HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission Meeting Signed Minutes - January 21, 2020MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
January 2111, 2020
13"' Floor Conference Room
County — City Building
South Bend, IN 46601
I. CALL TO ORDER
Commission President Michele Gelfman called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.
Members of the Public Present:
Tim Corcoran, Civil City of South Bend, Department of Community Investment
Fengrong Ma, 51340 Lake Point Court, Granger, IN 46530
Patrick Wittling, 303 S Coquillard Drive, South Bend, IN 46617
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Michele Gelfman, President; Lesley Annis, Assistant Secretary
Elizabeth Hertel, Vice President; Sarah Ponder, Secretary; Eric Stalheim; Mary Brazinsky;
Patrick Deegan; Joan Downs-Krostenko, Architectural Historian.
Members Not in Attendance: John Tiffany
Staff Present: Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator; Adam Toering, Historic
Preservation Specialist; Sandra Kennedy, Legal Counsel.
Staff Not in Attendance: N/A
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
702 North St. Joseph Street #2019 -1108 -Continued #8308-92
River Bend Local Historic District
Representation: Fengrong Ma, 51340 Lake Point Court, Granger, IN 46530
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: December 12, 2019
Application Number: 2019-1108
Property Location: 702 N St Joseph
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: American Foursquare/ 1907
Property Owner: Fengrong Ma
Landmark or District Designation: River Bend Local Historic District (#8308-92)
Rating: Contributing
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTUREISITE: This is a two-story square house on a fieldstone foundation. Walls are asphalt
shingles; the second story has a slight overhang. The roof is hipped with asphalt shingles. Hipped dormers are at the north and
south sides, with the southern being slightly larger. A gable dormer is on the west roof face. A first story hipped roof porch is
on the west face with concrete steps and decking. Windows are 1/1 double hung, some wood and some aluminum storms. The
chimney is centrally mounted.
ALTERATIONS: The irregular sized dormers appear to indicate some later modifications to the roofline of the house. COA
1998-0818 allowed for the in-kind replacement of the roof and gutters. COA 1998-0827 added further clarification for the in-
kind roof replacement. RME 2018-0829 allowed for the reconstruction of the centrally mounted chimney. COA 2018-1113A
conditionally approved the removal and replacement of the south and west dormer windows pending staff approval of proposed
aluminum -clad windows (this was not completed). Two attic dormer windows were replaced with vinyl slider windows without
Certificate of Approval in August of 2019.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "Replace two windows aluminum clad window in attic, gables on south and west roof. Pella
Lifestyle Series windows. South gable will not be side-by-side smaller windows, rather 1 single double -hung."
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant seeks a retroactive Certificate of Appropriateness for improvements
on the structure including:
1. Removal of two (2) vinyl `slider' windows from the west and southern attic dormers.
a. Vinyl windows were installed without Certificate of Appropriateness.
b. Vinyl windows do not match the previous windows in size, configuration, material, or style.
C. Vinyl windows replaced four windows: two `narrow' double -hung windows in the southern and
western dormers.
2. Replace with four (4) Pella Architect Series ® 850 Traditional brand aluminum -clad (wood core) windows in
white..
Following the conditional approval of COA 2018-1113A for the replacement of the deteriorated original windows with
aluminum clad wood double -hung windows matching the original configuration, Staff corresponded with the applicant and
monitored the site. On August 6th, 2019, Staff discovered that the two west and two southern dormer windows had been
replaced with vinyl slider windows. Staff documented the replaced windows, drafted and mailed a notification letter to the
property owner, and informed the Building Department of work having been executed without an approved Certificate of
Appropriateness/Building Permit. The Building Department `Red Tagged' the property.
The applicant contacted Staff on August 13, 2019 upon receipt of the notification letter. Applicant attempted to find an
aluminum -clad product that would replicate the original southern window size but was unable to do so after contacting multiple
vendors. The original 'narrow' (approximately 10" wide) configuration of the sashes in each dormer resulted in no known
appropriate replacement windows.
Commission deliberation for COA 2018-1113A included considering replacing the two smaller double -hung sashes with a
single larger double -hung aluminum -clad sash. The Commission decided that the applicant should determine that the smaller
10' sashes were not viable, and, having determined that, return to the Commission to apply for replacing the windows with the
larger double -hung window.
SITE VISIT REPORT:
November 13, 2018
On November 12, 2018 I met with the owner of the property located at 702 N St. Joseph. She has applied to replace the
windows located on the south -facing third floor dormer. 1 was unable to go inside the structure as the tenant works from home
and did not want to be disturbed. 1 photographed the windows from the outside and was able to determine that one of the four
sashes would need to be replaced or be rebuilt. The meeting rail of the top sash is broken free. The other window has the sashes
reversed meaning upper forced down and lower sash forced up. The sashes do not look to be in place.
The owner provided me with a quote sheet for a Semco window from Richards Supply. I did not feel that the quote provided
enough information about what was being proposed. I went to Richards Supply and got model -specific brochures and
photographed a showroom model. Photographs are in the digital file.
Steve Szaday
Preservation Inspector
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: River Bend Local Historic District Standards and Guidelines
C. WINDOWS AND DOORS
Windows and door frames are in nearly all cases wood. Brick structures have stone sills and brick lintels; masonry block
structures have masonry sills and lintels. In some cases where aluminum siding has been applied window trim has been
covered. About half of the structures in the district have aluminum storm windows, the other half wood storm windows.
Required
Original windows and doors including sash, lintels, sills, shutters, decorative glass, pediments, hoods, and hardware shall
be retained or when deteriorated beyond repair, replaced with duplicates of the existing or original.
Recommended
Wood frame storm windows and doors, painted to match the existing or original, should be used but should not damage existing
frames and should be removable in the future. If new sash and doors are used, 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
Existing or 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 should not be introduced. Inappropriate
new window and door features such as aluminum insulating glass combinations that require the removal of the original windows
and doors shall not be installed.
Not Recommended
Metal, vinyl, or fiberglass awnings, hoods, and fake shutters that would detract from the existing character or appearance of the
building should not be used.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of replacing the southern and western dormer windows with
Pella Lifestyle Aluminum -clad windows as per the submitted application.
Written by
Adam Toering
Historic Preservation Specialist
Approved by
Elicia Feasel
Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko: I'm confused by what is in the packet, because there is double -hung without divided light in
the top, and then there's double -hung with divided light in the top. Which one of these is...
Administrator Feasel: Those are just the examples that Pella provided. The window will not have divided light. The windows
will replicate the one -over -one windows.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko: So, this one is not entirely accurate.
Ms. Ma: This is just the example that was available in the showroom, the other picture — the black one? That is what the
windows will look like.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko: This one has divided light, too. So you mean, this one?
Ms. M a: Yes.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko: My next question is, are the ones to be installed approximately this size?
Ms. Ma: No. This is 47" x 47".
Commissioner Down s-Krostenko: And the original is 10" wide? And the replacement is 47" wide?
Specialist Toering: The entire window opening is 47" wide, if I am not mistaken. Inside that, I believe there will be two smaller
windows.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko: The original was 10" wide, side by side? Twenty total?
Ms. Ma: That was not an accurate measurement, that was not the total. It was actually 23" wide.
Specialist Toering: Those measurements were an approximation, as (Inspector Szaday) could not accurately measure them as
we did not have access to the attic of the structre.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko: So the originals were 23" wide, and the replacement will be 47" for two of them.
Ms. Ma: Correct.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
N/A
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
N/A
Commissioner Stalheim made a motion to approve COA #2019 -1108 -continued as applied.
Seconded by Commissioner Annis.
Eight in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 8 — 0. Motion to approve COA #2019-1108 passes.
Commissioner Gelfman: Thank you for all your hard work on this. We appreciate it.
2. 504 E LaSalle #2019-1203 #7591-1986 Local
Landmark, National Register East Bank Multiple Property Listing
Representation: Patrick Wittling, 303 S Coquillard Drive, South Bend, IN
46617
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: December 3, 2019
Application Number: 2019-1203
Property Location: 504 E LaSalle
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: ltalianate%Neoclassical/ 1900/1924% J.C. Lauber Company
Property Owner: Greater Lowell Holdings, LLC
Landmark or District Designation: Historic Landmark (Ordinance #7591-1986); National Register East Bank Multiple
Property Listing
Rating: Contributing
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE: The J.C. Lauber Company building is described in the National Register listing as
a unique example of the Commercial -Functional style of architecture that combines utility with ornament. The structure is
comprised of several additions with the primary LaSalle Street facing constructed as a one-story, rectangular -plan, commercial
building with a foundation of concrete and rubble, walls are brick and block. A metal cornice stretches seventy feet across the
facade. Roof is flat. LaSalle Street facade features modillions on ends of dentilled cornice with scroll end brackets. The front
elevation has a strong horizontal emphasis. Windows are divided into nine bays and are wood framed, fixed plate glass with
solid transoms above. Front entrance is a wood double door with glass. The 1924 addition, directly behind the 1900 building, is
a one-story, rectangular -plan, constructed of concrete block, with a flat roof. Windows are metal with multi -panels. The rear of
the building is organized by multiple additions and incorporate various garage doors. Signage exists on all sides, both attached
to and painted directly on the structure, reflecting different eras of the former J.C. Lauber business.
ALTERATIONS: COA 2005-1031 approved demolition of portion of building constructed in 1882 at northwest corner of
LaSalle and Niles. COA 2006-0413 approved reinstallation of J.C. Lauber Sheet Metal sign, formerly on west side of 1882
portion of building. COA 2016-1128 to demolish 5,000 sq. ft. building was not executed. COA 2018-0404A approved
improvements to the entire structure including restoration of the primary fagade, new fenced (retroactive) patio, new openings,
two new cooler structures, and preservation of existing legacy signs. COA 2018-0613 approved additional alterations to
openings. COA 2019-0329A approved application of window treatments to existing windows.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "Receive permit for existing fence and pergola'
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT- Applicant seeks a retroactive Certificate of Appropriateness for changes to the
landmark:
1. Install new 51' x 54' fence to enclose rear lot, creating an outdoor recreational patio. Fence matches previously
approved fence at the patio on the northwest comer of building and is of ornamental black aluminum material.
17' sliding gate opens along Niles. Two 5' gates open at rear/south parking area.
2. Construct new 24' x 32'stccl frame pergola with wood top deck within newly fenced outdoor recreational patio.
Steel is painted to match color scheme on building.
The application items are compatible with the historic character of the site and neighborhood and share proportions, materials,
and ratios of the existing structure and site.
SITE VISIT REPORT: N/A
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES, GROUP B:
The Commission has the authority to determine the architectural merits and the extent of any proposed treatment, renovation, or
addition to a historic landmark. The commission will require drawings, plans, specifications, and/or samples where appropriate.
A. Maintenance
The maintenance of any historical structure or site shall in no way involve any direct physical change except for the general
cleaning and upkeep of the landmark. The Commission shall encourage the proper maintenance of all structures or sites.
B. Treatment
Treatment shall be defined as any change of surface materials that will not alter the style or original form. Such
improvements include re -roofing, 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.
C. Renovation and Additions
Renovation is the modification of a structure, which does not alter the general massing while an addition, is a change in mass.
A modification, which involves the removal of a part of the landmark, should be considered under demolition (see demolition).
Additions to landmarks should not detract from the original form and unity of the landmark and should not cover
singular examples of architectural detail. Additions to landmarks should be added in a manner that does not disrupt the
visible unity of the overall appearance of the site. The proportions, materials and ratios of the existing structures should
be carried through in the additions. Care should be taken not to change or alter the following:
1. Structure—Necessary structural improvements, where safety demands should be accomplished in such a way as to
cause minimal visual change to the original style and construction.
2.Material—Additions and improvements involving any new material in the landmark should be of the same
material as the original. It should be the same size and texture. An alternative material may be allowed if it
duplicates the original.
a. wood—all wood trim should conform with existing trim in shape and size.
b. siding materials—the Commission discourages the covering or alteration of original materials with
additional siding. Structures already sided with incompatible materials should be returned to a siding similar
to the original when renovation is considered.
D. Demolition
Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a landmark poses a threat to public safety, and demolition is the only
alternative, documentation by way of photographs, measured drawings, or other descriptive methods should be made of both the
exterior and interior of the landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the landmark shall be responsible for
this documentation.
E. Moving
The moving of landmarks is discouraged, however, moving is preferred to demolition. When moving is necessary, the owner of
the landmark must apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
F. Siens
No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to the structure. Billboards and super -graphics will also be
disallowed. Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business.
G. Building Site and Landscaping
1. Required
Major landscaping items, trees, 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, green houses, new
walls, fountains, fixed garden furniture, trellises, and other similar structures shall be compatible with the
historic character of the site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way.
2. Recommended
New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in
photographs, drawings, and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are
causing deterioration to the buildings historic fabric should be removed. However, trees and plant materials that must
be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. Front yard areas should not be fenced except in cases
where historic documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in character with the
buildings style, materials, and scale.
3. Prohibited
No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items, trees, fencing,
walkways, outbuildings, and 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. The installation
of unsightly devices such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be
viewed from public thoroughfares.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.
Prepared by
Elicia Feasel
Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Commissioner Annis: I think last month we had questions as to the differences in the heights of the fences from the back portion
that you are seeking approval for today versus what is already in existence.
Mr. Wittling: So the first fence, on the north side, that is more of a dining patio. The one on the direct west side encompasses a
gaming area. So there is family, kids, dogs — we have various games with balls flying around. So, we felt that the
only way to really protect that and not have any disruption into the street was to have a taller fence to allow those
activities.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Brazinksy: For the record, I just want to let everyone know that I work with Frank Perri with Business
Development.
Commissioner Gelfman: Thank you, we appreciate that.
Commissioner Hertel: I don't think it's a bad project, I just wish it wasn't a retroactive project. I'm not a huge fan of the
pergola, only because I am not so sure that it is historically accurate piece of decoration at that time. I can understand
the different height of the fence, that absolutely makes sense. I also wish it wasn't inconsistent. I don't care for the
inconsistency.
Commissioner Gelfinan: The heights of the fence?
Commissioner Hertel: Yeah. It gives it a different look.
Commissioner Gelfman: We can break this into two parts, one for the fence, and one for the pergola, if you would like. Does
that matter to anyone? Or shall we put them together?
Commissioner Stalheim: I'm content.
Commissioner Hertel: Keep it together.
Commissioner Annis: I think it will be interesting to see what happens to this as the wood on the pergola ages, so if it was
stained or if it was cedar wood, it would age differently than if it was the untreated wood as it is now.
Mr. Wittling: So we are letting season for a full year, and then we are planning on painting it grey to match the exterior primary
color, within the historic building. And further blending into the original structure.
Commissioner Gelfinan: We would hope that — and I think I can speak for the Commission that — if you had had decided to,
down the road, change the pergola that you would seek the assistance of the HPC office and the Commission. We
would appreciate that.
Mr. Wittling: If I can extend my sincere apologies on behalf of myself and Frank Perri for not seeking your approval properly.
Commissioner Gelfman: Thank you.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
N/A
Commissioner Annis made a motion to approve COA #2019-1203 as applied. Seconded by
Commissioner Stalheim.
Eight in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 7 —1. Motion to approve COA #2019-1203 is passed.
Mr. Wittling: Thank you all very much, I appreciate your time and understanding as well. The
community has embraced the project, we love the building, we look forward to many years
within the community and the growing footprint that J. C. Lauber provided back in 1890.
Commissioner Gelfman: Thank you. And thank you for concern about future (Certificates of
Appropriateness). We appreciate that.
IV. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
N/A
V. HPC TRAINING
Todd Zeiger of Indiana Landmarks presented HPC 101, highlighting the purpose,
responsibilities, and best practices of Historic Preservation Commissions.
VI. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
i. December 16, 2019
Commissioner Ponder made a motion to adopt the October minutes.
Seconded by Commissioner Annis.
Eight in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 8 — 0. Motion to accept the December 16t1i minutes passes.
B. STAFF REPORTS
i. Administrative Approvals
1. 630 West Washington — Oliver Inn Bed and Breakfast — Specialist
Toering indicated that the property was compliant and that the work was
ongoing.
C. COMMITTEE REPORTS
i. Disposition of Historic Preservation Assets
1. Administrator Feasel reported that the Board of Public Works approved
the list of books that will be discarded by the HPC office. Those books
will be removed from the office after the February HPC meeting.
ii. Standards Update
1. Commissioner Eric Stalheim continues to work on the `model
guidelines' for Indiana Landmarks. Preliminary drafts are expected by
March.
iii. Standing Committees
1. President Gelfman distributed the 2020 Standing Committees and asked
for feedback on those assignments.
VII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 2020 HPC officer elections
Commissioner Annis moved to accept the slate of officers as presented in the
standing committee worksheet. Seconded by Commissioner Ponder.
Nine in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 8 — 0. Motion to accept the slate of officers as presented is approved.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. 511 W Colfax — Birdsell Mansion — Specialist Toering informed the Commission of the
results of the Code Hearing regarding the Birdsell Mansion. A $1,000 civil penalty was
levied against the property owner for cited willful neglect of the structure.
B. Fine Structure and Zoning — Commissioner Gelfman asked if there had been any
progress on investigating additional fines for retroactive projects. Commissioner Hertel
asked if a By -Law change would be required to enact different fee structures for
retroactive projects. Administrator Feasel clarified that the Legal Affairs committee
could propose any By -Laws changes. Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that the HPC
could not apply a fine. Commissioner Hertel explained that what she proposes is not a
fine, but that many applicants who do retroactive work have been before the
Commission before and there is no incentive for them to proactively apply for a project.
A change in the fee structure for retroactive projects could incentivize property owners
to proactively apply. Commissioner Brazinsky asked if there would be a different fee
for residential and commercial properties. Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that the
application could be different for residential or commercial properties. Specialist
Toering asked for clarification on what the Commission considers residential or
commercial property and cited the examples of the projects heard on the January
agenda. Commissioner Hertel clarified that the fee structure could increase based upon
the number of retroactive projects received from a property owner. Commissioner
Stalheim cited `income producing' as a criteria that could be used to determine the
application fee. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko clarified that property owners with
both owner -occupied and income producing properties should not be held to a different
Standard. Commissioner Stalheim responded that this is not the standards that apply to
the property, but the application fee. Commissioner Hertel stressed that this must not be
confusing for the office to implement. Commissioner Stalheim stated that it should be
based upon building type. Commissioner Annis suggested single family, multifamily,
and commercial. Administrator Feasel explained that the Building Department does a
triple fee for work that has already been started. Specialist Toering explained that non-
compliance with Certificate of Appropriateness process is a violation of the City of
South Bend Zoning ordinance, and the Zoning administrator could levy daily fines were
that violation process to be implemented. Specialist Toering clarified that there are three
arms to our enforcement, the Building Department for construction related issues, Code
Enforcement for maintenance issues, and Zoning Administration covers everything.
Zoning Administration is the strongest arm of that enforcement, and it hasn't been
utilized to its fullest extent.
C. Historic Preservation Inspector / Zoning Inspector — Staff has interviewed applicants for
the position, and an offer has been extended.
D. Training — Administrator Feasel explained the commission efficiencies that staff are
attempting to implement: the meeting seating arrangements, the credentials on your
name card, publishing the packets earlier in the week so that Commissioners have time
to provide comments or questions for staff, so staff can relay those to the applicant.
Bylaws updates are expected.
E. Financial Hardship — Commission members discussed the merits of a financial hardship
clause that can be used when reviewing applications.
F. Modlin Appeal — The property owner of 60649 Hickory has notified the Common
Council of their desire to appeal the HPC denial of their siding project in 2019.
Commission President Gelfinan asked for Commissioners to summarize their statements
on the previous decision on the Hickory project in advance of the upcoming Common
Council appeal.
G. Preservation Conference — The 2020 Indiana Preserving Historic Places conference is
scheduled to be held here in South Bend in April. The Commission has a number of
scholarships available for the conference, and Administrator Feasel wants to ensure that
any Commissioners who would like to attend the conference can do so. Commissioners
interested in attending the entire conference or portions of the conference should notify
her directly.
H. 1609 Miami Street Commercial Structure (Fire) — Commissioner Ponder inquired about
the status of the fire at 1609 Miami Street. Administrator Feasel and HPC pro-bono
photographer Lou Sabo documented the condition for the historic record.
I. Special Committee of the Whole Regarding Historic Assets —
J. Sacred Spaces — Commissioner Ponder asked how we could proactively reach out to
local historic churches and congregations to support them by connecting them to Indiana
Landmarks' Sacred Spaces program. Administrator Feasel stressed that the program is
Indiana Landmarks, and that there is a session at the Conference.
K. Navarre Cabin — Specialist Toering explained that The History Museum is expected to
apply to move the Navarre Cabin for the February deadline date.
L. 721 Lincoln Way East — Commissioner Stalheim inquired as to the status of 721 Lincoln
Way East, which is undergoing rehabilitation.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Hertel made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Brazinsky.
Eight in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 8 — 0. Meeting adjourned at 7:53 pm.
Attest:
Sarah Ponder, Secretary Date