HomeMy WebLinkAbout36-20 Modlin Repeal OrdinanceCITY OF SOUTH BEND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIOf
September 22, 2020
South Bend Common Council
227 W Jefferson Blvd., 4th Floor
South Bend, IN 46601
riled in Clerk's Uriice�
SEP 2 2 2021
_._
DAWN M, JONES
CI' L CLERK, SOUTH BEND, IN
Re: Bill 36-20, An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, Amending the South
Bend Zoning Ordinance by Repealing the Designation of Local Historic Landmark, St. Joseph County Ordinance
#127-76, for Property Located at 60649 Hickory Road, Councilmanic District 5, South Bend, IN 46614
Dear Council Members:
I hereby Certify that the above referenced proposed ordinance (the "Proposed Ordinance") was posted for
public hearing on September 16, 2020 for the September 21, 2020 meeting of the Historic Preservation
Commission ("HPC") in accordance with Section 21-12.04(b)(4)(D) of the South Bend Municipal Code. The
Proposed Ordinance was read at the HPC's September meeting as agenda item Ill.c., and an opportunity was
provided for the public to speak in favor of or in opposition to the Proposed Ordinance was given. Five
members of the public attended the hearing; one spoke in favor of the Proposed Ordinance and none spoke
against it.
After the period for public comment, the HPC's motion from its July 20, 2020 meeting was read. This motion,
which passed unanimously, supports the de -designation of 60649 Hickory Road as a local historic landmark. The
HPC then voted on the attached Resolution 01-2020, which reaffirms its July 20, 2020 motion and provides a
favorable recommendation to the Common Council regarding the Proposed Ordinance.
I have attached Resolution 03-2020, as well as the approved minutes from the July 20, 2020 meeting. The
minutes from the September 21, 2020 meeting will be posted on Laserfiche once they are approved.
Alicia
Resppectful
easel
Historic Preservation Administrator
Attachments
cc: Robert Palmer, Esq.
Sandra Kennedy, Esq.
MICHELE GELFMAN
PRESIDENT
A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELICIA FEASEL
OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADMINISTRATOR
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT
14005 County -City Building 1 227 W. Jefferson Blvd. I South Bend, Indiana 466011 p 574.235.93711 f 574.235.92011 southbendin.gov
RESOLUTION NO. 01-2020
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA
REAFFIRMING A PREVIOUS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED MOTION TO
DECLASSIFY PROPERTY AS A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK AND PROVIDING
A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO BILL NO. 36-20 OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County,
Indiana (the "Commission") operates pursuant to Article 13 of Chapter 21 of the South Bend
Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time, Title XV, Chapter 154, §§ 154.245-
154.263 of the St. Joseph County Code of Ordinances, as may be amended from time to time
(together, the "Ordinances"), and the terms of the Interlocal Agreement between the City of South
Bend and St. Joseph County dated December 12, 2017, as the same may be amended from time to
time; and
WHEREAS, per the Ordinances, the Commission's purpose is to preserve buildings, other
structures, and sites of historical, architectural, engineering, and cultural significance within the
City of South Bend, Indiana (the "City") and St. Joseph County (the "County"); and
WHEREAS, the Commission fulfills its purpose, in part, by advising the City's Common
Council (the "Common Council") or the County Council concerning the designation of local
historic landmarks; and
WHEREAS, in 1978, pursuant to Ordinance # 127-78, the County Council designated a
property located at 60649 Hickory Road (the "Property") a local historic landmark; and
WHEREAS, the City annexed the Property in 1989, pursuant to Common Council
Ordinance No. 7991-89, and, subsequent to the annexation, the Property received Certificates of
Appropriateness ("COA") issued by the Commission; and
WHEREAS, the current owners of the Property (the "Owners") applied for and were denied
a COA by the Commission on November 12, 2019 for the removal and replacement of siding; and
WHEREAS, the Owners filed a Notice of Appeal of the Commission's decision on January
7, 2020 (the "Appeal"); however, the Common Council's hearing of the Appeal has been postponed
since March 9, 2020 through no fault of the Common Council or of the Commission; and
WHEREAS, the attorneys for the Owner and the Commission discussed an amicable
solution, proffered by the Owners in their prayer for relief from the Common Council, in the form
of the repeal of Ordinance # 127-78, which designated the Property as an historic landmark; and
WHEREAS, at its July 20, 2020 meeting, the attorney for the Commission advised the
Commission regarding the amicable solution, and the Commission moved and unanimously
approved a motion not to oppose the repeal of Ordinance # 127-78 by the Common Council; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the July and August meetings of the Commission, the Owners
submitted a proposed ordinance repealing Ordinance #127-78 for a first reading at the Common
Council's August 24, 2020 meeting as Bill No. 36-20 (the "Proposed Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21-12.04(b)(4)(D) of the South Bend Municipal Code,
when an ordinance is presented that seeks to repeal an established historic landmark, prior to the
Common Council's public hearing, the proposed ordinance is to be referred to the Commission for
a public hearing and a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Commission held a public hearing on the Proposed Ordinance at its
September 21, 2020 meeting as Item III.c. thereof, which was attended by r members of the
public, of which 4__ commented in favor of the Proposed Ordinance and _.y individuals
commented against the Proposed Ordinance after it was read; and
WHEREAS, after the public's opportunity to comment during the hearing, the Commission
read again the following motion, which passed unanimously at its July 20, 2020 meeting:
Commissioner Andrews made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission is in
support of the Council de -designating 60649 Hickory Road as a Local Landmark. Seconded
by Commission Brazinsky.
Eight in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 8 — 0. The motion to voice support for de -designating 60649 Hickory Road passes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission as follows:
1. The Commission hereby reaffirms its support of and provides a favorable
recommendation to the Common Council for the Proposed Ordinance.
2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Commission.
ADOPTED at a meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St.
Joseph County, Indiana, held on September 21, 2020, at County -City Building, 4th Floor, 227 W.
Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana 46601.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
Mi tele Gel an, Pre ident ATTEST:
\
Sarah Andrews, Secretary
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
July 20's, 2020
4°i Floor Council Chambers
County – City Building
South Bend, IN 46601
1 �d in Clerk's Office
SEP 2 2 Z02p l
DAWN rA—juivts
CITY L_ ERK, SOUTH BEND, IN
I. CALL TO ORDER
Commission President Michele Gellman called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.
Members of the Public Present:
Andy Czarnecki, 805 Arch Avenue, South Bend, IN 46601
Becky Czarnecki, 805 Arch Avenue, South Bend, IN 46601
Clay Harris, 317 Tomi Street, South Bend, IN 46617
Stephen Priebe, 1712 East Wayne Street, South Bend, IN 46615
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Michele Gelfman, President; Lesley Annis, Assistant Secretary
Elizabeth Hertel, Vice President; Sarah Andrews, Secretary; Eric Stalheim; Mary Brazinsky,
Treasurer; Patrick Deegan; David Wyncott; Joan Downs-Krostenko, Architectural Historian.
Members Not in Attendance: John Tiffany
Staff Present: Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator; Adam Toering, Historic
Preservation Specialist; Ross Van Overberghe, Site Inspector; Sandra Kennedy, Legal
Counsel.
Staff Not in Attendance: N/A
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Withdrawn.
1. 821 Ashland Avenue #2020-0611 #9574-05 Chapin Park
Local Historic District
Representation: N/A
2. 1712 East Wayne Street #2020-0616B #7796-87 East Wayne
Street Local Historic District
Representation: Stephen Priebe, 1712 East Wayne Street, South Bend, IN
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: 10 July 2020
Application Number: 2020-06168
Property Location: 1712 East Wayne Street
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Tudor Revival / 1929
Property Owner: Steve and Sarah Priebe
Landmark or District Designation: East Wayne Street Local District #7796-87
Rating: Notable
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: Two and a half story flame, irregular plan house in the Tudor Rcwival style with
brick and half-timbering. The gabled roof has a cross hip roof, with molded raking trim and asphalt shingles, and prominent
brick chimney. Windows include eight -light casements, wood casings, some brick or stone sills; 2nd floor section overhangs a
bay window. A detached two car, two door garage stands to the rear of the house.
ALTERATIONS: COA 2015-0601 allowed for the in-kind replacement of the old wood privacy fence. COA 2009-0522
allowed for tear off and installation of GAF -ELK Timberline asphalt shingles. COA 2000-0523 allowed for the installation of
38' of cedar fencing from the adjacent property's garage to the back comer of the house. COA 1991-0730 allowed for the
replacement of windows on the front bay and the west fv;ade, removal of the aluminum and interior storms and bevel exterior
wood sills. COA 1988-0922 allowed for the replacement of the storm door.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "Tear down top portion ofchinhney & relay, pour new 6"cap that will overhang the chimney I "for
watershed "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant has retroactively requested approval to
i. Deconstruct the top portion of the chimney and reconstruct it with new 8" brick of the same size
and configuration as existing, replicating the previous part=,
ii. Construction of anew 6" concrete cap to overhang the chimney for water shedding purposes
The brick pattern of this structure is one of the most character defining features. The chimney stack rises up out of the valley in
the gabled roof line, with approximately a footprint of 5' by 3', before tapering down to approximately 4' x 18" all the way up
to the three chimney caps. A decorative vertical bond of bricks stood proud of the regular bonding about two-thirds of the way
up the narrowed section. Previous photographs of the chimney show that instead of a concrete cap, the chimney was topped by
a single course of bricks laid on end (a 'header bond'), slightly overhanging the chimney stack. The passage of time has
discolored the brick of the house, this is visible under the eaves and at other protected locations.
The new chimney configuration involved reconstructing the chimney approximately half the way up from the reduction in
footprint, with some of the height of the chimney being removed in the process. The vertical decorative bonds have been
replicated in new brick. The new 6' concrete cap overhangs the new work by I".
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: EAST WAYNE STREET
ll. EXISTING STRUCTURES
1. EXISTING STRUCTURES
A. BUILDING MATERIALS
Original exterior wall materials in the District include limestone, flagstone, stucco, clapboard, wood
shingles, sandstone and masonry block. In some instances, vinyl or aluminum siding have been applied
over the original surface
Required
Original exterior building materials shall be retained. Deterioration of wood materials shall be
prevented through repair, cleaning and painting. The existing or original architectural detail around
windows, porches, doors and eaves should be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design and
materials when deteriorated beyond despair. Masonry including brick, limestone, flagstone, sandstone
and stucco shall be cleaned only when necessary to halt deterioration or to remove stains, and shall be
done with a method acceptable for the preservation of the surface: i.e. low pressure water and soft
natural bristle bushes. When repairing stucco, stucco mixture compatible in composition, color and
texture shall be used.
Recommended
Whenever possible, the original building materials should be restored. Metal or vinyl siding may be
used when it is the only alternative to maintaining or replacing the original surface material. When
used over wood surfaces, this siding should be the same size and style as the original wood. Every
effort should be made to retain the original trim around windows, doors, comicles, gables, eaves and
other architectural features. Ample ventilation must be afforded the structure when metal or vinyl
siding has been installed in order to prevent increased deterioration of the structure from moisture
and/or insects. Mortar joints should be repointed only when there is evidence of moisture problems or
when sufficient mortar is missing to allow water to stand in the mortar joint. Existing mortar shall be
duplicated in composition, color, texture, joint size, method of application and joint profile. Itis
emphasized that, prior to initiating any restoration or rehabilitation effort, the property owner should
contact the Historical Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County which is located
in the County/City Building of South Bend. The Commission is an invaluable source of information
about all facets of rehabilitation and restoration.
Prohibited
Wood siding shall not he resurfaced with new material which is inappropriate or was unavailable when
the building was constructed, such as artificial stone, brick veneer asbestos or asphalt shingles.
Sandblasting or the use of harsh detergents shall not be used on masonry including brick, stucco,
limestone, flagstone and sandstone. This method of cleaning erodes the surface material and
accelerates deterioration. Brick surfaces shall not be painted unless they had been painted originally.
Repointing shall not be done with a mortar of high Portland cement content which can often create a
bond that is stronger than the building material. This can cause deterioration as a result of the differing
coefficient of expansion and the differing porosity of the material and the mortar, which can result in
serious damage to adjacent brick. Paint shall not be removed from masonry surfaces indiscriminately.
Not Recommended
Waterproof or water repellent coatings or surface consolidation treatments should not be used on
masonry surfaces unless required to solve a specific problem that has been studied and identified.
Coatings are frequently unnecessary and expensive, and can accelerate deterioration of the masonry.
Mortarjoints which do not need repointed should not be repointed.
SITE VISIT REPORT, N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed project.
Prepared by
Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist
Reviewed by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if the mason had addressed reconstructing the chimney in the
same elevation, profile, and materials.
Mr. Priebe stated that the contractor indicated the brick was crumbling and that they would match it as
best they could. That he was surprised when he saw the completed work, but that the contractor
indicated that it would resemble the original brick over time.
N/A
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko indicated that the brick appears to be `Common Chicago' brick, and
that there are three or four kinds of it. It is only available through salvage, but there are people
in the area who have access to it. She indicated she had the name of the contact for that
material. If the mason went to a regular brick yard, they would not find something like this kind
of brick. Had the property owner or the mason applied for a COA or building permit prior to the
work being executed, this would have been discovered, and the elevation and profile changes
could have been avoided as well.
Commissioner Gelfinan asked Commissioner Downs-Krostenko could convey that information to staff
for future use.
Commissioner Andrews stated that she understood why the concrete cap had to be added to the top but
was uncertain as to why the chimney had to be shortened as well.
Commissioner Hertel indicated that the chimney is a character defusing feature of the home.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that it looks like the mason completed the project and said,
"good enough", leading to the change in the elevation, the profile, and the material was not
appropriately matched.
Commissioner Hertel asked regarding the condition of the chimney.
Commissioner Stalheim indicated that the appearance of the chimney is intentional.
Specialist Toering indicated that this pattern of brick bonding is unique, and the brick is offset. The
mortar squeezes out of the brick.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko confirmed that the brick is all the same brick, but it is turned and faced
differently.
Commissioner Hertel stated that this uniqueness makes the preservation of the chimney even more
important because it is more unique.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko confirmed that this is not the most common brick bonding in our
community, and that it is a shame that the mason appeared to not know what he was doing.
Commissioner Stalheim stated that the concrete cap was a logical choice.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that there was originally a concrete cap, but it was probably
tapered or sloped to the chimney pots. The concrete cap could have been designed differently to
better mimic the original, understanding that they wanted it to shed water and other
considerations.
Commissioner Stalhcim indicated that were it to last more than a year, it would need to have some sort
of slope to ensure that water would shed off.
Commissioner Gelfman indicated that in the future the homeowner should contact the staff in advance of
projects like this for guidance.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko indicated that care should be taken when salvaging brick, because —
even if there were bricks that were failing — that some of those bricks could be used to "face" the
project, and that the bricks should be carefully cared for.
Commissioner Hertel stated that the Commission could approve the project, but that she was leaning
towards the stipulation that were any work done in the future the chimney were to be reverted to
the original configuration and components, unless the homeowner would be willing to entertain
the idea of having the chimney reconstructed now.
Mr. Priebe indicated he would consider it.
Commissioner Hertel expressed that the Commission wants to work with the homeowner, but there is a
visual change to the structure indicated in the photographs.
Mr. Priebe indicated he would like to get the information for the local company and bricks.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated she would convey it to Staff to convey to the property owner.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
N/A
Commissioner Hertel made a motion to retroactively approve COA #2020-0616B with the
provision that, if any more work is done in the future, it is returned to the proper
components and proper style, and proper height. Seconded by Commissioner
Andrews.
Seven in favor, none opposed, one recusal.
Vote: 7 — 0 —1. Motion to approve COA #2020-0616B with conditions passes.
3. 805 Arch Avenue #2020-0626B #6846-80 Edgewater Place
Local Historic District
Representation: Andy Czarnecki, 805 Arch Avenue, South Bend, IN 46601
Becky Czarnecki, 805 Arch Avenue, South Bend, IN 46601
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: 10 July 2020
Application Number: 2020-06268
Property Location: 805 Arch Avenue
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Free Classic/ 1912 / Whitcomb and Keller
Property Owner: Andy and Becky Czarnecki
Landmark or District Designation: Edgewater Local Historic District, #6846-80
Rating: Contributing
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: Two story rectangular frame house on a brick foundation and aluminum siding.
Gabled roof with asphalt shingles. Sunporches at either end of the primary facade, screened on the north east side and enclosed
on the southwest. Detached one car garage at rear.
ALTERATIONS: COA #2014-0825A allowed for mortar pointing and sealant along foundation and wing walls. COA #2002-
0904 allowed for replacement of windows with Marvin Insulated "True Divided Light" wood windows. COA #1993-0523
allowed for the reconstruction of the rear gable entry canopy, per COA #1991-0523. COA #1991-0523 allowed for the
installation of new roof material and the reconstruction of the gable canopy with rake boards and molding supported by two full
length 4"x4" piers. COA #1991-0510 allowed transition of the driveway from gravel to concrete and the grinding of two
stumps. COA #1987-0415 allowed for asphalt roof replacement.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "aft while pickel fence using 4.5"dog ear pickets to be placed in the side /back yard of residence.'
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant has requested approval to:
iii. Install a 3' tall white picket fence made of pressure treated lumber.
iv. Sitedimensions:
1. 22' on south side, with 4' gate
2. 30' on west side (facing River Avenue), I' in from sidewalk.
3. 18' on north side along driveway, also inset P from the sidewalk
4. 12' on east side (facing the garage), also with 4' gate.
v. Posts will be every 6' (except where otherwise noted per site plan), set in concrete.
This property is at the comer of Arch and River Avenue, facing Arch. The Standards and Guidelines state that ' front yard
areas shall not be fenced " The proposed area — while not the `front yard' of Arch — corresponds to the front yard of their
neighbor's property on River Avenue.
A number of other comer lots within the neighborhood have enclosed side yards, such as 619 Edgewater Drive (COAs #1996-
0405 and #2009-05046), 740 East Bronson Court (COA #2004-0903-1), and 644 Monroe Street (COA #1989-0629 for the rear
fence, #1993.0507 for picket fence).
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: EAST WAYNE STREET
H. THE ENVIRONMENT
A. THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT
The district is characterized by its proximity to downtown South Bend and its intimate relationship
with the St. Joseph River. Edgewater Drive follows the riverfront with a row of houses facing the river
from across the street. Other structures in the District share the benefits of the river with the presence
of the riverbank and a small park near the southwest comer of the District.
Required
Distinctive existing features such as parks, gardens, streetlights, fences, signs, benches, walkways,
streets alleys and buildings setbacks shall be retained. New plant materials, fencing, walkways,
streetlights, signs, and benches shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood in size,
scale, material and color. The riverfront character of the district shall be retained.
Recommended
Whenever possible, the original features should be restored. Plant materials and trees in close
proximity to buildings, sidewalks, or streets that are causing deterioration to those elements should be
removed. If erosion control efforts become necessary to preserve the riverbank, they should involve
processes and materials consistent with the natural beauty of the banks. The development of boat -
landings, access points, scenic overlooks or terraces should be done in such a way as to avoid
obstructing the view of the river and its banks. Unsightly brush, weeds, and dead or diseased trees
should be removed. Where river safety barriers are necessary, as at Arch and Edgewater, they should
be constructed and terraced to maintain the natural appearance.
Prohibited
Existing relationships of buildings and their environments shall not be destroyed through widening
existing streets, changing paving material, or by introducing inappropriately located new streets or
parking lots incompatible with the character of the neighborhood. Signs streetlights, benches, new
the neiehborhoed may not be used. The erection of high walls or barriers which would alter the
relationship of the houses and the river is prohibited. In erosion control efforts to preserve the
riverbank, poured concrete, concrete slabs, concrete building blocks or other unsightly material shall
not be used. The introduction of heavy trucks or similar vehicles in the District, with the exception of
Lincolnway, shall be prohibited
Not Recommended
Telephone poles with high-intensity overhead lights should not be used, with the exception of along
Linclonway.
B. BUILDING SITE, LANDSCAPING, AND ACCESSORIES
Individual properties in the district are characterized by a house located in the center of a flat law, often
divided by a walk leading to the front entrance. Many properties have a straight driveway along one
edge of the lot leading to a garage at the rear of the house. This driveway often has a sidewalk along
one side leading to the front entrance either in the center or at the side of the house. Driveway and
sidewalk materials include asphalt or concrete. All of the properties have trees; many have trimmed
shrubbery and hedges. All of the houses conform to a uniform setback line within each block.
Required
Existing plants, trees, fencing, walkways, streetlights, signs, and benches which reflect the properties'
history and development shall be retained.
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 be appropriate to existing surrounding
site elements in scale, type and appearance. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the
buildings that are causing deterioration to the building's historic fabric should be removed.
Prohibited
No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing old plans, trees, fencing,
walkways, outbuildings and other site elements before evaluating their importance to the property's
history and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor
blacktopped. Front yard areas shat( not be fenced with the exception ofproperties alone
Telephone poles with high intensity overhead lights should not be used, with the exception of along
Lincolnway.
SITE VISIT REPORT: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Stab' recommends approval.
Prepared by
Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist
Reviewed by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Mr. Czarnecki clarified that the fence would not immediately be white, that the pressure treated lumber
would need to breathe before it would be painted before the winter.
Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification on the dimensions of the fence.
Mr. Czarnecki confirmed the dimensions of the fence.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked for clarification regarding the other enclosed front yards, that are
comer lots.
Specialist Toering confirmed the comer lot locations of the existing fences.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if the existing comer lot fences creates pressure from other lots
or property owners to enclose their front yards with fences.
Specialist Toering stated that this is precisely why the Commission is hearing the project and staff is not
administratively approving it.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if it would help for the Commission to articulate that approval of
this project is not support for enclosing front yards elsewhere in the district.
Comtnissioner Andrews stated that this was not dissimilar from a project reviewed last month.
Legal Counsel Kennedy stated it could be beneficial to add that clarification on the approval.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stressed the small lot size of the Edgewater neighborhood, and that
many just have small front yards.
Commissioner Gelfman clarified that previous approvals were not forward of the setback of the house.
Commissioner Hertel asked for a satellite view of the property to be brought up on the TV screens.
Specialist Toering expressed that there were letters of support from the adjacent property owners.
Commissioner Gelfman and Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification on exactly where the fence
would be located.
Mr. Czarnecki clarified the location of the fence on the side of the sunroom and house.
Specialist Toering showed the Commission other properties in the neighborhood with enclosed side
yards.
Commissioner Hertel expressed support for the project but looked forward to landscaping improvements
to hide it and provide more privacy.
Commissioner Gelfman asked about moving the fence back from the sidewalk approximately two feet.
Commissioner Hertel expressed concern about the location of the fence and setting precedent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Hertel reiterated that there were two letters of support in the packet for this project from
neighbors.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko made a motion to approve COA #2020-0626B as applied.
Seconded by Commissioner Andrews.
Eight in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 8 — 0. Motion to approve COA #2020-0626B is passed.
Commissioner Gelfman stated that were the homeowner to want to shift the fence some inches to allow
for planting, to do so.
Ms. Czarnecki asked if they would need to discuss planting with staff.
The Commission reiterated that no official permission would be required for plantings, but staff would
advise as needed.
IV. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
A. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked about the fence issues at 619 Edgewater that are
apparent in the photos of COA 2020-0626B. There appears to be an unfinished fence.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko is concerned that the fence is a new material that does
not appear to be wood. Specialist Toering clarified that no application is on file to
replace the fence, but that previous approvals were for fence reconstructions.
Commissioner Hertel asked for staff to investigate the minutes regarding the previous
fence approvals. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated there may have been an
approval for a vinyl fence in 2009, and that if the project were heard today, it may not be
approved and that a wood fence would be recommended.
B. Specialist Toering explained that 821 Ashland was pulled from the agenda because a
repair agreement was entered into between Code Enforcement and the property owner
for the reconstruction of this burned -out property. Staff has optimism that the house will
be saved.
V. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
i. Tabled until next month.
B. STAFF REPORTS
I. Administrative Approvals
1. Commissioner Andrews asked about 708 Forest Avenue, where a door
was shifted from the front to the rear and exchanged with a window.
Commissioner Andrews asked if the property was multifamily.
Specialist Toering explained that the property is now single family. The
homeowner was before the Commission last year for extensive water
issues and roof issues. Staff consulted with legal to determine whether
we could administratively approve and confirmed that it was within the
appropriate framework for an approval. This property owner has also
purchased the dilapidated house adjacent. Commissioner Downs-
Krostenko stated that she has been in the adjacent house and it is a four-
plex and quite fascinating.
C. COMMITTEE REPORTS
i. Disposition of Historic Preservation Assets
1. Administrator Feasel stated that staff is behind on this project because
of COVID. Staff has not hired any interns this year, despite having
applicants because of logistical reasons. Staff has concerns regarding
future use of the HPC annex (which is allowed through the interlocal
agreement, which expires at the end of 2020). More materials are being
sent to the contractor to digitize.
fl. Standards Update
1. Administrator Feasel stated that Kurt Garner is under contract with the
city to facilitate the standards update, and how Indiana Landmarks'
model guidelines will be modified for our purposes. Staff are working
on the public engagement process. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko is
involved in the process to come up with the standards for the early draft.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Common Council
i. Legal Counsel Kennedy explained that The History Museum has formally
applied to appeal the denial of the Navarre Cabin move to the Common Council,
and what staff will be required to furnish to the Common Council for that
process. Legal Counsel Kennedy stressed that our position is that the
Commission followed the Standards and Guidelines in making its
determination, but we will have to see what their position statement will be to
respond appropriately.
Commissioner Hertel asked if there had been any response from The History
Museum following the denial. Specialist Toering indicated he had one e-mail
from a board member who expressed frustration that they had not been cc'd on
the official denial correspondence.
ii. Legal Counsel Kennedy explained that the attorney for the Modlin family had
filed a petition to declassify the structure as a landmark, citing a number of
reasons. Legal Counsel Kennedy briefly outlined the history of the property
under the ownership of the Modlins: that they purchased vinyl siding, did not
acquire a building permit, and continued to be intent on installing the siding.
Legal Counsel Kennedy asked the Commission to consider a motion to allow
her to file on the Commission's behalf a petition to delist the Landmark or a
response that you do not oppose the delisting of the landmark.
Commissioner Hertel asked if that motion was needed immediately.
Commissioner Andrews asked if there was anything that needed to be added to
the motion to add clarity for future additional properties.
Specialist Toering showed the Commission a property on Gumwood Road that
was delisted by the Commission in 1983 because of the addition of an
unsympathetic porch addition, and that this was a response by the Commission
to dealing with an uncooperative property owner who did not adhere to the
Certificate of Appropriateness process and the Commission as a whole.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that the Commission should not oppose
the delisting of the property, but should not actively pursue delisting.
Commissioner Hertel stated that she supported delisting the property.
Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that stating that the Commission does not
oppose the delisting would help the Common Council understand how to move
forward.
Commissioner Brazinsky asked for clarification for delisting and completing the
work. Legal Counsel Kennedy stated that a Building Permit would still be
required for executing the work. Delisting the property would still need to be
done by ordinance.
Commissioner Andrews asked about the title search of historic properties.
Specialist Toering stated that some of the districts are recorded; all of the
County properties have been recorded.
Commissioner Gelfman asked Commissioner Wyncott was familiar with the
property. Specialist Toering explained that he gave Commissioner Wyncott a
brief update prior to the meeting.
Commissioner Andrews made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission is
in support of the Council de -designating 60649 Hickory Road as a Local
Landmark. Seconded by Commission Brazinsky.
Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification that the property could be
landmarked again in the future, were there a different property owner.
Legal Counsel Kennedy explained that would be an entirely new landmark
designation.
Commissioner Gelf nan asked Commission Andrews to repeat her previous
motion.
Commissioner Andrews made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission is
in support of the Council de -designating 60649 Hickory Road as a Local
Landmark. Seconded by Commission Brazinsky.
Eight in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 8 — 0. The motion to voice support for de -designating 60649 Hickory Road
passes.
VIN. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. Administrator Feasel stated that the Commission may be soon hearing a National
Register Listing nomination for the Lowell Heights Olivet AME Church on Notre Dame
Avenue close to the University of Notre Dame. The Commission will be hearing this
nomination as a function of its status as a "Certified Local Government."
B. Commissioner Gelfrnan stated that she would be updating the Special Committees to
reflect the new Commission members.
C. Commissioner Andrews asked about the 201 HPC Training. Specialist Toering stated
that the winter is better for running educational meetings.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Hertel made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Statheim.
Eight in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 8 — 0. Meeting adjourned at 6:35 pm.
Attest:
L
Sarah Andrews, Secretary Date