HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 2007AGENDA OF THE NOVEMBER 19,2007
COMMISSION MEETING
Regular Meeting THIRTEETH FLOOR- ROOM 1308
County -City Building
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19 2007 7:OOPM
I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
1. 817 Forest Avenue COA#2007-1023
2. 815 Forest Avenue COA#2007-1029
3. 710 Park Avenue COA#2007-1107
B. LANDMARK
C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 15, 2007
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
Location Report
C. STAFF REPORTS
C IV.
8,
1. Correspondence
2. C of A Approvals
3. Directors Report
4. Assistant Director Report
5. Legal Counsel
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
1. President's Report
2. Landmarks
3. Nominating Committee
4, Commissioner Term Expiration Dates
OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. HEARING OF VISITORS AND ADJOURNMENT
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: November 8, 2007
Application Number: 2007-1023
Property Location: 817 Forest Avenue
Property Owner: Theresa and Robert Sedlack
Landmark or District Designation: Chapin Park NR/LHD
Rating: N
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: This Stick/Vernacular style house was
built in 1892 for Elizabeth Lemen on Lot 28 of Chapin Place that was purchased from Edward Chapin.
The house was constructed for Elizabeth's son, Edward Lemen, a manufacturer of "blank books". Mary
and Lafayette LeVan purchased the home in 1894 and resided there until 1900. Mr. LeVan was a
superintendent for the Oliver Chilled Plow Works.
APPLICATION ITEMS: To replace old, rotted wooden fence with black ornamental aluminum "Hamilton"
fencing with Quad Finials between the house and the garage on the south along with the 50 feet of fencing on
the north side of the house and 8 feet along the east side per site plan. To install a new fence of the same
design along the rear of the property with gates for car and a walk gate to connect with neighbors' fencing of
same design in COA #2007-1029.
CHAPIN PARK STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:
B.. BUILDING SITE, LANDSCAPING & ACCESSORIES
This section focuses on individual properties and amenities. Building sites tend to be irregularly
shaped, of varying topography and with different setbacks with regard to plots. Alleys are generally
behind houses. Landscape accessories like fences are unique to each structure. Chapin Place
presents a unique situation within the district. Applications from properties that have property
lines on Chapin Place will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Required
Fencing, walkways, outbuildings, private yard lights, signs (i.e. house numbers) and benches (visible
from the street) as well as trees located in a yard or tree lawn which reflect the property's history
and development shall be retained.
A tree located in such areas shall only be removed if the removal is required due to storm damage,
disease, threatened damage to a structure or for such other reason acceptable to the Historic
Preservation Commission. Storm damaged or diseased trees should then be replaced with an
approved species at the same or approximate location wherever possible.
Fencing visible from the street in front of the structure shall be open (meaning spaces between the
pickets) and consistent with the historic character of a structure enclosed.
Recommended
New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property
found in photographs, drawings and newspapers. New site work should also be appropriate to
existing surrounding site elements in scale, type and appearance. Front yard areas should remain
open. (See above for information regarding fences.) Trees in close proximity to a building may
cause structural damage. Owners are encouraged to remove these trees and replace (or replant)
them at a more appropriate location as soon as planting season permits and upon approval of a
C of A.
Prohibited
No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing trees, fencing, walkways,
outbuildings
or other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development.
Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped,
nor enclosed by solid fences, chain link, nor industrial/commercial style fences.
The installation of unsightly large devices, such as television satellite dishes, skylights or solar
panels, shall not be permitted in areas where they detract from the architecture of a building, are
Guidebook Chapin Park Local Historic District
Page 70
intrusive to the public view of the building or are highly visibly from a public street, or ruled inappropriate
after Commission review.
Utility poles with high-intensity overhead lights should be installed so that they cannot be seen
from a street. The Commission will evaluate all installations as well as any potential exceptions
resulting from special circumstances, before granting a C of A.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of both items. The fence style is more appropriate to
the site than the solid wooden fence. The standards and guidelines for Chapin Park are silent on the use of
fencing the rear of the property and concentrate more on the front yard views which require the open views
which this style possesses.
Ir -
L -1
J
Application
-FOR-
Cert i fi cate of Appropriateness
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St..bseph County
125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana 46601
M ai I i n g A d d cess: County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana 46601
Phone: 574-235-9798 • Fax: 574-235-9578 • Ernafl:SBSjC1VC@co.st-josephin.us
Website: http://www.sqosephcountyindiana.com/sjdip/index.htnl
OFFICE USE ONLY --DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONIAINED1NTHIS BOX "'> OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received a,��ci�u,E>�Gb, Application Number ol00 L-10olS
Past Reviews: ❑ YES (Date of last Review) F-1 NO
Staff Approval authorized by: Title:
Historic Commission Review Date: / l xAd14WC-4- -21010 7
Local Landmark vocal Historic District (Name)
National Landmark [ o ational Register District (Name)
Certificateof Appropriateness:
F1 Denied E]Tabled []Sent To Committee []Approved and Issued
DATE
Address of Property for proposed work: $ F6 regio- A-aZ n4A_0--
Street Number and Street Name
Name of Property Owner(s): (Please Print) -F- 12ml,
Address of Property Owner(s):I/l
,, �1 Rb ^ee/4},-k
- / ,4 tJ�ri r�
ContractorAs) Name: k � Fes,L�w?e.. '/d to �j ki e-2
Contract Company Name: -- g,;. FPSL c;17— [AIA
Contractor Address:
City: A)a Yi ��m nee Phone: .5'7;'L/ 4CD ;)
Current Use of Building: �r�f �u)
(Single mily —Multi -Family — Gbmmercial — Government —Industrial —Vacant —etc.)
TypeofBuilding Construction:Dec&-,i47;tp ,7G;-2-1
(Wood Frame — Brick — Stone — Steel — Concrete — Othetlo,
Proposed Work: [:] In-kind []Landscape ®'New [Replacement (not in-kind) E] Demolition
(more than one box may be checked) (-P p DAY +i .I /
Description of Proposed Work: Ve, IA 101 a 1J, a) d t, welel C_
4 G i: 0-,g- H a rn�-,-i/`/ rr ! t���, t' ✓J t7jt r C 1 J l �
'fu all Ali? S V e P
Owner/Contractor: Fax: e-mail el hIe K (-% oW
(This office un7i correspond with only one designee)
.and/or
—APPLICATION REQUIREMENTSARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE —
i4 Sorllvyl.� 0-t
re p la ce, Cax 4
C -p-- wr'/ a `1 ovQ-
OIL) J,n Le-
Doke - SzW 1Qz k -
S 17- Fo-ire o- Aj an
•
3`
5'
24'
50'
8,6„
Alley
Existing Fence 161
Existing
All measurements are approximate
•
N
n
IF
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: November 8,'2007
Application Number: - 2007-1029
Property Location: 815 Forest Avenue
Property Owner: Julie and Mark Bruneau
Landmark or District Designation: Chapin Park NR/LHD
Rating: Contributing
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: The Queen Anne at 815 Forest was
built in 1891 for Flora and Charles Horst. Charles was a hackman for Miller & Newman. They raised
three children: Rudolf, Sarah and Jay. Sarah, who became a nurse inherited the house in the 1930s and
lived there into the 1940s.
APPLICATION ITEMS: To enclose backyard for privacy and to end random foot traffic between Forest
Avenue, Leland and the alley between them. Per site material submitted. Fencing and style to match that of
COA#2007-1023 "Hamilton" black aluminum with Quad Finials. This would be a new 60 foot fence with a
walk gate along the rear of the back yard and alleyway
CHAPIN PARK STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:
B. BUILDING SITE, LANDSCAPING & ACCESSORIES
This section focuses on individual properties and amenities. Building sites tend to be irregularly
shaped, of varying topography and with different setbacks with regard to plots. Alleys are generally
behind houses. Landscape accessories like fences are unique to each structure. Chapin Place
presents a unique situation within the district. Applications from properties that have property
lines on Chapin Place will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Required
Fencing, walkways, outbuildings, private yard lights, signs (i.e. house numbers) and benches (visible
from the street) as well as trees located in a yard or tree lawn which reflect the property's history
and development shall be retained.
A tree located in such areas shall only be removed if the removal is required due to storm damage,
disease, threatened damage to a structure or for such other reason acceptable to the Historic
Preservation Commission. Storm damaged or diseased trees should then be replaced with an
approved species at the same or approximate location wherever possible. _
Fencing visible from the street in front of the structure shall be open (meaning spaces between the
pickets) and consistent with the historic character of a structure enclosed.
Recommended .
New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property
found in photographs, drawings and newspapers. New site work should also be appropriate to
existing surrounding site elements in scale, type and appearance. Front yard areas should remain
open. (See above for information regarding fences.).Trees in close proximity to a building may _
cause structural damage. Owners are encouraged to remove these trees and replace (or replant)
them at a more appropriate location as soon as planting season permits and upon approval of a
C of A.
Prohibited
No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing trees, fencing, walkways,
outbuildings
or other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development.
Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped,
nor enclosed by solid fences, chain link, nor industrial/commercial style fences.
The installation of unsightly large devices, such as television satellite dishes, skylights or solar
panels, shall not be permitted in areas where they detract from the architecture of a building, are
intrusive to the public view of the building or are highly visibly from a public street, or ruled inappropriate
after Commission review.
Utility poles with high-intensity overhead lights should be installed so that they cannot be seen
from a street. The Commission will evaluate all installations as well as any potential exceptions
resulting from special circumstances, before granting a C of A.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. The standards and guidelines for Chapin Park are
silent on the use of fencing the rear of the property and concentrate more on the front yard views which require
the open views which this style possesses. The aluminum "Hamilton" style compliments the site and style of
the house.
1
Application
- FOR -
Certificate of Appropriateness
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St.Joseph County
125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana 46601
M ai I i ng Ad dress: County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana 46601
Phone: 574-235-9798 • Fax: 574-235-9578 • Email: SBSJCTlPC@co.st-joseph.in.us
Website: http://www.sgosephcoungindiana.mm/sjchp/index.html
OFFICE USE ONLY »»» DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES COMAINED IN THIS BOX »»» OFFICE USE ONLY
DateReceived cit? Ci d-007 Application Number 4-0-07 - 10-29
Past Reviews: ❑ YES (Date of Last Review)
Staff Approval authorized by:
R NO
Title:
Historic Commission Review Date: /9 X&1Ar"6'e_
E] Local Landmark [ Coeal Historic District (Name) /7/
4th
National Landmark EjjNational Register District (Name)
Certificate of Appropriateness:
E] Denied E] Tabled ❑ Sent To Committee E] Approved and Issued
DATE
Address of Property for proposed work: !F�) -57 Po.-eS+ AJ e ow c -
Street Number and Street Name
Name of Property Owner(s): (Please Print) �V C_ -+ i/%Q/K Ra m
Address of Property Owner(s): 19715 ForP e-+ Ave... v 4.
Contractor(s) Name: ch l'u- k
Contract Company Name: M : Qt Fe"c. e •�,
Contractor Address::// f*D 9 /9 � �
I ,S4a 4F. lua ! n r
City: /l/Ct IT v1 p -e— Phone: �L/ �S�o� goo to
Current Use of Building: i st`r��te _,c7r•vi 0' k,
(Single Fa y—Multi-Family— Comkciat— Government —Industrial — Vacant —etc.)
Type of Building Construction: Oir&1n vrt
nr/
► 4-A ' A (0,-" , i o v%. L2 -
(Wood Frame — Brick — Stone — Steel — Concrete — Other)
Proposed Work: E]In-kind ❑ Landscape (Vew []Replacement (not in-kind) ❑ Demolition
(more than one box be checked)
Description of Proposed Work: f_h (Va V01 -Y
Fa, ')e hAp Loo—la ti�� Aoeooe
Owner/Contractor: Fax: e-mail
(This office rvill correspond with only one designee)
and/or
— APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE —
A..P.%ArGA V
Sh
d -i'4/ i5 bCt"�t� /o 4 ij-bee� f 5
qcue pc? S )- ,- Ul Cer �I' "'�►chi - 4 tL'
L) �,j -e c1 11 <�- ire 5 4- A -v -t 50 v P ,
p
a.
HAM,
. .... .. .. ..
e
i
E'
F-
tM
c=;r'rr�'�'".,b'nw�"=:aew�•a.»d+�,:.:°g':`k".�.�'t• � ,.-,.n;._:. 2"" Ftiz �_ `0=' S* i _
:
. ,. ,. .. _..ee. •. vo Uw`'a>•Sd+P-wax;pe .t£lw Wvnc'Nw+xv�,�eixs sad+"'n.Wt6"-Vn.�m>n•'sF"+'•
ww-+N++�rvi0;wa.s'e•w.w nbaisak'=e �.�'iuta.eamW,'a •S.�wa«•uw. nsAy.
vS..a�waa+,....F`�...a''+,e•s+••c..m<ewY.r}e'-a.ARrxu..rw-w+ec•C.ud—.+,+e'e. SwAC _ - n...a,
50'
Alley
88' with gate
wide enough
for car to enter
and walk gate
for neighbors
S'EDLAL*.
New Fence Option 3 16�
slw+ f*e4vlL-
All measurements are approximate
3'4"
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: November 8, 2007
Application Number: COA# 2007-1107
Property Location: 710 Park Avenue
Property Owner: Georges Enderle
Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark, Chapin Park LHD/NR
Rating: Outstanding
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This Eclectic Italianate was built for
Mary Chapin Anderson and Andrew Anderson between 1875 and 1877. Four generations of the
Anderson-DuShane family lived in this house until 1962. This is one of the most significant residential
architectural structures in the city of South Bend and in Chapin Park.
APPLICATION ITEMS:. Four Marvin replacement windows in the bay area, wood ultimate insert double
hung, double pane, upgraded to Low E II with Argon gas. Per letter and specifications submitted.
CHAPIN PARK STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
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 lintels.
In some cases where aluminum
siding has been
applied, the window and
door trim has been covered.
About half of the structures in
the district have aluminum
storm windows; the other half
have wood storm windows.
Required
Original windows and doors
shall be retained including
sashes, lintels, sills, shutters,
decorative glass, pediments,
hoods and hardware. When
deteriorated beyond repair,
they shall be replaced with
units and -trim resembling the
original.
Recommended
Wood storm windows and doors painted or finished to match the original should be used but
should not damage existing frames. If new sashes or doors are installed, the existing or original
materials, design and hardware should be used. When metal storm doors are used, they should be
painted, anodized or coated to match the existing. When awnings are used, they should be of canvas
material.
Prohibited
Original doors, windows and hardware shall
not be discarded when they can be restored and
reused in place. New window and door openings,
which would alter the scale and proportion
of the building may not be introduced.
Inappropriate new window and door features
such as metal, vinyl or fiberglass awnings,
hoods or aluminum insulating glass combinations
that require removal of original windows
and doors, shall not be installed.
Not Recommended
Fake shutters that would
detract from the existing
character or appearance of
the building should not be
used.
GROUP B LANDMARK STANDARDS B. Treatment: Treatment shall be defined as any change of
surface materials that will not alter the style or original form. Such improvements include reproofing, glazing,
or landscaping lawns and may involve a change that can potentially enhance or detract from the character of
the landmark. A treatment change of any surface whether on the landmark or in its environment may require a
Certificate of Appropriateness if it significantly alters the appearance of the landmark. Although these kinds of
changes may not require a Building Permit, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be necessary. The
commission should review the proposed treatment for character and style consistency with the original
surfaces.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff can not recommend approval as the windows are not deteriorated beyond
repair and can be restored in-situ in this significant architectural landmark. These are the same windows
that were applied for in COAs 2006-1108A and 2007-0905A which the Commission denied.
Application
- FOR -
CerUf icate of Appropriateness
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County
125 S. Lafayette Blvd, South Send, Indiana 46601
Mailing Address: County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana 46601
Phone 574-Z5-97% - Fax: 574235-9578 - 'Email:SWCHPC®co.stjowphin.us
Website: http:Jlwwwstjowphcountynnd=&CD`mf sjchp/mdex.html
OFFICE USE ONLY »»» DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTIINED IN THIS BOX »»» OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received_7_14d..206 Application Number d �►D '% - !!� J
Past Reviews: (DareoltAst ttevtem) ! -t 00 7 [] NO
Staff Approval authorized by. Title:
Historic Commission Review Date: j `� . oYoo7
Qv 116cal Landmark Focal Historic District (Name)
[] National Landmark [gWational Register District (Name)
Certificate of Appropriateness:
[� Denied E] Tkbled [-] Sent To Committee Approved and Issued
• DATE
Address of Property for proposed work: `Tl 0 pmr c, Ave
Street Nu r and Street Name
7 LE
Name of Property Owner(s): (Prean Print) C�� >� Na
Address of Property Owner(s):
Contractor(s) Name:
Contract Company Name:
Contractor Address:
City:
Current Use of Building:
Type of Building Construction:
7/0 rvtrL t4r�.
/Zi(-`FFAe7) Gjt)i T -LF_
t4cliu, gervicir
NWC".q' - KI Phone: pl 74- '220 44 -7S -
(Single Family — multi-pa?"itY commm*1
4-7S-(SingleFamily—Multi-Family—Commercial Government—Industrial—Vacant—etc.)
WCr3t:^Frtlfl�rl�`
(Wood From — Brick — Stone — Steel — Concrete — Other)
Proposed Work: [] In-kind n Landscape [] New [] Replacement (not in -End) (] Demolition
(mane than am box may be chwked)
Description of Proposed Work: T(9 -(AX 1 L4CA4 Vi, -t N 01 A C 48-% ft -t W iA,% fV,0 k i
Pll nA VXK4,irk r0,*44- dal bie. gu r do1A6 r --;line t
U&�,t to"r c r; x Anw,
Owner/cvntami: Fax .1 74 At .�"S�.S- e-mail tA4E c (,- 9 n PI . E �"
(This o1rur WX correspond om only one designee)
and/orX
-- APPLICA1WON REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE --
University of Notre Dame
Mendoza College of Business 393
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-0399
Dr. Georges Enderle
John T. Ryan, Jr.
Professor of International Business Ethics
Mrs. Catherine D. Hostetler
Director, Historic Preservation Commission
227 West Jefferson Blvd.
South Bend, IN 46601
Dear Mrs. Hostetler,
Phone: 574-631-5595
Fax: 574-621-5255
E -Mail: genderle@nd.edu
November 6, 2007
Thank you for your letter of October 24, 2007 and the documentation on replacement windows,
energy-saving opportunities, and invisible storm windows. I appreciate your providing me with
additional information concerning my window problem. I would also like to thank you, Mr. Paul
Hayden and Mr. Schoberg for taking time to visit and inspect my bay windows on October 2.
I carefully studied your documentation and the conditions under which the Historic Preservation
Commission would accept a proposal from me. Here are my specific responses:
The article on replacement windows (in the Journal of Preservation Technology 36:4, 2005)
conveys much valuable information about multiple aspects on the controversy of replacing
windows versus restoring them. But, in my view, it does not succeed in solving the issue of my
particular case. I agree with the authors that sustainability and authenticity are the two important
criteria to address my window problem. Thus, I would expect that they fully apply to my situation
by accounting for social, economic, and environmental benefits (as sustainability is defined on
page 27). These include not only energy saving but also the quality of life in my house and the
aesthetics of the exterior appearance of the bay windows. Neither aspect is address by this article.
The second article on eneruv-saving onnortunities (in Home Energy Magazine Online September/
October 1997) claims "that `remove and replace' is not necessarily the way to go when it comes to
old windows" (page 1). I agree with this. But it is noteworthy that the article does not state that
"remove and replace' is never a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, the design of the field study
discussed in the article is, strictly speaking, not applicable to my window problem. It does not
include a comparison between, on the one hand, a restored window (single -pane window, without
interior or exterior windows) and, on the other hand, a replacement window (double -pane, low -E),
whereby weatherstripping is assured in both cases. Moreover, the study is ten years old and
reflects the technological knowledge of a decade ago. In the meantime, window technology,
undoubtedly, has improved substantially.
The "invisible storm windows" presented in the brochure of Allied Windows Inc. involve three
problems with regard to exterior storm windows for my bay area:
(1) The material of the frame of those Allied storm windows is aluminum.
(2) The storm windows on the upper and the lower sash would form one single flat surface, thus
eliminating the beautiful light effects of the existing windows.
(3) The storm windows are 7/16 inches thick and could not be properly placed on the existing
window frames of the bay area.
To conclude, the three documents do not.offer a comprehensive and satisfactory solution to my
bay window problem: Exterior storm windows that, by the way, my house never had are
technically not feasible and would harm the current historic aesthetics of the exterior of the bay
area. Interior storm windows that are not at the discretion of the Historic Preservation
Commission impair the quality of life of the owner. Furthermore, the articles discussed above
provide no proof that, in terms of thermal and infiltration loss, restored single -pane windows be
equal to or better than double -pane low -E replacement windows.
The upcoming session of the HPC will be the seventh meeting of dealing with my window
problem. I very much regret that the Commission denied all my proposals, even my pragmatic
proposal of an experiment, and; until now, has not offered any positive, comprehensive solution to
my window problem.
I, therefore, cannot by submit the following proposal that, in my view, meets the criteria of
sustainability and authenticity:
To replace the four windows of the bav_ area with Marvin windows as indicated in the enclosed
product specification:
• Wood ultimate insert double hung window
The daylight openings of this window (i.e., sashes) are:
Width: 30 5/8 " (existing window/sashes: 31 1/4 ")
• Height: 37 3/8 " (existing window/sashes: 39 ")
The insulated glass (two glasses) is upgraded to Low E TI with Argon gas.
Price of one window: $558.48.
Sincerely,
Georges Enderle
Enclosure .
Marvin window specification
(Photos and further documentation were submitted in previous sessions.)
WOOD ULTIMATE INSERT DOUBLE HUNG
SECTION DETAILS: OPERATOR
SCALE: 3" =1' 0"
4 9/16' 11/16"
(116) (17)
2 27/32'
(72)
H-!
2.11/32"
m
LLy
1
3 9/16'
/ 127/32"
(47)
11/4"
Head Jamb, Checkrail,
with Beveled Frame
1/4"
(6)
11/16'
\V
2 27/32' t
(72)
1
211/32*
E � (i) �I
U.
gam,
5.8.
ISO
227/32-
11/4
27/32'11/4" (72)
_ (32)
Head Jamb, Checkrail, with Beveled Frame
installed in existing frame
11/03 37.9
f
2 27/32"
(72)
00
MARVIN
Windows eed Doors
Made foryou:
1 �
(911)
1 /
219/32"
•1 7/32' (66)
_i (31)
Head Jamb, Checkrail,
with Flat Frame
1/4"
(6)
11/16"
P� V
(17)
2 27/32'
( I2)
i
�0
211/32'
E m
2
r
aa0
i
3 9/16'
- - (91) - - — - —
219/32' 17/32" (66)66)
_ (31) .
Head Jamb, Checkrail, with Flat Frame
Installed in existing frame
WOOD ULTIMATE INSERT DOUBLE HUNG
TRIM KIT
NOT TO SCALE
Exi;
Fra
Existing
Frame
I \
I
Head Jamb
Trim
I
1
Head Jamb Trim
\ JIDe JamD
� ,Trim
Side Jamb Trim
Exterior Side and Top Trim
(W8602)
1 V03 37.18
Sill Trim
MARVIN
Windows and Doors
Made for you:
Frame
Sill Trim
- P
Exterior Sill Trim
(W8599)
Version 6.13 MARVIN WINDOW QUOTE 08/31/07
r
*** CAUTION: IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A MINIMUM OF 1/4 INCH BE ADDED ***
*** TO THE ROUGH OPENING HEIGHT WHEN USING MARVIN SILLGUARD ***
*** UNIT AVAILABILITY AND PRICE SUBJECT TO CHANGE ***
*** NET PRICE (in USD) ***
6315-710
REQUESTED SHIP DATE:
BILL WERNTZ SUPPLY
SHIP VIA: OUR TRUCK
TO: 1002 KERR ST
P0: -
SOUTH BEND, IN 46601
JOB NAME: GEORGE ENDERLE
SHIP WERNTZ SUPPLY
CONTACT: BRUCE DARR
TO: 1002 KERR ST
PHONE: (574) 232-4881
SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 .
VER. 6.08 08/31/07
QTY: 1 MARK UNIT - O O D -r L 14 C -i
W INDH 497.64
IO 37"X85" Lo L -7L
IG - 1 LITE
LOW E II W/ARGON 46.80
EXISTING SILL ANGLE - 10 DEG. 0.00
UNIT WILL BE BUILT WITH 8 DEG FRAME BEVEL.
TP SASH LOCK 0.00
4 9/16" JAMBS 0.00
BA PINE INTERIOR 0.00
PR PINE EXTERIOR 14.04
TOTAL NET PRICE 558.48
v
A
AS VIEWED FROM THE EXTERIOR
South Bend and St. Joseph County
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
227 WEST JEFFERSON BLVD.
SOUTH BEND, IN 46601-1830
Timothy S. Klusczinski, President
October 24, 2007
Mr. Georges Enderle
710 Park Avenue
South Bend, In 46616
Dear Dr. Enderle,
Phone: 574-235-9798 Fax: 574-235-9578
e-mail: SBSJCHPC@co.st-joseph.in.us
A Certified Local Government
Catherine D. Hostetler, Director
The Commissioners of the Historic Preservation Commission instructed me to write to you concerning your bay's
windows and your desire to have operable, more energy efficient windows.
The latest information available from research indicates that the heat loss through the single pane of window glass
is about 20%, but, the majority of the heat loss is through improperly fitting sashes and the framing..
The proposal that the Historic Preservation Commission would accept would be the total restoration of the original
—windows by an experienced craftsman with the installation of the appropriate weather-stripping to ensure a proper
fit. This would include the insulation of the window cavities as well to reduce the draughts and can be
accomplished in such a way as to accommodate the weights. The Commission would not have any objections to
interior storms and would recommend additional insulation on the bay window area around the knee wall and its
base.
The Commission might allow exterior storms if they could be applied discreetly in the window openings over the
restored windows. The Commission also might allow the installation of double paned window glass in the original
sashes if they could be successfully installed in the original window sashes.
The Historic Preservation Commission will only accept the least invasive applications for your home because your
home is a significant and landmarked structure within an architecturally important local and national register
district; and because the windows are not deteriorated beyond repair. The Staff and Commissioners would be
available to assist and advise the craftsman that you would select for your window project.
I know that a successful project is important to you and have enclosed product information and restoration articles
to help guide you in this process. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Catherine D. Hostetler,
Director
COMMISSIONERS
Mary Jane Chase (Treasurer) Shawn E. Peterson, Attorney Gerald Ujdak
Martha Choitz Lynn A. Patrick (Vice President) Linda Riley
Joann Sporleder (Architectural Historian) Todd Zeiger (Secretary)
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY
October 15, 2007
13`h Floor Conference Room
County — City Building, South Bend, Indiana
Members Present: Joann Sporleder, Timothy Klusczinski, Mary Jane Chase, Lynn Patrick, Linda Riley
Members Absent: Jerry Ujdak, Martha Choitz, Todd Zeiger
Staff Present: Catherine Hostetler, Amy Herdman, Shawn Peterson
Also Present: Michael L. Smith, John and Tem Califano, Beth Harsch, Don Sporleder, Teresa Greene
CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL: President Tim Klusczinski called to order at 7:02 pm
I. PUBLIC HEARING
Application Number: 2007-0912A
Property Location: 1212 E. Jefferson
Property Owner: Terri and John Califano
Landmark or District Designation: E. Wayne Street LHD
Rating: Non Contributing
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: This split level ranch was built between
1958 and 1960 by Hazel and Merle Rusk. Mr. Rusk was a salesman with Ben Fefferman.
APPLICATION ITEMS: 9'x18' wood deck at rear of house per attached site plan.
EAST WAYNE STREET STANDARDS: I The Environment, B. Building site, Landscaping and
Accessories. Required: major landscaping items, fencing, walkways, private yard lights, signs (house
numbers) and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land
contours shall be retained. Structures such as gazebos, patio decks, fixed barbecue pits, swimming pools,
tennis courts, greenhouses, new walls, fountains, fixed garden furniture, trellises and other similar structures
shall be compatible to the historic. character of the site and the neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed
from a public walkway.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval as the deck will not be visible from the street and will
be compatible with the house.
Klusczinksi: For the record, if you could please state your name and address.
J Califano: John Califano, 1212 E Jefferson.
T Califano: Terri Califano.
Klusczinski: Would you care to make a presentation on C ofA 2007-0912A?
T Califano: Do we need to say anything?
Patrick: Sometimes people want to say something.
J Califano: It's pretty basic, we need some functionality. There is a large step that drops off the
back so we need to build it up and the deck provides the function of an easy walkway and to step
out of the house.
Klusczinski: Ok.
T Califano: And it goes with #2, to get down to the pool.
Chase: I see it's treated oak (?). - --
Klusczinski: Very good Anything else? Any Commissioners with comments?
Chase: I see that it's treated wood, is it going to be painted or stained?
T Califano: Probably stained.
Klusczinski: Are there any other decks, just to get a sense of the neighborhood, that you're
aware of in the environment.
J Califano: The house on one side has a deck in the back, but it is hidden. On the other side
there is a gazebo and you can't make out if there is a deck as well because of the foliage.
Klusczinski: That's all I had, any other questions?
Sporleder: Yes, I have one. This isn't related directly to the deck, but looking at your site plan,
how do you get from the deck to the pool? Is this grass or paved?
J Califano: It's grass currently.
Sporleder: Do you intend to eventually pave it at all? Make it so a paved area connects to the
back?
T Califano: We'll probably landscape it somehow to make a walkway down to there.
Sporleder: Ok, that's irrelevant I suppose.
T Califano: We haven't gotten that far yet.
Sporleder: I guess that I was wondering why the deck wasn't big enough to reach to the pool or
something like that.
T Califano: We have to wait for the pool people to decide exactly where they're going to locate.
They were out there once and said that the general location was fine, but they may have to move
it a bit if they find big stumps or something.
Sporleder: Is there any current landscaping there that needs to be removed?
J Califano: Weeds.
Sporleder: Ok. So you're not expecting any big stumps?
T Califano: Well, we'd heard that there was a big tree there once that fell on the house. But you
know the neighbors always have different stories to tell you so you don't know what's true or not.
Klusczinski: Any other questions? Any discussion among Commissioners? Chair opens public
hearing. Any member of the public wishing to speak in favor of the petition? Seeing none. Any
member of the public wishing to speak in opposition? Also hearing none, I close public hearing.
Any other questions? What is the board's pleasure?
Riley: I move that we approve application 2007-0912A.
Sporleder: Second.
Klusczinski: Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? (Ayes are
heard) Opposed? (Silence) Motion carries unanimously.
Moved: Riley Second: Sporleder
To approve C of A 2007-0912A Approved Unanimously
Application Number: 2007-0912B
Property Location: 1212 E. Jefferson
Property Owner: Terri and John Califano
Landmark or District Designation: E. Wayne Street LHD
Rating: Non Contributing
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: This split level ranch was built between
1958 and 1960 by Hazel and Merle Rusk. Mr. Rusk was a salesman with Ben Fefferman
APPLICATION ITEMS: 16 x 32 In -ground pool with concrete floor, steel walls and vinyl liner
EAST WAYNE STREET STANDARDS: I The Environment, B. Building site, Landscaping and
Accessories. Required: major landscaping items, fencing, walkways, private yard lights, signs (house
numbers) a nd 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.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval as the pool will not be visible from the street and will
be compatible with the era of the house when in -ground pools were in vogue.
Klusczinski: Would the petitioners like to make a presentation?
J Califano: It's pretty straightforward.
Klusczinski: It's a formality, I apologize.
2
T Califano: You can join us if you want.
Klusczinski: The Chair recognizes any Commissioners with questions for the applicants.
Hearing none, I'll move ahead for discussion. Any discussion Commission? Hearing none, the
Chair opens public hearing. Any member of the public wishing to speak in support of application
2007-0912B? Any member of the public wishing to speak in opposition to 2007-0912B? Also
hearing none, Chair closes public hearing. It's getting easier. Any other discussion? Very good.
Riley: I make a motion that we approve 2007-0912B.
Klusczinski: Motion has been made is there a second?
Sporleder: I'll second it.
Klusczinski: Made and seconded. Any additional discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? (Ayes
are heard). Opposed? (Silence) Motion carries unanimously.
Moved: Riley Second: Sporleder
To approve C of A 2007-0912B Approved Unanimously
Application Number: 2007-1004A
Property Location: 1212 E. Jefferson
Property Owner: Terri and John Califano
Landmark or District Designation: E. Wayne Street LHD
Rating: Non Contributing
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: This split level ranch was built between
1958 and 1960 by Hazel and Merle Rusk. Mr. Rusk was a salesman with Ben Fefferman
APPLICATION ITEMS: 1. Replace old aluminum windows that have oxidized, are non-functional and
have missing and broken screens and storms with Kolbe wood replacement window insert sashes, not frames.
2. Replace front door and all screen (storm) doors.
EAST WAYNE STREET STANDARDS: II Existing Structures, C. Windows and Doors: Required:
Original windows and doors shall be retained including sashes, lintels, sills, shutters, decorative glass,
pediments, hoods and hardware. When deteriorated beyond repair, they shall be replaced with units and trim
resembling the original. Recommended: Wood frame storm windows and doors painted to match the original
should be used but should not damage existing frames. If new sashes or doors are installed, the existing or
original materials, design and hardware should be used. When metal or storm doors are used they should be
painted, anodized or coated to match the existing. When awnings are used, they should be of canvas material.
Prohibited: Original doors, windows and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and re-
used in place. New window and door openings which would alter the scale and proportion of the building
shall not be introduced. Inappropriate new window and door features such as aluminum insulating glass
combinations that require removal of the original windows and doors shall not be installed.
RECOMMENDATION: 1. The homeowners wish to replace the current original windows with more
efficient and convenient wood replicas. Staff does not recommend approval as the originals are still in good
shape and can be repaired. 2. The homeowners wish to replace a non -original door that is warped and
difficult to open with a design in keeping with the exterior of the house and use a full view storm/screen storm
door to replace one that is not working correctly. Staff recommends approval of this item.
Klusczinski: Thank you Catherine, care to make a presentation?
J Califano: On the door, the door is not original, and it's also hollow core.
Klusczinski: Definitely not original.
J Califano: A full view storm door would add to the look of the house as well. In regard to the
windows, if we wish to, I guess I'm a little confused, if we're able to replicate the original ones, is
there a problem in replacing that? We've done more research since Wayne and Catherine came
out...
Klusczinski: I had one question that might lead to that. The application items are to replace old
aluminum windows that have oxidized and down here under recommendations it says that the
homeowners wish to replace the current original windows with wood replicas. Are we talking
two different window styles here?
3
T Califano: This is our learning curve. It has a screen on it and a window.
J Califano: They're aluminum storms.
Hostetler: They're old aluminum storms. And there's the wood windows on the inside. What
they want to do is get the Kolbe ones that replace both of those items so that you don't have the
aluminum storm windows and you've got this systems replacing the other two systems. The
original window plus the storm.
Klusczinski: All in one.
Sporleder: So, the original windows are wood windows? That's sort of the way that it looks
here.
Hostetler: Yes.
Sporleder: And they're single pane and they're cold? Are they drafty?
T Califano: We haven't been in there a winter yet to say for sure.
Sporleder: So your intention is to put in insulated glass. How do these windows work? They're
just double hung?
T Califano: They're just double hung with an additional mullion. I've learned.
Sporleder: You can get that mullion to go all the way across.
T Califano: A friend of ours owns (?) Wholesale, and he can make it match exactly what it is.
They do the Kolbe and Kolbe windows. They're a distributor.
Sporleder: Ok, and if you did that then you'd take off the aluminum things all together? Can you
tell whether the aluminum storms are original with the frame?
T Califano: I think the ones that are there probably are.
Sporleder: Or have they been installed...?
Chase: I wouldn't say they're original.
Hostetler: I don't think that they're original. I really don't.
Sporleder: Because single pane glass is extremely uncomfortable to live next to.
Klusczinski: Any other questions for the petitioner?
Sporleder: So did we resolve whether or not the aluminum storms and screens are original or if
they were something added? What is the frame work here, is this wood?
T Califano: Yes.
J Califano: Ah, there's the aluminum right here. And that's the window that's back in here?
Sporleder: And if you go...
J Califano: This right here is aluminum.
Sporleder: Let's go back to this picture. The frame around the window is wood?
J Califano: The center post is wood, right.
Sporleder: And the sills are wood?
J Califano: Correct. And they just screwed in the storm, the aluminum storm.
Sporleder: Ok, well you know we're back to this dilemma of making somebody restore single
pane glass because that's what's there, or whether you allow them to put in more comfortable
windows that are more thermally efficient.
Klusczinski: The other thing Joann is that this is a non-contributing house.
Sporleder: Well...
Klusczinski: So there is some latitude there. I'm generally of the mind myself to always
encourage folks to rehabilitate their existing windows.
T Califano: We like the design of the windows and we're glad that Catherine came out and said
that it would be nice to keep that extra little mullion there. Because she's right, it looks neat, it's
not something that you see in all houses. The inside of the house is what really makes it unique,
there's no trim on the inside of the windows the plaster goes all the way around so we really
didn't want to do anything to disturb that. So the replacement is the way that we wanted to go as
not to disturb the inside. It's hard to paint, but it looks neat.
Klusczinski: Any other questions?
Sporleder: Yes, are you intending to do this with all the windows in the house? How many are
we talking about here?
T Califano: I think that there are 24.
Sporleder: And they're all in triplets? Groups of 3?
4
' T Califano: Just the front window is the group of 3. A picture window in the front and one on
each side. Otherwise, there are either two double hungs next to each other or single double
hungs.
Sporleder: So what are you thinking about doing with the picture window?
Hostetler: It's a fixed window.
J Califano: It's a fixed window with two double hungs on each side.
Hostetler: It's not a picture window like a flat plain piece of glass.
Sporleder: So, it's not a picture window, it's just a fixed piece ofglass. And these other two...?
Chase: Our picture has the garage, so that window, we didn't...
Hostetler: Here. You don't have this?
Chase: Oh, the bottom one?
T Califano: Oh, I used the wrong term, sorry.
Chase: No problem.
Klusczinski: Ok, Joann, does that...?
Sporleder: So when you, the application, which is not altogether clear about how many windows
are going to be replaced...
Chase: Number doesn't matter, does it?
Hostetler: All of them. .
Klusczinski: As long as there are no additional questions for the petitioner, I open it up for
Commission discussion.
Riley: I'd like to applaud you for taking on this house and trying to improve it, Ilive on E Wayne
St. and I know the house well and it's quite run down and anything that you do will be a benefit.
T Califano: Our neighbors have thanked us. We figure we're moving in the right direction when
they stop by.
Riley: I think that you're doing a great job and I want to say that from the standpoint of the
neighborhood. As far as it being not recommended by the staff, I would recommend that we do
approve this with the wood window replacement because it is a non-contributing house and it will
look 100% better than it does now. And, if they want to put in good wood windows, then I think
that we should approve it.
Sporleder: However the standards say that they, that original windows are to be maintained, so I
don't know how you get...
Chase: It's non-contributing.
Sporleder: The standards are for the neighborhood, it's not...
Klusczinski: Are these windows are in a state of deterioration?
Hostetler: We didn't think so.
Klusczinski: We didn't think so. It would be easier for us to make that recommendation if they
were.
Sporleder: I guess I'm looking for some guidance of how you get around what the standards
actually say because we've run into this before. I don't think that you can pick and choose which
standards to follow for one house and then not another house in the same neighborhood despite
the fact that they are rated differently. It's the neighborhood that goes together as a
neighborhood I mean that's the point.
Hostetler: The Commission has approved replacement windows in the E Wayne St.
neighborhood, for casement windows and most recently in the Soderberg's house.
Klusczinski: So there's precedent.. Hearing no other discussion, I open the public hearing. Any
member of the public wishing to speak in support of the current petition? Could you come up
here closer to the microphone and state your name and address?
Harsch: My name is Barb Harsch and I'm at 833 S 28`h Street. I don't live in their
neighborhood, but I live in South Bend, and as a homeowner I would hope that you allow them to
make improvements to the home that's going to benefit the neighborhood as well as make their
home more energy efficient. That, to me, should take precedent over the standards that I'm not
familiar with, which I apologize, but that should take precedent. We all have to live here and
should do what's best for the whole community.
5
Klusczinski: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Any member of the public wishing to speak in
opposition to the current petition? Hearing none, Chair closes public hearing. Any other
Commission discussion.
Sporleder: I'd like guidance from Counsel on how you get around what the standards say.
Peterson: I'm not sure that you're getting around it, as we've talked about it before, your job is
to decide based upon factors is this an appropriate addition here. And you also look at what is
the detriment to the public in allowing it, and what might be the hardship on the applicant and
you weigh those to determine whether or not you approve a Certificate of Appropriateness or not.
In looking at what is appropriate, you look to the guidelines, and the guidelines help inform you
as to what is an inappropriate or appropriate assistance for it. And, I think as you look in the
guidelines you all see that the rating system is important too because the more significant a
structure will help determine what is appropriate for that structure. If you look to the guidelines
for that, it's guidance for what is appropriate and what's not. So, weighing those factors, you
decide whether or not you should approve this. From my view, if you choose to deny, you need to
state your reasons for it, and find facts that it is 1. not appropriate, that the detriment is not
sufficient to allow it, and that the potential hardship is not there either.
Riley: By not approving this request to replace the windows with wood, it's exactly what upsets
the neighborhood. I'm going online for this, but when we don't approve something like this that
will beauty the house they are objecting to HPC dictating what they do. We have a lot ofpeople
that are opposed to being historic because of this and it's generally the windows that people are
upset about.
Sporleder: It's always the windows. We can overcome almost everything else. I would like to
suggest to the neighborhood, just as an aside, that they have a neighborhood meeting and review
their standards and mods them accordingly. They can do that, and they can present the
modified standards to the preservation commission which will give us somewhat more leeway.
The words are, unfortunately, because I would just as soon approve the wood windows as not, the
wording is quite specific in this case.
Klusczinski: And I would make observation that the windows for this era of house are not
potentially old growth like some of the older properties that we have which is one of my key
reasons for always promoting the original windows for the structure. So, I see it as less of a
difference right now, so I see how we could make that transition but I would still always
encourage and recommend that homeowners keep the windows that are there if they haven't
deteriorated beyond repair. Specifically addressing the comment from the public, you can
achieve high energy efficiency with existing wood windows and storms. It's a fallacy that it can't
happen and that you must have argon to achieve it. We do remain sensitive to energy efficiency
because it's an endeavor to try and make the historic properties that we all live in useable and
sustainable into the future. So, having said that, this is a dual purpose C of A that has two
components to it. One is the suggested replacement of the original windows that are not
deteriorated beyond repair, in a non-contributing house, and there is also a front door
replacement here for a door that isn't original and is deteriorated beyond repair. So if there is a
distinction that we make sure that we speck what our objections are or our preferences are for
each of these things as we make our vote and recommendation. Did you have any final... ?
Chase: We do have precedent by allowing replacement in other homes in the area, so this would
not be selective precedent of selective allowing or disallowing as this has happened before. I
don't see that this would be the first in the area and it may happen again. But, as you suggested,
if you have a problem, perhaps go over the wording then this would be taken care of.
Sporleder: But here's probably not time to do that right this minute.
Klusczinski: No, there won't be.
Riley: If this were a contributing house of course you'd want ...I don't think that it's necessary.
Sporleder: Even if it were a contributing house and you were consigning someone to live with a
single paned window and aluminum storms are not terribly eff cient, which I know from personal
experience, that we're still stuck with the other person's observation that we're trying to make
things livable in the current day situation. So, I guess I'd like to go back to what Shawn stated
0
y the three categories that need to be looked at and.see how they need to be manipulated to allow
them to have these windows.
Klusczinski: Any other discussion? Would you care to make any comments to that Shawn?
Peterson: As a governing body, your role is to decide which of those three tests are met and/or
how they're met. You can vote and sped your reasons on those three elements.
Sporleder: I'll move that we accept 2007-1004A. I vote to approve it even though it doesn't
follow the standards as there is no detriment to the public in so doing.
Riley: Second.
Klusczinski: Motion has been made and seconded inclusive of both components windows and
doors. Any further discussion? Hearing none- all in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed?
(Silence) Motion carries unanimously.
Moved: Sporleder Second: Riley
To approve C of A 2007-1004A Approved Unanimously
Application Number: 2007-1004B
Property.Location: 1212 E. Jefferson
Property Owner: Terri and John Califano
Landmark or District Designation: E. Wayne Street LHD
Rating: Non Contributing
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCEMISTORIC CONTEXT.: This split level ranch was built between
1958 and 1960 by Hazel and Merle Rusk. Mr. Rusk was a salesman with Ben Fefferman
APPLICATION ITEMS: 1. Remove old asphalt driveway and replace with concrete which it was
originally. 2. Replace wooden garage doors with steel insulated automotive doors.
EAST WAYNE STREET STANDARDS; II Existing Structures, C. Windows and Doors: Required:
Original windows and doors shall be retained including sashes, lintels, sills, shutters, decorative glass,
pediments, hoods and hardware. When deteriorated beyond repair, they shall be replaced with units and trim
resembling the original. Recommended: Wood frame storm windows and doors painted to match the original
should be used but should not damage existing frames. If new sashes or doors are installed, the existing or
original materials, design and hardware should be used. When metal or storm doors are used they should be
painted, anodized or coated to match the existing. When awnings are used, they should be of canvas material.
Prohibited: Original doors, windows and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and re-
used in place. New window and door openings which would alter the scale and proportion of the building
shall not be introduced. Inappropriate new window and door features such as aluminum insulating glass
combinations that require removal of the original windows and doors shall not be installed.
RECOMMENDATION: 1. The staff recommends approval as it restores and original feature of the site of
the house. 2. Staff recommends approval as the doors are deteriorated and the new steel doors will replicate
the original wood panels.
T Califano: The driveway may not happen until next year, just to forewarn you. The asphalt -
they just put an inch or an inch and a half over what was there already and it makes the water go
into the garage, and we have to do something because it keeps getting wet. We don't know what
the concrete looks like underneath, so it could be a surprise. Everything in that house has been a
surprise.
Klusczinski: Any other questions for the applicants? Hearing none, we move to Commission
discussion. Initial thoughts? Ok, public hearing. Anyone in the public wishing to speak in
support of the current petition? Hearing none. Anyone in the public wishing to speak in
_opposition? Also hearing none. Chair closes public hearing. Any other comments, discussion, -
comments? What is the board's pleasure?
Riley: I make a motion that we approve 2007-1004B.
Klusczinski: Motion has been made, is there a second?
Chase: Second.
6
Klusczinski: Made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? (Ayes are heard) Opposed?
(Silence) Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much, congratulations.
T Califano: Thank you all.
Moved: Riley Second: Chase
To approve C of A 2007-1004B Approved Unanimously
Application Number C of A 2007-0904
Property Location: 101 S. Lafayette Blvd/ 302 W. Washington St.
Landmark/District: Downtown Multi Use NR District, Local Landmark
Rating: Significant
At the regularly scheduled meeting of the HPC on September 17, 2007 the above referenced C of A was
tabled by unanimous vote and Staff was charged with assisting the petitioner to find a both creative and
acceptable solution to the dire situation regarding the roof of the structure. What follows is a synopsis of that
work.
■ On Friday, September 28, 2007 Preservation Specialist Wayne Doolittle arranged a meeting between
representatives of the congregation, himself, Amy Herdman, and Mike Smith, a roofing contractor with
20 years experience working with slate roofs- notably those at Notre Dame. After a brief
misunderstanding regarding access to the building to survey the damage caused by the brittle failing slate
roof, Mike Smith, Amy Herdman and Reverend Joseph Stanford walked both around and through the
structure. That tour of the interior, revealed significant water damage occurring throughout the structure,
rendering the interior architecture elements at great risk, as well as exterior items such as their stained
glass windows. The sanctuary ceiling is linden wood and black ash, virtually irreplaceable. Below the
peeling paint of the ceiling and walls, sit 66 delicately carved cherry pews. The massive pipe organ, a
give of the Oliver children in memory of their father, is dusty with paint flakes and crumbled plaster.
Interior masonry is calcifying and accumulating in crumbly piles, threatening windows and walls. Hand
painted mosaic tiles by the dozens in entry ways have been lost. Beneath layers of paint, original frescoes
may be lost due to water damage to the plaster.
• Reverend Stanford apologized profusely for any work done in error and is very amenable to all
suggestions and assistance.
• In subsequent conversations, Mike Smith offered to assist the church by purchasing slate materials for
installation at wholesale cost. Mr. Smith also agreed to do the slate work, with a budget TBD. Mr. Smith
was very emphatic though that something must be done to protect the structure during the approaching
winter weather, or the structure could be at risk for catastrophic failure, or cause injury to anyone inside
the building. A temporary solution was suggested to hopefully satisfy all parties involved. Mr. Smith,
with the assistance of another contractor, have volunteered their services for this project, should the HPC
approve the plan. That information follows:
1. With the permission of Reverend Joseph Stanford, this C of A should be modified to a temporary
or conditional C of A. The C of A seeks permission to temporarily remove slate shingles in the
most dire areas of failure, ie: the flashing around the chimney and on the flat roof of the 1909
addition on the West side of the building, to facilitate the repair of the decking and replacement of
underlayment to then be TEMPORARILY roofed with asphalt shingles that will be selected to
blend in as much as possible to the remaining slates. The petitioner understands that this work is
meant only to be a temporary solution as a means of protection from winter weather and that
slates must be restored, no less than one year from the date of this C of A. Mike Smith Roofing
will be the contractor on a purely voluntary basis. No volunteer parishioners will be utilized, and
the temporary patch work will be completed expediently for maximum benefit to the structure.
• As of 10/5/2007, Ambassadors for Christ have applied for an Indiana
Preservation Grant through HLFI's NRO to fund a thorough building assessment
to identify the most urgent needs of the building, and begin the lengthy process
of drafting a preservation plan. Funds have been verified in the General Fund of
Ambassadors for Christ to satisfy the matching requirement. Results of that
application will be known by the HPC meeting on 10/15/2007.
Statement of Significance:
1. The original congregation was founded by Horation Chapin in 1834.
2. James Oliver, Clem Studebaker and the parishioners circa 1887 split the cost of the building 3 ways;
total cost to build: $30-35,000.
3. Generations of Studebakers and Olivers worshipped, were married, and eulogized in this building.
4. The church was the site of Schuyler Colfax's memorial service.
5. The interior and exterior fabric of the building is virtually irreplaceable.
6. Beneath layers of paint (begun with a 1940 "renovation") lay frescoes of various scenes and subjects.
7. 12'+ doors are double sided: cherry on one side, black ash on the other.
8. JD Oliver's children donated the pipe organ, still in tact, as a tribute to their father.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this amended C of A. Consider:
1. Is approving this C of A congruent with the mission of the HPC?
• Yes. Without exaggeration, the building is on the brink of significant collapse or failure.
This C of A will assist in the mitigation of possible damage due to the impending winter
weather. The petitioner understands that the application of the shingles is absolutely
temporary, and is meant only to allow for fundraising and temporary protection of the
structure.
2. Is there potential detriment to the district or the surrounding built environment if it is
allowed?
• No. The C of A is for the temporary application of replacement materials which will be
as close a match as is available to the existing slates. Little if any of the work will be
visible from the east, north or south. The contractor has 20+ years roofing experience.
3. Is there risk of financial hardship to the petitioner if the C of A is denied?
• Unquestionably. The entire roof and interior ceilings are deteriorating by the day. Any
way to slow or to temporarily stop that damage will lower future repair bills, protect
original building elements, and ensure that no one using the building is injured.
*Future plans:
• A local contractor, B&B Construction, has volunteered labor and equipment to assist in
the demolition of the 1909 (poorly built) brick addition on the west side of the building
on the parking lot. Floor joists are rotting and mold is a significant issue. Staff suggested
that the area be sealed and not used for the safety of occupants. That C of A application
is expected in the spring.
• An investment company out of Chicago has pledged assistance with the restoration of
religious icons in the sanctuary.
• Grants are currently being researched to secure funds to begin the daycare center that the
church sees as one of their primary goals.
• Grants are also being researched to fund a paint conservator's work on the interior of the
sanctuary to determine the condition of the original frescoes.
• Plans are underway to launch a capital campaign to fund needed restoration work.
Klusczinski: Is the petitioner here?
Herdman: Teresa is here from the congregation as well as Mike Smith, contractor.
Klusczinski: State your name and address for the record, please.
Greene: My name is Teresa Greene, and my address is 124 Linden (?) St., Buchanon,
Michigan.
Kluscziniski: And you are the agentfor the property.
-- Greene: -Yes, I am the representative for the Ambassadors for Christ.
Klusczinski: Thank you very much. Would you care to make any statements regarding this
amended, continued C of A.
Greene: Only that we completely understand that this is a temporary solution, and that as far
as, we thank Mike Smith and his generosityfor helping us in this endeavor. In the future, as
6
far as the financing, that is handled through our administrative headquarters. I'm not really
at liberty to discuss it with you, as I don't really know it all, but I know that we will be
applying for grants and attacking the problem section by section. While we may not be able
to pay for it all at one time, we'll take it section by section.
Klusczinski: I have one question, did you have a projection of how long the temporary roof
will be in place? Is there a short term goal remedy for the property.
Herdman: The only time constraint that we ever discussed was the year from the date of the
C of A. So the return of better weather in spring or summer as Mr. Smith's schedule will
allow.
Patrick: I have a question regarding temporary slates. Why if slate is what's up there now
why would they be temporary?
Sporleder: That would be my question exactly.
Klusczinski: The decking is so deteriorated, I believe.
Smith: Right, and you have to use slate with slate. When buying new slate, you set some
aside, realize that you can use those again, and dispose of the old slates.
Sporleder: So, to pick up on what Lynn said, if you're replacing slate with slate, I'm not
quite clear why... what are you accomplishing if it's the underneath part that's damaged and
leaking.
Smith: We're going to find the areas that are leaking, tear it off, put down, well, first of all
check the decking. Replace any bad decking. Then, put on ice and water shield and 65 lb.
felt. At the time, they were using 15-20 lb felt. It's deteriorated now like old newspaper, it's
no longer keeping the water out. Slate keeps out 70-80% but the underlayment keeps out the
rest. The slate are called Pennsylvania Gray, they're only meant to last 60-70 years, and
they've been on there quite sometime. The only reason they've lasted this long is there
location- they're away from trees, the pitch of the roof, but as you drive by you'll see that
they're falling out. That's because they used steel nails and not copper. The heads rust off
and they slide off.
Patrick: Just for my edification. What happens to slate? After 60-70 years ... does it
deteriorate in some way, I never understood.
Smith: Slate is a pourous substance. At the time, even though Pennsylvania slate is
somewhat the `generic" type, getting 60-70 years out of it was better than the 20 year
shingles that were being made at that time.
Sporleder: So, you're just replacing slate, you're not going to be replacing the underlayment
problem right now?
Klusczinski: Spot repairs, right?
Smith: Right. We need to determine... when I walked into the building, they've got buckets
sitting in areas, I saw the structural damage. It's going to depend, when I get up there, what
needs to be attended to. When it comes down to it, you could remove the slate, put down ice
and water shield in the area put down 651b felt and walk away and come back 6-8 months
later and it will still be "in the dry" which means that it's not leaking. We do it all the time.
When you put it in the dry that means that the ice and water shield and the felt combined is
going to keep water out.
Sporleder: But that's a permanent solution. I guess back to what Lynn said, I don't know
why we should consider what you're doing to be temporary.
Herdman: Because they're not redoing the entire roof right now.
Chase: It's spot fixing.
Sporleder: But ifyou can fix it so it doesn't leak, isn't that the objective?
Smith: The objective of it is that the slate are shot. They're not functioning. You could go
back over and over it, say 10-15 times a year and do the repairs, versus, doing it all at once.
Klusczinski: So there are emergency spot repairs proposed at this point to do locations of
deteriorated decking once you investigate and then eventually the effort is going to be to
remove all material and restore everything because the temporaryfix is not compatible.
10
Smith: The slates you see, you're only seeing half of the tile. Slates are typically 18x12,
what you do is divide that and then subtract two, so you have your head lap and your
exposure.
Sporleder: So you're fixing the individual slates here and there by placing the shields
underneath them as it fits in. The notion of spot doing what you're doing and getting the ice
shield and whatnot underneath here and there, I don't' understand how that works.
Klusczinski: Are you compelled by Code to install ice shield when you're doing a repair?
Smith: Yes.
Klusczinski: Ok, does that answer part of your question?
Sporleder: Not really, but that's ok.
Smith: Ice and water shield is really...
Sporleder: I know what it is.
Smith: It's a definite need on a roof like that.
Sporleder: So eventually you're going to use all new slate? Start from scratch basically and
restructure tear off whatever it is you've just now done? Are you going to use new slate or
artificial or what?
Smith: I'll use new slate, and will be able to re -use the ones that I've used for these
temporaryfixes. They're veryfragile, and very brittle and can just crumble in your hands.
Sporleder: So the original slate is eventually just going to be taken off and thrown away?
Smith: Right.
Sporleder: Ok, I understand now.
Hostetler: I think that what you're dealing with is an in-kind replacement. The reason why it
came to the Commission was due to the asphalts replacing the slates. As that's no longer an
issue, this is basically an in-kind replacement and repair.
Klusczinski: Right. And a future C ofA will come to us when they're ready to do the entire
roof because this is a temporary component.
Hostetler: We could staff approve that because that's essentially a complete tear off and re -
roof with exactly the same materials.
Riley: If you get the money, you're going to do a complete tear off and re -roof?
Smith: Yes.
Sporleder: The first thing that we were dealing with was the round, turret area, but there's
still the whole church to be dealt with, is that going to be done that way?
Klusczinski: The C ofA is for all emergency damage to be repaired.
Smith: All emergency damage will be repaired and to say I can go out and do that in one
time would be ludicrous. It takes a little patience and a lot of time.
Klusczinski: Shawn, a legal question as this is an in-kind replacement, are we obligated to
offer public hearing on this? I'm just trying to expedite it for the purpose of this meeting.
Peterson: No, you don't have to.
Klusczinski: Very good.
Sporleder: Just for your information, I have tried to find the original blueprints and
drawings for the building, but so far they haven't turned up. I need to go down in the church
vault and rummage around in all that stuff and see what I can rummage out.
Herdman: It would save time and money on the building assessment.
Klusczinski: Anyone brave enough to motion?
Patrick: I'll motion. I move that we approve 2007-0904 regarding 101 S Lafayette/302 W
Washington local landmark.
Riley: Second.
Klusczinski: And your motion was to amend the continuance?
Patrick: es. _ - -
- - - - ---
Klusczinski: Because the original C ofA has been changed since last month. And Linda
you're seconding the amended....
Riley: Yes.
Peterson: And does the applicant consent to the amendment?
Greene: Yes.
11
Klusczinski: Thank you. Any last minute discussion? All in favor? (Ayes are heard)
Opposed? (Silence) Hearing none, motion carries unanimously.
Moved: Patrick Second: Riley
To approve C of A 2007-0904 Approved Unanimously
B. LANDMARKS — None.
II. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 17, 2007
With the correction of spelling of Commissioner Sporleder's name.
Moved: Patrick Second: Sporleder
Approved Unanimously
Chase Abstaining
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
Accepted into record as presented, dated September 30, 2007
C. STAFF REPORTS
1. Correspondence
None.
2. Director — Catherine Hostetler
Distributed to Commission.
3. Assistant Director — Amy Herdman
Distributed to Commission.
4. Legal Counsel — Shawn Peterson
None.
17Well) ,U ►a_UV 0t a0l- .4—WelDt-v
1. President's Report — Tim Klusczinski
President Klusczinski reported on the October 8`'' Second Reading of Bill 61-07 before
the Common Council. President Klusczinski complimented the contributions and
comments made by distinguished guests: Bill Latoza, principle architect of the $2.5
billion Chicago Public Schools restoration initiative, Ryan Dvorak, District 8 State
Representative, Ron Searcy, President AIA Indiana, and Don Sporleder, Professor
Emeritus of Architecture at ND, and all of the other citizens that spoke on behalf of
landmarking. All have our thanks for their efforts.
President Klusczinski also announced the Common Council tour of Marquette School
scheduled for 6:00pm on Tuesday October 23, 2007. It is a public meeting, so all
interested parties are invited to attend. The third reading of Bill 61-07 is scheduled for
November 12, 2007, all are also invited to attend.
III. OLD BUSINESS
VP Patrick reintroduced the topic of the Advisory Board and suggested that said body be "charged"
or "seated" to begin their service to the HPC. VP Patrick pointed out that after the AB candidates
replied to either accept or decline service, they've never been contacted again. VP Patrick suggested
that now would be an important time to activate the Advisory Board. Perhaps some or most of the
members might like to lend their support to efforts to landmark Marquette School. VP Patrick will
meet with Director Hostetler to compare lists and will then take the responsibility of contacting the
AB members.
Moved: Chase Second: Patrick
Motion to seat Advisory Board Approved Unanimously
Sporleder abstains
IV. NEW BUSINESS
Director Hostetler reported that Dr. Enderle, of 710 Park Avenue, South Bend, has requested an
official letter or statement of the specific solutions to his window situation that the HPC would find
12
suitable, and by extension then be likely to approve when presented as a C of A application by Dr.
Enderle. Discussion followed on the most appropriate committee or responsible party to complete
this request. Standards and Maintenance committee, Landmarks committee, and Staff were all
considered to be charged with preparation of this information for the benefit of Dr. Enderle. -
Commissioner Riley reiterated her desire for the Commission to find ways to compromise on matters
of repairs and improvements to better. work with and build rapport with those that live in districts and
landmarks. It was determined that Staff would be responsible for the task of preparing the letter or
statement for Dr. Enderle.
Commissioner Sporleder gave details on the Urban Forestry meeting held recently in Brown County.
She mentioned a purveyor of trees, shrubs and other plants that grow on demand for Commissions,
Parks and other agencies that may be restoring historic landscapes. (Provided later by telephone): the
purveyor that Commissioner Sporleder spoke of is available at «Ivw.nossibilitvnlace.com at by
telephone at 708-534-3988. This organization also provides educational programs and is working
diligently on the ash borer situation in our region.
V. HEARING OF VISITORS
Don Sporleder: Also relayed details of the Urban Forestry event in Brown County and also the
Indiana/Kentucky AIA meeting which featured historic preservation as a key element of the meeting.
The University Club has closed as scheduled and the stein collection moved in order to be auctioned.
The building is scheduled for demolition in early December. A facilities auction will proceed the
demolition on 10/23/07.
ADJOURNMENT 8:40 pm
Moved: Patrick Second: Riley
Approved: Unanimously
Attest:
Todd Zeiger, Date
Secretary, Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County
13
Location Budget as of 10-31-2007
Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 07-01-2007.
Fund: 001 County General for 01/01/2007 thru 10/31/2007
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.
5,769.15
10000
Totals tYfftffttffftftffYtfttYfttYYYtlftftftftf
66,050.00
21030
Office Supplies
1,250.00
000
General GovT.
0.00
22010
Gas Oil & Lubricants
883.00
000
General GovT.
22120
Garage & Motor Supplies
700.00
000
General GovT.
0.00
20000
Totals ttttttttftfYtYf.,,Y„fYYtftf„f.t,ffffff
2,833.00
31070
Other Contractual Services
28,000.00
000
General GovT.
19.23
32020
Travel
425.00
000
General Gov'T.
910.31
32050
Instruction & Training
1,000.00
000
General GovT.
69.52
32053
Public Relations
2,570.00
000
General GovT.
369.12
32200
Telephone
160.00
000
General GovT.
41.80
32350
Postage
2,160.00
000
General Gov'T.
171.47
33010
Publication Of Legal Notices
500.00
000
General GovT.
24.50
Saint Joseph County
Addt'I/Adj
Total
Unencumbered
Unexpended
Appropriation
Appropriation
Encumbrance
Expenditure
Balance/Percent
Balance/Percent
0.00
30,000.00
0.00
24,230.85
5,769.15
5,769.15
19.23
19.23
0.00
36,050.00
0.00
29,117.34
6,932.66
6,932.66
19.23
19.23
0.00
66,050.00
0.00
53,348.19
12,701.81
12,701.81
19.23
19.23
59.50
1,309.50
184.62
399.19
725.69
910.31
55.42
69.52
0.00
883.00
0.00
513.88
369.12
369.12
41.80
41.80
0.00
700.00
0.00
528.53
171.47
171.47
24.50
24.50
59.50
2,892.50
184.62
1,441.60
1,266.28
1,450.90
43.78
50.16
0.00
28,000.00
0.00
24,816.58
3,183.42
3,183.42
11.37
11.37
1,129.00
1,554.00
0.00
1,554.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
150.00
1,150.00
0.00
225.00
925.00
925.00
80.43
80.43
638.82
3,208.82
0.00
3,151.52
57.30
57.30
1.79
1.79
0.00
160.00
0.00
0.00
160.00
160.00
100.00
100.00
400.36
2,560.36
0.00
2,188.20
372.16
372.16
14.54
14.54
0.00
500.00
0.00
106.58
393.42
393.42
78.68
78.68
User ID KSOBECKI 11/05/2007 02:01 PM Page 80
_s`
Addt'VAdj
Total
.4
Appropriation
Location Budget as of 10-31-2007
Encumbrance
Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 07-01-2007.
Fund: 001 County General for 01/01/2007 thru 10/31/2007
5,528.00
Loc: 037 Historic Preservation
500.00
Account
Original
Object Description
Appropriation
33100 Printing
3,000.00
000 General GovT.
0.00
37100 Auto Lease
500.00
000 General Gov'T.
0.00
39010 Dues & Subscription
750.00
000 General GovT.
5,528.00
39600 Refunds, Awards & Indemnities
0.00
000 General GovT.
3,651.82
39750 Data Processing
1,000.00
000 General GovT.
33,651.82
39980 Funds W/O Approp.
0.00
000 General GovT.
5,712.62
30000 Totals """"""""..... """"""
40,065.00
42010 Buildings & Structures
0.00
367 Gifts&Contrib
(20,697.96)
44250 Office Machines
0.00
000 General GovT.
30,000.00
40000 Totals ........................................
0.00
Location Totals •"""""•"""••"'•"'••"""",•"
108,948.00
Investment Accounts
3,651.82
Transfer Accounts
0.00
Addt'VAdj
Total
Unexpended
Appropriation
Appropriation
Encumbrance
5,555.00
8,555.00
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
7,873.18
47,938.18
5,528.00
30,000.00
30,000.00
0.00
3,651.82
3,651.82
0.00
33,651.82
33,651.82
0.00
41,584.50
150,532.50
5,712.62
Saint Joseph County
User ID KSOBECKI 11/05/2007 02:01 PM Page 81
Unencumbered
Unexpended
Expenditure
Balance/Percent
Balance/Percent
594.98
2,432.02
7,960.02
28.43
93.05
500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
344.95
405.05
405.05
54.01
54.01
22,762.58
(22,762.58)
(22,762.58)
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
68,636.14
(26,225.96)
(20,697.96)
(54.71)
(43.18)
30,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,651.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
33,651.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
157,077.75
(12,257.87)
(6,545.25)
(8.14)
(4.35)
0.00
0.00
157,077.75
User ID KSOBECKI 11/05/2007 02:01 PM Page 81
Location Budget as of 10-31-2007
Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 07-01-2007.
Fund: 013 County Special Gifts for 01/01/2007 thru 10/31/2007
Loc: 037 Historic Preservation
Account
Original
Addt'VAdj
Object Description
Appropriation
Appropriation
00000 Gen Gov't
0.00
9,028.25
000 General GovT.
2,606.00
0.00
00000 Totals ""*""""'•"'•""""""""""'
0.00
9,028.25
23240 Other Supplies
0.00
2,606.00
000 General Gov'T.
2,606.00
2,606.00
20000 Totals """"""""""""':"""""""
0.00
2,606.00
42010 Buildings & Structures
0.00
52,000.00
367 Gifts&Contrib
100.00
100.00
40000 Totals """"""""F"""""""""""`
0.00
52,000.00
Location Totals """"""""""""""""""""'
0.00
63,634.25
Investment Accounts
0.00
0.00
Transfer Accounts
0.00
0.00
Total
Unencumbered
Appropriation
Encumbrance
9,028.25
0.00
9,028.25
0.00
2,606.00
0.00
2,606.00
0.00
52,000.00
0.00
52,000.00
0.00
63,634.25
0.00
User ID KSOBECKI 11/05/2007 02:01 PM
IN -
Saint Joseph County
0.00
52,000.00
Page 153
Unencumbered
Unexpended
Expenditure
BalanceJPercent
Balance/Percent
0.00
9,028.25
9,028.25
100.00
100.00
0.00
9,028.25
9,028.25
100.00
100.00
0.00
2,606.00
2,606.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
2,606.00
2,606.00
100.00
100.00
52,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
52,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
52, 000.00
11, 634.25
11, 634.25
18.28
18.28
0.00
0.00
52,000.00
Page 153
Assistant Director's Report
HPC Meeting —11-19-2007
Commissioners: I am including this with your packet as I will be unable to attend
the 11/19/07 meeting due to a surgical procedure.
Met with Code regarding exterior orders on 319 N William LL, and 612/614 S.
Carroll Street (Taylor's Field LHD)- both orders were to be completed on
10/17/2007.
■ Prepared minutes from previous HPC meeting.
■ Prepared packet of information including meeting minutes by request of
Ann Puzzello regarding Marquette School.
■ Attended Cornelius O'Brien conference in Richmond, IN.
■ Began work on City Cemetery's national register nomination.
■ Attended tour of Marquette School -10/23/07.
■ Prepared and sent packet of George Kessler information for inclusion in
Historic Landscapes of Indiana brochure.
■ Attended and testified at Code hearing on 604 S Carroll Street (Taylor's
Field LHD)
■ Met with Steve Nemeth to finalize City Celebration event planning.
■ Staffed City Celebration event —10/29/2007.
■ Attended tour of Madison School.
■ Coordinated inspection/photography of art piece at People's Church (Six at
Risk list 2007).
■ Attended Redevelopment Commission Meeting.
■ Met with John Charles Bryant and Reverend Derrick regarding Olivet AME
church site adjacent to the Cove.
■ Created new handout for City Cemetery.
■ Worked on plans for November and December's City Celebration events.
■ Conducted drive through inspections of Taylor's Field and Edgewater LHD's
with President Klusczinski.
■ Finalized plans for cemetery conservators' arrival on 11/12/2007. (Flyer for
their event is also included in your packet)
■ Accompanied cemetery conservators during stakeholders meeting, site
assessment at City Cemetery and staffed public event.
■ Edited City Survey.
■ Attended Code hearing on 219 E South Street (Taylor's Field LHD).
■ Requested and was granted a meeting with County Commissioners
regarding the seating of a county cemetery commission.
0
�ar
IMAGE RY
Appreciating the art" galleries, sculpture gardens and
history museums within our historic cemeteries
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 13TH'
ST. JOE LIBRARY, DOWNTOWN",
6:00 PM
,_p <.
FREE ADMISSION
Presented by.-
The
y:The Chicora Foundation
This event made possible
through the generosity of the
Cornelius O'Brien
Lectureship Grant Fund.
11 j C
listoric Panwrvatlon Corncnission
-south 11e11 t cQ St. Joscpla Coll -lily, In(liana
*Yrr,
.i,.
C!-
2 0 0 7• I N
November 2007
Dear Fellow South Bender,
S O U
On behalf of the planners of City Celebration, a joint effort of the Historic'Preservation
Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County and the Office of the Mayor of South
Bend, I wish to invite you to participate in our next event! Our tenth in a total of eleven
events throughout 2007, our November event is Thanks and Giving. Like all City
Celebration events, Thanks and Giving is scheduled for the 29th of the month; thus
November 29, 2007.
The inspiration in planning City Celebration was to feature our many community
treasures, educational opportunities, and our shared local history in our dynamic home
town of South Bend. Thanks and Giving is unique on our calendar in that it is not
specifically an event per se. Instead, Thanks and Giving is intended to be a celebration
of the generosity of the people of South Bend. On November 29th, to both usher in the
holiday season and to demonstrate the kind and giving spirit of South Bend, citizens are
encouraged to do a good deed, share a kind word with a neighbor, volunteer some time to
a cause or organization that's important to them, or show, appreciation for a good deed
done previously with a thank you note; most importantly involve the whole family in
whatever you choose to do. Children can paint pictures for nursing home residents, help
to bake cookies for delivery to the nearest fire house, or choose the toys that your family
donates to a local shelter or agency. Organizations, scout troops and neighborhood
associations can plan activities together! It is not the size of the gift or gesture, but the
gesture itself that matters.
If you'd like additional ideas or suggestions, please visit the website of our partner:
www.makeadifferencemichiana.com. Their website can put you in contact with
organizations that need your time and assistance, and may also inspire you to take on a
project or good deed of your very own! Thank you for making the time to celebrate
Thanks and Giving with all of your friends and neighbors here in South Bend.
Best wishes for happy holidays!
V:
City Celebration 2007
574-235-9798 F: 574-235-9578
South Bend and St. Joseph County
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
227 WEST JEFFERSON BLVD.
SOUTH BEND, IN 46601-1830 .
Phone: 574-235-9798 Fax: 574-235-9578
e-mail: SBSJCBPC@co.st-joseph.in.us
Timothy S. Klusczinski, President _ A Certified Local Government Catherine D. Hostetler, Director
COMMISSIONERS: APPOINTING BODIES AND TERM EXPIRATION DATES
DEMOCRATIC APPOINTEES:
LYNN PATRICK COMMON COUNCIL 12-31-2008
JERRY UJDAK COUNTY COUNCIL 07-31-2008
TIMOTHY S. KLUSCZINSKI COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12-03-2008
MARY JANE CHASE MAYOR 05-12-2009
REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES:
TODD ZEIGER
COMMON COUNCIL
08-01-2008
LINDA RILEY
COUNTY COUNCIL
07-31-2008
MARTHA CHOTTZ
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
01-02-2008 -
VACANT
MAYOR
12-31-2007
ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN:
JOANN SPORLEDER
HPC
12-21-2007
REV: 8/15/2007
Mary Jane Chase (Treasurer)
Martha Choitz
COMMISSIONERS
Shawn E. Peterson, Attorney
Lynn A. Patrick (Vice President)
Joann Sporleder (Architectural Historian)
Gerald Ujdak
Linda Riley
Todd Zeiger (Secretary)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
NOVEMBER, 2007
October 18-20 Cornelius O'Brien Conference in Richmond, Indiana
October 23 Parks meetin6 with Marti Lewis concerning the Potawatomie
Conservatories and Green houses
Tour of Marquette School with the School Board and Members of the
Common Council and Bill Latoza.
October 29 Interview with WSBT on Marquette School
October 30 106 Review and Support Letter for WNIT for Grant
Meeting with Bonnie Strycker, Executive Director Youth Services
Bureau and potential chanties to holdin6s in the LincolnWay East LHD
October 31 Department Head Healthcare Meetin6 with Phyllis Emmons
November 1 Submitted Out of Line transfers for approval. Behan the annual CLG
Reports for DHPA in Indianapolis.
November 2 Attended Redevelopment Commission meeting concernin6 the Eddy
Street Commons; Coveleski Development proposal with the City acquirin6 21 additional
properties for redevelopment.
November 6 2 hour meeting with parks concernin6 the Conservatories at
Potawatomie Park with Marti Lewis, Terry DeRosa, Zoo Director and MatthewMoyers
November 7 Completed the editing of the Survey and sent out via Overnight mail.
This was an on Going process that the Staff dedicated considerable time and effort to correctin6
and completing. Have made recommendations to DHPA for future Surveys of South Bend to be
completed over a lon6er period of time by local people so that the inaccuracies of the past surveys
can be addressed.
November 8 Interview (TV) with WSBT at Marquette School. Executive Committee
Meetin6 of the Botanical Society.
November 9 Don Fozo's Retirement.
November 12 Zoning and Annexation Committee Meetin6 on the Landmarkin6 of
Marquette School. Action tabled until November 26, 2007.
November 13 Chicora Foundation's presentation on the City Cemetery.
November 14 Guest Speaker on Historic Preservation for Elk's Auxilianj. HPC
received a $50_00 fee which was deposited to our gift line item.
November 16 Completed the CLG Reports for South Bend and St. Joseph County and
sent them to Steve Kennedy at the DHPA in Indianapolis.
I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
3 OF SOUTH BEND & ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
4 November 19, 2007
5 13th Floor Conference Room
6 County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana
7 Members Present: Lynn Patrick (Vice President), Timothy Klusczinski (President),
8 Linda Riley, Joann Sporleder (Architectural Historian), Mary Jane Chase (Treasurer),
9 Jerry Ujdak
10 Attorney: Shawn Peterson
11 Staff Present: None
12 Absent: Martha Choitz, Todd Zeiger
13 Visitors: Robert Sedlack, Mark Bruneau, Georges Enderle, Donald Sporleder
14
15 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: President Tim Klusczinski called the meeting
16 to order at 7:02 pm.
17 I. PUBLIC HEARING
is STAFF REPORT
19 CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
20 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
21
22
Date: November 8, 2007
-
--Application Number: _ -
24
Property Location:
25
Property Owner:
2007-1023
817 Forest Avenue
Theresa and Robert Sedlack
1
26 Landmark or District Designation: Chapin Park NR/LHD
27 Rating: N
28 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: This Stick/Vernacular
29 style house was built in 1892 for Elizabeth Lemen on Lot 28 of Chapin Place that was
30 purchased from Edward Chapin. The house was constructed for Elizabeth's son, Edward
31 Lemen, a manufacturer of "blank books". Mary and Lafayette LeVan purchased the home
32 in 1894 and resided there until 1900. Mr. LeVan was a superintendent for the Oliver
33 Chilled Plow Works.
34 APPLICATION ITEMS: To replace old, rotted wooden fence with black ornamental aluminum
35 "Hamilton" fencing with Quad Finials between the house and the garage on the south along with
36 the 50 feet of fencing on the north side of the house and 8 feet along the east side per site plan. To
37 install a new fence of the same design along the rear of the property with gates for car and a walk
38 gate to connect with neighbors' fencing of same design in COA #2007-1029.
39 CHAPIN PARK STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:
40 B. BUILDING SITE, LANDSCAPING & ACCESSORIES
41 This section focuses on individual properties and amenities. Building sites tend to be irregularly
42 shaped, of varying topography and with different setbacks with regard to plots. Alleys are
43 generally behind houses. Landscape accessories like fences are unique to each structure. Chapin
44 Place presents a unique situation within the district. Applications from properties that have
45 property lines on Chapin Place will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
46 Required
47 Fencing, walkways, outbuildings, private yard lights, signs (i.e. house numbers) and benches
48 (visible from the street) as well as trees located in a yard or tree lawn which reflect the property's
49 history and development shall be retained. A tree located in such areas shall only be removed if
50 the removal is required due to storm damage,disease, threatened damage to a structure or for such
51 other reason acceptable to the Historic Preservation Commission. Storm damaged or diseased
52 trees should then be replaced with an approved species at the same or approximate location
53 wherever possible. Fencing visible from the street in front of the structure shall be open
54 (meaning spaces between the pickets) and consistent with the historic character of a structure
55 enclosed.
56 Recommended
57 New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property
58 found in photographs, drawings and newspapers. New site work should also be appropriate to
59 existing surrounding site elements in scale, type and appearance. Front yard areas should remain
60 open. (See above for information regarding fences.) Trees in close proximity to a building may
61 cause structural damage. Owners are encouraged to remove these trees and replace (or replant)
62 them at a more appropriate location as soon as planting season permits and upon approval of aC
63 of A.
2
64 Prohibited
65 No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing trees, fencing, walkways,
66 outbuildings or other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and
67 development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor
68 blacktopped, nor enclosed by solid fences, chain link, nor industrial/commercial style fences. The
69 installation of unsightly large devices, such as television satellite dishes, skylights or solar panels,
70 shall not be permitted in areas where they detract from the architecture of a building, are. intrusive
-71 to the public view of the building or are highly visibly from a public street, or ruled inappropriate
72 after Commission review. Utility poles with high-intensity overhead lights should be installed so
73 that they cannot be seen from a street. The Commission will evaluate all installations as well as
74 any potential exceptions resulting from special circumstances, before granting a C of A.
75 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of both items. The fence style is more
76 appropriate to the site than the solid wooden fence. The standards and guidelines for Chapin Park
77 are silent on the use of fencing the rear of the property and concentrate more on the front yard
78 views which require the open views which this style possesses.
79 Tim Klusczinski: Is the petitioner present? Please step closer to the microphone and please
80 state your name and address for the record.
81 Robert Sedlack: My name is Robert Sedlack, 817 Forest Avenue.
82 Tim Klusczinski: OK. Would you care to make a short presentation?
83 Robert Sedlack:
Sure. I will be very brief. The report that Tim Klusczinski just read is
84
very accurate, the rotting wooded fence we would like to replace with a
85
more historic architecturally accurate fence. We looked briefly into
86
wrought iron fences and realized that they were well beyond our means.
87
The ornamental aluminum recreates that look. We are paying a little
88
extra for the finials to top off the top of the fence to make it even more
89
architecturally accurate. It is a safety issue with kids and a replacement
90
issue with an old rotting fence. I think that is all that I have to say. I
91
welcome any questions.
92 - Tim Klusczinski:
93 Mary Jane Chase:
94 Robert Sedlack:
95 Mary Jane Chase:
96 Robert Sedlack:
97 Mary Jane Chase:
98 Robert Sedlack
99
The chair recognizes Commissioners with questions for the petitioner.
Is your property onto an alley?
It is.
OK. I wondered because the entrance to the garage would be this way?
No the entrance of the garage is directly off the back alley.
Oh, OK, so that ... that would ... I see...
Remember we're replacing ... so this is the entrance to the garage and that
the alley is here. We have fences that butt up to the alley our neighbor
100
due north of us and our neighbor two buildings south of us have fences
101
that go right to the alley and that will become significant and my other
102
neighbor who is here has a similar proposal as we are looking to stop
103
some foot traffic through his lawn but you'll hear from him in just a
104
moment.
105 Tim Klusczinski: Any other questions?
106 Joann Sporleder: Yes. What color is this fence?
107 Robert Sedlack: Black.
108 Tim Klusczinski: Hearing no other questions. Open discussion... any discussion? Hearing
109 no discussion, the chair opens public hearing. Is there any member of the
110 public wishing to speak in support of the petition?
111
Voice:
I think it's an excellent idea.
112
Tim Klusczinski:
Sir, could you come up and identify yourself, please?
113
Mark Bruneau:
My name is Mark Bruneau and I live at 815 Forest Avenue, which is
114
130
right next door, I am the neighbor that is putting up the fence right next
115
to his, so we are closing off the alley together. We currently do not have
116
a fence.
117
Joann Sporleder:
So you are closing off the alley?
118
Mark Bruneau:
We are closing off access from the alley to my property.
119
Tim Klusczinski:
Uninvited foot traffic...
120
Mark Bruneau:
Uninvited foot traffic, so I am strongly in support of Robert getting the
121
fence so we are getting the fence as part of the same project.
122 Joann Sporleder: Ok, so, so ... just get me oriented because I can't read the arial thing.
123 Tim Klusczinski: Joann, I don't know if we are allowed necessarily to investigate his
124 proposal because....
125 Joann Sporleder:
I just want to know what the relationship is between the two.
126 Mark or Robert:
His house is this way and my house is that way.
127 Tim Klusczinski:
Any other members of the public wishing to speak in support? Hearing
128 - -
- none, any members of the public wishing to speak in opposition?
129
Hearing none, chair is closing public hearing. Any final comments? Mr.
130
Sedlack?
131 Robert Sedlack: No.
4
132
Tim Klusczinski:
Very Good ... Any additional discussion Commissioners? Very
133
Property Location:
Good.Chair entertains a motion.
134
Lynn Patrick:
Motion we approve Certificate of Appropriateness number 2007-1023.
135
Linda Riley:
Second.
136
Tim Klusczinski:
Motion has been made and seconded. Any other discussion? All in
137
favor? 6 Ayes. Opposed? 0. Motion carries unanimously.
138
Robert Sedlack:
Thank you for your time.
139
Commissioners:
Thank You!
140
Joann Sporleder:
I would like to request not reading all of that stuff with this COA, just the
141
things that pertinent to that particular house.
142
Tim Klusczinski:
I'd be OK with that but I don't know whether or not this is any different
143
than the other. I haven't compared them.
144
Joann Sporleder:
I have.
145
Tim Klusczinski:
Ok. And you're willing to testify that....
146
Joann Sporleder:
I just want youAo read the Application items on down. And the
147
Historical Context of the house. That little bit; that's different. All
148
Chapin Park standards and guidelines are the same, so ... that could be
149
assumed and understood.
150 '
Tim Klusczinski:
Ok. Very Good. Welcome to the abbreviated text.
151 STAFF REPORT
152 CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
153 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
154 Date: November 8, 2007
155
Application Number:
2007-1029
156
Property Location:
815 Forest Avenue
157
- - - --- - ------ -- -
Property Owner:
Julie and Mark Bruneau
158
Landmark or District Designation:
Chapin Park NR/LHD
159
Rating:
Contributing
5
160 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: The Queen Anne at
161 815 Forest was built in 1891 for Flora and Charles Horst. Charles was a hackman for
162 Miller & Newman. They raised three children: Rudolf, Sarah and Jay. Sarah, who
163 became a nurse inherited the house in the 1930s and lived there into the 1940s.
164 APPLICATION ITEMS: To enclose backyard for privacy and to end random foot traffic
165 between Forest Avenue, Leland and the alley between them. Per site material submitted. Fencing
166 and style to match that of COA#2007-1023 "Hamilton" black aluminum with Quad Finials. This
167 would be a new 60 foot fence with a walk gate along the rear of the back yard and alleyway
168 CHAPIN PARK STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:
169 B. BUILDING SITE, LANDSCAPING & ACCESSORIES
170 This section focuses on individual properties and amenities. Building sites tend to be irregularly
171 shaped, of varying topography and with different setbacks with regard to plots. Alleys are
172 generally behind houses. Landscape accessories like fences are unique to each structure. Chapin
173 Place presents a unique situation within the district. Applications from properties that have
174 property lines on Chapin Place will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
175 Required
176 Fencing, walkways, outbuildings, private yard lights, signs (i.e. house numbers) and benches
177 (visible from the street) as well as trees located in a yard or tree lawn which reflect the property's
178 history and development shall be retained. A tree located in such areas shall only be removed if
179 the removal is required due to storm damage, disease, threatened damage to a structure or for
180 such other reason acceptable to the Historic Preservation Commission. Storm damaged or
181 diseased trees should then be replaced with an approved species at the same or approximate
182 location wherever possible. Fencing visible from the street in front of the structure shall be open
183 (meaning spaces between the pickets) and consistent with the historic character of a structure
184 enclosed.
185 Recommended
186 New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property
187 found in photographs, drawings and newspapers. New site work should also be appropriate to
188 existing surrounding site elements in scale, type and appearance. Front yard areas should remain
189 open. (See above for information regarding fences.) Trees in close proximity to a building may
190 cause structural damage. Owners are encouraged to remove these trees and replace (or replant)
191 them at a more appropriate location as soon as planting season permits and upon approval of a C
192 of A.
193 Prohibited
194 No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing trees, fencing, walkways,
195 outbuildings or other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and
196 development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor
197 blacktopped, nor enclosed by solid fences, chain link, nor industrial/commercial style fences. The
198 installation of unsightly large devices, such as television satellite dishes, skylights or solar panels,
2
199 shall not be permitted in areas where they detract from the architecture of a building, are intrusive
200 to the public view of the building or are highly visibly from a public street, or ruled inappropriate
201 after Commission review. Utility poles with high-intensity overhead lights should be installed so
202 that they cannot be seen from a street. The Commission will evaluate all installations as well as
203 any potential exceptions resulting from special circumstances, before granting a C of A.
204 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. The standards and guidelines for Chapin
205 Park are silent on the use of fencing the rear of the property and concentrate more on the front
206 yard views which require the open views which this style possesses. The aluminum "Hamilton"
207 style compliments the site and style of the house.
208
Tim Klusczinski:
I see once again that the petitioner is here. Could you identify
209
227
yourself once again for this case.
210
Mark Bruneau:
Certainly. I am Mark Bruneau from 815 Forest Avenue.
211
Tim Klusczinski:
Care to make any statement regarding your certificate of
212
statements, clarifications...
appropriateness?
213
Mark Bruneau:
No. The application items fairly well encompasses what we are
214
trying to do. For the most part we are trying to cut the foot traffic
215
that cuts through our yard. We had some theft issues in the past
216
and cutting down the foot traffic certainly should reduce that a
217
little bit. Other than that, style and such, to historical accuracy as
218
best we could.
219
Tim Klusczinski:
Very Good. Any Commissioners with questions for the petitioner?
220
Ok. Hearing none ... any commission discussion? Also hearing
221
none, Chair opens public hearing. Is there any member of the
222
public wishing to speak in support of the current petition? I see
223
one.
224 Robert Sedlack: I am Robert Sedlack 817 Forest Avenue. I support Mark's interest
225
in putting up the fence, mainly, in his case, for foot traffic and theft
226
reasons, we have slightly different reasons that we are doing this,
227
that is important for everyone in the neighborhood.
228 Tim Klusczinski:
Very Good. Any other member of the public? Any member of the
229
public wishing to speak against the current petition? Hearing none,
230
chair closes public hearing, moving on, any final remarks,
231
statements, clarifications...
___ _ 232 Mark Bruneau: -- - No, No thanky ou. - -
233 Tim Klusczinski: Very Good. Any additional discussion, Commission?
7
244 Mary Jane Chase: Well in the previous on it just went up to 1900, so...
245 Tim Klusczinski:
Just as a point of clarification, I am pot sure that legally that it's
pc^
234
Joann Sporleder:
I don't have any real discussion, but I asking this question
235
to Catherine and Amy.
.wrongly, I am sure, often when we have the historical information
236
about it brings us up to the present and in these cases it doesn't in
237
either case, but our staff people aren't here to respond to that I was
238
just curious as to why the historical context hasn't been brought up
239
to date, so to speak. In many cases it has been, but in this case it
240
hasn't.
241
Tim Klusczinski:
I see.
242
Jerry Ujdak:
Make a note of that.
243
Tim Klusczinski:
I will.
244 Mary Jane Chase: Well in the previous on it just went up to 1900, so...
245 Tim Klusczinski:
Just as a point of clarification, I am pot sure that legally that it's
246
particularly relevant unless it does somehow manipulate the
247
application I not sure that it does in this case, but I will bring it up
248
to Catherine and Amy.
249 Joann Sporleder: Well, sometime subsequent owners are significant in some way,
250 that's my feeling any way.
251 Tim Klusczinski: Very Good, any other discussion? Hearing none, Chair entertains a
252 motion.
253 Lynn Patrick: I motion that we approve certificate of appropriateness number
254 2007-1029.
255 Tim Klusczinski: Is there a second?
256 Mary Jane Chase: Second.
257 Tim Klusczinski: The motion has been made and seconded to approve and other
258 discussion? Hearing none, All in favor? 6Ayes. Opposed? 0
259 Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much.
260 Mark Bruneau: Thank you very much for your time.
261 Tim Klusczinski: Typically there will be follow up from the staff. Application
_262_ number- 2007-1107.
263 STAFF REPORT
264 CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
265
266
267
268
269
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: November 8, 2007
Application Number: COA# 2007-1107
Property Location:
Property Owner:
710 Park Avenue
Georges Enderle
270 Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark, Chapin Park LHD/NR
271 Rating:
Outstanding
272 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE[HISTORIC CONTEXT: This Eclectic Italianate
273 was built for Mary Chapin Anderson and Andrew Anderson between 1875 and 1877.
274 Four generations of the Anderson-DuShane family lived in this house until 1962. This is
275 one of the most significant residential architectural structures in the city of South Bend
276 and in Chapin Park.
277 APPLICATION ITEMS: Four Marvin replacement windows in the bay area, wood ultimate
278 insert double hung, double pane, upgraded to Low E II with Argon gas. Per letter and
279 specifications submitted.
280 CHAPIN PARK STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
281 C. WINDOWS AND DOORS
282 Window and door frames are in most cases wood and vary depending upon the style of the home.
283 Many are double -hung windows with wood trim and sills. Brick structures have stone sills and
284 brick lintels. In some cases where aluminum siding has been applied, the window and door trim
285 has been covered. About half of the structures in the district have aluminum storm windows; the
286 other half have wood storm windows.
287 Required
288 Original windows and doors shall be retained including sashes, lintels, sills, shutters, decorative
289 glass, pediments, hoods and hardware. When deteriorated beyond repair, they shall be replaced
290 with units and trim resembling the original.
291 Recommended
292 - -- Wood storm windows and doors painted or finished to match the original should be used but - -
293 should not damage existing frames. If new sashes or doors are installed, the existing or original
294 materials, design and hardware should be used. When metal storm doors are used, they should be
295 painted, anodized or coated to match the existing. When awnings are used, they should be of
296 canvas material.
IN
297 Prohibited
298 Original doors, windows and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and
299 reused in place. New window and door openings, which would alter the scale and proportion of
300 the building may not be introduced. Inappropriate new window and door features such as metal,
301 vinyl or fiberglass awnings, hoods or aluminum insulating glass combinations that require
302 removal of original windows and doors, shall not be installed.
303 Not Recommended
304 Fake shutters that would detract from the existing character or appearance of the building should
305 not be used.
306 GROUP B LANDMARK STANDARDS B. Treatment: Treatment shall be defined as any
307 change of surface materials that will not alter the style or original form. Such improvements
308 include reproofing, glazing, or landscaping lawns and may involve a change that can
309 potentially enhance or detract from the character of the landmark. A treatment change of
310 any surface whether on the landmark or in its environment may require a Certificate of
311 Appropriateness if it significantly alters the appearance of the landmark. Although these
312 kinds of changes may not require a Building Permit, a Certificate of Appropriateness may
313 be necessary. The commission should review the proposed treatment for character and style
314 consistency with the original surfaces.
315 RECOMMENDATION: Staff can not recommend approval as the windows are not
316 deteriorated beyond repair and can be restored in-situ in this significant architectural
317 landmark. These are the same windows that were applied for in COAs 2006-1108A and
318 2007-0905A which the Commission denied.
319 Tim Klusczinski: Professor? Please identify yourself. name and address
320 Georges Enderle: Yes. I am Georges Enderle, I live at 710 Park Avenue, South Bend.
321 Tim Klusczinski: You are here to make a brief presentation on behalf of your
322 petition.
323 Georges Enderle: Yes. Thank you. Well as you all know my house is a beautiful
324
building and I feel that I have a responsibility to preserve the
325
unique character of my house. But the windows are deteriorating
326
severely and need repair. Since September, 2006 I've been
327
discussing my window problem with the Historic Preservation
328
Commission many times and in the process I've learned quite a lot
329
about vindows. Including the visits of some commissioners to my
330
house we had six meetings, so today is our seventh meeting.
-331
_ - Unfortunately, we couldn't find a solution so far. So what I am
332
proposing is four Marvin replacement windows in the bay area:
333
wood ultimate inserts, or wood tilt backs with jamb liners, double
334
hung, double pane, upgraded to Low E II with Argon gas. To be
335
clear, my proposal concerns only the four windows in the bay area
10
336
of the dining room. Replacement Windows, inserts or tilt backs are
337
of high quality in wood without aluminum clad and double pane.
338
Neither interior nor exterior storm windows are required for this
339
solution. My view, they meet the essential criteria of sustainability
340
and authenticity to address my window problem. So, why I am
341
applying for this? Well, I think that the windows cannot be
342
restored in-situ as the staff report says. They have to be taken out,
343
they have to be repaired while we are exposed to bad weather and
344
moved in again. There are, I think, in our discussions three options
345
we have examined but none of them is acceptable. The first option
346
is to install a second glass on the restored single pane windows.
347
This is not possible because the size of my windows is too big and
348
the strength of the windows would be impaired severely. But
349
second option is interior storm windows. They could be installed,
350
technically speaking, yes. But this decision is at the discretion of
351
the owner and I don't want interior storm windows because they
352
substantially impair the aesthetics of the dining room and need to
353
be removed and re -installed in spring and fall respectively; hence
354
reducing my quality of life. Third, the third option is exterior storm
355
windows, but they are technically not feasible in the bay area.
356
Moreover, they would harm the current historic aesthetics of the
357
exterior of the area. Furthermore, my house never had, never had,
358
exterior storm windows. How, then, could the Historic
359
Preservation Commission require install something new that is
360
alien to my historic house. Because none of these three options is
361
acceptable and no other proposal was offered by the Commission, I
362
can not but ask for the proposed four Marvin windows replacement
363
windows. I think that this solution does the least harm to the
364
existing structure of my house. Thank you.
365 Lynn Patrick:
I'd like to ask, if I may, is that a prepared statement that you have
366
just read?
367 Georges Enderle:
Prepared?
368 Lynn Patrick:
Yes, what you just read us, did you have it all written out in
369
advance?
370 Georges Enderle: Well, its some remarks, I can give it later on.
371 Lynn Patrick: I am wondering if that would be helpful since the person who is
372 going to be typing up the minutes, if you had a copy, we could
373 include with the materials, it would make it easier when she goes
374 to type up the minutes.
375 Georges Enderle: I will send it.
11
376 Tim Klusczinski: Professor, I have a Staff Response in my packet. When you said
377 that the Staff did not provide an alternate solution to you, did you
378 receive that dated October 24?
379 Georges Enderle: Yes. You mean with the three proposals, the articles and the
380 brochure?
381 Tim Klusczinski: Well ... it goes: Dear Dr. Enderle, The Commissioners of the
382
Historic Preservation Commission instructed me to write to you
383
concerning you bay windows and your desire to have operable,
384
more energy efficient windows. The latest information available
385
from research indicates that the heat loss through the single pane of
386
window glass is about 20%, but, the majority of the heat loss is
387
through improperly fitting sashes and the framing. The proposal
388
that the Historic preservation Commission would accept would be
389
the total restoration of the original windows by an experience
390
craftsman with the installation of the appropriate weather-stripping
391
to ensure a proper fit. This would include the insulation of the
392
window cavities as well to reduce the draughts and can be
393
accomplished in such a way as to accommodate the weights. The
394
Commission would not have any objections to interior storms and
395
would recommend additional insulation on the bay window area
396
around the knee wall and its base. The Commission might allow
397
exterior storms if they could be applied discreetly in the window
398
openings over the restored windows. The Commission also might
399
allow the installation of double paned window glass in the original
400
sashes if they could be successfully installed in the original
401
window sashes. The Historic preservation Commission will only
402
accept the least invasive applications for your home because your
403
home is a significant and landmarked structure within an
404
architecturally important local and national register district; and
405
because the windows are not deteriorated beyond repair. The Staff
406
and Commissioners would be available to assist and advise the
407
craftsman that you would select for your window project. I know
408
that a successful project is important to you and have enclosed
409
product information and restoration articles to help guide you in
410
this process. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or
411
concerns, Sincerely, Catherine D. Hostetler, Director
412 Georges Enderle:
Yes. We had Catherine and Paul Hayden and Mr. Schoberg came
413
to my house. We had a meeting and we discussed it and in this
414
letter it said that interior storm windows would be allowed, well I
415
don't ... I appreciate that ... but I think this is out of the question.
416
About exterior storm windows I think I made those three points
417
before, I don't understand how you can improve the quality of a
418
single pane window with the help I was offered. Because a double
12
419
pane window is stronger than a single pane window and here
420
scientific research is very clear about it, two windows insulate
421
better than one. So that is why I am saying I see three options
422
either I mean that we discuss that we take the existing windows we
423
install a second glass one the first, existing window, but this is not
424
possible because my windows are too big. And if you do that they
425
loose the strength, it is not stable any more; that is what Wayne
426
Doolittle told me and what I could find in the literature.
427 Tim Klusczinski:
You said that you also met with Steve Schoberg and Paul
428
Hayden...
429 Georges Enderle: Yes.
430 Tim Klusczinski: And I don't have the ability to ask staff if they documented the
431
context of the meeting. But I am interested in knowing if Steve
432
Schoberg ... because he is a contractor, window restoration
433
specialist as far as we know.
434 Georges Enderle:
Right.
435 Tim Klusczinski:
And then Paul Hayden is also technical support from Historic
436
Landmark.
437 Georges Enderle: Yes. Right.
438 Tim Klusczinski:
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
Georges Enderle:
Did they offer any other suggestions to you?
Well after that meeting, I got three things: I got two articles, which
I mentioned in my letter, and the brochure of light windows
invisible windows which are storm windows inside and outside.
Now, my point, I think is clear. That there are three things: first is
what can we do with the existing storm windows? The second is
what about interior storm windows and third question is what
about exterior storm windows? These are three questions. And the
first question is maybe we can put the second glass on top of the
first one? But this is not possible, I mean with all good will, it is
not stable and the strength of the big windows, they are huge
windows, you know. You cannot with the same wood frame place
another thing ... and, and think... believe that it is insulated over the
next 20 years. This is technically not possible. So, a possibility is,
and I discussed it with Mr. Schoberg, and he said what he would
do, he would restore the window as it is but keep the glass as it is,
not to add any second glass. Well, then I have the same problem
next winter as well, that one glass does not protect enough against
the cold from outside. You assume that I can put interior storm
13
457
windows, well I told, I tell you I don't want that. It's not your
458
business to tell me what I do in my house. You tell I should have
459
exterior storm windows; well I tell you its physically, technically
460
not feasible because there is such a small space between the
461
existing double hung, now, the upper sash and the frame, you
462
would have to put the storm window on top of the existing frame
463
and the water could drop down. In addition, we cannot have the
464
light effects as we have; now we have two sashes, the upper sash
465
and the lower sash and they have a very beautiful light effect, light
466
effect from outside. I have in my house one storm window on the
467
porch at the entrance which I don't know when it was placed in,
468
certainly without the permission of the Commission, it looks very
469
ugly. You know, I can, it looks like it was put on the frame with
470
screws, I don't touch it, you know. But I don't want to see the
471
house with this kind of storm windows all over the place; it would
472
be a deterioration of the house, I cannot take the responsibility for
473
that. You would be, I mean, imagine how you, I have 54 windows,
474
you know, and you put this kind of exterior storm windows and it
475
will look afterwards. If you....
476 Tim Klusczinski:
You have brought up an interesting point, because you said your
477
petitioning for four windows in the bay area, do you have
478
intentions on applying this same procedure to all other 52 or 50
479
windows?
480 Georges Enderle: No, I have no intention about the other windows, but, because
481 windows are different, you know. There are about three or four
482 different types of windows, that's why I want to talk about those
483 four windows in the bay area because they are the most urgent
484 thing to do.
485 Tim Klusczinski: Ok.
486 Georges Enderle: We have our table there for breakfast lunch and dinner, but we can
487 not have our lunch and dinner there, it's not possible, we have to
488 go to another room. To say that you could put some blankets or
489 some heavy curtains due to the cold coming in, well that was in
490 1890 or 95, but not in the year 2007.
491 Tim Klusczinski: My question has been answered professor, any other questions for
492 the petitioner?
-493 - Shawn Peterson: I'd like to clarify for the record, you said that you could restore the
494 windows?
14
495 Georges Enderle:
No, he did not say that. We looked at it, we discussed it, but he did
496
not make a judgement.
497 Shawn Peterson:
Who said that it wouldn't support the double windows?
498
END OF TAPE #1.
499 Don Sporleder: Don Sporleder, 205 Cripe Street, Professor of Architecture
500
Emeritus, University of Notre Dame. I would speak in favor of this
501
petition for a Certificate of Appropriateness. On the points that the
502
proposed is a remedy to a problem that is a problem. It is not
503
invasive, and indeed maintains the appearance of the existing land
504
marked house. A very important part. The fact that the storm
505
windows, which is an option, if that were done it would definitely
506
change the appearance. It's not an easy one because the existing
507
situation would not accommodate the use of storm windows except
508
for a jerry=rigged thing. The fact that the house is historic and has
509
not had storm windows, I would submit, is a good case for not
510
doing exterior storms as well not withstanding the change in
511
appearance that would occur. And the interior storms which I think
512
the petitioners points were well presented though I think that the
513
windows are proposed are good ones and would work well.
514 Tim Klusczinski: Thank you sir. Any member of the public wishing to speak in
515 opposition to the current petition? Hearing none, I close the public
516 hearing. Final comments? No? Any other Commission comments,
517 discussion, questions?
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
Joann Sporleder:
Yes, I would just like to say that this has been long and torturous
for all of us, but I'm sure that Tim hasn't enjoyed this any better
than anyone else has. I think that it's important to keep the overall
appearance architecturally and historically. The outside appearance
is kind of critical. Also equally important is making the structure
livable in an accommodating, modern way that we like to live in.
To consign someone to perpetually living in single pane glass and
it's all made nice and tight and is perfectly wonderful so that the
air doesn't blow in around the edges, you've still got frost on the
windows unless you put plastic on the inside. I think to use the best
technology that is currently available to achieve all of the purposes
of improving the livability of our most important historic structures
and not treat them as museum pieces because we want people to
live in them and enjoy them. I think that he has worked hard to try
and- find a way to fit this in with the deteriorating fabric of his
house in anyway and still give the appearance of the outside to be
the same as it currently is. And to maintain his livability as he
wants to in his own house, as we all do. I think he's tried very hard
to do the best he could with this. The economic thing is happily not
15
537
538
539 Tim Klusczinski:
540 Mary Jane Chase:
541
542
543
544 Tim Klusczinski:
545 Georges Enderle:
546
547 Mary Jane Chase:
548
549
550 Georges Enderle:
551 Tim Klusczinski:
552 Linda Riley:
553
554 Tim Klusczinski:
555
556 Joann Sporleder:
557 Linda Riley:
558 Tim Klusczinski:
559
560
561 Linda Riley:
562 Tim Klusczinski:
563
564
565
566
a consideration here, he's willing to spend the money to get a
quality piece of work here.
Thank you. Any other statements?
The only thing that I notice in 2006 and 2007 the C o f A's were
applied for in November, September and now into November. If
the windows need to be taken out, why hasn't this ever been done
in May or June?
That's a good point.
Well, the answer is that I was hoping that in September we had the
solution for the Fall but it was not.
The inconvenience is the weather. If we'd had this in May or June
any need to take them out and repair them would have been very
possible.
I remember why I was out of the country.
Ok.
I have a follow up question to that. If he'd wanted to take them out
and repair them, would he have needed a C of A for that?
No, not for in-kind. You can fix and repair, in kind, any part of
your house.
You still need a C of A for re -roofing your house even in kind.
I know...
Anything that requires a building permit, and that's the trip
mechanism for that. Repairing your own windows does not require
a building permit.
What if he had someone else repair them?
It wouldn't matter. If you incur a certain indebtedness to the
contractor that exceeds $500.00, then that trips the Building
_Department, and you must have a C of A at the same time. I don't -
think that's really here nor there, you can repair any part of your
house. The Chair entertains a motion one way or the other.
16
567 Joann Sporleder: I move, what is the number for this, I move that C of A 2007-1107
568 for 710 Park Avenue be approved because the proposal...
569 Tim Klusczinski: You don't have to state a reason.
570 Joann Sporleder: I know, but I'd like to. Because it does no harm in any way to the
571 existing structure, it seems to be architecturally appropriate, and it
572 does the public no harm.
573
Linda Riley:
Second.
574
Tim Klusczinski:
Motion has been made and seconded.
575
Shawn Peterson:
For the record, because the motion is to approve, if you vote
576
589
against it, you do not need to state a reason. If you vote to deny is
577
when you need to state your reasons.
578
Joann Sporleder:
I understand that, Shawn, I just wanted to state why I was...
579
Tim Klusczinski:
For her...
580
Shawn Peterson:
So if you vote against this motion you don't have to state your
581
reasons why, but if you had entertained a motion to deny you
582
would have to.
583 Tim Klusczinski: Really?
584 Shawn Peterson:
A motion to approve if it fails, does not end. You need a motion to
585
deny to pass. So as far as the rationale in the ordinance, as far as
586
stating your rationale, it's when you vote on a motion to deny, not
587
necessarily a negative motion on a motion to approve.
588 Joann Sporleder:
But the same thing applies if you make a positive motion and the
589
motion is defeated.
590 Shawn Peterson: No, that doesn't apply. You have to have a motion to deny.
591 Joann Sporleder: No, that's not right Shawn.
592 Tim Klusczinski: I'll defer to counsel tonight. Motion has been made and seconded.
593 Any other discussion? So, to clarify Shawn, you're suggesting that
594 motions in favor or motions to deny don't require an explanation at _ -
- --
595 this point?
596 Shawn Peterson: A motion has been made to approve, if that motion should fail then
597 action has not been taken by the Commission. It's when a motion
17
598
is to deny and in approving that motion, if that succeeds then the
599
Commission has effectively denied it. Therefore, if your rationale
600
on a motion to deny is what's necessary, not necessarily a negative
601
vote on a motion to approve.
602
Tim Klusczinski:
Which means also that if a motion dies then no action has been
603
taken and what are the results of that if there is not a follow up
604
motion?
605
Shawn Peterson:
Then the Commission would have deemed not to take action on it
606
and within 60 days it would need to be approved.
607
Tim Klusczinski:.
Ok, I understand.
608
Shawn Peterson:
The motion on the floor to approve has been seconded.
609
Linda Riley:
They don't have to state their reason for denying?
610
Shawn Peterson:
It's when you have a motion on the table to deny.
611
Tim Klusczinski:
Any other discussion? Hearing none. I'll open it up for a vote. All
612
in favor? 2 ayes. Opposed?
613
Mary Jane Chase:
I abstain.
614
Lynn Patrick:
Nay.
615
Tim Klusczinski:
Ok. Um, let's go with ... roll call.
616
Joann Sporleder:
I vote in favor of the motion to approve.
617
Jerry Ujdak:
I abstain.
618
Tim Klusczinski:
I vote to deny.
619
Lynn Patrick:
I move to deny, I vote nay.
620
Linda Riley:
I vote to approve.
621
Mary Jane Chase:
Mary Jane Chase abstains.
622
_S_ hawn_Peterson:
Let the record show that the vote has failed for a lack of majority --
623
of those present.
624
Tim Klusczinski:
So, are we limited to....
In
625 Shawn Peterson: You can entertain a motion to deny if you'd like. Or, there are
626 other options as well. You can abstain from taking action and take
627 it up at your next meeting, tabling it. You have 60 days to approve.
628 As of now, the Commission has not taken action on it.
629 Jerry Ujdak: You can refer it to Standards and Maintenance.
630 Tim Klusczinski: We have, we've been there a few times. I move to deny on the
631
basis that any recommendations by staff have not been met and
632
any of the solutions presented here tonight can not be fulfilled if
633
this C of A passes. In addition, the double sill character of the
634
replacement windows, particularly on this C of A would be in
635
place, and when it has been suggested that an alternate come
636
forward without that double sill option, this C of A must be
637
defeated before that can happen. So, I've made a motion, is there a
638
second?
639 Lynn Patrick: I'll second.
640 Shawn Peterson: Just a reminder, that at roll call, you must state your rationale as far
641
as why and to remind you that should be based on whether or not
642
something is appropriate based upon the standards; second, what
643
detriment would there be to allowing this to the overall public and
644
the impact on the structure and its significance; and finally what
645
would the impact as far as hardship to the applicant. Those are
646
your three factors to decide whether to approve or deny and you
647
must make statements as far as why you think those things are the
648
case when you make your vote to deny the application.
649
Lynn Patrick:
To make those more brief, the 1-2-3 is 1. appropriateness, 2.
650
damage to the public, and 3. hardship to the petitioner.
651
Shawn Peterson:
Correct.
652
Lynn Patrick:
Ok.
653
Linda Riley:
Would you read the motion again?
654
Tim Klusczinski:
I'd like to replay you the tape. Shawn could you restate the motion
655
for Linda's benefit please?
656
Shawn Peterson:
The motion on the table is to deny the application in question. It
657
has been seconded, so a roll call vote is appropriate at this time.
658 Joann Sporleder: Do we have to say our findings again?
19
659 Shawn Peterson: Your rationale. If you vote in favor of a motion to deny, you must
660 state your rationale for the record.
661 Joann Sporleder: And if I vote against the motion to deny?
662 Tim Klusczinski: You're free.
663 Joann Sporleder: I vote against the motion to deny.
664 Jerry Ujdak: I still abstain.
665 Tim Klusczinski: I vote to deny on the basis that it does not reflect the guidelines for
666
the landmark as well as the district. And, it would circumvent as
667
well as prevent more appropriate solutions that have been
668
presented tonight and by staff. I'm not sure that drafty windows are
669
the issue when there's a large gap at the top sash that hasn't been
670
remedied so far so we really don't know how well the windows can
671
perform as is before we could find alternative solutions for storms.
672 Joann Sporleder:
Excuse me, but you have not stated specifically what part of the
673
standards apply here.
674 Tim Klusczinski:
I think that I could just call to reference everything that I read
675
during the presentation. The windows aren't deteriorated beyond
676
repair, that is a specific element that I have a problem with, but
677
that is not the only thing.
678 Lynn Patrick:
We are voting on our motion to deny, so I'd like to deny so I vote
679
yay in order to deny. I vote yay to support the motion to deny. The
680
windows are not deteriorated beyond repair. These windows are
681
significant to one of THE most important houses in Chapin Park,
682
there is no damage to the public and continuing to seek a solution,
683
I don't believe what's been presented today is a solution and
684
hardship to the petitioner is minimal. You have a very large house,
685
one area with problems with the windows and it's interesting that
686
no attempt has been made to affect any repair. There's no way I
687
could in good conscious vote that these windows be replaced.
688 Linda Riley: I vote against the motion.
689 Tim Klusczinski:
Mary Jane?
--690 -- Mary Jane Chase:
I abstain for two reasons; 1. the problem is that all the answers
691
were in double pane glass when I keep reading about weather.
692
stripping, the drafts and we're both a little responsible here.
693
Professor Enderle is responsible for this since 2004 and now we're
20
694
in 2007 in the winter and that, to me, sounds neglectful. And we
695
have been neglectful in allowing this for to go on for this long.
696
Both of us have not done a job on those windows. Waiting three
697
years and always coming up in the winter season.
698
Lynn Patrick:
So you are abstaining?
699
Mary Jane Chase:
Abstaining, yes.
700
Lynn Patrick:
You didn't have to give a reason.
701
Mary Jane Chase:
But I wanted that down because I think that we've both let this go
702
on too long.
703
Joann Sporleder:
Well, Shawn then what happens? The motion again fails for lack of
704
a majority.
705
Shawn Peterson:
The Commission has not taken action at this point and you now
706
have to choose to take action at a subsequent meeting or later on
707
this meeting to take action. Or, you have 60 days per the
708
ordinance.
709 Joann Sporleder: For future action, who brings the action?
710 Shawn Peterson: Who brings the action? As far as...?
711 Joann Sporleder: Who brings it up at the subsequent meeting?
712 Tim Klusczinski: Any Commissioner can bring it up, unless we stage a particular
713 meeting for it and announce it in advance, right?
714 Shawn Peterson: Right.
715 Joann Sporleder: So where does that leave the petitioner?
716 Tim Klusczinski: For 60 days, with air coming in.
717 Lynn Patrick: Unless he wants to repair them in kind in the meantime.
718 Shawn Peterson: At a subsequent meeting... {unintelligible}
719 Lynn Patrick: Ver ood.
yg. - --
720 Shawn Peterson: And it's 60 days from the receipt of the application. So this
721 is... {unintelligible}
21
722 Lynn Patrick: Yes, it says November 7`h.
723 A conversation between Commissioners, counsel and petitioner ensues about the dates of
724 future regularly scheduled meetings and the procedures for notification and consideration
725 of the petition. Counsel invited the petitioner to submit additional relevant materials
726 before future consideration and Commissioner Ujdak committed to "calling around" to
727 get the information he'd promised the petitioner.
728 Approval of Minutes:
729 Linda Riley moved to approve the minutes of October 16`h without changes. Mary Jane
730 Chase seconded. The vote to approve was unanimous.
731 Location Report:
732 Mary Jane Chase submitted the report, and has not discovered any abnormalities though
733 she didn't have the opportunity to discuss the report with Director Hostetler. Per President
734 Klusczinski, the report was received as presented.
735 Correspondence:
736 None.
737 Director's Report:
738 None. Should it have been omitted, President Klusczinski will ensure that it is included in
739 the packet for next month.
740 AD Report:
741 Distributed with packet via mail.
742 Legal Counsel:
743 None.
744 President's Report:
745 Will send in next month's packet. November 26 Common Common Council committee and full
746 council meetings regarding Marquette landmarking were announced. Interim protection
747 has lapsed by date.
748 Landmarks:
749 No report.
750 Nominating:
751 A slate of new officers is needed for action at the December meeting. Joann Sporleder, - - - --752 Jerry Ujdak, Mary Jane Chase, Linda Riley and Lynn Patrick were asked to compose the
753 Nominating Committee, with Joann Sporleder serving as Chair. All accepted, save Linda
754 Riley who declined.
22
755 Meeting Adjourned.
756 Attest:
757
758
759 Todd Zeiger,
760 Secretary, Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County
761 Date:
VON
-Fro 3
764
765
23
Attest:
JZ --0167
Date
Secretary
Historic Pr servation Commission
SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 2007_ MEETING
GUESTS: PLEASE SIGN THIS LIST SO THAT
YOUR PRESENCE CAN BE NOTED FOR OUR
MINUTES
Print Name
Address
Georges eo d r l e -7/0 Fr,.sL A,%a
dark- eruh6�; u S /-�7 Fores' /4ve,
Rnlo 0.1- So) /A lC_ <Kl -7- F9-rgS4.t,-
► �� f06 Lo S
Signature