HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 2007AGENDA OF THE MAY 219 2007
COMMISSION MEETING
Regular Meeting THIRTEETH FLOOR- ROOM 1308
County -City Building
MONDAY, June 18, 2007 7:OOPM
I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
1. 517 Carroll COA#2007-5029
2. 53190 Juniper COA #2007-0605
3. Leeper Park West COA #2007-0605A
B. LANDMARK -
1. Marquette School
C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION -None -
111. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 21, 2007
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
Location Report
C. STAFF REPORTS
1. Correspondence
2. C of A Approvals
3. Directors Report
4. Assistant Director Report & NUSA Conference Report
5. Legal Counsel
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
1. President's Report
2. Southhold `Awards Breakfast
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. HEARING OF VISITORS AND ADJOURNMENT
`py,MI5510N(,PJ
Or
0
s �
c
p�3til Tti�o
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
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 cave 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.
Application
- FOR -
Cervi f irate of Appropfiateness
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County
125 S. Idayetie Blvd., South Bend, Indiana 46601
Mailing Address: County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana 4660i
Phone: 574-235-9 98 - Fair 574-235 9578 - Email: SBSJCHPC@w st+oseph.in.us
Website: http://www.sgosephcountyindbmcom/*hp/indo hhnl
OFFICE USE ONLY »>»> DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONAINED IN THIS BOX' »r>r> OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received a'Q 7911V a047 Application Number!9 Cr G Z - 062-9-
Past Reviews: [1 YES (aoteo/ca t F *w)
Staff Approval authorized by:
Historic Commission Review Date:
Local Landmark
E] National Landmark
Certificate of Appropriateness:
[Local Historic District Waste)
❑ National Register District (Name)
■ •
Title:
F] Denied F] Tabled ❑ Sent 7b Committee E] Approved and Issued
Address of Property for proposed work: 5107 t 4- S/
Shat Numberand Stmt Name
Name of Property Owner(s): (Please Print)
Address of Property Owner(s):
Contractor(s) Name: — r
Contract Company Name:
Contractor Address:
DATE
. ; cfq• 0 5-Ij
City: � Phone: 2,?7—/
'�
1 001, dell.,it o -fit IZ
Current Use of Building:
(Singe Family — Multi Family _mw — Gaoernrnent — rndurtrial — Vaaant —etc.)
Type of Building Construction; 10DA-P
(Wood Frame — Hrkk - Stone — Steel — Concrete — Other)
Proposed Work- ❑ In-kind Landscape New (,X Replacement (not in-kind) [] Demolition
(marc than one box may be eherW)
Desffiptlon of Proposed Work:�I&T,
`�- v'611,✓ ? o.
�• � 9 r� 1 ;�� I�w.�,�.� ��� axe
Owner/Contractor. Fax e-mail rJ
(9hia ojlice wi only } /" S
g and/or
— APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE —
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 1 st 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 tom 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 OXIAN: 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 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 tom 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 comers.
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 OMAN: 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 OMAN: 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 staffs 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
1=
. t u�., .II► %.! yl'` '1►j�.%f`Y„�' � , y 1 s ' ��,�� t��'S°r�` � � 7',l r X\ �.,1 .
} r 5 F tt
��W.ai
41;
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
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
Rating: 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.
Application
- FOR -
Certificate of Appropriateness
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County
125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana 46601
Mailing Adess
dr: County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana 46601
Phone: 574-235-9798 - Fax: 574-235-9578 - Email SBSJCI-IPC@co.st joseph.in.us
Website: hV://www.sqosqihcounqindiana.com/s chp/index.htn�l
OFFICE USE ONLY »»» DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX »»» OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received 6 45— % 2.00 7 Application Number g Gt7 7 - OG QS
Past Reviews: EIYES (Dane of Last Review) ; ®NO
Staff Approval authorized by: Title:
Historic Commission Review Date: 20 G 7
M115o'cal Landmark F1 Local Historic District (Name)
M National Landmark [] National Register District (Name)
Certificate of Appropriateness:
(] Denied ❑ Tabled [] Sent To Committee C] Approved and Issued
DATE
Address of Property for proposed work: -,!53j,7(9
/ Street Number and trees Name
Name of Property Owner(s): (please Print) l,`1V <M ,ISN I3 VbAm) t LD n
Address of Property Owner(s): �J�/'-5��fO ,T�^t l P'E� 'Z1J '
Contractor(s) Name: 13� ce t-t�v P�t_f C r/j P#OY6 57V -6152
Contract Company Name: T do A4S 7w le ax7 ahs � lln • •ZV G .
Contractor Address:
City: Phone:
Current Use of Building: �S Wd e_ arL ibf-WGE
(Single Family - Multi -Family - Commercial - Government - Industrial - Vacant - etc.)
Type of Building Construction: F�'e-� �? ?� "rEWA/ D P'? '>-f
( Wood Frame - Brick - Stone - Steel - Concrete - Other)
Proposed Work: In-kind ❑ Landscape 8 New ❑ Replacement (not in-kind) [] Demolition
(more ttwn one box my be chrcked)
Description of Proposed Work- F_ -4-r"
AD DcTI o &/ 7-6 7#a, j"cf r S r of aF
I
Owner/Contracto . Fax: 5 77 - 7� r'! ' �! �% Z `f e-mail ft�f�PfLT$ ► "� iLc3i
(This d with only one ••' nae
and/or -�l'`� fY.
— APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE —
• Additions
• Free Estimates
CONSTRUCTION & CO., INC.
17330 BATTLES RD.
SOUTH BEND, IN 46614
(574) 299-9422
(574) 299-9424 FAX
• New Construction
• Remodeling
.1)
S u G A
MP3' L 5 `1 s "'3- 1>t"
13
June 4, 2007
South Bend and Saint Joseph County
Historic Preservation Commission
227 W. Jefferson Blvd.
South Bend, IN 46601
RE: Proposed project for Kevin and Joan O'Connor - 53190 Juniper Road
The O'Connor's have had 53190 Juniper Road in their family since the late
19501s. First owned by their mother & father, later purchased by a brother and most
reecntly repurchased by Kevin and Joan O'Connor. The O'Connor's have a great deal of
appreciation for the home, not only as a historic landmark, but now after 50 years, it is a
family homestead.
Records are on file for the home's historical background as an original farm
residence in the 1860's on the north side of the St. Joseph River. It is a two (2) story
brick structure, probable Georgian style with a hip roof set with large. wood double hung,
windows. It once was topped by a period widows walk, which was removed in the
1950's or 60's. There have also been two (2) additions to the building; one being an
atrium style garden room with a brick knee wall on the south side of the home, and a
second family room addition on the north side.
Some changes to the atrium room are needed badly, because of glass & metal
structural issues, but it is not the focus of this application at this time. We will show
changes to that structure, but only as a possibility.
The main focus for application is an addition to the east side, after removal of an
existing back entry addition. We will use a four (4) foot poured wall foundation to create
an addition 24'x 50', of which 12' to 14' of this addition will provide aback entry (or
side) facing south, that will give access to the east entry of the home, enclose the
basement entry, and will serve as a first floor laundry/mudroom area. The other 36 feet
will provide three (3) stalls of garage area.
Because of cost we would prefer a 16' overhead, with a 9' overhead door. Our
other option would be three separate overhead doors, which we understand might be
more accurate to the period, but accessibility, cost, and ease of access to the parking is
important to the homeowners.
The entry will be similar in style of scale to the front entry, less the transoms. We
Will use a wood window, most preferably Marvin Windows, because they offer a true
wood window line.
The brick will be repeated with the best possible brick match, and also time taken
for proper mortar match, with consistency of details to the exterior overhang and roof
lines. We propose to finish the remainder of the exterior of the addition with high quality
vinyl siding, using a dutch lap style product provided by Mastic Corp. All exterior
windows and walkthrough doors would be wood, with exterior detail to match the
existing house. All exterior details, except siding would be painted.
Smooth cedar would be used in place of original poplar trim. Current poplar
available for exterior use is not of the species or quality of that period, and has a tendency
to deteriorate quickly. Redwood is cost prohibitive. All surfaces will be back primed
and finished with 2 coats of exterior paint. We understand that attached garages were
probably not typical of the period, but the addition of an attached garage is a necessary
and functional part of a modern day house. The addition will not be in clear view of the
road from any elevation, except possibly the south. The•homeowners are not only
upgrading the exterior but have major interior renovations that will also return the home
to its period. They are renovating with history in mind, while complimenting the
surrounding grounds.
Please note that Haupert Construction & Co., Inc. has been involved in the
remodeling and restoration business for 27 years, and has had many previous projects that
were sensitive to historical features and details. We will work with the homeowners, and
the South Bend & Saint Joseph County Historical Preservation Commission to complete
this project while being as sensitive to historical accuracy as possible. If there are minor
architectural or material objections we would ask that the certificate be granted with
stipulations so that the excavation and foundations can proceed. The O'Connors are
waiting to move in after the major interior and exterior changes are well under way. They
have a family of six (6) that needs to be settled in by the end of the summer. We hope
this project can be an asset to the community and all involved.
Thankyou for your considerations, Bruce Haupert
0
IX
WxA%t' Lor I
\V
6p • .
40*
00
WA,
�i.�rc vers
'uui�iiirnri
- x'111 � � ► Jll,'�
LHI
F F
`��/a t�azul•
�1ul,i,uuiu,i,,,iuinit,ilii,li�iii��i,i�r►►Ir/rli�i��Ni//aN�4n�N11MIMIlluiiur1Jill I111111N 11 rl
-I I I -1 1- I - x-11 .1
-1=I1=I-l-.i �D
77,'
` - Won 0rolt
V
0
�iP-�tw'��V �ttti flak
fil
' 1
Vc9xtl -
�-J-
«�yj
U4
TWI��
IA ila
mo-l-p
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: June 7, 2007
Application Number: 2007-0605B
Property Location: Leeper Park West
Property Owner: City of South Bend
Landmark or'District Designation: Landscape Landmark
Rating: National Register and Local Landscape Landmark
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT,: Leeper Park is a designed landscape
located north of the downtown commercial district of the city. The park was designed by renowned
landscape designer George Kessler in 1912. Leeper Park West was developed in 1901 and 1902 as the
water lines were extended from the North Pumping Station to Lafayette along what is now Park Lane.
The land north of Park Lane to the River was donated to the City in 1902. The final tract of land between
Chapin Park subdivision and Lafayette Blvd. was acquired in 1906.
APPLICATION ITEMS:. Renovation of Tennis Courts; Pavement and Fence replacement, expansion
of Court pavement approximately 20' to the South; removal of 17 trees per Brent Thompson and
replanting of 17 evergreen trees per Brent Thompson.
STANDARDS: 9.0 Landscapes -Standards and Criteria for Leeper Park; 9.1 Introduction #6
Recreational facilities which exist should be allowed to remain as along as the serve substantial
community functions. In some cases these features can be redesigned to be more compatible with the
overall landscape. 9.2 Spatial Organization #2. All views, vistas, landscape spaces located in the eastern
section and central section of Leeper Park shall be preserved. All views, vistas, landscape spaces
located north and east and west of a line designated as the northern fence of the tennis courts
located in the western section of Leeper park shall also be preserved.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. The tennis courts are constant use by the public
and by school teams throughout the season. The new configuration will allow for better use of the courts
and better accommodate the spectators and coaches. The alteration proposed impacts only the southern
area by 20 feet which is within a field along side a baseball diamond. The area above the sensitive
northern fence line of the tennis courts will not be compromised by this project. The new tree planting
will replicate the current tree configuration.
Application
- FOR -
Cernficate of Appropriateness
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County
125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana 46601
Mailing Address: County -City $uiiding, South Bend, Indiana 46601
Phone: 574235-9798 - Fax: 574-235-9578 - Email: SBSJCHPC@co.st joseph.inus
Website: hV://www.sgosephcotmgindiana.com/ochp/index.html
OFFICE USE ONLY »»» DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX >> -OFFICE OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received 5, 6WO -7 Application Number g!!LI_7_ - 4 64 5-B
Past Reviews: E3 YES (Date of Last iwiero) NO
Staff Approval authorized by: Title:
Historic Commission Review Date: d O O %
01ocai Landmark n Local Historic District (Name)
[Bofiational Landmark ❑ National Register District (Name)
Certificate of Appropriateness:
(� Denied [:] Tabled n Sent To Committee Approved and Issued
DATE
b
Address of Property for proposed work:
Street Number and StreetIme
Name of Property Owner(s): (please print) `6n ?, } �'pi1! �3 (�i t =( fi>�� ��-"� O lVt-71,
Address of Property Owner(s):
Contractor(s) Name:
Contract Company Name: vC_-G1 J''4!)t%�t _ ivr_
ContractorAddress: it . , t,; 0, ��' w') 57
City: M k�AA , IAi(4A � i\�t(„"h LI `�" Phone: �� S ' �i� 17
Current Use of Building:
(Single Family — Multi -Family — Commercial — Government — Industrial — Vacant — etc.)
Type of Building Construction:
r �
(Wand Frame — Brick — Stone — Steel — Concrete — Other)
Proposed Work: [] In-kind [) Landscape [] New 'Replacement (not in-kind) E] Demolition
(moire tiwri one box may be choked) Iq
Description of Proposed Work: Y 1 a ry C'J's I L 4, 1j 6) t~' � r� yv �j 15 (� � � c.r ,
�t�e.x7iL �reisit 4 r Q "&k_.
?AJgjvvgtUt T 9-C
dxe��
Owner/Contractor: Fax. z� t 4%-A 'u, e-mail l''t1 T
..«
(This uxll � utith only grue) f
a� and/or
— APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE —
RK TENNIS CENTER
n
TF
Sit6capes-INC.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
1816 NORTH MAIN STREET MISHAWAKA, INDIANA 46545
TELEPHONE (574)2554677 FAX(574)2554016
www.SfteScepL--Incmm
07018 June 5,2007-
'DIA. E 1-1
V 6p4
s4
e�
DIA TREE
. 'DIA TREE
HALL GOES UNDERGROUND HERE 1 -
New gravel
• trench drain
1.0' OLA. TREE iD1° ea: METAL EDGING
L —.----------------------------------- -- PHALT TENNI
-----
------------��----------------------gyp------ -
.2' Q (TREE - / 1.5 QX TREE
a 2.2' TREE
1.5' DIA.
WORKSCOPE ■ 14 COURTS
1.2' DIA TR
1.2'
DILA.-TREE
1.6' DIA. T
NORTH COURTS - EXISTING LAYOUT TO
�v�
1.2' DIA TREE
, 49h2.2DIA.
TREE 1.5' 0IA.
4' DIEE
- 1.7' DIA TREE
1.4' DW TREE
Sol2.4'
6 DOUBLE COURTS.
D.A.
Tew
yard
IA
- - 1.4' DTREE drain
1 4' DIA. TREE 1.6' DIA TREE�,^,�
..'---a 1,aiZ(H .
-pr--------- ------LPA
10' Hi h P r• eter Fence
A. TR
WORKSCOPE ■ 14 COURTS
R E
PEED LIMI ' SIGN
•
NORTH COURTS - EXISTING LAYOUT TO
REMAIN, NO CHANGE IN STRIPING. SOUTH
COURTS - OMIT ONE COURT, RESTRIPE FOR
6 DOUBLE COURTS.
rRE
•
REMOVE AND REPLACE ASPHALT PAVEMENT.
•
EXPAND COURTS 129 TO SOUTH.
3' DIA TRE'
�I
•
NEW COLOR COAT SURFACE.
•
NEW TENNIS COURTS POSTS AND NETS.
•
REMOVE AND REPLACE ALL FENCING AND
GATES. NO CHANGE IN FENCE LAYOUT ON
7 .E
0WEST,
NORTH & EAST SIDES. SOUTH FENCE
a
i
e
z
•
LINE TO MOVE t20' TO SOUTH.
NEW WALK AND GATE TO COURTS ON SOUTH
8
SIDE OF BUILDING FOR SPECTATOR ACCESS
V g e 1m •DEVELOP SPECTATOR AREA NEXT TO
3' DIA. TREI
T
TENNIS COU— \\l
�� � �I BUILDING AND BETWEEN NORTH &SOUTH
8 I 1 I II 1I I I I I rI New Bm
-COURTS.
drain.t
Court Court CEXISTING
LIGHTS TO REMAIN. RELOCATE 4COUft Court Court Court
13 U
14 12 11 1Q g $
I I 7 I - LIGHTS ALONG SOUTH EDGE OF COURTS.
I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I • REMOVE 17 EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES
TREE AND REPLANT 17 NEW EVERGREEN TREES.
I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
i I I I I I I I I 1 I I
.5 -
I
I I I I I I I I I I I -
�-
�
i i I I I I I 1 I —
I{L 1 I �1;IL'IEEr
I 1 I I i I I I 1 I I I I
1 I ---------
'S ervice New Concrete c : STMH
Paving10' High Perimeter Fence Ga°P�cN"----------------^---------------— drain
:` ` ; ; , `T to str mt inlet OEMH
Gate 12' Service 24' Wide Spectator Area SMRMER a>•
nEsc•oa . •• ,
__.��___________________._______vt"long ; • .. A T
I I I I I I IExisting I I I I I I ( Build, g w/ Ram
f i i �courtlayout-y i i i i i ( DOD at
I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
, Court, Court, Court, Coulti Court Court, I ,
1 2 3
I 6 I 5 I 4 I I I 1 ' I z/
'
OUPa DIA Tfrl
I I 1 i i 1 I 32'Vlf ide -
1 Spe ator m
Areal
0- I I
=
1 1 1 I 1 I 11 1
- I I I I t I I (--J •
/ Relocated Spectato
Remove (17) Evergre :n Trees E� vls cou Nc / I court light Gate ' LT
M I I maw Z pole W DIA T \
Court b � j� _ � � Dw � 2.0' DI.. TPE
expansion / HCP P / / i c
to south /
-------------D-----------------------p----------------------
-----
I 1 1 New yard
New ravel ENCH drain
9 New (17) Evergreen Trees ,
french drain / a
HCP
Site Plan QP��� 0W •
1" = 20' North HCP
Pie
TMH x"
?STORM
JO PARKING RGN
1-W DIA TREE
LTie new
storm dr
to street
NO PARKING
New 6"
drain
)l4. TREE p
CON^RETE
APP,'OACH y
S
ag
o!
W
W
a
2U)
IL Z
WWW
W _j
c
^=3
W
U
C)
1
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY
May 21, 2007 —
4"` Floor Chambers
County — City Building, South Bend, Indiana
Members Present: Mary Jane Chase [Treasurer], Catherine Hostetler, Tim Klusczinski [President], Linda
Riley, Todd Zeiger [Secretary], Martha Choitz, Joann Sporleder [Architectural Historian], Lynn Patrick [Vice
President]
Members Absent: Jerry Ujdak
Staff Present: Catherine Hostetler [Director], Amy Herdman [Asst. Director], Cheryl Greene [Legal]
Also Present: Lue A. Wright, Charles Rosenberg, Robert Zimmerman, Jerry Niezgodski, Tom Bullock, Joan Downs-
Krostenko, Wayne Goodling, Kevin E. Leach, John Strauss (didn't sign in but noted to be in attendance)
I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL: President Tim-Klusczinski called to order at 7:02pm.
II. PUBLIC HEARING
Application Number: 2007-0426
Property Location:
Property Owner:
Landmark or District Designation:
Rating:
410 Manitou Place
Carol and Charles Rosenberg
Chapin Park LHD/NR
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: This Gabled -T house was built in 1894 on
a lot purchased by George Hodson from Edward Chapin. The first family to live there was Louise and Jay
Carpenter and their two daughters Helen and Bessie. The current owners are Carol and Charles Rosenberg.
APPLICATION ITEMS: To remove chimney when replacing the roof.
STANDARDS: H EXISTING STRUCTURES, B. ROOFS AND ROOFING, 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.
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.
RECOMMENDATION: The Standards and Guidelines of Chapin Park require that the chimney shall be
retained and prohibit the removal of architectural features important to, a roofs character. Staff does not
recommend approval. Even though the house is not rated and it has been significantly altered with siding and
replacement windows, it is still an 1894 Gabled -T and would have had a chimney.
Klusczinski: Thank you, is the petitioner present? Please state your name and address for the record.
Rosenberg: Sure, Charles Rosenberg, 410 Manitou Place. First of all, I'd like to thank the
Commissioners for hearing me, and also the office for considering the petition. We didn't expect this to
go to the Commission one way or the other but obviously since it did there must be some issue that the
office felt was open to interpretation and I suspect that it was under the standards statement that states
that architectural features that give a roof its essential (speakers emphasis) character and also the roof
shall not be stripped of architectural features important to its character. So those are, I assume, the
reasons why it wasn't simply done in the office because those are matters of interpretation. Rather than
legal language, I suppose your lawyer can tell you, and if it were legal language then I'm wasting my
time. We petitioned to remove the chimney because it no longer serves any real purpose, we have a high
efficiency furnace, which vents out the side. There is no fire place that vents through that and even our
hot water heater doesn't vent through that so it is an essentially inoperable chimney. It was obviously, it
is indeed true that an 1894 t-gabled houses would have had chimneys, but they were put on for practical
purposes and if you look at the pictures which I assume you have as part of the packet, this is how they
distinguish the chimney. I am an art historian and I can tell you that it adds nothing to the aesthetics of
this house. What gives the character to the house and to the roof line, and I think that everybody who
looks at those pictures will agree, are the massing, of the various peaks and valleys, those are what give
it's roof line and we would never of course suggest that we would want to change those elements. As also
the record points out that the house has been significantly altered. It's not a pure 1894 gabled t by any
stretch of the imagination. There are additions to the house as well, particularly in the back. In the area
behind the kitchen there's at a sun some room that has been added to it, so some of the roofs are actually
not original to the gabled t as well. The chimney, we are going to have to do a complete tear off, we are
currently negotiating with Freund to do that. We are going to be using the approved architectural
shingles; it's not our intention by any stretch of the imagination to subvert the quality of the
neighborhood. For us, it would simply be a matter of convenience to remove this chimney, it's easier to
create a water tight roof, and we've had some issues with leakage around the chimney. Also, we've had
animals enter through the chimney. I'm not saying that these couldn't be solved if necessary, but since
we're going to have this done, we request that we be allowed to remove the chimney. It seems to be the
simplest solution; I don't think that in any way it would alter the essential (speaker's emphasis) character
as the language of your own document puts it- the essential character of the roof. Thank you.
Klusczinski: The chair recognizes any Commissions with questions for the petitioner.
Patrick: I'm intrigued that you regard the chimney a non-essential architectural feature of the roof. And
your last remark that it's a matter of convenience. Do you have a quote for the roofing work with the
chimney and without the chimney?
Rosenberg: We haven't been able to get that. We requested Freund to give us a written estimate both
ways, and they haven't. The ballpark estimate that they gave us overall was over $16,000. We would
choose them because their work is high quality. We have a lower bid, but we can't count on the quality of
those people. But, you know, it's our house we don't want to in any way diminish its value. As for it
being an essential quality or character of the house, it was absolutely- I would never deny that it was
essential in 1894.
Patrick: You don't need to go on with that...
Rosenberg: Ok, fine that was your question I thought.
Patrick: What I wanted to ask you also was given, since we don't have, am I correct that we don't have
the roofing...?
Rosenberg: No, we haven't petitioned for that because we don't have...
Patrick: Ok, so did you say it was a complete tear off and re-roof?
Rosenberg: Yes, it will have to be.
Patrick: That's a major job.
Rosenberg: Yes, a very majorjob.
Klusczinski: Was there a hand on this side, Mary Jane? Todd?
Zeiger: I did, if I could two real quick questions actually. Do you have, is there a fireplace that does feed
into this? A potbellied stove?
Rosenberg: No. I don't... well, our furnace originally, which was probably at some point was a coal
burningfurnace we've lived there, well we came in 1981, so we've been there over 25 years. And...
Zeiger: So there's not a fireplace somewhere that could be opened up in the future? And have you had
an inspection of the actual chimney tuck pointing and the brick, what kind of condition is it in?
Rosenberg: You mean at this point? No, we have not. It doesn't, from a layman's eye it doesn't look to
be in great condition, so I suspect we'll...
Klusczinski: Joann?
W
Sporleder: I was also going to ask if you knew the original function of the furnace itself was and if this
particular chimney fed anything else, but Todd has asked that question. I suspect that it was in fact a
coal burning furnace there to begin with, which would explain why the chimney is as high as it is. Coal
burning furnaces usually emitted certain amounts of burning debris on occasion and it had to clear the
roof therefore they usually required either by Code or convention to have at least two feet above the
highest ridge line, so.. just for that information. Now, I would like to go into a little speech ifI may. I
toured the area, investigating almost all of the houses in your particular Chapin Park area, and there are
quite a few gabled houses. I would estimate that about 1/3 of them have no chimneys visible at all, about
113 of them have very functional looking chimneys such as yours which were meant to do what it was
meant to do which is carry the flue and the gases out, and there were several other chimneys that were
ornamented in some architectural way, usually with corbelling. It was my opinion as the architectural
historian on this board that the chimney is now disposable, since it serves no function and it has no
particular architectural merit. As an architectural feature of the house it was there functionally to carry
the flue, fumes out of the furnace and that was its primary function. It wasn't put therefor any
ornamental function, nor was it ornamented in any particularly architectural way such as with corbelling
or limestone caps as several other chimneys have been done in that area. I would recommend allowing
you to remove it to make the roof better. Now, if i could go on, the roof itself however has some
architectural merit. The interlocking roof shingles on it creating a diagonal pattern and I would urge you
to see if you could have that replicated when you go in to finding a new roof because it's important for a
roof that has as much visibilityfrom the street that it not look crude in any particular way. This kind of
particular South Bend feature of roofing has with the diagonals.
Klusczinski: Thank you Joann. Professor, in your opinion is the chimney damaged or deteriorated
beyond repair?
Rosenberg: Beyond repair? Um, I can't offer any opinion on that, I'm sorry. I don't have any expertise
in that area I couldn't say.
Klusczinski: Are the bricks crumbling? Anything like that?
Rosenberg: It looks to me like the mortar is...
Klusczinski: But not the bricks...?
Rosenberg: I haven't ever been upon the chimney, I'm sorry. I cannot say, I wouldn't offer an opinion.
It would be to my advantage to offer one, but I can't.
Klusczinski: Any other questions for the petitioner? I'll entertain Commission discussion on the topic.
Zeiger: I just wanted to note that because the chimney has been abandoned with regard to the gasses and
whatnot that it will deteriorate pretty rapidly. Those, the moisture that would go up through the chimney
actually helped keep them in tact. And, over time without those flue gasses going up with your comment
about everything being direct vent is pretty common in older houses. You'll see that chimney deteriorate
fairly quickly without the moisture coming up through there, and that was the reason for my question
about the current condition as well as long term. I guess I just share Joann's thought that it's not an
essential or definingfeature of the home.
Klusczinski: Of this particular home?
Zeiger: Of this particular home, yes.
Klusczinski: Any other comments, anyone? I'll open the public hearing portion is there any member of
the public wishing to speak in support of this C of A? Hearing none. Is there any member of the public
wishing to speak in opposition? Also hearing none, I close public hearing. I'll entertain a motion one
way or the other.
Zeiger: I'll move for approval of Certificate 2007-0426 as presented.
Sporleder: I'll second it.
Klusczinski: All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (Silence) Motion carries unanimously.
Moved: Zeiger
To approve C of A 2007-0426
Second: Sporleder
Approved: Unanimously
3
Application Number: 2007-0430A
Property Location:
Property Owner:
Landmark or District Designation:
Rating:
212 Sunnyside/228 Sunnyside
Mary and Lou LaPierre
East Wayne Street LHD
Contributing
APPLICATION ITEMS: Place metal cabinet in row. North of Driveway (228 Sunnyside)
STANDARDS: I. THE ENVIORNMENT A. THE DISTRICT ENVIORNMENT
RECOMMENDED:... 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... B. BUILDING
SITE, LANDSCAPING AND ACCESSORIES, REQUIRED: ... Structures such as ... fixed garden
furniture, trellises and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and the
neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public walkway. PROHIBITED: The installation of
unsightly devices such as television reception dashers and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas
where they can be viewed from the public thoroughfare. APPENDIX B Landscape Assessment Summary.
Please see attached.
III. RECOMMENDATION: Although this is a relocation of a cabinet in the public right of way to another
location in the public right of way that does not obstruct the view of traffic in the street from the LaPierre's
driveway, Staff does not recommend approval. The Communications and Utility Companies need to develop
ways of installing their equipment so that it does not interfere with the ambiance of a neighborhood. This
type of utilitarian apparatus should be located in alleyways or in the rear of resident's property and not along
the thoroughfare as is stated in the East Wayne Street Standards. However, Staff understands that the
LaPierres, City Engineering and AT&T prefer the proposed location.
Hostetler: And I have a letter from the LaPierre's.
Klusczinski: I have a brief question Catherine, where did this C of A originate from, the property
owners?
Hostetler: It originated from AT & T, because it's not actually going on the LaPierre's property, but it's
going on the right of way in front of their property, a location on the other side of their driveway.
Klusczinski: Ok.
Hostetler: And then I have a letter here from the LaPierre's: 'To Whom it May Concern, Concerning the
AT&T communications equipment presented locally in the parkway adjacent to my home, I wish the
following actions to be taken: 1. move the communications boxes, cable storage and cement pad from the
south side to the north side of our driveway at 228 S. Sunnyside, and restore the south parkway to its
condition prior to installation of this equipment. The size of the replacement equipment should be smaller
as indicated on the diagram 2/2, copy attached. Paint the control boxes dark brown to make the
installation less obtrusive. Place appropriate shrubbery to camouflage the equipment. Reimburse LS
LaPierre for sprinkler system repair that I have already incurred. Reimburse LS LaPierre for any
sprinkler expense that may be incurred after the equipment has been moved to the north location'. And
it's signed Lou S. LaPierre.
Klusczinski: Is there a representative from AT & T here? Please state your name and address for the
record.
Wright: Lue Ann Wright, 307 South Main.
Klusczinski: And you're....?
Wright: An engineer with AT&T. I'm the one that gets to clean this up. We met out there at the property
with the LaPierre's, with the fathers of Holy Cross, and this is where we found a spot that everybody
agreed on. I had tried to get an easement on the other side, the east side of the sidewalk, they wouldn't
go for it. I tried to get part of it where the bushes are to get it off of the throughway, but this is the only
site that everyone agreed. So, that's why we've picked where we've picked. I don't' have any problem
with everything that Mr. LaPierre wants, as we've already discussed that. We are going to put a smaller
box than the existing box that's there now, in my thing it shows the dimensions. We're willing to do what
we have to do, so ... I don't know what else I can tell you.
Klusczinski: Are there any Commissioners that have a question for the petitioner?
0
Sporleder: I guess that I don't really understand these pictures to begin with, but that's not my question.
The question is is who initiated the, like your question Tim, who initiated what's to be done? Did AT&T
want to do something different than what's there, or did the LaPierre's want to move it from where it is to
someplace else.
Wright: Mr. LaPierre.
Sporleder: So it was initiated by the LaPierre's?
Wright: Right. Where we placed the original box that's there now, when they back out of their driveway
it blocks their view. I agree with them that it does, so we don't have a problem with moving it.
Sporleder: How long has it been there?
Wright: I looked today, in May it's a year. It's been there a year.
Sporleder: in this picture, is this the box that's been temporarily plunked there until you're going to
really install it, or...?
Wright: No, that's where we were planning on installing it.
Sporleder: So, what is this?
Unknown: That's the one that is already there.
Sporleder: So, this is the one that's going to come out?
Hostetler: No, no no no no no, Joann.. This is coming out and they're going to move it...
Sporleder: Oh yes, my question is is this the one that is just being set there temporarily?
Hostetler: No no no no no.
Sporleder: Well, what is it doing there?
Hostetler: It's been there for years.
Sporleder: Oh.
Hostetler: This is what's coming out because it's obstructing their drive way.
Sporleder: And this is going to stay there?
Hostetler: That's going to stay there. Because it's been there and this edge, the narrow edge, that's
where the smaller box is going.
Sporleder: I got it, I got it. I just couldn't figure this whole thing out. Ok. So, you're going to
consolidate all of the boxes into one spot so to speak.
Hostetler: So the LaPierre's can move out of their driveway and the thing won't be blocking their view.
Sporleder: And is it still going to be going that way, instead of long way?
Hostetler: It's going to be shorter, it's going to be behind this little thing, and it's going to go right there.
Sporleder: This way, rather than that way?
Patrick: (unintelligible-many voices speaking at once) this white chalk indicates the move, did you notice
that Joann?
Sporleder: Yes.
Klusczinski: Did you have a question Lynn?
Patrick: Yes. Ms. Wright, based on what you said, am Ito understand that you essentially wish to enact
all of the changes that they have requested.
Wright: Yeah. We've already agreed on...
Patrick: Have you put anything in writing? More clear than what we've been presented with?
Wright: No, I haven't. I didn't know that you would need that, but if you do, I understand. The other
thing that I wanted to say as far as putting bushes in the front, I don't have a problem with doing that I
just know that by reading your book, I know that there are certain kinds that you would want it to be, so
I'd have to have suggestions as far as what the appropriate kind would be.
Patrick: I don't know if that would be us to recommend or the City Forester. Is that a tree lawn? That's
a right of way right?
Sporleder: There's a landscapingplan for every historic district.
Patrick: That's true too.
Sporleder: With recommended bushes, we could just look it up.
Musczinski: Catherine, did the City of South Bend send in any comments?
Hostetler: No, they did not.
Klusczinski: Ok.
Sporleder: So getting back to who is submitting this- is this considered LaPierre's property that is in the
right of way, I mean, it's still part of their lot?
5
Wright: Well, what it is is that even though it's part of the right of way, it's still apart of the historic
district.
Sporleder: That's not the nature of my question. My question is relative to the Commission. Does the
owner of the property in question submits the thing, so is this part of theirproperty that's in the right of
way or is this public property... ?
Wright: It's public property.
Sporleder: It's not their lot?
Patrick: No.
Klusczinski: Do you concur with that?
Greene: Based on what I see here, it appears to be public right of way. The question that I would have
really is if the city has agreed to allow this to be placed there?
Wright: Yes, we had Carl Littrell on the day that we had the meeting, and he agreed to it all too.
Greene: Often times, in a Public Works type project when you have a utility relocation issue, if there are
private property owners or businesses that might be affected by such a move, its not unusual to enter into
discussions. And, it sounds to me like what has been recommended by the City, or agreed to by the City,
AT&T and the property owners most affected. And you have nothing though from Mr. Littrell stating
this?
Wright: No.
Greene: I can also state on the record that I am also the attorney for the Board of Public Works, and so
they will come to me at another point in time obviously. Again, that type of thing would be done by way
of an agreement, usually very simple.
Riley: Can I just give you a little history on this? Last summer, the LaPierre's spoke to me and I think
Catherine in the office, because I'm a neighbor and involved in the neighborhood association, they were
very unhappy with what was happening. We all disliked it, even the office disliked it, but it was put in
without permits.
Wright: No, we did have a permit, we had a permit to excavate in the City of South Bend and we had to
have an occupancy permit, but our legal department has told the City that's not true either, but we did
have a permit.
Riley: But they didn't have a C ofA from
Klusczinski: Us.
Riley: From Historic Preservation. We've been trying since last summer to get this resolved and it's
taken a long time. We still don't like is going to happen, but it is better than what is there now. It's ugly,
the box... but this will make an improvement.
Patrick: I have a question if I may for Ms. Wright. What technical/telecom reason is therefor it at that
particular location? Is that a junction of connectivity that requires that it be in that position?
Wright: Yes. It's for what we call uverse. AT&T uverse.
Patrick: I'm sorry. Can you spell that?
Wright: Uverse. U -V -E -R -S -E. It will be a technology that will come into your house. You'll have your
television, and computer and everything will come in over the internet. And in order for that to work it
has to be right there next to that box, and we have to bring fiber to it. It's the latest technology.
Patrick: Great. So that's not fiber optics?
Wright: Yes, it is.
Patrick: Am Ito understand that points 1,2,3,4,5,6...
Wright: Of Mr. LaPierre's?
Patrick: On the letter, I'm assuming that you have a copy?
Wright: Yes.
Patrick: You wish to enact 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 per his suggestion?
Wright: I don't have a problem with that. We've already discussed it, so I don't have a problem with it.
The only thing that I don't know is what appropriate shrubbery is, so whatever you guys suggest is fine.
Riley: We can help you with that.
Wright: All the other neighborhoods around there are going to have this technology and if we don't put
this box there and we don't give them this technology... that's a price point too for the resale of houses.
Klusczinski: So legally we would be seeking an amendment to the current C ofA with the other
stipulations?
C
Greene: What is before you is a request that's been brought to you by a property owner adjacent to this.
It's a worked out agreement. Probably the proper petitioner would have been the City of South Bend as
they are the owner of the public right of way, and that is, and it does not appear that this is going onto
private property in any way? So...
Wright: The right of way goes to the east side of the sidewalk. If you measure, it goes to the ... see, we're
going to be to the west side towards the street.
Greene: Has the City requested any easements? Temporary easements with any of the property owners
in the area in order to affect this work? Are you aware?
Wright: Not that the city has, no. I know we had somebody out trying to get us an easement to do that.
Patrick: May I make a suggestion?
Greene: Sure.
Patrick: I see in the C ofA that the description of the work is to place the metal cabinet north of
driveway which is still its basic location, correct? Why can't we accept the C ofA with the clarifications
as suggested by Mr. LaPierre? As they do not conflict with what's on here.
Greene: If you're willing to agree to this, what you could do is basically a conditional or subject to type
of approval. I would recommend that you get something from the City Engineer that this is indeed
acceptable to the City, because in fact they would be the proper petitioner in the matter. I think that the
reason that it was phrased this way was in order to provide the property owner most affected by this the
maximum opportunity to provide input.
Patrick: So we could, in our jurisdiction, approve now, we could make it subject to the City Engineer's
approval then have Catherine, as the Director of the HPC staff approve since it meets that conditional
approval and then this would not have to come before the Commission again.
Greene: Yes. And the Board of Public Works will be meeting on Thursday in agenda session and next
Tuesday in regular session so this matter could be moved along rather expeditiously.
Wright: Who would I get a hold of?
Greene: Carl or me.
Wright: You? Ok.
Sporleder: Don't we need a motion ofsome sort?
Klusczinski: Lynn are you willing to modem this C ofA? With a motion?
Patrick: How about I state a motion and see if it flies? I move...
Klusczinski: Ooop, wait another quick question.
Patrick: Another question?
Chase: Is it customary, I've noticed these boxes going up around the city, is it customaryfor the City and
AT&T without contacting the people that live there to what the least possible obstruction would be?
There might be many cases where the people aren't aware, and you know ... I mean, who makes the
decision of who's putting it where and it will be how big?
Wright: Usually the engineer. It depends on the engineer and what area it is. A lot of times I'll do that,
I'll go knock on doors...
Chase: So some consideration is given to neighbors?
Wright: Oh yeah. We try to stay in utility easements, alleys, we don't want to put them out like that, we
do try to do that.
Chase: Thank you.
Klusczinski: Lynn would you want to take a crack at the motion?
Patrick: Yes, I would. I move that we accept C ofA 2007-0430A...
Klusczinski: that we amend C ofA...
Patrick: I was going to say conditionally...
Klusczinski: Right, but we can't accept at this point without public hearing.
Patrick: Ok. Well now I've lost my train of thought. I move that we accept ... no, amend C ofA 2007-
0430A ... I need more coffee ... 2007-0430A, and that's amend the C ofA submitted by AT&T to include the
six items mentioned in the letter by Louis LaPierre dated May 21, 2007, as long as ... contingent upon
approval by the City Engineer and Public Works.
Riley: Second the motion.
Klusczinski: All in favor of the modified C ofA? (Ayes are heard) Oppposed? (Silence) Ok, I'll open
public hearing for C ofA 2007-0430A with the stipulations just stated. Any member of the public wishing
7
to speak in support? Hearing none. Any member of the public wishing to speak in opposition? Hearing
none. Sir, if you could please state you name and address:
Goodling: Wayne Goodling, 1201 W Washington Street, South Bend. I have a question. In all of this
discussion, we're looking at fiber optics, which I assume had to travel for miles to get to this location,
why isn't more discussion given to moving it to the rear of the property? That's my question.
Riley: We did discuss this with the LaPierre's. There are bushes right east of the sidewalk and it would
make an ideal place for the boxes, but they objected thinking that it would be a problem for the next
owners. And you can't force them to accept it.
Sporleder: So what you're saying is that if it went to the alley it would be on the LaPierre's property?
Riley: If there were a real alley.
Wright: There are utility easements (unintelligible)
Klusczinski: Any others in opposition?
Sporleder: Can I clary...
Klusczinski: I'd like to close the public hearing first then we can go into discussion. Ok, we've closed
the public hearing.
Sporleder: I'm not totally understanding..I think that the suggestion follows along with the original in
putting in the ... I guess my question sort of is is there anything else in the box besides the fiber optics, and
who owns... is there an alley, and who owns the alley?
Riley: There is no alley.
Sporleder: So in other words, if it goes in the rear, it goes on private property? So that clarifies that.
Chase: She said there's a utility easement.
Sporleder: There's a utility easement but not an alley. In order to service it, they'd have to go on private
property and all that.
Klusczinski: Is there anything else that you'd like to rebut from the public hearing?
Wright: No, sir.
Klusczinski: Ok.
Sporleder: Don't go away, I want to ask you another question.
Wright: Ok.
Klusczinski: The Chair would entertain any other Commission discussion. At this point, hearing none, I
would entertain a motion. We've voted to amend the C ofA but we haven't voted to accept it.
Patrick: Can I move to accept the C ofA as amended?
Riley: Second.
Klusczinski: All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (Silence) The motion carries.
Moved: Patrick
To Amend C of A 2007-0430A
Moved: Patrick
To Approve C of A 2007-0430A
Second: Riley
Approved Unanimously
Second: Riley
Approved Unanimously
B. LANDMARKS — Second Reading: Marquette School
President Klusczinski: Catherine would you please read ...
Catherine Hostetler This is the second reading for the for the land marking of Marquette School; and
this is the time that we hear members of the public speaking...
President Klusczinski I didn't know if you had the legal description.
Catherine Hostetler The only legal description that we have is 1905 College, South Bend, IN 46628
President Klusczinski OK. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak in support of the
current proposal to landmark Marquette Primary Center? Please state your name and address for the
record.
Joan Downs-Krostenko: My name is Joan Down-Krostenko and I live at 849 Forest Avenue, South
Bend, Indiana. I am a member of the Chapin Park Historic District Board, the Near Northwest
Neighborhood Board and the Portage Avenue Steering Committee Board. I have a Ph.D. from the
University of Michigan; I am a professor at IUSB and an architectural historian.
I stand here tonight to voice my support for bestowing landmark status on Marquette Primary School. I
address myself not only to the Historic Preservation Commission but to the members of thepublic and the
School Corporation who are present here tonight...
Many points can be made regarding the benefits of preserving, refitting and renewing an existing historic
school building.
Among these points is the one proven to be fact more than 600 times in Chicago, namely that it is cheaper
to renovate than rebuild. In the last decade the CPS have embarked on a massive school rehabilitation
program and saved more than 600 of their 19 and early 20 century schools from the wrecking ball,
primarily because it was that restoration would cost less than half of new construction per square foot.
What kind of message do we send when we over spend, and spend over and over, to buy a new product (a
school)? What kind offuture citizens are we cultivating when we say with our actions that all things are
considered things eternally replaceable? Are we declaring our fiscal responsibility? Are we loading up
the land -fills with our past with the broken remains of buildings constructed and designed by craftsmen in
order to line the pockets of contractors and consultants?
What kind of message do we send our children when we do not conserve and preserve our architectural
patrimony? What institution is more central to a child's experience ofpublic life than their school? The
preservation of a school is a message of conservation of energy, tradition, community and history. It is a
way of showing respect for the efforts and energies of those came before us. It is a way of saying we
value and respect our own talents and endeavors and expect them to be similarly lasting.
Everyone knows that historic preservation stabilizes and enhances property values. Progressive and
economically vital areas have been preserving and conserving for 50 years. No one in San Francisco or
Boston was bulldozing 19 and 20 century buildings in 1960, why are we considering it today?
The Montessori curriculum can be implemented in any kind of educational space. While certain features
of space and light and other practical amenities are useful, there is no stipulation that I know of which
says that Montessoris are only successful in classrooms and other educational spaces of restricted
specifications. Marquette School can be refitted to serve a Montessori Academy, something which will
indeed make a fine contribution to the magnet school line up here in South Bend.
President Klusczinski: Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to speak in
support?
Jerry Niezgodski: Hello, my name is Jerry Niezgodski and I reside at 2930 Bonds Avenue, here in
South Bend. I am just echoing what the previous speaker just said. If Chicago can move forward
rehabbing over 600 schools there is no reason why can not do the same here in South Bend. I am
particularly concerned that the building that they would replace it with would have a life expectancy of
70 to 80 years which is already the age of this school, and this school is structurally sound. And I would
also suggest, that if the school corporation would seek out the gentleman from the firm in Chicago and
have a presentation from he and his firm regarding how they have been able to do what they have done in
Chicago and see some of the dramatic photos of before and after of school that had been abandoned for
10, 15 years and yet were still rehabbed. Marquette is structurally sound. Yes it needs work; but it will
last a lot longer than what we can do for new. I understand the corporation's desire to have all options
open but it is imperative that we preserve what is left. We've destroyed too many buildings especially in
the school corporation in the last decade. Lincoln School after all the work the Rotarians did to see that
destroyed was a sad day, as far as I am concerned. And, I think again we are setting a wrong example for
our youth: Everything's gotta be new, everything's gotta be now. Well, new isn't always better and I am
100% in favor of this Commission granting landmark status to Marquette School and to preserve the
Northwest side of South Bend and the integrity of the neighborhood and the integrity of the building and
the integrity of all those who live around Marquette School. Thank you.
E
President Klusczinski: Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to speak in favor of the
current proposal?
Thomas Bullock My name is Tom Bullock and I live at 843 Forest Avenue in South Bend. I have
been here since 1977. My training and life experience has been in accountancy and so lam oriented
towards numbers, costs, and I am really moved by the argument that you can get good quality with
existing structures for half the cost of building new. But what makes this relevant, especially now to me
is the reality of the problem offunding our city and our county and the property tax problem that has
been visited upon us over the last three or four years. And the Mayor in a not too distant meeting on
west side talked about how to come up with creative solutions to balance the budget of the city, and of
course on a broader scale of the county and then the state and some of the forces that are at work to make
that happen.. At the same meeting he talked about the need to demolish several hundred houses on the
west side because there are so far deteriorated that they are past the point of recovery. So that in contrast
to me as a regular citizen who pays property taxes and is trying to preserves neighborhoods where I t is
possible. It makes eminent sense to really do the best we can to maintain workable structures. So I would
urge you to pass the landmark status for this building. Thank you.
President Klusczinski: Thank you. Any other members wishing to speak in support? Hearing none, are
there any members of this public wishing to speak against landmark designation?
Robert Zimmerman: Good evening, I'm Bob Zimmerman, Superintendent of Schools for the South
Bend Community School Corporation, I reside at 54231 Maple Lane in South Bend. Thank you for the
opportunity to testi before you tonight. As you are aware the Board of Trustees of the South Bend
Community School Corporation has made through public discussion about replacing Marquette School
with a new facility. In fact, just tonight, the Board voted to move forward with this project along with the
project at Monroe Primary Center. Contrary to the statement made on the HPC website, the School
System has proven to be less than friendly to historicalpreservation I would contend that the opposite is
actually the truth. The District has made substantial commitments and financial commitments preserving
and restoring historical schools within our district. We have worked closely with the HPC in the
renovation and restoration of Jefferson Intermediate School, Madison Primary School, Adams High
School and most currently have just approved the renovation and restoration of Monroe Primary Center.
We have been veryfriendly to restoration when it makes good financial and education sense. Our
responsibility as a school system is to provide the best possible educational facilities at a responsible
financial cost to the taxpayers. We believe that Monroe is a prime candidate for renovation and
restoration. Marquette however does not present the same opportunity. Examples of this period of
architect have been maintained at other facilities throughout the school district. As such the Board of
School Trustees opposes the designation of Marquette Primary Center as a local historical landmark.
This opposition is expressed in the resolution approved by the Board at its meeting this evening. I have a
copy of that. My apologies for not having more copies; I made a quick dash from our meeting to your
meeting and I would be happy to provide any additional information to you that would be helpful to you.
Thank you.
President Klusczinski: Any other members of the public wishing to speak in opposition to landmark
designation of Marquette Primary Center. Hearing none, the Chair closes public hearing.
Cheryl Greene: Mr. President the Resolution from the School Board of Trustees can be read into the
record or incorporated by reference. For the record. There is not a separate copy for each of the Board
tonight, but whatever your pleasure is.
President Musczinski: We should read it.
Catherine Hostetler: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF THE
SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION
OPPOSING THE SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION TO DESIGNATE MARQUETTE PRIMARY
CENTER A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, the Board of School trustees (the "Board") of the South Bend Community School
Corporation (the "Corporation") has been notified that the South Bend and St. Joseph County Historic
Preservation Commission (the "HPC") desires to designate Marquette Primary Center located at 1905
College Drive ("Marquette"), in the City of South Bend as a local historic landmark; and
WHEREAS, the Board is contemplating construction efforts to replace the present dated facility on the
Marquette site with a structure that will better meet the current and future educational programmatic
demands of its students; and
WHEREAS, the Corporation's primary purpose is the education of its students and designating
Marquette as a local historic landmark will only hinder this purpose through increased costs and
inefficiencies; and
WHEREAS, the historic landmark designation will require that any demolition to portions of the
building and/or remodeling be in concert with the architectural design and nature of Marquette, causing
additional cost to the Corporation; and
WHEREAS, the Indiana Department of Education provides standards for renovation and remodeling that
must be met; and
WHEREAS, three other school buildings of the Corporation built during the same period as Marquette
have been designated as local historic landmarks, which means the students, the Corporation and the
community at large will not be benefited or served by Marquette being designated as a local historic
landmark; and,
WHEREAS, designating Marquette as a local historic landmark will only reduce the administrative and
financial resources available for the education of its students by limiting the Corporation's ability to
respond quickly and cost effectively to the facility and maintenance needs of the students at Marquette,
and
WHEREAS, meeting the challenges faced in maintaining an historic building is not an effective use of
the Corporation's limited administrative and financial resources; and
WHEREAS, the Board wishes to maintain control over the design and configuration of Marquette, rather
than seeking that from the HPC; and
WHEREAS, designating Marquette a local historic landmark will only increase the difficulty of the
Corporation's efforts to meet the programmatic needs of its students, will limit the efficiency of space
utilization, and will increase the complexity of the Corporations renovation and remodeling efforts;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF THE
SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Board hereby opposes the HPC's recommendation to designate Marquette as a local
historic landmark.
2. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect after its adoption by the Board.
ADOPTED this 21 day of May, 2007.
It is signed Marcia. Hummel, Dawn M. Jones, Ann Rosen, Sheila Bergeron, and two names that I can't
read and with an abstention by William Sniadecki
President Klusczinski: Thank you, Catherine.
Lynn Patrick: Can I ask a question? Am I to understand that there are not signature lines with their
typed names underneath for their signatures to adopt? (Catherine Hostetler nods in the negative) I see.
Thank you.
President Klusczinski: Did the School Corporation supply anything to substantiate the claims that they
drew in that referendum?
Catherine Hostetler: None.
President Klusczinski: Thank you. I'll open Commission discussion on the topic.
11
Joann Sporleder: I would like what you just said to be part of the record that the School
Corporation offered no substantiation for the allegations listed in the letter.
President Klusczinski: I have a question for Counsel. Does this mean that the current process to
landmark Marquette is now in jeopardy because of a preemptive plan by the South Bend Community
School Corporation enacted this evening?
Cheryl Greene: Well, at this point, you are, you have not yet submitted a landmark, you have not
approved a landmark status on this property. Their actions have taken place prior to yours, what they've
expressed, I believe, in this Resolution is intent to proceed to renovate that particular building. There is
nothing definitively that you have before you at this point based upon my reading here that tells you what
their exact plan is. So, again they have just expressed intent. So whether their intent is preemptive of your
action, I think it's kind of...
President Klusczinski: So it is general enough to permit full demolition and reconstruction, but it might
be tempered enough just to suggest rehabilitation.
Cheryl Greene It...from the Resolution again before the Board which is really a statement by the
Board opposing your action, your intended action, what they state specifically, and I quote they are"
contemplating construction efforts to replace the present dated facility... with a structure that will better
meet the current and future educational... demands of its students. " So again, you don't have anything
definitive before you just have a statement of intent to replace the existing structure. It doesn't say
whether it is replacing it in whole or in part again it does it appears that part of their objection is to
seeking approval through HPCfor any approval as to demolition or remodeling as would be required
should the building be landmarked.
President Klusczinski: I see. Thank you. Does anyone else have comments?
Todd Zeiger: I have one comment I guess, just following upon what you just described. I was at the
School Board meeting this evening and my understanding of their discussion, and I guess when you pull
their minutes was that the decision was to move forward with the bonding, But the decision was not
about whether or not... they did not specifically say whether they were going to build new or renovate.
As a matter of fact one of their Board members was specifically was talking about that, and the others
reflected that they could move forward with this bonding and that the decisions would be made later with
regards to the plans or specifications. Their motion tonight to move forward and give the Superintendent
the opportunity to work with the architects on development of the plans. So I would say that it is fully
within our right to move forward with the landmarking to help guide those decisions that would be made
in the development of those new plans. I think that actually it is rather pro-active to help before money is
spent in new construction documents. I have been through that building on at least two occasions with
architects and the School Board's own study by Hebard and Hebard indicate that this building is
structurally sound. It is historically important as a PWA structure and is imminently ripe for
rehabilitation. So I think that I would encourage the Commission to move forward.
President Klusczinski: The next step in this process now that the second reading is near completion is
that we would I guess that we would send this to Common Council.
Cheryl Greene: Yes, and the Common Council adopts the landmark status by way of an
Ordinance and then that requires a first, second and third reading and includes an additional public
hearing at that time incidental to that Ordinance.
President Klusczinski: Chair would entertain a motion...
Joann Sporleder: Can I say one more thing?
President Klusczinski: Sure.
Joann Sporleder: I would like to say that even in this document, the School Corporation has
indicated that on more than one occasion the School Corporation and HPC have cooperated with very
successful outcomes. And I see no reason why the same couldn't be true with Marquette School.
President Klusczinski: Thank you, Joann. Chair would entertain a motion to send landmark designation
request as Ordinance to the Common Council of South Bend.
Martha Choitz: I so move.
Joann Sporleder: I'll second it.
President Klusczinski: Any discussion? All in favor? (Ayes 8) Opposed?(Nays 0) Motion carries
unanimously.
12
C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION — None.
IV. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 16, 2007
Approved as submitted.
Moved: Riley Second: Chase
Approved Unanimously
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
Approved as submitted.
Moved: Riley Second: Patrick
Approved Unanimously
C. STAFF REPORTS
1. Correspondence
2. Director — Catherine Hostetler
Distributed to Commission.
3. Assistant Director — Amy Herdman
Distributed to Commission.
AD also gave a brief synopsis of the recent cemetery preservation workshop in
Greensboro NC, and fielded questions from Commissioners. The workshop was very
well done, highly informative and very comprehensive. AD recommends any NPI
planned workshop or conference. As planned before the workshop, AD will schedule
informational/procedural presentations regarding stone conservation and preservation
issues.
4. Legal Counsel — Cheryl Greene
No report.
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. President's Report — Tim Klusczinski
April 23, 2007
Joined Catherine Hostetler at the South Bend Community School Corporation
Meeting for the results of the Hebard & Hebard feasibility study.
April 24, 2007
East Wayne Historic District "Neighborhood Meeting." Todd Zeiger from HLFI
Was the guest speaker and made a brief presentation designed to rise
Awareness about local landmarks and the challenges that confront
Preservationists.
May 1, 2007 5:15pm: Special Meeting to discuss the 2007 Southhold Awards
Event Attendance: Catherine Hostetler, Todd Zeiger, Lynn Patrick, Linda Riley, Tim
Klusczinski (chair), Amy Herdman. Discussion ensued over the current list
Of Southhold Awards breakfast attendees. With consideration for budgetary
issues and attendees, the Commission decided to move the location of this
year's event from the Palais Royale to the Morris Bistro.
May 4, 2007
Morning: Accompanied Bill Latoza, Catherine Hostetler and Todd Zeiger on a
tour of Marquette Primary Center.
Afternoon: I met Bill Latoza and Catherine Hostetler for a tour of Lincoln
Primary Center.
5:30pm: Attended the Notre Dame School of Architecture presentation
sponsored by Krupali Uplekar (Asst. Prof. University of Notre Dame). The
event shared the results of a yearlong study on the Revitalization of
13
Downtown South Bend. During the second half of the program, I participated
in round table discussion with Marco Mariani (DTSB) and Jennifer Laurent
(Comm. & Econ Dev.) which aimed to address the challenges of instituting
proposals suggested by the study.
May 5, 2007
Southhold Preservation Awards Breakfast with guest speaker Bill Latoza of
BauerLatoza Studio — Chicago. As a national specialist having direct
experience with 675 Chicago public schools, Bill made a compelling case for
the revitalization of historic educational facilities against cost estimates
for reconstruction.
May 14, 2007
Meeting with Code Enforcement officials to discuss the impact of current
violations upon the Taylor's Field Local Historic District. Those present
for the discussion included Catherine Toppel (CE), Scott (CE), Amy Herdman,
Wayne Doolittle and Tim Klusczinski.]
2. Landmarks Committee — Chair, Linda Riley
No report.
3. Southhold Awards Breakfast — Director Hostetler
Post event comments were very favorable, and many spoke highly of the location- the
Morris Bistro. Mr. Latoza's presentation was very well received, and although he's in
Italy, he's agreed to prepare a report or synopsis of his findings regarding Marquette
School. Masterpiece Creations, the caterer, will be refunding approximately $600.00 of
our original fee, so final numbers will be available at the next meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
Vice President Patrick reintroduced the idea of additional products bearing the HPC name/logo etc.
She will be working with a local coffee purveyor who will be designing a label, creating a blend, etc.
for sale. VP Patrick asked for the consent of the Commission to proceed, and specified that she
would not need a committee, that she'd be pursuing this herself. Consent and support was given -
"Proceed at will" per President Klusczinski; progress reports and additional information will follow.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
Klusczinski: I have one question, and I'd pose this to the entire commission, to our legal counsel and
to staff. I'm not completely certain about the threat that Marquette is now under, with the School
Corporations' decisions tonight or whatever decisions they're working on behind the scenes. I don't
know if it would be prudent to entertain interim protection for Marquette to at least help it see
through the ordinance process with the South Bend Common Council. So those are my thoughts and
sentiments, and I'd like to hear what yours are.
Sporleder: What is involved with interim protection, do we have to do something tonight? Or do we
do something on the next agenda?
Hostetler: No, you can entertain it under new business, that's perfectly legitimate to do. Under
interim protection, they would not be allowed to demolish remodel, or anything to the building
without HPC approval. We are required by our ordinance to give notification within 48 hours of
placing a building, site or structure to the owner of its interim protection and then sending a copy of
that interim protection to the appropriate Council, to the Mayor, to Area Plan, to the Building
Commission, and to our legal counsel.
Sporleder: Let's do it.
Patrick: Mm-hmm.
Zeiger: I think that it's helpful in light of what we talked about earlier and that is that they did
authorize something moving forward regarding design, but they were not specific about new
14
construction or renovation at tonight's meeting. I know that Catherine was there too, so if I'm not
hearing correctly, correct me now...
Hostetler: The thing that has me concerned Todd, is that they had the action agenda and it was
agenda item 070521-04 background: 'based on the most recent meetings and discussions, the
remodeling and expansion of the Monroe Primary Center along with the construction of a new school
building at the Marquette site is the most appropriate approach to upgrade these facilities.
Zeiger: And I remember the discussion specifically and Dr. Zimmerman specifically agreed that what
they were authorizing was his ability to work the architect to develop the plans and specifications. I
made a mental note of that because it was in conflict with what you're reading, but I'm not
doubting...
Hostetler: But the recommendation down here was `that the Superintendent be authorized to initiate
the process for the development of construction plans as well as the detailed planning and
appropriate mechanisms for the sale of bonds for the renovation and construction requirements at
Monroe and Marquette Primary Centers as well as minor capital improvements at Washington and
Clay High Schools'.
Zeiger: I have a legal question. I remember that conversation between the Board members because
one of them, one of the points that she brought out was that `we're just moving forward so we can get
the money to do these certain things to give the Superintendent'. I'm just supporting what you're
saying... if we get it under interim protection before they start doing the development of the plans then
they can't say that we're stopping something that's in process; in the sense that we notify them that
this is under interim protection, we're going to push for permanent protection, so they shouldn't
proceed with developing new construction documents while that's in process, it would seem...
Hostetler: Hebard and Hebard's plans for Marquette's school which I've seen included three
scenarios: one was a new school, one was a renovation with an addition, and one was a renovation
period.
Zeiger: Right, so two of the three were moving in the direction that we're talking about for
Marquette. Those numbers were vastly less than new construction.
Hostetler: Right and it was discovered in the plans, that by their own numbers, the School
Corporation would be getting less square footage for more money with new construction than they
have currently now if they just renovated what they have.
Zeiger: And that's in their own document, that's not even our numbers or that of another
preservation organization.
Patrick: May I make a comment if I may about the dichotomy between what the School Board says
they're doing and then what the outfall is. In my experience, monitoring how they communicate and
how they proceed, not to hint that there is any intent to mislead the public, however, I believe as he
spoke about programmatic issues, and his terminology was very problematic for myself. I believe
that the School Board, and the Historic Preservation Commission, while both having worthy goals,
communicate entirely differently. And operate entirely differently. So I would just like to say that I
suggest that we move ahead on interim protection, which is I believe six months. At the same time
working to more clearly communicate with the School Board and more stridently, but yet
compassionately, press our case and hopefully we can let them see the benefits to the community of
restoration and rehabilitation and saving this structure for the neighborhood and for the good of all.
Chase: We've had an example of what the, of the wording that the Corporation uses and the promises
that they make. We had that with Nuner School, Washington School, and we were at a time when
they were believed. Both were wrecked in the dead of night on a weekend. It was impossible to save
them because we believed them.
Klusczinski: And Oliver School too, correct?
Chase: Well, that was a more severe situation. And then we also believed them about the parking lot
in Leeper Park that was supposed to be put back to grass when the construction was done on
Monroe. We believed them on that too. There are three big instances- they have not done what they
said that they were going to do.
Patrick: I have a quick question and I promise that I'll be brief. Counselor? Is there a statute of
limitation on that parking lot construction? Right across from Monroe School in Leeper Park?
Zeiger: It's right across from Madison.
15
Greene: [Reply unintelligible due to distance from the microphone]
Chase: When they put the parking lot in without approval, on Leeper Park, which was supposed to be
used only while they were doing the renovation at Madison, and it was going to be returned to grass
when the construction was all done. And it has not been, in fact, I think that they've embellished it.
Greene: Did you have a written agreement? To revert it...?
Chase: We'd have to check back to the minutes from that time and see what we have.
Greene: Generally, what I would do as legal counsel, I would check to see if there was an existing
agreement in place, and then enforce that agreement. If there is not a written agreement, then I
would look into the public record and check that these actions were taken publicly with full
awareness and agreement.
Riley: I have a question about that. Before the construction started, I thought it was exactly as it is
now.
Chase: No, there was no parking lot there.
Choitz: That was the understanding right along. It's in many of our minutes.
Klusczinski: I want to make sure that we don't get too far off topic. Cheryl is there away that you
could help us research that?
Greene: Sure, we could look into it with Catherine's help for the history of this. We can bring a
report back to the Commission at its next meeting, as to the status, and again, if there was an
agreement in place or promises and representations agreed to on the record, then it would be a
matter of sending a letter enforcing both.
Sporleder: Can we go back to Marquette and the interim protection? After six months can we have
another interim protection? Or can we only do this once?
Greene: My understanding is that there have been questions raised in the past but I haven't looked at
this in quite sometime, Joann. My recollection is that you have that six months interim protection
until such time that either that six month window shuts down or the Common Council takes action on
the land marking. So, it is my understanding, and the ordinance is a little unclear on whether or not
that can be extended, but it does not appear to me that you could tack on another six months. I do
want to make note that during interim protection, that it does not prohibit the property owner from
making remedial repairs that are necessary to continue the property, it does not prohibit this
Commission from issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations that are consistent with the
guidelines, it simply prohibits the building from being demolished during that period of time or from
conspicuously changing the exterior of the building. Again, my understanding is the six month
window, you are required to send a letter to the owner.
Sporleder: Can you prepare a statement of how we should word that? Is there any specific legal
wording?
Greene: In the past, I believe that you've provided the property owner with a copy of the ordinance,
and they can draw their own interpretations, but it would not be my responsibility to give them
interpretations. Basically, there is a form letter that lays out this information.
Sporleder: So all that we need to do here is to make a motion to initiate the interim protection?
Well, I so move.
Choitz: I second.
Klusczinski: As long as there hadn't been a motion already seconded.... we'll close discussion. All in
favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (Silence) Motion carries unanimously.
Moved: Sporleder Second: Choitz
Approved: Unanimously
VII. HEARING OF VISITORS
Don Sporleder was recognized and discussed various AIA initiatives and his recent return from an
AIA conference in San Antonio. He also mentioned an upcoming visioning charette regarding Youth
Service Bureaus Safe Stations. More details will follow.
16
ADJOURNMENT
Moved:
Attest:
Sporleder
Second:
Approved:
Todd Zeiger,
Secretary
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County
Patrick
Unanimously
Date
17
Location Budget as of 05-31-2007
Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 01-01-2007.
Fund: 001 County General for 01/01/2007 thru 05/31/2007
Loc: 037 Historic Preservation
Account Original
Object Description Appropriation
11075 Deputy Director 30,000.00
000 General GovT.
11309 Historic Preservation Admin. 36,050.00
000
General GovT.
10000
Totals .....................:..................
21030
Office Supplies
000
General Gov'T.
22010
Gas Oil & Lubricants
000
General Gov'T.
22120
Garage & Motor Supplies
000
General GovT.
20000
Totals ........................................
31070
Other Contractual Services
000
General GovT.
32020
Travel
000
General GovT.
32050
Instruction & Training
000
General GovT.
32053
Public Relations
000
General GovT.
32200
Telephone
000
General GovT.
32350
Postage
000
General GOVT.
33010
Publication Of Legal Notices
000
General Gov'T.
66,050.00
1,250.00
883.00
700.00
2,833.00
28,000.00
425.00
1,000.00
2,570.00
160.00
2,160.00
500.00
Addt'I/Adj
Appropriation
0.00
0.00
0.00
59.50
0.00
0.00
59.50
0.00
1,129.00
150.00
638.82
0.00
400.36
0.00
Total
Appropriation
30,000.00
36,050.00
66,050.00
1,309.50
883.00
700.00
2,892.50
28,000.00
1,554.00
1,150.00
3,208.82
160.00
2,560.36
500.00
Saint Joseph County
User ID ksobecki 06/01/2007 01:15 PM Page 79
Unencumbered
Unexpended
Encumbrance
Expenditure
Balance/Percent
Balance/Percent
0.00
11,538.50
18,461.50
18,461.50
61.54
61.54
0.00
13,865.40
22,184.60
22,184.60
61.54
61.54
0.00
25,403.90
40,646.10
40,646.10
61.54
61.54
0.00
205.98
1,103.52
1,103.52
84.27
84.27
0.00
248.65
634.35
634.35
71.84
71.84
0.00
15.00
685.00
685.00
97.86
97.86
0.00
469.63
2,422.87
2,422.87
83.76
83.76
0.00
11,597.58
16,402.42
16,402.42
58.58
58.58
0.00
1,554.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
225.00
925.00
925.00
80.43
80.43
0.00
2,351.52
857.30
857.30
26.72
26.72
0.00
0.00
160.00
160.00
100.00
100.00.
0.00
1,403.47
1,156.89
1,156.89
45.18
45.18
0.00
39.90
460.10
.460.10
92.02
92.02
User ID ksobecki 06/01/2007 01:15 PM Page 79
Location Budget as of 05-31-2007
Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 01-01-2007.
Fund: 001 County General for 01/01/2007 thru 05/31/2007
Loc: 037 Historic Preservation
Account
Total
Original
Object
Description
Appropriation
33100
Printing
3,000.00
000
General GovT.
Balance/Percent
37100
Auto Lease
500.00
000
General Gov'T.
8,078.02
39010
Dues & Subscription
750.00
000
General GovT.
94.72
39600
Refunds, Awards & Indemnities
0.00
000
General GovT.
500.00
39750
Data Processing
1,000.00
000
General Gov'T.
100.00
39980
Funds W/O Approp.
0.00
000
General GovT.
535.05
30000
Totals """""""""...... """""
40,065.00
44250
Office Machines
0.00
000
General GovT.
0.00
40000
Totals """""""""""•'•`•"""'••'•"
0.00
Location Totals """"""""""""""""""""' 108,948.00
Investment Accounts
Transfer Accounts
Saint Joseph County
Addt'VAdj
Total
Unencumbered
Unexpended
Appropriation
Appropriation
Encumbrance
Expenditure
Balance/Percent
Balance/Percent
5,528.00
8,528.00
5,528.00
449.98
2,550.02
8,078.02
29.90
94.72
0.00
500.00
0.00
0.00
500.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
750.00
0.00
214.95
535.05
535.05
71.34
71.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
17,055.51
(17,055.51)
(17,055.51)
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,000.00
0.00
0.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12,391.75
(12,391.75)
(12,391.75)
0.00
0.00
7,846.18
47,911.18
5,528.00
47,283.66
(4,900.48)
627.52
(10.23)
1.31
3,651.82
3,651.82
0.00
3,651.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,651.82
3,651.82
0.00
3,651.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11,557.50
120,505.50
5,528.00
76,809.01
38,168.49
43,696.49
31.67
36.26
0.00
0.00
76,809.01
User ID ksobecki 06/01/2007 01:15 PM Page 80
Location Budget as of 05-31-2007
Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 01-01-2007.
Fund: 013 County Special Gifts for 01/01/2007 thru 05/31/2007
Loc: 037 Historic Preservation
Account Original
Object Description Appropriation
00000 Gen Gov't 0.00
000
General GovT.
00000.
Totals#t=t===.=t==f««=f!!!ltt====«#«##!!!!!!t!
23240
Other Supplies
000
General Gov T.
20000
Totals=____,•##«###!#lttt===#__#!!!lfttl,===__
42010
Buildings & Structures
367
Gifts&Contrib
40000
Totals=«__««_««#«###lfff#tttl:!lttft«ttffff:lf
Location
Totals
Investment Accounts
Transfer Accounts
[MM
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
52,0.00.00
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 06/01/2007 01:15 PM Page 150
I
South Bend and St. Joseph County
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Timothy S. Klusczinski, President
June 5, 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: SBSJCkPC@co.st-joscph.in.us
Historic Preservation Commissioners:
A Certified Local Government
� o
Catherine D. Hostetler, Director
As is required upon return from travel for education or training purposes, I wish to respectfully submit
this report of my recent experience at the NUSA National Conference in Baton Rouge, LA.
-The opening keynote was presented by Mack MacCarter of the Shreveport -Bossier Community Renewal
Program. He spoke on the importance of creating relationships within the community that we serve in
that are based on love, honesty and a shared sense of purpose and goals. Very much the public/private
partnership imperative, but presented such that the interpersonal bonds and relationships are given the
priority and the focus of work and nurturing, not necessarily goals or projects at hand.
-Workshop #1: Developing an Actionable Strategic Plan
Kim Hunt, of OH Community Partners of Chicago presented a wonderful, but daunting, workshop about
the differences. between a Mission Statement, Vision Statement, Strategic Plan and Work Plan and how
they can either work together or against the other, and that depends on planning and preparing. Best
practices and ideas were shared regarding crafting these documents and how to work with difficult
colleagues that can poison the process.
-Workshop #2: Healthv Communitv Leadership
Two gentlemen from the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program presented a very insightful
workshop on leadership and the differences between leaders, managers, and "speedbumps". The work-
shop addressed handling situations with neighborhood groups, mediating disagreements, and learning to
work with colleagues, volunteers, and neighbors.
-Workshop #3: Making Preservation Work
This workshop was presented by the new New Orleans officer of the National Trust and the new HPC
staffer in Baton Rouge. Unbelievably, Baton Rouge which is a wonderfully preserved, thoughtful
community has only had an HPC for 1 year, and they have only one district and one landmark. Their
staffer related to us that although the community has a definite interest preservation, they weren't in any
way interested in having that interest legislated by a Commission. Very interesting. The New Orleans
officer essentially provided some context for whatever troublesome things we're trying to solve, just
remember that New Orleans has it worse.
COMMISSIONERS
Mary Jane Chase (Treasurer) - Shawn Peterson (Legal Counsel) Gerald Ujdak
Martha Choitz Lynn Patrick (Vice President) Linda Riley
Catherine Hostetler Joann Sporleder (Historic Architect) Todd Zeiger (Secretary)
-I had the opportunity to meet and have lunch with the team of folks for Indianapolis that were in the running for
Neighborhood of the Year award recognition. They'd done a project with middle schoolers to create National Register
nominations for their neighborhoods in Old Speedway, Indiana. It was a real joy to be with them when they not only
won the historic preservation award, but also won grand champion of all of the projects and initiatives submitted.
-I also had the opportunity to participate in a walking/trolley tour of thriving downtown Baton Rouge. They've recently
opened a wildly successful Farmers Market in the bottom floor of a parking garage that is open 6 days a week. On
Saturday, more booths are erected outside for the extra vendors. Once a month a parking lot serves as an "Art Market"
for local artists. Baton Rouge also has made the goal of 0% surface parking w/in the next five years. This is both
ambitious and to be applauded. Baton Rouge is the capital city so it's a large but very workable feeling downtown.
Traffic is handled nicely and there are wonderful attributes like landscaping and street furniture. Other stops included
the old Louisiana Courthouse and the new Louisiana Courthouse.
Thank you for your attention to this report, and for the opportunity to attend.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
JUNE, 2007
May 22 Official Bridge Lighting for the Leeper Park Bridge
May 24 Meeting: Executive Committee of the Botanical Society
May 31 Attended Roland Kelly's Funeral at Notre Dame; Botanical Society
Membership Meeting at 6:00.
June 1 Attended Mayor's News Conference of the Windows on the River at
Century Center
June 4 Attended/Participated in the SBCSC Board Meeting concerning the bond
issue and the demolition of Marquette School
June 11 City Celebration Meeting with Mikki Dobski-Shidler, Jennifer and Amy
concerning Fun by the Fountain and Park After Dark. Presented before the
Committee of Zoning and Annexation concerning their role and
importance of Marquette School being saved as a Landmark
June 13 City Celebration Meeting with Mikki, Amy and Jennifer on Fun By the
Fountain and Park After Dark. Created a template for an Event planning
check list and Submitted it to Mikki for review. Contacted' Digger Phelps
for assistance on Marquette School landmarking.
June 14 Interviewed for Senior Life Magazine about Historic Preservation
Commission at the Morris Bistro. Met with Bruce Haupert and the
O'Connor's on the Talley House COA. Executive Committee meeting of
the BSSB at Howard Park General Store.
June 15 Staff Meeting with Wayne and Amy. Discussed projects problem
properties, grants and Office issues and organization.
,June 18 Attended/Participated in SBCSC Board of Trustees meeting.
SOUTHHOLD 2007
COSTS
PALAIS ROYALE $ 400.00
MASTERPIECE CREATIONS 1,564.92
GOODWILL 65.28
INSTY PRINTS (800) 499.98
POSTAGE 195.00
AWARDS 201.00
HPC NUTS AND CALENDARS (Cost) 143.50
OLIVER INN (Bill Latoza) 99.00
TOTAL $3,168.68
RECEIPTS AND REFUNDS
PAID BREAKFASTS (58) $880.00
REFUND FROM MASTERPIECE
CREATIONS $638.82
TOTAL $1,518.82
COSTS NET RECEIPTS/REFUNDS ($1,649.86)
Assistant Director's Report
HPC Meeting —06-18-2007
■ Met with Marco Marian! of DTSB at their offices.
■ Attended NUSA Conference in Baton Rouge. Separate report was sent with
Commissioner packets.
■ Organized and set up Leeper Park bridge lighting ceremony.
■ Set up and staffed Fun By the Fountain.
■ Visited Drewry's site with potential buyer and current owner.
■ Met with Troyer Group regarding Drewry's project.
■ Notified of grant award from IHC for the W. Washington Street Walking Tour.
■ Met with Mayor's Office/Director Hostetler on several occasions to continue work on
City Celebration events.
■ Attended Mayor's news conference on Windows on the River.
■ Met with Steve Nemeth and contacted Phil St. Clair via email to get clearance for
Steve to attend Cemetery conference that I've just returned from. Steve is the
Sexton of City Cemetery, were that a funded position.
■ Organized and staffed Stained Glass program at St. Pauls (Six @ Risk site)
■ Met with Scott Shuler to begin work on W. Washington Walk. Also met with Scott
Osthelmer of Rink Printing regarding graphics and layout
■ Met with Suzanne Miller regarding Portage Prairie tour of homes/mills/bams and
cemeteries. HPC is assisting with some marketing efforts.
■ Attended SBCSC meetings (2).
■ Responded to report of unauthorized construction at 612-614 Carroll. Arrived with
Code and the Building Dept to inform contractor of necessity of C of A, etc.
■ Attended Code Enforcement hearing regarding 319 N. William.
0 Attended first HPC staff meeting.
HPC President's Report June 18th, 2007 — Timothy Klusczinski
5/22/07
5/30/07
6/1/07
6/4/07
6/4/07
6/5/07
6/6/07
6/7/07
• 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.
• 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 Drewery's facility.
• Staff Meeting to review policy and procedures. Present: Tim Klusczinski,
Catherine Hostetler, Amy Herdman, and Lynn Patrick (in -progress arrival).
• 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 29th, 2007 was also discussed. A follow up meeting
was tentatively set for June 11.
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. .
• Returned Cemetery conference materials to HPC office.
• 3:45 PM: During Wayne's absence, I investigated 319 N. William when a
dumpster and pallet of shingles 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.
• Met with Suzanne Wilson for a summary of the Portage -Prairie Township
Tour. Suzanne asked for the HPC's endorsement of the event through
6/8/07
publicity channels and for other creative ideas. I shared some thoughts and
passed along her request to meet with staff.
• 11:00 AM: 412 LaMonte Terrace. Discovered an exterior installation of a
6/11/07
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.
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.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY
June 18, 2007-
13th 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
II. 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
PJ
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 briefpresentation?
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
off-set 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 24x15
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
4
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 dijficult 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. Thank you.
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 Ifirst 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
W
the soldier course going across it has a lot problems with it. It's going to have to be repaired
again because it's shifting around and stuff ff 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 ofA. It's been applied for, it's part of the C ofA.
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 ofA 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 ofA.
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 visiblefrom 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 many anne
behind which bothers me, especially in a historical structure that sits out in the open with
0
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: I am 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 ofA 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 it's 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 ofA, 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 ofA 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 ofA
which would be a gable end roof instead of a mansard low hip. My motion is to approve the
brick per the C ofA 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 clarify 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 ofA. 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.
E
Zeiger: So moved.
Chase: Second.
Klusczinski: All in favor? (Ayes are heard)
in opposition.
Moved: Zeiger
To approved amended 2007-0605
Opposed? (Aye is heard). Motion carries with one
Second: Chase
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 SIGNIFICANCEMISTORIC 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 became a 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 42006-0306A 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
0
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 opportunityfor 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 10 ft. 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
Choitz: Yeah, from the street. That is the street side...
Brown: This is Riverside, and this is Lafayette, this is the parking lot
Choitz: Ok, 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 5 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 thefloor.
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 Pt.
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`s, 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
shingles 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, AIA150, the Indianapolis Hiking Club's 50'`, 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 150th anniversary.
ADJOURNMENT 8:46pm
Moved: Zeiger
Second: Hostetler
13
A
Approved:
Secretary
Historic Preservatio Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County
Unanimously, 6-0
I-&-0-7
Date
14
SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
JUNE 18, 2007 MEETING
GUESTS: PLEASE SIGN THIS LIST SO THAT
YOUR PRESENCE CAN BE NOTED FOR OUR
MINUTES
Print Name Address
�7 %�� � !�1 tri � . �� �,� �Z� tst��at�
ire D vszl'e-tdjc-z 2x7i7owe to- v 0
Signature