owner(s): 15/2- E WAYNE . S. 73 . J- A� y hIC Contractor(s) Name: 1J 111 11Tr LN PE"i T�i4A/ 1 Contract Company Name: ' Contractor Address: City: Phone: Current Use of Building: SIA1641,6_ FrtM 1 Ly (Single Family - Multi -Family - Commercial - Government - Industrial - Vacant - etc.) Type of Building Construction: (Wood Frame - Brick - Stone - Steel - Concrete - Other) Proposed Work: In-kind (2 Landscape F)<l New E] Replacement (not in-kind) [:] Demolition (more than one box may be checked) Description of Proposed Work: WCC) lam.-rt/CF7 F_ E 1JL D� OP:�1.Q 0,P Owner/Contractor: Fax: e-mail sAt! L4`T/C14� SSE C��3AL ,'� (This o1ce will conmspond with o# one designee) 1 and/or Signature of Owner - Signature of Contractor - - APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE — i STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: July 6, 2007 Application Number: 2007-0705 Property Location: 1512 E. Wayne Street Property Owner: Sally Bostick Landmark or District Designation: E. Wayne Street Rating: Contributing STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: This Renaissance Revival was built in 1926. The first owner was Guy De Rhodes of DeRhodes-Yerrick Motor Company, a dealership for Dodge Brothers located at 222 N. Lafayette. Mr. De Rhodes used it as a rental property in the 1930s until its sale to Donald Adair in 1940. It has had about a dozen owner -occupants since 1940 and is currently owned by Sally Bostick, APPLICATION ITEMS: The owner wishes to erect a wood lattice fence along the east side of her house. It will be accessed at the rear of the house by a gate. Another fence will be erected on the west side between the house and garage. It will also have a gate. STANDARDS FOR EAST WAYNE STREET: B. Building site, Landscaping and accessories. Required: Major landscaping items, fencing, walkways, private yard lights, signs (house numbers) and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures such as gazebos, patio decks, fixed barbecue pits, swimming pools, tennis courts, greenhouses, new walls, fountains, fixed garden furniture, trellises and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from the public walkway. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. The fence will be low, obscured from view from the street by shrubbery and trees. The style of the fence is sympathetic to the architecture of the house Application for Certificate of Appropriateness. Owner: Sally Bostick 1512 E Wayne. St, South Bend, IN 1 1 1 I i 1 1 I I House 1512 E Wayne St Steps July 3, 2007 Garage Drive Sri` + •:��.. .' , � ;;.,� I r •:� �_: .. '{ .��'°S�I�T+ ..' 1j °uR-'��•.s � a .�,,`}�� ��j1 .. I.rhr..` Y� Y a. - �. � �. , �' v-•�F�__- '` �'{{ � ��+� ••tel ®® °!sem". ��► � 1��u: - �.' s +-= x � I a r I A 5 Aft pt " y 5 F � 1 �� ? k� v R••CR+f �. + 0.Y +� s ! ' 1 � Ayy4 tiY(�M>,( f��(.� 1. y�f{ l�} � , +'•� •�.5 3!� "v � `r I e to .. x'ati tq,t LLA 4P F � 1 �� ? k� v R••CR+f �. + 0.Y +� s ! ' 1 � Ayy4 tiY(�M>,( f��(.� 1. y�f{ l�} � , +'•� MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY June 18,2007- 13'h Floor Conference Room County — City Building, South Bend, Indiana Members Present: Todd Zeiger, JoAnn Sporleder, Timothy Klusczinski, Martha Choitz, Mary Jane Chase (arrived late) Members Absent: Jerry Ujdak, Lynn Patrick, Linda Riley Staff Present: Catherine Hostetler, Amy Herdman, Shawn Peterson Also Present: Pat Brown, Kevin O'Connor, Bruce Haupert, Kent Anderson, Mike Dyszkiewicz, Don Sporleder I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL: President Tim Klusczinski called to order at 7:00 pm H. PUBLIC HEARING Date: June6, 2007 Application Number: 2007-0529 Property Location: 517 Carroll Street Property Owner: Mr. Kent Anderson Landmark or District Designation: Taylor's Field Rating: No rating STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT Queen Anne house built around 1890 with Arts and Crafts features in the front bay and gable window with a wide carved cornice under the eave of the front gable dormer. Side windows also display Arts and Crafts characteristics. It has enclosed brick front porch. APPLICATION ITEMS: Replace removed aluminum siding (2005) with vinyl. Retain architectural value in gables and roofline fascia boards and windows. Please see attached minute from November 21, 2005 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. Wayne Doolittle has met on site with Mr. Anderson both individually and with Catherine Hostetler and Lynn Patrick concerning what is to be covered with vinyl and what is to be left exposed. Mr. Anderson is going to apply vinyl siding to the body of the house using the same width as the original siding. He will use vertical vinyl to clad the corner boards. All of the wood trim around windows will be repaired and painted. The gables and fascia will also be scraped and painted. Hostetler: Mr. Anderson is here. Klusczinski: Mr Anderson, please state your name and address for the record. Anderson: Kent Anderson, 517 Carroll Street, South Bend, Indiana. Klusczinski: Are you the property owner? Anderson: Yes. Klusczinski: Does the application, as read, properly honor your project? Anderson: Yes, it does. Klusczinski: Would you care to make any amendments, changes or corrections? Anderson: I'd like to ask about changing my side door. I called and they said, because the door is not, it's an interior door, I'd like to put a steel door on for security. Klusczinski: So you'd be asking us to amend your application? To put on a steel door right now? Or would you like to take care of that at another time? Anderson: Well, I'd like to do it before I paint. Hostetler: We could staff approve it. We could staff approve the door, that wouldn't be a problem. Klusczinski: So you'd need to come in and fill out a separate Certificate of Appropriateness for the door since it wasn't part of this, ok? Sporleder: And that's to replace the door, not change the location of the door? Just so I understand. We could amend it though. Anderson: I just want to get it done before they paint, so that they can paint the door. Hostetler: But we don't know what it looks like. Klusczinski: Would you care to make any other statements regarding your project? Anderson: No. Klusczinski: The Chair recognizes Commissioners with questions for the petitioner. Hearing none, the Chair opens discussion. Also hearing none, I'll open the public hearing portion. Anyone in the public wishing to speak in support of the Certificate of Appropriateness, please come forward. Hearing none, anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the Certificate? Also hearing none, the public hearing is closed. No rebuttal huh? Chair recognizes Commissioners with additional comments. Sporleder: It's not relevant, I think. This chimney, we're only talking about siding, correct? And, we're quite clear that all of the existing wood trim, fascia and all of that will remain? Anderson: It's being painted, I already have a contractor. Sporleder: I just want to be absolutely clear that I understand what the C of A is for. Zeiger: But the corner boards are being wrapped. So, not all the trim is being painted. Sporleder: The corner boards are being wrapped. Anderson: We're doing that and bringing them out so that it will be the same depth as the siding. Sporleder: Ok, thank you. Klusczinski: Other comments? Questions? I'll entertain a motion Sporleder: I make the motion that application number 2007-0529, 517 Carroll Street be approved as presented and recommended by staff. Klusczinski: Is there a second? Choitz: Second. Klusczinski: All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (An aye is heard) Motion carries with one opposed. A brief delay occurs when Legal Counsel verifies (via HPC by-laws) that the previous vote was legal and satisfied our quorum requirement. When satisfied that it was appropriate, the meeting proceeded and the vote was recorded. Sporleder: In the mean time, the opposing vote must state their reason. Zeiger: Todd Zeiger, I'm opposed to the application of vinyl siding, I don't think that it follows the guidelines adopted for the neighborhood. The wood siding appears to be repairable and paintable. Moved: Sporleder Second: Choitz To approve 2007-0529 Approved 4-1, Zeiger opposed Chase hadn't arrived 2 Date: June 7, 2007 Application Number: 2007-0605 Property Location: 53190 Juniper Road Property Owner: Kevin and Joan O'Connor Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: This home at 53190 Juniper Road was constructed by the Alfred Maurice Talley family in 1856 on land acquired by James More Hall between 1820- 1837. Mr. Talley was a noted abolitionist and the home was rumored to have been a "Station in the Underground Railroad. The home is currently owned by Kevin and Joan O'Connor and has been in the O'Connor Family for over 50 years. In the 1875 Atlas the drawing of the house appears to have had a wooden front porch in front of the entryway and a widow's walk cupola. Those features no longer exist and the architectural style has been characterized as Georgian. There is a modern addition on the north side of the home and in the rear and a solarium/winter garden on the south side of the home. APPLICATION ITEMS: An Addition to the east side of the building: Entry/ Mudroom/ Laundry/ Garage. Also the text of the attached letter and list of materials from Bruce Haupert, Contractor STANDARDS: GROUP B STANDARDS: C. Renovation and Additions Renovation is the modification of a structure which does not alter the general massing while an addition is a change in mass. A modification which involves the removal of a part of the landmark should be considered under demolition. Additions to landmarks should not detract for the original form and unity of the landmark and should not cover singular examples of architectural detail. Additions to landmarks should be added in a manner that does not disrupt the visible unity of overall appearance of the site. The proportions, materials and ratios of the existing structures should be carried through in the additions. Care should be taken not to change or alter the following: 1. Structure ---Necessary structural improvements, where safety demands should be accomplished in such a way as to cause minimal visual change to the original style and construction. 2. Material ---Additions and improvements involving any new material in the landmark should be of the same material as the original. It should be the same size and texture. An Alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the original. a. wood ---all wood trim should conform with existing trim in shape and size. b. siding materials—the Commission discourages the covering or alteration of original materials with additional siding. Structures already sided with incompatible materials should be returned to a siding similar to the original when renovation is considered. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends the approval overall concept of the addition. The current non-contributing addition would be removed and a new space for the entry, mudroom, and laundry would be constructed in that space. This addition would have a roof with a slight slope to it so as not to interfere with the second storey windows. A three car garage would be attached to it and will be higher than the living area addition. The south fagade of the building would have a brick veneer closely matching the original on the body of the house. The east and north elevations will be vinyl siding. The staff suggests that the Commission may wish to appoint a Committee or suggest an architect to work with Mr. Haupert, based on his letter, on fine tuning some of the external architectural features of his plan that included the moving of an original window from the east side of the house to the north side. Staff Note: Mr. Haupert submitted this COA with drawings on Tuesday 6/5 prior to leaving on holiday. Staff met with Mr. Don Sporleder to review the plans for this Staff Report on 6/7. Based on Mr. Sporleder's suggestions and Catherine contacted Mr. Haupert who was able to clarify some of his points and said that he would come to the Office the week of June 11, 2007 and therefore may have new elevation drawings for the Commission at the 6/18 meeting for its consideration. 3 Hostetler: Those are the drawings that have been resubmitted, the only substantial change would be the hipped roof drawn in there on the addition. Klusczinski: Is the petitioner here? Hostetler: Yes. Mr. O'Connor is one of the homeowners and Mr. Haupert is the contractor. Klusczinski: State your name and address for the record please. Haupert: Bruce Haupert, 17330 Battles Road, South Bend, Indiana. Klusczinski: And you are the property owner? Haupert: No, I'm the contractor, here on behalf of Mr. O'Connor. Klusczinski: Thank you. Care to make a brief presentation? Haupert: Yes, I would if that's appropriate? Klusczinski: Absolutely. Haupert: Thank you members of the Commission, staff, neighbors and those interested in historic preservation. On behalf of Kevin and Joan O'Connor, we're asking for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition that is described in the application with certain modifications and recommendations as shown on the updated drawings. The new drawings are the second ones where we changed to the hip roof, originally we had a gable on there. The hip roof on the house is between a 4-5, it's a very low sloped hip. We didn't want to, on the original drawings we didn't want to repeat that very low slope. On this garage roof, it would make for a very small ridge at the top and that would look awkward, so I'd originally drawn in a gable. Then we were going to wrap this right around the end of the house. After talking with Mr. Sporleder, and Mrs. Sporleder, and Catherine and Wayne, we made some modifications to that. So, I've come back with these drawings with the hip roof in there. Mr. and Mrs. O'Connor are investing in this historic home not just on the exterior but also on the interior, to make it an ideal homestead. Their family has been in ownership of the home for the last 50 years, and they'd like it to stay in the family for years to come. This family of 7 is hoping that we can provide them a place to reside the beginning of the new school year. Improvements on the interior include updating the kitchen, master bedroom and bath, and we are eliminating some remodeling that was done in the 1950's and 60's where non period trims were used, we're actually opening it up so that we have the original plaster and that sort of thing that was in there originally. All efforts are being made to conform or return the structure to its period design. Those efforts are being carried through to the exterior as well. The addition, although it's barely visible from the road or by neighbors, will have a brick facing to match the original. We will be emphasizing the matching brick, the mortar, its color and texture, window sizes and their locations, wood doors and windows will be purchased. We understand that an attached garage is not of the period, so there are no good examples of an attached garage of that time, therefore we're focused on what we think is appropriate and functional. We intend to tie-in the addition with minimal effect to the existing structure. The following are what we believe to be positives in the design: overall improvements of the project all adding to the appropriateness, of course we're doing the brick to match, mortar to match, exterior soffit andfascia will match, we will use true wood exterior windows and doors excluding the overhead garage door. Those will not be wood because they'll all be painted. The hip roof that we've shown on this, although the pitch is not the pitch of the existing- it will be an offset hip. We will reuse the original windows and frames, if we are allowed to change the location of a window. All of the second story windows have been saved, we haven't moved anything. We've saved the original exterior stair well access to the basement and it's original stone foundation, so we're not trying to move anything in that area. Just a reminder of the major investment made by the homeowner of this historical site, and also future improvements will be made if things go smoothly with the sun room which is on the south, and the modern addition on the north. And we would hope to also make changes that would bring the house to conform readily with the Historic Preservation Committee. In asking for this Certificate of [Appropriateness] the preferred and first choice preferred by the homeowner is the 2415 addition described in the original proposal with this change with the hip roof. Please refer to those drawings and the original application. After meeting with several members with the HPC and others, these changes have been made. We would like to conform to recommendations of those members, to repeat the hip roof detail and also to use the flat roof area to save the second M story windows. Roof shingles will be a dimensional style as recommended. One member of the Commission, I thought was a member, he's actually not, your husband (referring to Don Sporleder) recommended that the first floor window be saved, and that is the window that is existing right now at this location. What I'll do now is pass these (pictures). We would like to move this window around the corner, we would save the whole window in its entirety, it's a wood window, the glass, the frame, and bring it around the corner to relocate in this location. There is not a window here right now. We would use the original window and bring it around the corner. Right now it sits right inhere. We'd like to move that original- doing so helps us considerably with the interior floor plan. It's difficult in that back room because there's an exterior stair well to the basement. In order to accommodate a floor plan that works in that back room, every bit of room that we can get helps. We'd also like to access this back stair well a straight shot- there's a stair well that's in there, and I hope that you can tell that from the pictures which one is which. That should be #5 or #6. When you walk into this back door, you can walk right straight down into this basement, or you can come into the laundry room. But to accommodate that we need some step space to get to that, otherwise there will be a big drop off if we put our door there. We believe we're conforming to the Group B standards which state that necessary structural improvements should be accomplished in such a way to cause minimal visual structural change to the original style and construction and also we're trying to use material to match as much as possible. We appreciate the recommendations of the Commission but also hope that the Commission, we believe that the loss of the window facing the East is a minimal disturbance to the original design of this structure. You can refer to those and I'm sure that you'll have questions on those pictures. Please be reminded that we're not moving the window out of alignment, we are eliminating it's location and reusing it in its entirety. We ask that you accept this application based on the overall approval of the design, with the changes that were made per the new elevation. Thankyou. Klusczinski: Thank you. Catherine? Could you clarify the staff's recommendations that this Commission should appoint either a committee or an architect? Hostetler: It was basically with regards to that window. When Don and I first met, Don didn't realize that there was an enclosed exterior stair well leading down by these elevations. We had another drawing. Don said 'why do we have to have a stairway there?' 'Maybe we could move it somewhere else. ' But it's a pre-existing feature, it would take a small nuclear blast to move that stair well, it's fieldstone and the concrete is about this thick on the stairs going down there. It's massive. That has to stay, and for them to do what they want to do, they have to move that window which is part of the original fabric of that house. I understand it's the only window in this one small room that original in the back; and they want to reuse it. The objection to leaving the window there is 1. when you look out of the window, all you're going to be able to see is basically that garage, it's going to block the view. All you're going to see going down the line is the back of that garage. The window itself is not in very good shape and neither is the brick surround. The lintel is in very good shape, but there are some problems with the window. I can understand why they'd want to move it and then completely restore it and put it on the east, because then it would overlook the garden and the tennis courts, that they have on the north side of their house and it would be much more pleasant to look at then a wall of vinyl. It's up to the Commission if they want to allow this to be altered in this state and then what they would end up doing is replacing where the window is with a course of brick that would match the old brick of the house. Then reconfigure that whole window system on the north side. I believe there's some pictures of the windows. Haupert: I probably should have stated this earlier, but #1 is looking to the east to the fence, there's not any real good view from the neighbors' into that area. The other one is from the window that Catherine was mentioning. Just the existing that's there. We'll have 50 foot of addition when you look at that window you'll see that long run of siding. Number 3 is the picture to the north which is the tennis courts and a better visual space where you can see most of the backyard and the play area or recreational area. Hostetler: They used to have internal gutters. And they were compromised at some point in time and this window up here, and this one down here took the brunt of it. That whole top area with 5 the soldier course going across it has a lot problems with it. It's going to have to be repaired again because its shifting around and stuff like that. It's one of these situations where it's going to have to have a restoration, a massive restoration -how much of the fabric of the house is necessary that the Commission wants to keep. It's going to end up having to be fixed, versus just taking the whole thing and using all of the original material and reconfiguring the window on the north side. That was what I meant by having a committee decide or an architect, somebody that has more experience at this than I do at this point. Klusczinski: Are there any other Commissioners with questions for the petitioner? Sporleder: if we decide to go ahead with this window thing, will we need an amendment to the C of A? Zeiger: No, it's part of the C of A. It's been applied for, it's part of the C of A. Hostetler: It's part of it and its also implied in the letter that he... Sporleder: It's implied in the letter, but... Hostetler: In the letter, he said that he would be working with the Commission and the staff and listening to our recommendations and suggestions. Peterson: So is everyone clear as far as what they're considering today as far as the C of A as presented? Does everyone have a good idea of what that is, and what's being considered? Ok. Haupert: May I make another comment? Just to let you know, if this really is a disagreement point, we want to work with the committee, so that we can push this through. I made some mention that we need to get the family in the house in good time, so we would, if this was really going against everybody's grain, relent and say that we would accept your decision not to do that at this time versus not getting the C of A. Zeiger: I have a quick question. Just a clarification, you said that the petitioner prefers the mansard over the gable, or the gable over the mansard? Haupert: No, we changed that because we... Zeiger: I understand why, I'm asking what the petitioners preference was. Haupert (addressing Mr. O'Connor) He's asking about the roof line. Zeiger: Do you care which way as far as the roof structure is... ? O'Connor: I'm not an architect. Haupert: Personally, on my behalf, I would have left it as a gable only because it left some more space. Do we have any of the gable pictures? Zeiger: Yes, we have them in our packets. Haupert: I didn't think that the gable looked too bad. Zeiger: You answered my question, thank you. Klusczinski: Any other questions? Sporleder:I have a question not about the window. Are we still talking about the window? Klusczinski: It's anything. Sporleder: Ok, in the back it says that the brick will be repeated, with the best possible brick match and mortar match with consistency of detail to the exterior overhang and roof line. We propose to finish the remainder of the exterior of the addition with high quality vinyl siding using a product provided by Mastic. All exterior windows and walk through doors would be wood, etc. etc. It says on part 2 of the standards for additions and improvements that alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the original. Additions and improvements involving any material in a landmark should be of the same material as the original. So, I guess that I am concerned with having a brick front on the south side and vinyl siding on the other two sides. That doesn't seem like an appropriate way of handling that to me. I'm sorry, I didn't really clearly understand this when I was there... Hostetler: I believe that's because the north and the east sides really can't be seen from the street. But the south elevation could, so it's an economic measure, I'm sure that they would prefer the use of vinyl siding as the house is being extensively remodeled and they're on a budget, and those two locations since they wouldn't be visible from the street... Sporleder: I guess that I don't have any objection to the vinyl, but I do think that if it's going to be vinyl the whole thing should be vinyl. It's like having a queen anne front and a mary anne behind which bothers me, especially in a historical structure that sits out in the open with T visibility walking all the way around. It creates an architecturally unsatisfactory corner when you turn the corner from brick to vinyl. It looks to me like those 1950's and 1960's stock houses with the brick across the front and the vinyl wrapped around the rest of it. I just don't think that the appropriate way to handle an addition to such a historic structure. Zeiger: Is that a question for the petitioner, or a statement? Sporleder: lam making the statement that I really don't, I understand what the petition is, I mean I understand what that says. I also understand what it says in the standards and I think that the standards should be adhered to. Klusczinski: Ok, any other questions? Choitz: I would just like to see an addendum on this for what we've been talking about, of some kind in the process of all this that it would become a part of this C of A. If we're going to vote on it as it is, it seems like it's to in some ways delete some of the things that are on here, or change them anyway to a certain extent. If we're voting this particular certificate, I'm just wondering if we should have some other means of describing all of these things. These are all good points, there are all things that we need to give some thought to, and certainly have an understanding of what they're trying to get done. If there are things that actually do change this, I think that it would be good to have all of that all on one certificate. Zeiger: Just a clarification, are we still under questions for the petitioner? Can we ... I'd suggest that the Chair would continue on the agenda. Klusczinski: Absolutely. Zeiger: Thank you. Klusczinski: I'm opening public hearing. Any member wishing to speak in favor of the current petition? Hearing none, I recognize any member of the public wishing to speak in opposition. Also hearing none, I close public hearing. Any additional comments? Haupert: In order to get this C of A I'm sure that myself and the home owner are very willing to amend any points that you think are necessary versus ... I'm thinking right off of maybe vinyl versus wood siding, or maybe even looking at, although cost is prohibitive, complete brick Maybe just the ends in wood in vinyl. If that's going to hold things up then we need to look what will help us move the project through. Zeiger: I have couple of questions or just comments to the Commission members to address what we've been talking about just from my perspective, I don't have trouble moving that window around the corner at this point, for what it's worth, its on the back of the building on a side that can't be seen. From my standpoint, the window relocation is not an issue. Welcome to design by committee, and I understand, but I really prefer the gable over that mansard, low hip roof. I don't think that I ever really recall an accessory building or additions to historic properties having these low hipped roofs. They generally have a gabled end on them, and you aren't able to match the rise and run on the main house and so you end with a funky different sloped hip on that addition which, for me, visually doesn't work. To the right of the single garage door you have a certain width at that corner of the brick there is a certain width, but it's not mirrored on the other side of the double garage door, and that hip isn't centered on that over those doors. From my standpoint, I really do like the gable with all due respect to my fellow Commission members and volunteers who met. Mr. Sporleder, I appreciate your time, but just from a standpoint of what I typically see on historic buildings, and additions that 5/12 pitched gabled roof really seems to be more in keeping with the design of the building. I don't think that we need a committee to move the window and as far as siding is concerned- if we're going to make a recommendation that it all matches, I would suggest all wood, cement board or man-made sort of lap siding of some sort. Haupert: Sure, sure. Zeiger: That would be in keeping then with an addition to a building like this as well because its an accessory kind of building. That's what I have to say to the Commission members as far as my read on this application. Klusczinski: Any other comments? Sporleder: May I respond to Todd? The current addition that was put on, I don't know when, oh, 1963 does have a hipped roof on it. Zeiger: And is considered non-contributing. 7 Sporleder: It's considered non-contributing, however, just to make the point that it is an addition that is not a gabled end addition. Zeiger: Sure, it's a matter of size. I think that its a matter of the overall size of the addition. It changes what the length of that addition, so that's all that I was picking up on Joann. Klusczinski: Maybe with sensitivity to all of the changes, it might be in our best interest to entertain a motion to amend the current C of A, detail the changes that would be favorable to the Commission, and then the petitioner would have the opportunity to say whether or not he's willing to go along with that. Zeiger: I'd make a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, 2007-0605, I'm trying to read the C of A here, with the understanding that the window could be moved around to the north elevation from the rear, and with the roof and details as presented in the original C of A which would be a gable end roof instead of a mansard low hip. My motion is to approve the brick per the C of A in front of us. Peterson: One aspect too may be what you're doing, there are some things that may be a deal breaker for various Commissioners. Obviously, they want to move forward. If the motion is [unclear on recording] whether or not they move the window or not or whether or not they use gable or hip, I guess maybe if those are issues that you want to leave to them to handle or those are in a sense part of the motion that you won't, if your intent is not to vote on it if it doesn't have the gable roof, that's kind of how I read that motion. You're kind of going back to the original. That's how I read that motion, to clary what those points are for people and be sure that those are in fact deal breaking points. Zeiger: I don't know what the deal breaking points are for other Commissioners, but I'm just saying that the gable roof is more appropriate than the low hip. Sporleder: You're not saying that the low hip is totally wrong? Zeiger: I believe that the low hip is not as in keeping as the original C of A. That's my opinion. Sporleder: That's not my question, Todd. My question is if it's wrong for the building. Zeiger: I believe that this, what is proposed this revised low hip is not in keeping with the design of the addition. I think that you'd more likely see a gabled addition rather than a low hip. I don't like the lack of match on the rise and run on that, it looks awkward to me. It just does not fit from an aesthetic. Sporleder: We're dealing with aesthetics then, basically? Zeiger: No, I'm dealing with... Sporleder: Because the gable end doesn't look right to me. Zeiger: Then you can vote on my motion that I'm putting on the table. My motion is to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness it is, did they include moving the window in the original or not? Hostetler: Yes. Zeiger: So, I'm making a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness as originally submitted, which includes relocation of the window from the east elevation to the north, the gable design for the roof structure, and the brick facing on the addition. My motion would include allowing the applicant to select a lap siding in either cedar or cement board or a manufactured type of siding to be painted as they so desire. Klusczinski: Very good. Chase: I'll second that. Klusczinski: Second. Any discussion? All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (Aye is heard) Moved: Zeiger Second: Chase To amend 2007-0605 Approved 5-1 Sporleder opposed The motion carries, amended, with one in opposition. So now we have a new Certificate of Appropriateness. Is the petitioner willing to compromise? Haupert: Sounds good to us. Agreed. Klusczinski: Now we have to entertain a motion to vote on the amended Certificate of Appropriateness. 40 Zelger: So moved. Chase: Second. Klusczinski: All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (Aye is heard). Motion carries with one in opposition. Moved: Zeiger Second: Chase To approved amended 2007-0605 Approved 5-1, Sporleder opposed Date: June 8, 2007 Application Number: 2007-0608 Property Location: Leeper Park West along Riverside Drive Property Owner: City of South Bend Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark and National Register Landscape Landmark STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: Leeper Park is a designed landscape located in South Bend, Indiana in a residential area immediately north of the Downtown commercial district of the city. In 1911, noted landscape architect George Kessler prepared a master plan for south Bend to develop a citywide park and boulevard system. Leeper Park becamea focal point within Kessler's Plan. APPLICATION ITEMS: To connect the existing sidewalk segment, located in the northern section of Leeper Park along Riverside Drive, with a new five-foot wide concrete sidewalk to the segment of sidewalk at Riverside Drive on the top of the bluff. (See attached color scale drawing, Exhibit A) The connecting sidewalk will be approximately 355 feet long and it will have an access ramp directly across from the access ramp for the sidewalk on the south side of Riverside Drive in Leeper Park. (The work on the south side was approved by the Commission in COA #2006-0306A on March 20, 2006) Standards for Leeper Park: 9.5 Circulation #3 Alteration of existing or addition of new circulation layouts will be considered if it can be shown that better site circulation is necessary and that the alteration does not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design. RECOMMENDATION: Kessler's sketch of his plan for Leeper Park is the basis for the landscape landmark In Kessler's sketch the area for the proposed sidewalk is not developed. (See Exhibit B). An "informal" pathway connecting these two sidewalk segments has developed over the last century. Staff recommends approval, as it does not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design. Klusczinski: Could you please state your name and address? Brown: My name is Pat Brown. I'm a landscape architect with SiteScapes, Inc., 1816 N. Main Street, Mishawaka. With me tonight is Mike Dyszkiewicz, Director of Maintenance, South Bend Parks. This is the proposed renovation for Leeper Park tennis. We worked with the Parks over the last several weeks looking at different design options. We considered keeping it as it was, changing things a little bit, expanding it, and this is the final design scheme after five different options, and this is what the Parks Department would like to do. Currently, there are 15 tennis courts, this changes it to fourteen. Currently, it shows the corners, the ends, were four single courts, with this new arrangement, the top, the north half will stay as is, and the south we're going to take off one single court and make all of these doubles. That will allow a spectator area through here. Actually, we lose one court, but we've picked up an extra double. So, now we have twelve double courts so when you're doing tournament play or invitations, having an even number of courts helps with the staging of everything. Also, if you're familiar with it, right down the center of the existing courts there's like a four foot wide walkway that one side has a four feet fence. So when the students are out there or the players, they have to sneak through that little area, they're exposed to the tennis balls, and it's very tough and a dangerous situation. Also, everybody that wants to come in has to come through the building, through the office and out the S side door. We're looking at doing a new sidewalk, oh, it's underneath the tree, right here there's going to be a new sidewalk leading up to the gate, so now people can come directly into this area and that will make it easy for the Parks Department to charge for events here, allows this area to set up bleachers. They can do teaching off the courts. This gives a great opportunity for coaches to go up and down through the courts or for spectators. It only effects approximately 20 ft., I think that it's 20 ft 8in down through here. There are 17 existing trees, large evergreens. We had Brent Thompson out there when we were looking at this ... do we expand north, do we expand south, and he determined that this area and all of these trees need to be left as is. These trees are good. These are mature, they're growing together so the lower branches are losing sunlight and falling off onto the courts. Brent's recommendation was to remove these 17 trees and come back. I just got an email from Brent last week and he recommends going back with 12 Bald Cypress trees, and that they're going to do the best down there, and then S new deciduous trees up in the north half. He's recommending a tri -color beech, a hybrid elm, black gum, [unknown] and a horse chestnut. Basically, these trees will be placed according to Brent. The Parks Department will be providing and installing their own trees. Brent will be the one doing that. Based on the current C of A we would still be planting 17 trees, but it's 12 evergreens and S deciduous. The fence lines on the west, north and east will remain as is. We're going to replace the fence, replace the asphalt, totally re -done. The existing stone wall will remain, it will not be touched. So, the only change is that we're going to pick up these four existing lights and just move them straight back, so the lighting will stay the same. Right now, there's an alternate in the bid to put in new lights, but I think that budgets and cost will determine that and it may have to be a future project. For right now, we're looking at ripping up all the existing asphalt and bringing in a new gravel base, new asphalt, new color coating... this is the color coating that the Park Department has chosen because it is the colors chosen by the US Tennis Open for their courts. I think that's it. The schedule, the Parks Board at 4pm this afternoon approved going out for bid, pending your review and approval. It will go out for bid next week, and the bids will come in at the July 16m Parks Board meeting and construction should start the first week of August. It's kind of fast tracked, but we want to get in there because we have to get the color coating on before bad weather. So, the last youth tournament is the first week in August and after that, the Monday after that, you'll see the demolition started down there. Our target is to be done by the first of October, around that time. If we miss the fall window and have to wait til spring it's going to be 4`h of July before we're done, so ... I'd be happy to answer any questions. Klusczinski: Thank you. Any questions. Sporleder: Yes, for clarification, sorry. So there are going to be all new court, and all new fencing 10 foot high? Brown: Yes, the current fencing is ]Oft. high. Sporleder: What is the surfacing of that? Brown: This right here, this is concrete, that's where the wear and tear is, that's where the bleachers would sink into the hot asphalt. This here we're taking as an alternate just in case we have to protect the budget when we bid. This strip will be concrete, unless the bids come in high then we'd have to go back to asphalt in this area. Sporleder: You mentioned bleachers... Brown: They're portable bleachers. Sporleder: But where do you store them? Brown: Right now there are just two or three between the trees. What they may do is pull the bleachers in here and take them some other place. Klusczinski: Any other questions? Choitz: I have one. To find out what you had in mind about those low trees, bushes really at least for the next few years, in place of mature trees. Because of the way things happen around town and everywhere in the world these days, I've always been able to see through there when I've let a kid out and go ... and I know that there's nobody in there, or if there's someone that should be there is there. I don't really think that if those are really going to take years and years to grow and they'll still be completely covering that up... Brown: Installed through here? 10 M Choitz: Yeah, from the street. That is the street side... Brown: This is Riverside, and this is Lafayette, this is the parking lot Choitz: OI; I'm sorry, I had it turned around. No, I thought that you couldn't see in therefrom along Lafayette Street. Brown: Yes, these are all there... Choitz: I see why I was wrong, I read it wrong. Brown: When Brent and I talked about the new ones, we talked about a 2 inch minimum, but it depends on budget and what the city can afford. The Park Department will be buying it out of their own budget, but I know that with Brent watching and planting them he's going to baby them along, but I'm sure that they're going to try to get the biggest plants possible. Klusczinski: Any other questions? I open the public hearing. Anyone in the public wishing to speak in support of the current petition? Hearing none, is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Also hearing none, I close public hearing. Any other final comments? Sporleder: I don't know if the C ofA needs to be amended because we're goingfrom 17 evergreen trees to 12 and S others? Hostetler: It should be amended because it is a landscape landmark. Sporleder: I'll offer the amendment that changes the trees from 17 evergreens to 12 bald cypress and the listed deciduous trees. Brown: Here is the email that I got from Brent that lists the trees. Klusczinski: Yes, that's important. Brown: Well, he picked them out, and I think that he looked at the existing trees on the north side and is looking for some younger trees to replace some, that will eventually have to be removed. Klusczinski: There's a motion on the floor. Sporleder: Which hasn't been seconded, it's a motion to amend. Klusczinski: Yes, a motion to amend to include 12 cypress in place of those 17 evergreens and to allow for the 5 deciduous that Brent Thompson chose. Zeiger: Second. Klusczinski: All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (Silence) Motion carries Moved: Sporleder To amend 2007-0605B Second: Zeiger Approved: Unanimously, 6-0 Klusczinski: Now, so you're completely comfortable with .... Ok Sporleder: I'll move to approve, what do we have here, I need a number. Hostetler: To approve C ofA 2007-0605B as amended. Sporleder: Yes, as amended for Leeper Park. As presented and amended. Klusczinski: Is there a second? Chase: Second. Klusczinski: All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (Silence) Congratulations. B. LANDMARKS — Director Hostetler reported that the land marking process for Marquette School was proceeding. Commissioner Chase asked if the SBCSC had acknowledged Interim Protection. They have not. The HPC is still waiting to hear back from all of the Common Council members so that Bill Latoza's return visit can be scheduled expediently. Counsel suggested that a member of Common Council might call a meeting thereby requiring members to attend. III. REGULAR BUSINESS A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 21, 2007 Moved: Choitz Second: Chase Approved Unanimously, 6-0 11 B. TREASURER'S REPORT Accepted into record as presented. C. STAFF REPORTS 1. Correspondence Recently received newsletters/flyers from MACOG and the National Trust were circulated. 2. Director — Catherine Hostetler Distributed to Commission. 3. Assistant Director — Amy Herdman Distributed to Commission. AD also pointed out her report on the NUSA conference which was included in Commissioner's packets. 4. Legal Counsel — Shawn Peterson Counsel was welcomed back to service by the Commission. Counsel informed Commissioners that a change to Indiana's Open Door Law would be going into effect in July 2007. This change prohibits gatherings of Commissioners, held less than 7 days apart, that if combined would constitute quorum. Lawyers are still deliberating the language and intent of the changes, but they're scheduled to take effect on July ls` Counsel also researched a previous question regarding a facility at Leeper Park West. That inquiry is on going. D. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. President's Report — Tim Klusczinski 5/22/07 • 3:00 PM Meeting at HPC to discuss evening event • 8:45 PM George Cutter Lampposts Recognition Ceremony at the Michigan Street Bridge. In attendance were Mayor Steve Luecke, Lynn Patrick, Catherine Hostetler, Amy Herdman, Mary Jane Chase, Martha Choitz, Gary Gilot, Carl Littrell, Chuck Leone, and Jennifer Jackson among others. 5/30/07 • Amy and Wayne introduced me to Troy Bush while on his tour of historic Chapin Park. Mr. Bush is exploring a unique investment prospect that involves the Drewry's facility. 6/1/07 • Staff Meeting to review policy and procedures. Present: Tim Klusczinski, Catherine Hostetler, Amy Herdman, and Lynn Patrick (in -progress arrival). 6/4/07 • City Celebration "Fun by the Fountain" debriefing session with Catherine Hostetler, Amy Herdman, Mikki Dobski (Communications and Special Projects) and her assistant Jennifer Jackson. The upcoming "Park After Dark" event scheduled for June 29`x, 2007 was also discussed. A follow up meeting was tentatively set for June 11. 6/4/07 • 5:30 PM: South Bend Community School Corp. Board of Trustees Meeting. Important topics included reconstruction proposals for Marquette Primary Center as listed in the Lease Rental Revenue Bonds agenda item. Several members of the public expressed a desire to sustain and rehabilitate the current building in lieu of a new facility. 6/5/07 • Returned Cemetery conference materials to HPC office. 12 6/6/07 • 3:45 PM: During Wayne's absence, I investigated 319 N. William when a dumpster and pallet of Ishingles was seen on the property. I took several photographs to document the structure's condition, and met with the Building Department to report lack of permit and C of A. 6/7/07 • Met with Suzanne Wilson for a summary of the Portage -Prairie Township Tour. Suzanne asked for the HPC's endorsement of the event through publicity channels and for other creative ideas. I shared some thoughts and passed along her request to meet with staff. 6/8/07 • 11:00 AM: 412 LaMonte Terrace. Discovered an exterior installation of a radon remediation device - without a C of A. After speaking with the contractor and the head office in Wisconsin, it was revealed that the project cost was $749. As this figure exceeded $500, I suggested that a Building permit might also be required for the project. I supplied the contractor with HPC and Building Dept. contact information. Contractor and installer agreed to apply for all necessary certificates. Catherine reported that the contractor obtained a C of A, later that day. 6/11/07 • 3:50 PM: Joined Catherine Hostetler at the South Bend Common Council Zoning & Annexation Committee meeting, to provide an update on Marquette Primary Center as a candidate for Local Landmark designation. We presented a brief synopsis of the structure's historic, economic and cultural qualities — linked as community assets and completely worthy of preservation. The Committee was asked to extend a full invitation to the Council for a tour of comparative SBCSC facilities. Bill Latoza (BauerLatoza Studio) offered to host. An exact date will be set, after all responses are received. 2. Southhold Awards Breakfast — Director Hostetler A final cost summary was distributed to Commissioners. Per the report, the 2007 Southhold Awards involved an expense of $1649.86. A brief conversation ensued about changing the event to a luncheon, incorporating it into RestoreMichiana, including other organizations such as DTSB, etc in pursuit of reducing costs and/or generating revenue. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A conversation took place, initiated by Secretary Zeiger, regarding the suggestion that the HPC adopt the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as the standards for at least our city and county landmarks. AD Herdman made the suggestion due to the vague nature of the existing "Group B" standards. Counsel is now reviewing the SOI standards vis a vis the Group B standards that all landmark owners are asked to agree to upon landmarking. VI. HEARING OF VISITORS Don Sporleder was recognized and reminded Commissioners of various anniversaries: Hoosier Pathways Rails to Trails, AIA 150, the Indianapolis Hiking Club's 5&, and Michiana Watershed's 50`s coming up in October. Additionally, Mr. Sporleder challenged all those present to hike or bike 150 miles this summer in celebration of the AIA's 150' anniversary. ADJOURNMENT 8:46pm Moved: Zeiger Second: Hostetler 13 Approved: Unanimously, 6-0 Attest: Todd Zeiger, Date Secretary Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County 101 Location Budget as of 06-30-2007 Saint Joseph County Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 01-01-2007. Fund: 001 County General for 01/01/2007 thru 06/30/2007 Loc: 037 Historic Preservation Account Original Addt'I/Adj Total Unencumbered Unexpended Object Description Appropriation Appropriation Appropriation Encumbrance Expenditure Balance/Percent Balance/Percent 11075 Deputy Director 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 15,000.05 14,999.95 14,999.95 000 General GovT. 50.00 50.00 11309 Historic Preservation Admin. 36,050.00 0.00 36,050.00 0.00 18,025.02 18,024.98 18,024.98 000 General GovT. 50.00 50.00 10000 Totals"""""..... """" 66,050.00 0.00 66,050.00 0.00 33,025.07 33,024.93 33,024.93 50.00 50.00 21030 Office Supplies 1,250.00 59.50 1,309.50 0.00 205.98 1,103.52 1,103.52 000 General GovT. 84.27 84.27 22010 Gas Oil & Lubricants 883.00 0.00 883.00 0.00 299.22 583.78 583.78 000 General GovT. 66.11 66.11 22120 Garage & Motor Supplies 700.00 0.00 700.00 0.00 15.00 685.00 685.00 000 General GovT. 97.86 97.86 20000 Totals """""""""""""""""""" 2,833.00 59.50 2,892.50 0.00 520.20 2,372.30 2,372.30 82.02 82.02 31070 Other Contractual Services 28,000.00 0.00 28,000.00 0.00 13,736.58 14,263.42 14,263.42 000 General GovT. 50.94 50.94 32020 Travel 425.00 1,129.00 1,554.00 0.00 1,554.00 0.00 0.00 000 General GovT. 0.00 0.00 32050 Instruction & Training 1,000.00 150.00 1,150.00 0.00 225.00 925.00 925.00 000 General GovT. 80.43 80.43 32053 Public Relations 2,570.00 638.82 3,208.82 0.00 2,351.52 857.30 857.30 000 General GovT. 26.72 26.72 32200 Telephone 160.00 0.00 160.00 0.00 0.00 160.00 160.00 000 General GovT. 100.00 100.00 32350 Postage 2,160.00 400.36 2,560.36 0.00 1,441.41 1,118.95 1,118.95 000 General GovT. 43.70 43.70 33010 Publication Of Legal Notices 500.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 63.84 436.16 436.16 000 General Gov'T. 87.23 87.23 User ID ksobecki 07/02/2007 04:12 PM Page 79 Location Budget as of 06-30-2007 Saint Joseph County Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 01-01-2007. Fund: 001 County General for 01/01/2007 thru 06/30/2007 Loc: 037 Historic Preservation Account Original Addt'VAdj Total Unencumbered Unexpended Object Description Appropriation Appropriation Appropriation Encumbrance Expenditure Balance/Percent Balance/Percent 33100 Printing 3,000.00 5,555.00 8,555.00 5,528.00 594.98 2,432.02 7,960.02 000 General GovT. 28.43 93.05 37100 Auto Lease 500.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 500.00 000 General GovT. 100.00 100.00 39010 Dues & Subscription 750.00 0.00 750.00 0.00 214.95 535.05 535.05 000 General Gov'T. 71.34 71.34 39600 Refunds, Awards & Indemnities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,170.75 (19,170.75) (19,170.75) 000 General GovT. 0.00 0.00 39750 Data Processing 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 000 General GovT. 100.00 100.00 39980 Funds W/O Approp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,391.75 (12,391.75) (12,391.75) 000 General GovT. 0.00 0.00 30000 Totals """""""""""""""""""" 40,065.00 7,873.18 47,938.18 5,528.00 51,744.78 (9,334.60) (3,806.60) (19.47) (7.94) 44250 Office Machines 0.00 3,651.82 3,651.82 0.00 3,651.82 0.00 0.00 000 General GovT. 0.00 0.00 40000 Totals """""""""""""""""""" 0.00 3,651.82 3,651.82 0.00 3,651.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Location Totals """"""""""""""""""""' 108,948.00 11,584.50 120,532.50 5,528.00 88,941.87 26,062.63 31,590.63 21.62 26.21 0.00 Investment Accounts Transfer Accounts 0.00 88,941.87 User ID ksobecki 07/02/2007 04:12 PM Page 80 Location Budget as of 06-30-2007 Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 01-01-2007. Fund: 013 County Special Gifts for 01/01/2007 thru 06/30/2007 Loc: 037 Historic Preservation Account Original Object Description Appropriation 00000 Gen Godt 0.00 000 General GovT. 00000 Totals """""'""""..... ••,"""" 0.00 23240 Other Supplies 000 General GovT. 20000 Totals ......« ................................ 42010 Buildings & Structures 367 Gifts&Contrib 40000 Totals Location Totals •"""",",,,,••",",•,••••,•,,•,•,", Investment Accounts Transfer Accounts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Saint Joseph County Addt'VAdj Total Unencumbered Unexpended Appropriation Appropriation Encumbrance Expenditure Balance/Percent Balance/Percent 9,028.25 9,028.25 0.00 0.00 9,028.25 9,028.25 100.00 100.00 9,028.25 9,028.25 0.00 0.00 9,028.25 9,028.25 100.00 100.00 2,552.00 2,552.00 0.00 0.00 2,552.00' 2,552.00 100.00 100.00 2,552.00 2,552.00 0.00 0.00 2,552.00 2,552.00 100.00 100.00 52,000.00 52,000.00 0.00 0.00 52,000.00 52,000.00 100.00 100.00 52,000.00 52,000.00 0.00 0.00 52,000.00 52,000.00 100.00 100.00 63,580.25 63,580.25 0.00 0.00 63,580.25 63,580.25 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User ID ksobecki 07/02/2007 04:12 PM Page 151 STAFF APPROVALS APRIL 1 -JUNE 30, 2007 APRIL 2 612 N. ST. JOSEPH RE -ROOF APRIL 4 129 NORTH SHORE GARAGE RESTORATION APRIL 10 407 LA MONTE REMOVE NON -ORIGINAL SIDING AND RE -PAINT APRIL 12 13271 ADAMS RE -ROOF APRIL 13 846 PARK RE -ROOF APRIL 16 LEEPER PARK RIVERBANK CLEAN UP APRIL 23 527 RIVERSIDE RE -ROOF APRIL 23 1215 RIVERSIDE PORCH REPAIR APRIL 24 . 1318 E. WAYNE FENCE REPLACEMENT APRIL 25 1235 E. WAYNE GARAGE DOOR REPAIR APRIL 25 319 LA MONTE RE -ROOF APRIL 27 1158 LWE RE -ROOF APRIL 30 1303 E. WAYNE CURB/SIDEWALK RPLMT. MAY 1 13271 ADAMS TREE REMOVAL MAY 7 814 ARCH IN-KIND DOOR REPLMT. MAY 7 741 LWE RE -ROOF MAY 9 1091 RIVERSIDE IN-KIND PORCH REPLMT. MAY 11 1212 E. JEFFERSON RE -ROOF MAY 15 835 PARK DEAD TREE REMOVAL MAY 15 1045 RIVERSIDE RE -ROOF MAY 16 119 LAPORTE RE -ROOF MAY 17 1201 E. WAYNE SCREEN DOOR REPLMT. MAY 18 1102 E. WAYNE RE -ROOF JUNE 1 549 EDGEWATER DEAD TREE REMOVAL JUNE 1 401 MANITOU PL. RE -ROOF JUNE 4 605 RIVERSIDE IN-KIND PORCH REPLMT. JUNE 4 319 LA MONTE IN-KIND PORCH REPLMT. JUNE 5 113 W. NORTH SHORE IN-KIND PORCH REPLMT. JUNE 6 742 SANCOME DEAD TREE REMOVAL JUNE 7 612-614 CARROLL RE -ROOF & REPAIRS JUNE 7 1329 WASHINGTON IN-KIND WINDOWS JUNE 8 412 LA MONTE VENT PIPE JUNE 11 827 FOREST REAR VENT FAN JUNE 12 319 N WILLIAMS RE -ROOF JUNE 12 407 LA MONTE DEAD TREE REMOVAL JUNE 19 617 PARK CURB/SIDEWALK REPLMT. -JTTNF. 91 An7 T,A 'NArONTrPR TN_KTNTI CrVnPM T nOT? JUNE 22 1501 E. WAYNE DEAD TREE REMOVAL JUNE 22 808 FOREST IN-KIND FENCE REPLMT. JUNE 27 517 CARROLL IN-KIND SIDE DOOR City of South Bend, St. Joseph County and the HPC JUNE 30, 2007 Environmental Reviews: 2002 86 2006 96 2003 94 2007 81 2004 115 2005 249 Certificates of ADDrooriateness 2005 80 City of South Bend 2006 105 2007 54 106 Reviews 2006 3 City of South Bend 2007 1 1 St. Joseph County 3 3 11 St. Joseph County 5 INVENTORY Structures in National Re4ister Districts:. 1,667 in City of South Bend 0 in St. Joseph County Sin41e Sites National Resister Landmarks: 32 in City of South Bend 2 in St. Joseph County Structures in Local Historic Districts, 748 in City of South Bend 0 in St. Joseph County Lost 1 in Taylor's Field Local Landmarks 129 in City of South Bend Marquette School in process Lost 1 1 14 LWW 73 in St. Joseph County 1865" South Bend and St. Joseph County HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Timothy S. Klusczinski, President July 2007 227 WEST JEFFERSON BLVD SOUTH BEND, IN 46601-1830 www.stjosephcountyindiana.com/sjchp/index.html Phone: 574-235-9798 Fax: 574-235-9578 e-mail: SBSJCHPC@co.st-josephin.us A Certified Local Government coMM'SSIOW s Catherine D. Hostetler, Director I had the pleasure of attending Preservation Leadership Training, June 23-30, 2007, in Owatonna, Minnesota. PLT is an initiative of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and delegates are chosen to attend by a panel of National Trust staff in DC. Thirty five delegates were chosen from more than 70 applicants from around the country. The week is structured to contain 6+ hours of intense classroom lecture and training and then an additional project is assigned to each of the five teams of delegates. This year, the project was to create a strategic plan to repurpose the unused space (2000+ sq ft) above a well known, but struggling local restaurant in downtown Owatonna. The project is designed to require delegates to employ all considerations of preservation: sustainability, architecture, structural engineering, creativity, code and ordinance issues, etc. Teams then presented their plans to a gathering of community leaders and business owners. The presentation was a little intimidating as we're all from out of town, and being careful not to offend anyone, but still present an honest, feasible project. It was a challenge! As this is a National Trust workshop, the trainers were top-notch, eloquent, and challenging. The classroom time was instructive, enlightening and very informative. Our subjects included: Human Resources, Organizational Dynamics, Preservation Law, Strategic Planning, Preservation Finance, Design Review and Fundraising. I learned a great deal from each session and look very forward to implementing this information in my future work. As you'll recall, my entire tuition and expenses ($1500) was paid by scholarships, but I thank you for the authorization to go, and to Secretary Zeiger for his complimentary letter of recommendation. This is the second NTHP event that I've had the pleasure of attending and I can't say enough about the caliber of the speakers/trainers and the overall experience itself. I'd hope that everyone would have such an opportunity in the near future. est, Am COMMISSIONERS Mary Jane Chase (Treasurer) Shaven Peterson (Legal Counsel) Gerald Ujdak Martha Choitz Lynn Patrick (Vice President) Linda Riley Catherine Hostetler Joann Sporleder (Historic Architect) Todd Zeiger (Secretary) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: The DNR has scheduled a public hearing for 5:00 pm MONDAY JULY 9TH Dickinson Room St. Joe Library Downtown Regarding: River Crossing #5 aka C of A# 2007-0206 (heard and approved unanimously at the 2/26/07 HPC meeting) Your minutes from that meeting should provide a quick refresher. Please call the office if you have any questions! Thanks! Directors Report July 16, 2007 June 18 SBCSC Board of Trustees Meeting June 21 BSSB Executive Committee Meeting June 25 Meeting concerning Park After Dark with Mikki Dobski-Shidler June 26 106 Reviews for SR 23 and. US 31 June 28 BSSB Membership Meeting at the Conservatories: 501c3 in place will be working towards setting up Foundation June 29 City Celebration Park After Dark, set up movie and clean up July 5 BSSB Executive Committee Meeting July 6 Dedication of John Wooden Way at Central High School July 9 DNR Public hearing for Sewer Project near Riverside LHD; SBCSC Meeting July 10 Progress Repost submitted for SB Survey publication to DHPA July 11 Mike Eby concerning City Grant to HPC and J. Edward Talley restitution July 16 Introductory meeting with Phyllis Emmons, the new St. Joseph County HR Director Edited City of South Bend Survey Maps 1-6 and mailed to Amanda Jones at HLFI along with Amy's editing of 5 local and National register districts. This has turned out to be a massive undertaking and has included field work as well to verify conflicting information from previous surveys and survey cards. Also staff continued to work with neighborhood activists concerning Marquette School and its landmarking and the SBCSC Bond issue which contains its demolition. There was a successful petition drive for a Petition and Remonstrance against this bond issue. It is now up to SBCSC and its attorney's to: withdraw the bond issue, postpone it until next year or pursue the Petition and Remonstrance process. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY July 16, 2007 13`h Floor Conference Room County — City Building, South Bend, Indiana Members Present: Todd Zeiger, JoAnn Sporleder, Timothy Klusczinski, Martha Choitz, Mary Jane Chase, Jerry Uj dak, Lynn Patrick, Linda Riley, Joann Sporleder Staff Present: Catherine Hostetler, Amy Herdman, Shawn Peterson Also Present: Sally Bostick, Don Sporleder, Kelly Klusczinski I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL: President Tim Klusczinski called to order at 7:04 pm II. PUBLIC HEARING Application Number: 2007-0705 Property Location: 1512 E Wayne Street Property Owner: Sally Bostick Landmark or District Designation: E. Wayne Street Rating: Contributing STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCEMISTORIC CONTEXT: This Renaissance Revival was built in 1926. The first owner was Guy De Rhodes of DeRhodes-Yerrick Motor Company, a dealership for Dodge Brothers located'at 222 N. Lafayette. Mr. De Rhodes used it as a rental property in the 1930s until its sale to Donald Adair in 1940. It has had about a dozen owner -occupants since 1940 and is currently owned by Sally Bostick, APPLICATION ITEMS: The owner wishes to erect a wood lattice fence along the east side of her house. It will be accessed at the rear of the house by a gate. Another fence will be erected on the west side between the house and garage. It will also have a gate. STANDARDS FOR EAST WAYNE STREET: B. Building site, Landscaping and accessories: Required: Major landscaping items, fencing, walkways, private yard lights, signs (house numbers) and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures such as gazebos, patio decks, fixed barbecue pits, swimming pools, tennis courts, greenhouses, new walls, fountains, fixed garden furniture, trellises and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from the public walkway. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. The fence will be low, obscured from view from the street by shrubbery and trees. The style of the fence is sympathetic to the architecture of the house Klusczinski: Is the petitioner present? Bostick: Yes. Klusczinski: Could you use one of the microphones up here please and state your name and address for the record? Are you also the property owner? Hostetler: Yes, she is. Bostick: Is this a microphone? Klusczinski: Yes. Bostick: My name is Sally Bostick, 1512 E Wayne Street South Bend, Indiana. Klusczinski: Does the C ofA properly mention your project that you intend to... ? Bostick: Yes sir, it does. Klusczinski: Are there any changes? Bostick: No, sir. Klusczinski: Would you like to make any other comments about your project. Bostick: No, sir. Well, please let me do it! Klusczinski: The Chair recognizes any Commissioners with questions. Sporleder: I just want to clary because it's in your written that the fence is four feet tall but in the application items of what's presented to us the height of the fence is not listed. Bostick: It's approximately 48 inches. It does have finials on the post which does make it a little taller. Sporleder: Can we add this; if we're approving this C of A as presented can we add the height of the fence? It was on the written application. We're not turning the lattice up tall ways? Klusczinski: Any other questions? Uj dak: Yeah, I have a question. Is there a fence or something at the rear of the property? An existing fence? Bostick: Yes sir there is. Ujdak: Ok. Riley: What kind offence is it? Bostick: The fence in the rear is a stockade style fence and it's tall, maybe 7, maybe 6 or 7 feet tall. Klusczinski: Any other questions? Hearing none. Opening up discussion. Commissioners like to say anything about the project? Patrick: Nope, its pretty clear cut. Klusczinski: Hearing no more discussion, I open up the public hearing. Is there any member of the public wishing to speak in support of the current petition? Is there any member of the public wishing to speak in opposition? Klusczinski/K: No. Klusczinski: I close public hearing. Any additional comments? Bostick: The only comment that I want to make is that I appreciated the website that you have operational now. I always have a hard time finding the phone number, but now Igo right to it on the internet, so thank you. Klusczinski: Very good. If I hadn't closed public hearing I'll do that right now. Any additional questions, comments? I'll entertain a motion. Riley: I recommend that we approve C of A 2007-0705. Ujdak: I'll second it. Klusczinski: That's with the amendment that it be 48 inches tall? Sporleder: Because that was in her written application. Klusczinski: And you're ok with that?. Bostick: Yes sir. Klusczinski: All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (Silence) The motion'carries unanimously. Bostick: Thank you. Ujdak: Happy fencing. Moved: Riley Second: Ujdak To approve C of A 2007-0705 Approved Unanimously B. LANDMARKS — None. III. REGULAR BUSINESS A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 18, 2007 Moved: Choitz Second: Klusczinski Approved Unanimously 2 B. TREASURER'S REPORT Accepted into record as presented. C. STAFF REPORTS 1. Correspondence Thank you note received by staff for their assistance with a research request. 2. Director — Catherine Hostetler Distributed to Commission. 3. Assistant Director — Amy Herdman Distributed to Commission. Legal Counsel — Shawn Peterson Counsel reminded Staff and Commissioners that when speaking with homeowners it is important NOT to appear to endorse, sanction or otherwise show favoritism to any particular contractor. Counsel was reminded that a disclaimer statement was drafted and appears on any printout of local contractors. Counsel reiterated that it would be improper to suggest that any one contractor is "certified" or endorsed by the HPC. Counsel also reported his research into incorporating the Secretary of the Interior's Standards into staff reports on C of A applications. It is counsel's opinion that in order to do so, HPC must add a clause to the Preservation Plan that would allow such a change to the standards that landmark owners are to comply with. That process would entail strengthening the landmark standards via proposed changes requiring the approval of Area Plan and Common Council. D. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. President's Report — Tim Klusczinski President Klusczinski wished to thank all involved with the planning/implementation of the City Celebration Park After Dark event. It was a very enjoyable, well -attended event. IV. OLD BUSINESS VP Patrick that she has not yet been able to follow up on her plans to introduce an HPC coffee product. Director Hostetler reported that the Marquette School landmarking effort continues, and that she understands that a successful petition requesting a remonstrance process was filed with the state. V. NEW BUSINESS VI. HEARING OF VISITORS Don Sporleder spoke on the need to preserve not just the built environment of South Bend, but also other elements such as the shade canopy of the city and other assets. Mr. Sporleder also reminded the Commission that September 22nd will be the final day of operations of Notre Dame's University Club. He further encouraged the Commission to attempt to preserve some portion of the building/collection/or other artifacts, should the University proceed with demolition plans. ADJOURNMENT 7:31 pm Moved: Chase Second: Patrick Approved: Unanimously Aft t: 'N�` ' Todd Zeiger, Date Secretary, HistoricA!ervation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County 3 I SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 16, 2007 MEETING GUESTS: PLEASE SIGN THIS LIST SO THAT YOUR PRESENCE CAN BE NOTED FOR OUR MINUTES Print Name "" r� v l C4,e � (y �WjU5Cz--/?,;ki to 5�e,�J� Address Si L7i 7, E C4t\A,)t-� 1 L17 park Het. `y