Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 2007AGENDA OF THE MAY 219 2007 COMMISSION MEETING . Regular Meeting THIRTEENTH FLOOR ROOM 1308 County -City Building MONDAY, MAY 21, 2007 7:OOPM I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL II. PUBLIC HEARING A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 1. 410 Manitou Place COA#2007-0426 2. 212 Sunnyside COA #2007-0430A B. LANDMARK - 1. Second Reading: Marquette School C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION -None - 111. REGULAR BUSINESS A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 16, 2007 B. TREASURER'S REPORT Location Report C. STAFF REPORTS - `pMMIS51pryFp� o c 1. Correspondence 2. C of A Approvals 3. Directors Report 4. Assistant Director Report & Cemetery Conference Report 5. Legal Counsel D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: 1. President's Report 2. Landmarks Committee 3. Southhold Awards Breakfast IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS VI. HEARING OF VISITORS AND ADJOURNMENT STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: April 26, 2006 Application Number: 2007-0426 Property Location: 410 Manitou Place Property Owner: Carol and Charles Rosenberg Landmark or District Designation: Chapin Park LHD/NR Rating: 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: II 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 roof's 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. Application - FOR - Certif icate of Appropriateness Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana 46601 Mailing Address: County -City Building South Bend, Indiana 46601 Phone: 574-235-9798 • Fax: 574-235-9578 • Fanail:SBSJCHPC@co.st-joseph.in.us Website: http://w"«n,.sgosephcomityindiana.com/sjchp/index.htiA OFFICE USE ONLY—»» DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CON71tINED IN THIS BOX »»» OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received 'iii —24 - 4jO 7 Application Number DO_7 - 0 5/LG Past Reviews: ❑ YES (Date of Last Review) Staff Approval authorized by: ❑ NO Title: Historic Commission Review Date: ��" -at / ` e200 7 ❑ Local Landmark [?'-ocal Historic District (Name)_/I f� F-1NationalLandmark Ee'fiational Register District (Name) 6� Certificate of Appropriateness: ❑ Denied ❑ Tabled ❑ Sent To Committee ❑ Approved and Issued DATE Address of Property for proposed work: J " `a ri t fou Pt/ac e _>w vid 0(e n p Street Number a ,Street Name Name of Property Owner(s): (please Print) Address of Property Owner(s): ✓Y► e "/ r Contractor(s) Name: �d _3e dp l..%G� c� Contract Company Name: Contractor Address: City: Phone: Current Use of Building: 1 t' fP Q YY!" l 4 Single Family —Multi -Family —Commercial — Government — Industrial — Vacant — etc.) Type of Building Construction: ,#7 1Y Lyn; v4 1 Po S i l� (Wood Frame — Brick — Stone — Steel — Concrete — Other) Proposed Work: C ?� ❑ In-kind ❑ Landscape ❑ New ❑ Replacement (not in-kind) ❑ Demolition (more than one box may be checked) _;� /_ Description of Proposed Work: I e ml),Ae i�.`2t�✓Y),►'1; LoAe ri r -e pI a 0_1 ro©-F . 0 MW r_P it/f lf die ago --:0 YD �Pcl- C�.s ne ontractor: Fax: e-mail C_kGt rtes— rDSenb, -em ya hoo ff.111 correspond with only one designee) "j V I and/or — APPLICA7IONREQ1HREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE — _ 410 Manitou Place South Bend, IN 46616 Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County 125 S. Lafayette Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 Dear Historic Preservation Commissioners, We are currently taking bids to re -roof our house. The roofers with whom we have spoken have asked whether they can remove the brick chimney. This chimney has no function whatsoever, but requires upkeep. The hot water heater and furnace vent out the side of the house. As you can see in the enclosed photos, the chimney is not a major architectural feature of this house, and is barely visible from many angles. We have not yet chosen a contractor for the roof, but would like to know whether or not we are permitted to remove the chimney. If the roofers need to repoint the bricks and do flashing and other protections around the chimney, that will naturally add time and expense to the estimates. If they can remove it, seal the area, and put shingles over it, it will be more waterproof and less expensive. Therefore, we need to know whether the removal of the chimney is an option. We are not including specs for the roof itself. A separate application for a Certificate of Appropriateness will be submitted for the job once we can get accurate estimates, based on whether or not the chimney is permitted to be removed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Carol and Charles Rosenberg 1'. Chapin Park Local Historic District Hot cold Normal (Bricks expand) (Bricks contract) A. Fl«Fbte Mortar (Lime) ON Mortar compresm Mortar fleus \ � .�� B. Inflexible Mortis (Cement) y SpaBLtB Cad$ open op Guidebook Figure 7. Diagrammatic sketches showdneffects of temperature change upon masonry. Flexible mortar (A) nds and contracts with temperature changes. Bricks bonded by in amble mortar (B) tend to spall at the edges (the area of greatest stress) m hot weather and sepa- rate from the mortar when it is cold. This Iter condition opens cracks, permitting the entry of water and causing additional deterioration. Adapted from Maintenance of Old Buildings. Document D20. National Swedish Institute for Buffding Research, Stockholm, 2975. Not Recommended Waterproof or water repellent coatings or surface consolidation treatments should not be used on masonry surfaces unless required to solve a specific problem that has been studied and identi- fied. Coatings are frequently unnecessary and expensive, and can accelerate deterioration of the masonry. Mortar joints, which do not need repointing, should not be repointed. Wood siding should not be power -washed. B. ROOFS AND ROOFING Roof shapes in the district encompass all the various designs found in residential structures: hipped, gabled, gambrel, flat and combinations of these. Roofs are covered with a variety of materials such as asphalt, asbestos, wood and slate shingles as well as clay tiles. Residences in most cases have wood fascias with gutters and downspouts. The fascias of some vinyl- and aluminum -sided houses are covered with the same materials. Required The existing shape and Croft"Is type of materials of the „„rrEl roof shall be retained. All architectural features, which give the roof its EEAENNIe OMIYrED 0e DET`KxON"TED essential character, shall be retained, including aarAct FAILURE dormer windows, cupo- las, cornices, brackets, oll«AOEa.KOKEN chimneys, cresting and ItTENID01.1110rWNIN0 ANO MOORE*emu weather vanes. Kt PAL0-0e Page 73 PLAEWNO O:KKKE r) FAILURE 00 SOLOEMDJ01NTt NOORAWAOE - VALLEYS MATE4010111000 Guidebook Chapin Park Local Historic District Recommended The original shape and materials of the roof should be restored. Particular effort should be made to retain materials such as slate, tile and other unique materials not commonly found in new con- struction. Roof covering which is deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced with new mate- rial that matches as closely as possible the original in composition, size, shape, color and texture. Gutters and downspouts are often a necessary adjunct in order to prevent deterioration of the structure; they should be maintained whenever possible or replaced with a style comparable and suitable to the architectural period. Prohibited ROOF TYPES Nothing shall be done to change the essential character of the roof as viewed from a street by adding architectur- al features or large unsightly fixtures, or by using materials inappropriate to the style of the house. The roof shall not be stripped of architec- tural features important to its character. Not Recommended Overhanging eaves, soffit, brackets and gables should not be covered or enclosed when adding sid- ing to a building. C. WINDOWS AND DOORS Window and door frames are in most cases wood and vary depending upon the style of the home. Many are double - hung windows with wood trim and sills. Brick structures have stone sills and brick lin- tels. In some cases where alu- minum siding has been applied, the window and door trim has been covered. About half of the structures in the district have aluminum storm windows; the other half have wood storm windows. Required Original windows and doors shall be retained including sashes, lintels, sills, shutters, decorative glass, pediments, hoods and hardware. When deteriorated beyond repair, they shall be replaced with units and trim resembling the original. I r lintell ', `1 Head rx A. cob LM -i Window Elevation Head top rill pully 1*1' parftbead —muntln - - meeting rang weiglgs pane weight pocket parUUng beadamb —&tile interior slop pully ^\ bottom fail ail slow slaains n rabbet murstln Praia" These arc only three examples Fig, of many possible pn+files. Mun- tins can contribute subsianllslly Window sections to window sitnificance. Casement windows adapted the English tradition of using wrought iron casements with leaded , a cames for residential use. Rolled steel casements k (either single, as shown, or paired) were popular in the 1920s for Cottage -style residences and Gothic -style campus architecture. More stream- t � lined casements were popular in the 1930s for institutional and small industrial buildings. Page 74 STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: April 30, 2007 Application Number: 2007-0430A Property Location: 212 Sunnyside/228 Sunnyside Property Owner: Mary and Lou LaPierre Landmark or District Designation: East Wayne Street LHD Rating: Contributing STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: 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. 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 both the LaPierres, City Engineering and AT&T prefer the proposed location. Application - FOR - - Certificate of Appropriateness Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana 46601 Mailing Address: County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana 46601 Phone: 574-235-9798 • Fax 574-235-9578 • Email: historic@michiana.org Website: http://cwmmunitymichiana.org/historic/ A Certified Local Government OFFICE USE ONLY »»» DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX »»» OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received .YiDg�&L 0100 7 Application Number!9 DO 7 - 0434A Past Reviews: r-1 YES (Date ofLast Review) Staff Approval authorized by: [] NO Title: Historic Commission Review Date: .�f ai I " a 0a 7 or Local Landmark 2ir-ocal Historic District (Name) G • �' National Landmark E] National Register District (Name) Certificate of Appropriateness: E] Denied ❑ Tabled E] Sent To Committee ❑ Approved and Issued DATE � Address of Property for proposed work: Street Number and Street Name Name of Property Owner(s): (Please Print) r `.. #�' '+:R t� g'"p""° �• a -5 '^Aq M'= Address of Property Owner(s): Jt, W'I�� Contractor(s) Name: I u t t - 1.i ') r-:; A r! r rt 1 i13 -. t J ' Contract Company Name: A-ref a f / . ."t; :' .a a s e ° t 'XII Contractor Address: r �. ;'yy �. � �.. �;,.yl r',9 , ,�`' �•r ,j.:F� '��' .Y•'6 ,ie..w� City. • :. aKPhone: ...� Current Use of Building: (Single Family - Multi -Fancily - Commercial - Government - Industrial - Vacant -etc.) Type of Building Construction: &iA,. (Wood Frame — Brick — Stone — Steel — Concrete — Other) Proposed Work: In-kind Landscape New Ej Replacement (not in-kind) F] Demolition (more than one box may be checked) Description of Proposed Work: '31:r ;.�G ''Y �. r rt � ¢ '�+ P � �4 Y`s.�k.k an>•c �.�`N=�, v w�iS tr`�yp rl 43 Owner/Contractor. Fax: e-mail '.'r,�rS•:::;+Y (This office will correspond udth only one designee) and/or Signature of Owner Signature of Contractorf — APPLICATION REQ IRREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE — East Wayne Street Local Historic District Guidebook Recommended Whenever possible, the original features should be restored. Plant materials and trees in close prox- imity to buildings, sidewalks or streets that are causing deterioration to those elements should be removed. As much natural vegetation as possible should be preserved. If large shrubs become unsightly to the point of detracting from the historic character of the house or site, they should be cut back and allowed to rejuvenate. Dead and diseased material should be selectively removed. Trees and major landscaping elements that must be removed for one reason or another should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. 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. The curb height should be sufficient to maintain adequate drainage of the street. If older light fixtures are taken down in the city, they should be reserved for use in the historic dis- trict. Light fixtures on top of the brick pillars at the Eddy Street entryway should be replaced according to these standards. Prohibited Existing relationships of buildings and their envi- ronments shall not be destroyed through widening existing streets, application of asphalt or other bituminous coverings, or by introducing new streets or parking lots. Signs, streetlights, benches, major landscaping items, fencing, walkways and paving materials which are out of scale or inap- propriate to the neighborhood may not be used. The introduction of heavy trucks or similar vehi- cles in the District shall be prohibited. Not Recommended High-intensity overhead streetlights should not be used. Aglimpse of the "Playground in the Woods" B. BUILDING SITE, LANDSCAPING AND ACCESSORIES Individual properties in -the district are characterized by a house located in the center of a flat lawn, often divided by a walk leading to the front entrance. Several of the residences are sited on two or more building lots; however, the preponderance of the homes have been erected on a single lot. Most of the properties include a double garage, usually located at the rear of the property. The majority of garages are accessed from straight driveways leading from the main thoroughfare, while a few are accessed from the alley. There are also a few homes with a covered carport located at the rear of the property, as well as a few with circular driveways. Driveway and sidewalk mate- rials include concrete, asphalt and brick. All of the properties have trees and most have trimmed shrubbery and/or hedges. Most of the houses conform to a uniform setback line within each block. Page 37 Guidebook Required East Wayne Street Local Historic District Major landscaping items, fencing, walkways, private yard lights, signs (house numbers) and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures such as gazebos, patio decks, fixed barbecue pits, swimming pools, tennis courts, greenhouses, new walls, fountains, fixed garden furniture, trellises and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and the neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public walkway. y � i l i front want i public yVZd walk i tree i i TYPICAL SITE PLAN EWS TYPICAL SITE PLAN Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowl- edge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings and newspapers. New site work should be appropriate to existing surrounding site elements in scale, type and appearance. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration to the building's his- toric fabric should be removed. However, trees and plant materials that must be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. All high- intensity security lights should be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items, trees, fencing, walkways, outbuildings or other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped. Front yard areas shall not be fenced and fences shall not extend forward beyond the setback line of the house. The installation of unsightly devices such as television reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be viewed from the public thoroughfare. Not Recommended Telephone or utility poles with high-intensity over- head lights should be installed so that they cannot be seen from the thoroughfare. Page 38 N East Wayne Street Local Historic District Guidebook APPENDIX B Landscape Assessment Summary East Wayne Street Local Historic District possesses a character that has endured for decades and has maintained the most intact historic landscape of any of the Local Historic Districts. The flavor and ambiance should be maintained to ensure historic continuity. The use of hedges, ground cover and ornamental trees are the most obvious landscape elements that create a visual continuity throughout the district. Formal street tree plantings could enhance the district but are not neces- sary due to the presence of large trees in the front yards of most homes. The human scale of the neighborhood is a unifying factor that should be maintained through regulation if necessary. A grouping of oak and walnut trees is one element not as obvious as some but no less significant to the historical landscape. The large trees act as a back drop for the historic homes and also tie the neighborhood together. The use of hedges in combination with the architectural styles of the homes in East Wayne Street Local Historic District create a very formal atmosphere. In yards visible from the streets, fences as property dividers and privacy barriers should be prohibited, while the use of hedges for these pur- poses should be encouraged. The large trees in the front yards in combination with those in the tree lawns create a canopy enclosure that enhances the intimate human scale of the neighborhood. The street trees do not seem to create a line or visual connection in the manner of the trees in some dis- tricts; therefore, planting in the tree lawns is not imperative but would not be objectionable either. The use of one large tree in the front yard seems to be more characteristic of the neighborhood than formal street tree plantings. To preserve the character of the district, each residence should have either trees in the tree lawn or a large tree in the front yard. The use of ground cover rather than wood chips or decorative stone also adds to the formal design of the homes of the early 1920s. The use of Pachysandra (Pachysandra terminalis) and English Ivy (Hedera helix) should be encouraged while wood chips and decorative stone should be used in a limited fashion. Ornamental trees, such as the Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida) and Flowering Crabapples (Malus) are the elements that add to the symmetry and structure of the district. While the use of ornamental trees is desir- able and adds to the formal atmosphere throughout the district, each lot should use only two or three to eliminate disruption of visual continuity. All of the elements discussed above combined with the architectural styles of the homes along East Wayne create an environment that is scaled to the human. The character of the elements should be maintained to insure the integrity of the human scale of the district. A stand of diverse varieties of oak trees runs from Sunnyside south of the district, to approximately 1630 East Wayne Street. An exciting find, these trees are native species with size and shape which suggests they were planted immediately after conclusion of construction. Because the land which became the Sunnymede Development in the 1870s was farm land, the idea that the trees are sur- vivors of development holds slim possibility. However, the size of the trees dates them at 80 to 90 years old. This fact could suggest that the Studebaker brothers, Jacob F. and John M., let the trees grow to enhance their subdivision and business venture. In any case, the number, location and visual effect of the trees is significant to the character and should be preserved. Page 57 Guidebook East Wayne Street Local Historic District The large trees behind the homes act as a backdrop for the historic homes and adds to the ambiance of the historic neighborhood. The effect of the canopy should be maintained with a tree -for -a -tree policy. When a tree is cut down due to damage, disease or age, then another of the same species or an acceptable alternate should replace it. The street trees present in the neighborhood include Norway Maples (Acer platenoides), Sugar Maples (Acer saccharum), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), White Ash (Fraxinus americana), Pin Oak (Quercus palastrus) and American Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The combination is a nice mixture that should be continued. The planting of Flowering Crabapples and other orna- mentals within the tree lawn should be prohibited. Consideringthe character of East Wayne Street Local Historic District, this practice does not adhere to the concept of historic landscape preserva- tion for this area. The use of hedges, sizable shade trees, ground cover and ornamentals maintains the historic character of East Wayne Street Local Historic District. The historic landscape is the most intact of all the historic districts and should be maintained. Stringent guidelines regarding fences and ground cover materials (wood chips and decorative stone), as well as the number of ornamental and shade trees, may need to be put in place to maintain the character and scale of East Wayne Street Local Historic District. NOTE: East Wayne Street Local Historic District has a small park area located at the west fork in East Wayne Street that is not designated as a city park. The vegetation includes two trees that are considered historically significant due to their age. The area includes the following: Black Walnut Chinese Elm 2 Red Oak (one is significant) Mulberry (significant) Colorado Spruce 2 Colorado Blue Spruce 2 Flowering Crabapple 17 Yews 3 Crimson Pygmy Barberry 16 Bridalwreath Spirea (Juglans nigra) (Ulmus parviflora) (Quercus rubra) (Morus alba) (Picea pungens) (Picea pungens var. glauca) (Malus) (Taxus cuspidata) (Berberis thunbergil var. Atropurpurea) (Spirea prunifolia) A row of 5 Flowering Crabapples (Malus) are in a boulevard median at the east fork in East Wayne Street. Norway Maple Sugar Maple White Ash Green Ash American Sweetgum Pin Oak SUGGESTED TREES FOR TREE LAWNS IN EAST WAYNE STREET LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT (Acer platenoides) (Acer saccharum) (Fraxinus americana) (Fraxinum pennsylvanica) (Liquidambar styraciflua) (Quercus palustrus) - Page 58 48" H FRONT VIEW i (from right) i Dr:1Vir rJi'r� i '9Esr�, lnf) t_ . _ IAT&T Proprietary (Internal Use Only). Not for N N = PAM r) tIOU, outside the. AT&T companies except under written agreemen4 , ------------------------------------------------------� s------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- v� , , , � z , J hs` ( ( r ( - _ ► X09 JeF�Q�tid ( rvi ( ( , S� P""2 mi f etary T&� proPr' ante-) a '_; �lso�osur e ar use uts'de th a _ r s Dept u exni �omPanle wrl/� afire The location Report Will be bisstributeb at the meeting. Tbere are Dome terbuical gYitcbc,5 in the program aub all of the Couutp �Ocpartmeut5' location Rcport!� are inaccurate. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY April 16, 2007 — 13`h Floor Conference Room County — City Building, South Bend, Indiana Members Present: Mary Jane Chase [Treasurer], Catherine Hostetler, Tim Klusczinski [President], Linda Riley, Todd Zeiger [Secretary], Jerry Ujdak, Martha Choitz, Joann Sporleder [Architectural Historian], Lynn Patrick [Vice President] Staff Present: Catherine Hostetler [Director], Amy Herdman [Asst. Director], Cheryl Greene [Legal] Also Present: Michael Pfeil, John Strauss, Don Sporleder, Cathy Toppel, Myrtle C. Wilson I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL: President Tim Klusczinski called to order at 7:06pm. II. PUBLIC HEARING Application Number: 2007-0313A Property Location: 1158 Lincolnway East Property Owner: Michael Pfeil Landmark or District Designation: Lincolnway East LHD Rating: Contributing STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: The 1923 Bungalow was designed by G.T. Nethercutt for either Mrs. Martha G. Loughman or her daughter Edith Miller. Martha G. Loughman was the widow of George Loughman who was active in local Republican politics as a Councilman for the 5`h ward between 1879-1881, Mayor of South Bend between 1884 and 1886, County Auditor in 1894. The residence remained in the Miller family until 1962 when it was sold to Ida and Fred Auer. The current owner is Mr. Michael Pfeil. APPLICATION ITEMS: Installation of vinyl replacement windows and aluminum storm windows on the living room and dining room windows. Owner has completed all of the work. RECOMMENDATION: The staff is not making a recommendation because the work is completed. The Staff is submitting COA application as a point of information only on this structure for the Commission and to document the files on this house. Mr. Pfeil was unaware that the house was located in a local historic district at the time that this project was in progress. When the Preservation Specialist, Wayne Doolittle, contacted Mr. Pfeil concerning this matter, Mr. Pfeil agreed to save all of the original windows and store them in the basement. After speaking with Wayne, he has agreed to keep the original windows in the dormers. He now has a copy of the Standards and will work with Staff on future projects. Klusczinski: Petitioner present? Sir, could you use the microphone over here and state your name and address for the record, please. Pfeil: Mike Pfeil, uh, this address or where I live? This is a project that I bought to sell. Klusczinski: At your place of residence. Pfeil: 20340 Richard Avenue, South Bend, Indiana 46637. Klusczinski: And you're the property owner? Pfeil: Correct. Klusczinski: Does this Certificate of Appropriateness accurately describe the project? Pfeil: Yes. Klusczinski: That's already been completed? Question for Counsel.. Greene: Yes? Klusczinski: No, I have a question for you. Greene: Oh, I'm sorry, you do things differently. Klusczinski: Because this is an application after the fact, is it a moot point that we entertain this for voting? Can we just receive this into the record? Greene: I think that because the action has already been taken, your approval of disapproval of this Certificate of Appropriateness would not have any effect on the actual project. What you're trying to do here is make a record for your file, and you're accepting the application as a point of reference or as a point of information only. Patrick: Can we accept the application, but deny the work? Greene: Uh, yes I believe that you could, and you could send a correspondence to that effect to this petitioner or applicant. Klusczinski: I see, well I'm certainly open for some suggestions. Do you have any other statement to make in regard to this? Pfeil: I think that Wayne explained it. He showed up one week before I was done, I was about to list the house. He told me what I had on my hands and it's been on hold ever since, so I've been sitting on it for a month. I talked with realtors and they didn't know anything about it... Patrick: Who is the realtor, I'm sorry to interrupt, that represented the house? Pfeil: McGinty (?) and Company. I don't have their card. Bob McGinty? I thought that he might be here, but he didn't show up tonight. I talked to him about it but it never came up in title search, it never came up in tax records, it just didn't show up. I've had it since the end of December, I think and like I said, when Wayne showed up I was done, ready to sell it. Patrick: What was the cost of the improvements? Pfeil: The windows or everything? Patrick: The windows, the part that's non-compliant with the... Pfeil: I think A about $3500.00. Patrick: Did you have a building permit? Pfeil: No, I wasn't even aware that I should do that. This is about the fourth house that I...I just started doing this last year. Patrick: So you did not submit for a building permit. Pfeil: No, and he said that's where it might have shown up. The windows in back, the ones that I took out, were all screwed in because they wouldn't stay up by themselves. They all leaked. There's a train that runs in the back of the yard, they all rattled when the train passes. The replacements are much quieter and much warmer. Patrick: Any photos submitted with this. Pfeil: He told me that he might take some, but he didn't get, in fact I saw Wayne today and he didn't hand me any. Klusczinski: Would we violate proper procedure, counselor, if we received this without public comment? Greene: I don 't believe that a C of A generally calls for public comment unless you go to, and again I apologize for just stepping in at the last minute... Klusczinski: Procedurally, we usually for people supporting the petitioner or in opposition for it. So with that in mind, would we have a problem? Greene: No, you have the full discretion whether to issue this permit or not- so it's up to you, whether to accept public comment at this time. Klusczinski: I would entertain a motion whether or not we pursue this Certificate of Appropriateness for discussion, for the record, it is 2007-0313A. Or if we forego this discussion and receive it into record for the property since the work has already been completed. Zeiger: Did you say you're looking for a motion? Klusczinski: I'm looking for a motion Choitz: Iso move ... your last suggestion. Klusczinski: Which was...? 2 Choitz: Which was that, that we would ok... Klusczinski: ... that we would receive it into Choitz: That we would receives it as it is. Sporleder: Second. Klusczinski: Any Commission discussion on this? Sporleder: I have one question that I would like to pursue since he did go to the trouble of ascertaining through the realtor, etc. I have thought that all of our local historic districts and local landmarks were to be keyed into the auditor's office and recorder of deeds, so that should have been flagged. If that's not happening, then we need to be aware of that. If its not, he really isn't responsible for not knowing that because the transfer of deeds etc., is where that is supposed to be caught, and if its not there than it may not have been caught by the building department either. Hostetler: The Building Department has, and he didn't apply for a building permit either, uh but the Building Department has a listing of everything that we have in the city and in the county. We're currently working with, and there's going to be an intern hired by the data processing, the IT company, that's doing all of the new certification work, countywide and citywide for both area plan and the building department that's putting all of our information on the system. They would not put it on the tax system because it did not relate to taxes. We tried to get it on that. They said no, that's just for property tax information, so now we're going this route so that would mean that as soon as anyone applies for any time of building permit, that it will flash up there that it's a historic district or a landmark, and that should be done by the end of this year. Klusczinski: Any other discussion? Zeiger: Just to suggest that maybe we need to make signs for either end of the street that say that it's a historic district bigger. Pfeil: They're marked, in other places, but they're not marked on Lincoln Way. Zeiger: There's a sign on Lincoln Way isn't there? It says "Welcome to Lincoln Way Historic District" or something. I call for the question. Klusczinski: Question has been called. Is there a second. Zeiger: Its been seconded. Klusczinski: But not the question. Chase: I second it. Klusczinski: All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (Opposed is heard) Ok. Herdman: Mr. President, may I ask a question? On previous votes, where there was a dissenting vote, it was legal counsel's opinion that the person must speak into the record the reason for their dissenting vote. Klusczinski: Lynn, would you be able to offer... Patrick: Yes, this Certificate of Appropriateness is submitted on work that's already completed, though it's incomplete. There are no photos of the completed work presented with... are those the current windows or those that have been redone? Hostetler: 2005, and 2006. Patrick: Back of the home, September 2005, side of the home 2006. Which of these have are the ones where the windows have been replaced? Hostetler: All of those except the ones in the dormer. Patrick: These have all been replaced? Hostetler: They're storm windows, all storm windows. Patrick: Uh-huh. Hostetler: Wayne didn't take the pictures. Patrick: So my original statement is that I'm denying- being presented this, I was expecting some kind of photos of the work Sporleder: Can I comment on that? I thought that the Commission itself was presenting this CofA. Hostetler: No. 3 Klusczinski: Catherine would you read Certificate of Appropriateness 2007-0405 please? Moved: Choitz Receipt of C of A 2007-0313A Application Number: 2007-0405 Property Location: 115 East South Street Property Owner: Abandoned House Landmark or District Designation: Taylor's Field LHD Rating: Contributing Second: Sporleder Approved 8-1 Patrick dissenting STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: This 1910 Queen Anne was built for Mr. Charles H. Layton on property that he purchased from Sarah Taylor. The house remained in the Layton family until 1923. It was owned by various homeowners until its purchase in 1998 by Diane and Norman Northcutt. APPLICATION ITEMS: The house is abandoned. The City of South Bend Code Enforcement proposes to demolish all the structures, fill the lot and resurface with top soil and seed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. There was a major fire at this home in October, 2004. Staff and the Commission along with Code Enforcement have been attempting to work with the property owners since November, 2004. Mr. Stan Molenda's opinion in 2004 was that it was a close call between demolition and repair of the house. The HPC Preservation Specialists toured the house and documented the damage in March, 2005. COA 2005-0505 was issued for repairs to the house and a complete tear off and re -roof after a review by the Standards and Maintenance Committee. The work was never initiated and the house has remained open to the elements since its partial destruction by fire in 2004. The house has not been occupied since October, 2004 and is considered abandoned; and is now considered to be deteriorated beyond repair. Klusczinski: Is the petitioner present? Hostetler: And we do have pictures, Lynn... if you want to see pictures. Toppel: I'm Catherine Toppel, I'm Director of Code Enforcement with offices here on the 13`x' floor, 227 W. Jefferson. Right now I'd like to submit some pictures, I actually never thought that I'd be before and in fact that I'd actually prefer saving structures much over demolishing structures. In this particular case, as was mentioned, the fire occurred in 2004. The pictures that I'm sending around are from March '05 and it's now considerably worse than that now. We, Code Enforcement, did file for a hearing for demolition in 2005, excuse me, 2004 after the fire. However, that was modified to a repair order, to work with the owner to get the property repaired in May of '05. The Hearing Officer gave him time to make repairs and to submit a performance bond to insure that the repairs were made and to move forward. The owner, Mr. Northcutt contacted us on several occasions and said that he was trying to come up with the money for the performance bond. We extended the deadline on numerous occasions for him to do this. It has not been done. This particular home has been open to the elements this entire time without any attempts to tarp it, to protect anything on this particular home. At this point, we feel that it has become a huge safety issue for the neighbors; the people around it are continually complaining that they can't enjoy their property because of the destruction of this one. That's why we wish for approval to go forward. Klusczinski: I need some clarification. You're not the property owner? Toppel: No, sir. Klusczinski: I'm under the impression that all Certificates of Appropriateness must be submitted by the property owner. Is that true to form? 4 Toppel: We have an ajjirmed demolition order from the Hearing Ojjicer. Before the City cam proceed with demolition, we need to come forward for a Certificate of Appropriateness, but we actually have an order to proceed with demolition of the property... Klusczinski: Due to safety issues. And do we have that as part of our record? That you have control of the property? Toppel: We actually don't own the property. This is a hearing order, and no, I apologize I have a copy here that I can certainly submit... Greene: When property is in, the condition such as it goes before the Code Enforcement bureau or division, there is an administrative hearing that is held and the property owner has the opportunity to come forward, they're cited for violation of City Code. They have the opportunity to come forward, present evidence, they're given the opportunity to repair the property. If they don't comply with the order that is entered by the Code Enforcement officer then a demolition order is entered, and Code Enforcement has the right by statute to proceed to demolish the property and then the property owner becomes responsible for the cost of demolition. Correct, Catherine? Toppel: That's absolutely correct. Under Indiana Unsafe Building Law 36-7-9, that is what gives the department of Code Enforcement the authority to proceed with demolition hearings. They do have a 10 day appeal period only. In fact, he never did, but in fact contacted us which is why we came in for a modification. There have actually been several demolition hearings- March 31, 2005, May 10, 2005, May 12, 2005 and May 19, 2005. Finally, in February, we took bids on February 27, 2007. We've been through numerous hearings on this with the hopes to entice the owner, as opposed to demolition. Demolition is always my last resort. Frankly, its going to cost the city lots of dollars and there's beautiful architecture on this home that's been totally ruined because its out in the elements. I can submit the findings to you; they have been recorded, and are in fact on the title of the property. Greene: The appeal period has run, correct? Toppel: Absolutely, two years ago. Patrick: I'd like to ask a question if I may. Has anyone been inside the structure? In a professional capacity? Hostetler: Wayne and Bob Yapp went through it. Patrick: Oh really? Hostetler: That's what the report says, the staff report. The Preservation Specialist toured the house and documented the damage in 2005. That's where you've got those interior shots from. Patrick: So that's my question, pursuant to that, in more recent times, have... Hostetler: It's not safe. Patrick: That was my question, it's not safe enough for anyone to salvage anything out of if indeed there were anything....? Hostetler: It's not worth dying over. Patrick: No, nothing's worth dying over. Toppel: These are our actual findings that we did allow for modification, and if the modification conditions were not met that it was to go forward... Hostetler: May we have that? Toppel: Yeah, and then I'll get with you to get a copy back Chase: I have a question just for information. So what is procedure for the city when a property is abandoned and it must be destroyed... does it go up for auction and then the proceeds go to the city to repay the expense? What's the process on that? Toppel: Actually the demolition, we let out for bids. We did have a low bid at $6891.00, which was the low bid. That will go as alien on that particular property. Eventually, it may go up for tax sale, for back taxes, but no the city doesn't acquire the property itself. Ujdak: Is the property owner or former property owner still paying taxes on it? M Toppel: Currently, I don't know. Unfortunately the tax computers were down when I was going to do my homework this morning. That's what you get when you wait til the last minute, but the computers were down. I don't know if he's current or not, but I would suspect that he's not. I do have a copy of a check that he received from an insurance agent. The check was only for $7000.00, after the fire, and my conversation with the adjustor on-site was that that was all he was going to get. Chances are he's not paying taxes either. Patrick: Too bad, it could've paid for the demo. Toppel: We tried. Klusczinski: Is there any member of the public wishing to speak in support of the petition? Any member of the public wishing to speak in opposition? Hearing none both times, I'll entertain a motion. Patrick: I'll motion that application 2007-0405 for 115 E. South Street, the abandoned house in Taylor's Field local historic district, be demolished. Riley: Second. Klusczinski: Any discussion? A vote then? All in favor? (Ayes are heard) All opposed? (Silence) Motion carries. Moved: Patrick Second: Riley Approval of C of A 2007-0405 Unanimous Application Number: 2007-0405A Property Location: 1114 Lincolnway West Property Owner: Abandoned House Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark Rating: Significant STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: This 1903 Queen Anne was built for Anna and George Secor. They lived in the house for ten years until it was purchased by Laura and Thomas Jackson. It remained in the Jackson family until 1952. The house was landmarked in March, 2003. The owner of record was not in residence at that time and it has remained unoccupied. The structure had been left to deteriorate since 2001 and has been the site of numerous break-ins over the years. There was a fire in October, 2005. The house went into foreclosure but was sold at a tax sale in 2006. APPLICATION ITEMS: The house is abandoned. The City of South Bend Code Enforcement proposes to demolish all the structures, fill the lot and resurface with top soil and seed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. There was a major fire at this home in October, 2005. Prior to the fire the staff had been unsuccessfully attempting to contact the homeowner, and later the mortgage company, concerning the deteriorating condition of the exterior of the home. The house then became the target of thieves, vandals and then arsonists. It was purchased in February, 2006. The Preservation Specialists from HPC and HLFI attempted to assist the new owner's contractor. The contractor never affected the repairs. The house has been minimally secured against the elements since 2005; it is now considered abandoned and beyond repair. Hostetler: Most of the damage is on the interior. Klusczinski: Is the petitioner here? Toppel: Catherine Toppel, Director of Code Enforcement, 13'x' floor, 227 W. Jefferson. Again, I'm going to pass some photographs around. This situation is a little different that the previous one that we just spoke about in that our list on this particular property only goes back to September of 2006. Shortly after afire that was started by what appears to have been vagrants that were in the home at the time. The property was purchased at tax sale by Community First LLC of Michigan City. In checking with state business records, that came back to an Amir Cawley (spelling may not be accurate) of n 817 South Falcon (?) in South Bend. I've actually been in contact with him numerous times. However, I would note that the most recent conversation we had was with a gentleman by the name of Norman Northcutt, who now was planning to have an interest in this particular property as well as his own at 115 E South St. I found it odd too. The interior of the structure is damaged to a point that it is not safe to walk in certain rooms in the home. Again, for the record, I will submit the order from the Hearing Officer that was given on December 7, 2006 affirming demolition order. We did have 3 hearings on the property, on the hopes to get someone at the hearings, the first being October24, 2006, then November 16, 2006, then December 7, 2006, due to the severity of the fire. Unfortunately, no one responded to any of the hearings. Just so you're certain, we do have to have proper service at our hearings, but state law, we do have to do certified mail, return receipt requested, publications, we went above and beyond. Most of you I don't know so you're not familiar with me, but I have a tendency to not want to demolish. Even if it's on demolition order, I try to get it repaired before I demolish it. People know that they can approach me. We do go above and beyond, but we didn't get anything here, no response except for Mr. Northcutt. He hasn't repaired his house since it burned in 2004, we didn't have high hopes that he was going to repair this one. So, I recommend your approval. We did take bids on the property, but we have not awarded them yet, until such time that the C of A could be issued, Pelley Excavating is the low bidder at this time. Patrick: What's the cost? Toppel: This one is $6893.00, which is actually extremely lower than the rest, Pelley comes in lower because they have a legal dumpsite on their property in Michigan. Uj dak: Anyone paying property taxes on this one? Toppel: Again, I don't have the answer to that- I'd sincerely doubt, well, it went up for tax sale, the taxes would still be current, because it was just acquired in 2006. Uj dak: So it was current last year? Klusczinski: Any other Commissioners with questions for the petitioners? Linda? Riley: Not for the petitioner, but I have a question... Klusczinski: Any member of the public that would be willing to speak in support of the current proposal? Hearing none, is there any member of the public wishing to speak in opposition of the current petition? Also hearing none, any Commission discuss on the topic? Riley: I have a question. Why would the HPC landmark this in 2003 when it states that it had been left to deteriorate since 2001. Patrick: I can answer that. To try to protect it. Probably. Would I be correct in assuming that our previous President was instrumental? . Hostetler: Yes, he wanted it land marked. Klusczinski: So it was some minor deterioration before the fire. Chase: It was probably savable before that. Patrick: Philosophically speaking, two Presidents ago, not myself and not Tim felt very strongly that land marking some endangered structures might yield some protection of them. In some cases it has, and in some it has failed. So, that's why you have a house in this condition that was land marked, so in this case it was unsuccessful. Klusczinski: I'll entertain a motion either in support or denial of the Certificate. Patrick: I'll make a motion that 2007-0405A for 1114 Lincoln Way West in favor of demolition. Klusczinski: Do I have a second? Chase: Second. Klusczinski: All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed? (Silence) Motion carries. Moved: Patrick Second: Chase Approval of C of A 2007-0405A Unanimous 7 B. LANDMARKS — First Reading: Marquette School. (There was a significant pause in the meeting as legal counsel exited the room to ensure that visitors to the meeting understood procedure, and that they might address the Commission at the end of the meeting. Upon her return, the meeting resumed.) C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION — None. III. REGULAR BUSINESS A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioners pointed out two typographical errors to be corrected. Presuming correction of those errors, the Minutes were approved as indicated. Moved: Zeiger Second: Chase Approval of Minutes of 3/19/2007 Approved Unanimously B. TREASURER'S REPORT Submitted as presented by Treasurer Chase. Commissioner Sporleder asked for some clarification of certain line items on the location report. Director Hostetler responded and explained what lines contain grant reporting, etc. Also a budget report showing such items previously unaccounted for such as candy sales, calendar sales, and grant monies. Director Hostetler has been working very closely and persistently with the auditors to sort out restitution fund- which is still $5K short. Vice President Patrick praised Director Hostetler's financial acumen and attention to detail. C. STAFF REPORTS 1. Correspondence Response to the Advisory Board invitations has been very positive. Director Hostetler distributed the list of those that have accepted. 2. Director — Catherine Hostetler Distributed to Commission. 3. Assistant Director — Amy Herdman Distributed to Commission. 4. Legal Counsel — Cheryl Greene (subbing for an ailing Shawn Peterson) No report, but asked that the minutes reflect good wishes to the outgoing counsel, Shawn Peterson. Counsel is leaving the employ of the city for May Oberfell effective 5/4/2007. C. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. President's Report — Tim Klusczinski At our last meeting (March 19th), I omitted Commissioner Chase from my recollection of attendees at the DTSB/Indiana Main Street presentation. I offer my apologies for this oversight and ask the she be properly recorded. March 24, 2007: I participated in Restore Michiana at Madison Primary Center as a host and presenter. Though it was a successful venture, judging from the publics' comments, the effort and coordination were certainly monumental. My personal thanks go to Catherine Hostetler, Amy Herdman, Wayne Doolittle, Todd Zeiger, Jennifer Gregar and Paul Hayden for a job well done! An honorable mention goes to Lynn Patrick, Linda Riley and Mary Jane Chase for their volunteer assistance. I hope everyone had a great time! March 27,2007: Attended the de -briefing session at HLFI to discuss the evaluations from Restore Michiana and to strategize about next year's event and location [realizing, that it's not too early to begin planning for that event]. At this time, President Klusczinski recognized Secretary Zeiger who made a brief report on Restore Michiana. He reported that 150 people attended (an increase from last year) and with a concerted effort to identify underwriters, and closely consider raising our price, next year is already looking very promising. March 1, 2008 has been chosen as a tentative date to be held again at a historic school, possibly Marquette. Secretary Zeiger thanked everyone for the help and support and will be sure to include everyone on the planning and brainstorming for next year. April 10, 2007: Meeting with Amy Herdman to review the HPC website. Broken and misplaced links as well as obsolete information was meticulously identified and brought to the attention of John Carlson, St. Joseph County GIS Coordinator and IT Representative. I am delighted to report that preliminary corrections and deletions were remedied later that day. John also assured me that HPC submissions to the site would be posted in a timely manner. These especially include our 2007 public meeting schedule and newsletter publications. Currently an effort is underway to revise (and pretty) the entire County website. I intend to stay in close contact with Amy [Herdman], John and his associates to relay any future and noticeable progress. Email Exchanges: Recently, I've observed an improvement in the transfer electronic exchanges between my email client and the staffs county email addresses. However, it was conveyed to me that glitches still exist for information exchanged between the County and City servers.. As a fail-safe measure an alternate mail address (hpc1973@gmail.com) was created to assure open intra -departmental communications. 2. Landmarks Committee — Chair, Linda Riley No report. 3. Southhold Awards Breakfast — Director Hostetler Reservations are being received. At the time of the meeting, approximately 12 had come in. The keynote, Bill Latoza is confirmed and will be arriving in South Bend on Friday, May 41h for a tour of Marquette in advance of his talk. Marquette Principal and Director Hostetler have confirmed the time and details of the visit. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS Assistant Director Herdman informed Commissioners that she'd been awarded an NEA tuition scholarship (valued at $525.00) to attend 2 NPI Workshops scheduled for May 7-9, 2007 in Greensboro, NC. The subject matter will be Cemetery Preservation and Cemetery Landscapes. AD Herdman requested that in lieu of attendance at Cornelius O'Brien, those funds be used for associated travel expenses for the NPI workshops. After a discussion about subject matter, the availability of programming using the skills/knowledge learned, Commissioners moved to approve up to $500.00 in travel/accommodations expenses. Moved: Zeiger Second: Sporleder Authorization of $500.00 for Approved: Unanimously. travel and expenses. VI. HEARING OF VISITORS Don Sporleder reviewed the festivities of National Architecture Week which was April 9, 2007. He also praised the 21S` Century College Town conference held at ND, particularly Alicia Burg's L� contribution. Mr. Sporleder also reminded the Commission of the upcoming ND Architecture event on April 26, 2007 at 5:15pm in the 4h floor Council Chambers, and of the Lincoln Highway Association dedication and reception on April 21, 2007 between 14pm. Secretary Zeiger promises good weather. ADJOURNMENT Moved: 8:20 pm Attest: Hostetler Second: Patrick Approved: Unanimously. Todd Zeiger, Secretary Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County Date 10 Location Budget as of 04-30-2007 Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 01-01-2007. Fund: 001 County General for 01/01/2007 thru 04/30/2007 Loc: 037 Historic Preservation Account Total Original Object Description Appropriation 11075 Deputy Director 30,000.00 000 General Gov T. Balance/Percent 11309 Historic Preservation Admin. 36,050.00 000 General GovT. 20,769.20 10000 Totals """""""""'""""""""".... 66,050.00 21030 Office Supplies 1,250.00 000 General Gov T. 0.00 22010 Gas Oil & Lubricants 883.00 000 General GovT. 22120 Garage & Motor Supplies 700.00 000 General GovT. 0.00 20000 Totals """""""'•"""""""""""" 2,833.00 31070 Other Contractual Services 28,000.00 000 General GOVT. 69.23 32020 Travel 425.00 000 General Gov T. 1,148.31 32050 Instruction & Training 1,000.00 000 General GOVT. 87.69 32053 Public Relations 2,570.00 000 General Gov T. 672.73 32200 Telephone 160.00 000 General GovT. 76.19 32350 Postage 2,160.00 000 General GovT. 685.00 33010 Publication Of Legal Notices 500.00 000 General GodT. 97.86 Saint Joseph County Addt'I/Adj Total Unencumbered Unexpended Appropriation Appropriation Encumbrance Expenditure Balance/Percent Balance/Percent 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 9,230.80 20,769.20 20,769.20 69.23 69.23 0.00 36,050.00 0.00 11,092.32 24,957.68 24,957.68 69.23 69.23 0.00 66,050.00 0.00 20,323.12 45,726.88 45,726.88 69.23 69.23 59.50 1,309.50 44.79 161.19 1,103.52 1,148.31 84.27 87.69 0.00 883.00 0.00 210.27 672.73 672.73 76.19 76.19 0.00 700.00 0.00 15.00 685.00 685.00 97.86 97.86 59.50 2,892.50 44.79 386.46 2,461.25 2,506.04 85.09 86.64 0.00 28,000.00 0.00 9,331.58 18,668.42 18,668.42 66.67 66.67 0.00 425.00 0.00 0.00 425.00 425.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 2,570.00 0.00 2,026.52 543.48 543.48 21.15 21.15 0.00 160.00 0.00 0.00 160.00 160.00 100.00 100.00 400.36 2,560.36 0.00 805.58 1,754.78 1,754.78 68.54 68.54 0.00 500.00 0.00 31.92 468.08 468.08 93.62 93.62 User ID ksobecki 05/15/2007 11:28 AM Page 79 Location Budget as of 04-30-2007 Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 01-01-2007 Fund: 001 County General for 01/01/2007 thru 04/30/2007 Loc: 037 Historic Preservation Account Total Original Object Description Appropriation 33100 Printing 3,000.00 000 General GovT. 0.00 37100 Auto Lease 500.00 000 General GovT. 0.00 39010 Dues & Subscription 750.00 000 General GOVT. 0.00 39600 Refunds, Awards & Indemnities 0.00 000 General GovT. 0.00 39750 Data Processing 1,000.00 000 General GovT. 5,572.79 39980 Funds W/O Approp. 0.00 000 General GovT. 0.00 30000 Totals "'***- ... *"************<_*_•_*<•**••** 40,065.00 44250 Office Machines 0.00 000 General Gov'T. 0.00 40000 Totals ........*......*_.***.*..*.<..*.*...*... n nn Location Totals "**_'***"*'_`*"**`*"'**:***•**•__*•** 108,948.00 Investment Accounts Transfer Accounts Addt'I/Adj Total Unexpended Appropriation Appropriation Encumbrance 5,528.00 8,528.00 5,528.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,928.36 45,993.36 5,528.00 3,651.82 3,651.82 0.00 3,651.82 3,651.82 0.00 9,639.68 118,587.68 5,572.79 Saint Joseph County 0.00 66,669.19 User ID ksobecki 05/15/2007 11:28 AM Page 80 Unencumbered Unexpended Expenditure Balance/Percent Balance/Percent 449.98 2,550.02 8,078.02 29.90 94.72 0.00 500.00 500.00 100.00 100.00 214.95 535.05 535.05 71.34 71.34 17,055.51 (17,055.51) (17,055.51) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 100.00 100.00 12,391.75 (12,391.75) (12,391.75) 0.00 0.00 42,307.79 (1,842.43) 3,685.57 (4.01) 8.01 3,651.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,651.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66,669.19 46,345.70 51,918.49 39.08 43.78 0.00 0.00 66,669.19 User ID ksobecki 05/15/2007 11:28 AM Page 80 DIRECTOR'S REPORT MAY, 2007 APRIL 16 Conference call with Parks Department and Rich Diesel concerning Greenhouses and Conservatories April 17 Contacted Bill Latoza concerning Marquette and Prof. Krupali Uplekar concerning Notre Dame Presentation on Downtown South Bend. April 23 Leeper Park Bridge Inspection with INDOT. Attended SBCSC meeting and invited all Board members to Southhold Awards Breakfast with Bill Latoza as guest speaker. April 24 County Commissioners' meeting for Assistant Director Travel to Greensboro, NC April 26 Spoke at Mishawaka Lion's Club luncheon on the Conservatories and Greenhouses at Potawatomie Park.. April 30 Attended Cpl. Nick Polizzotto's funeral at JACC May 3 Attended the Grand Opening of the All American Newsstand. May 4 Toured Marquette School, area's historic districts and Lincoln School with Bill Latoza and Tim Klusczinski; attended NDU/Professor Uplekar's Presentation to the City at the Council Chambers at 5:30 May 5 Southhold Award's Breakfast. May 10 Follow up Luncheon meeting with Krupali Uplekar on this year's class and will work with her next academic year, possibly on a study of St. Paul's. Participated in the Botanical Society Executive Session at Howard Park General Store May 15 106 Review for monopole near Landmark on 51177 Lilac Road May 16 DNR Covenant Review with John Embrickson on Second County Court House. May 19 Flower distribution for Botanical Society between 11 am and 2 pm. Assistant Director's Report HPC Meeting —05.21.2007 ■ Completed IHC grant application for the West Washington Walks program. ■ Met with John Kovach at St Joseph Library regarding exhibit. ■ Participated in Monroe Park/Taylor's Field Spring Clean Up Day. ■ Attended Lincoln Highway dedication/open house. ■ Secured County Commissioner's approval to travel to cemetery preservation workshop. ■ Continued work with Mikki Dobski and the Mayor's office regarding City Celebration events. ■ Attended Downtown Revitalization program by ND Architecture students. ■ Collaborated with Community Development on historic district signage. ■ Attended HPC Emergency meeting regarding Southhold Awards. • Assisted in the preparations for the Southhold Awards breakfast. ■ Took receipt of, and mailed, Spring Newsletter. • Attended Cemetery Preservation/Cemetery Landscapes workshop in Greensboro, NC- see report for details. Received notification of selection and award of partial scholarship for Preservation Leadership Training, sponsored by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. • Applied for and received a fellowship for the additional tuition fee for PLT. Total amount of fellowship: $1279.00. ■ Notified of award of $2000.00 grant from the IHC in partnership with Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana. 0 Attended Studebaker Admin. news conference. Cemetery Preservation Workshop Report Amy Herdman ■ This workshop was unbelievably well run and the presenters are obviously very professional, knowledgeable and passionate about their work. That makes all of the difference. ■ Other attendees included city planners, cemetery sextons, preservation planners, volunteers, military folks, cultural assets planners, and HPC members. ■ The presenters stressed that cemeteries are sacred sites, and MUST be treated as such. Care, maintenance, conservation and all work must keep that in mind. They are not dog parks, walking trails, or cut thrus and must be respected. ■ I came home with a ton of information and resources. Most significantly, we reviewed how to prepare the maintenance, conservation, operating, and emergency plans for our cemeteries. I'm fairly certain that no such plans exist right now. ■ A good portion of the workshops were fairly scientific in that we learned about different materials and how they weather, how they respond to different treatments, and the specific challenges that each might present when conserving them. ■ The workshop also included a session on iconography, symbolism etc. so that we might better interpret what we find on individual stones. ■ Policy matters were discussed such as whether or not to allow rubbings, if school tours will have access to the grounds, how maintenance issues will be inspected and improved, etc. ■ Extensive information was shared on stone type, typical characteristics, how they weather, how to conserve them, etc. ■ Other cemetery features were discussed as well including caretaker's buildings, fences, mausoleums, gates, fountains, comfort stations, etc. ■ We got hands on experience with different chemical compounds and treatments that we might ultimately be using in any conservation work. ■ Presenters emphasized best practices in all manner of work. ■ Appropriate signage was presented. ■ Mitigating safety risks were discussed- both for workers and visitors. ■ Very useful information about landscaping, tree choices, bushes and shrubs were discussed. We learned what plants are invasive, etc so that maintenance plans could be tailored accordingly. ■ Information and catalogs were distributed regarding conservation materials, sources, and additional information to share with sextons, boards, arborists, etc. ■ We got a very specific overview of types of cemeteries, types of monuments and building materials to assist in survey efforts. Attendees shared their specific challenges at their cemeteries so that we could discuss and brainstorm. ■ We visited two cemeteries to examine stones and previous conservation efforts- very informative! ■ Possibly most importantly, the presenters, Chicora Foundation, are available for site visits, surveys, etc. Although based in South Carolina, they have worked all over the United States and are familiar with all climates, weather patterns, planting zones, and cemetery trends and presentations. May � L ZOO-:T- My ooms My name is Joan Downs-Krostenko and 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 hePtonight to voice my support for the bestowing landmark status on M4uette Primary School. I address myself not only to the Historic Preservation Commission but to`'the members of the public 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 there 190' and early 20'h century schools from the wreaking ball primarily because it was shown 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 of future citizens are we cultivating when we say with our actions that all things are consider things eternally replacable? Are we declaring our fiscal responsibilty? 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 R t conserve and preserve our architectural patrimony? What institution is more central to a child's experience of public 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 who came before us. It is a way of saying we value and respect our own talents and endevors and expect them to be similarly lasting. -Everyone knows that historic preservation stablizes 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'h and early 20th century buildings in 1960, why are we considering it today? v -The Motesorri circulum 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 Montessori's are only successful in classrooms and other educational spcaes 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. %-Vo DOwr-i 64 9 Forte} Av-e 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 WHERAS, 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 ce 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 Corporation's renovation and remodeling efforts; I A NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF THE SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION AS FOLLOWS: I. 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 ADOPTED this 21" day of May, 2007 AYES ATTEST: Secretary NAYS MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY May 21, 2007 — 4`h 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 roof s 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. Iam 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 major job. 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 burning furnace 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? 2 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... ust for that information. Now, I would like to go into a little speech if I may. I toured the area, investigating almost all of the houses in yourparticular 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 1/3 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. Klusczinsld: 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 up on the chimney, I'm sorry.. I can not 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 defining feature 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 thereat 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 ... idon't know what else I can tell you. Klusczinski: Are there any Commissioners that have a question for the petitioner? 4 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: Ilooked 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. IGusczinski: 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 landscaping plan for every historic district. Patrick: That's true too. Sporleder: With recommended bushes, we could just look it up. Klusczinski: 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 their property 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? 0 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 Iget 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 ifyou 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 Ilive 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 MO 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 the public 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 ourpast 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. 6 President Musczinski: 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 Ilive at 843 Forest Avenue in South Bend. I have been here since 1977. My training and life experience has been in accountancy and so I am 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 of funding 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 testify 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 historical preservation 1 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 bestpossible 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 Klusczinski: 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 10 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) 1 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 datedfacility... 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 Boards 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 permanentprotection, 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 fthey 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 1 ADJOURNMENT Moved: A�e Vij lt�dneiger, Tj Sporleder Second: Patrick Approved: Unanimously Historic PreservAtion Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County &12e7 Date 17 SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 21, 2007 MEETING GUESTS: PLEASE SIGN THIS LIST SO THAT YOUR PRESENCE CAN BE NOTED FOR OUR MINUTES Print Name Address Si nature Line 3075.�, �� ` Lf GOVA72 cE� a ��d-14N/T r1 �L SS f, LA ImAy Ale i /o/v. 9ULLdcK o3 ):;/wrA/e 1 Soam �vwrs - Kros4cokn B49 �oYcsa- fic WAY y6C�dDLIdlr, 11-01 W bW/A5MIA147dAl u9IN� /